Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 196

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 190 ← Archive 194 Archive 195 Archive 196 Archive 197 Archive 198

Queue 4

Airdate: 00:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC) (5 months ago)

I promoted Saw Maha-Rit (nom) and The Sims 2: Apartment Life (nom) to prep. If someone wants to check my work on 'em, they're more than welcome to – I'll be double-checking it myself – but it's not imperative. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Palermo Conservatory (nom)

@4meter4 and Storye book: This one was a smidge late – I'm not gonna huff and puff or anything, but it would've been smoother if this was disclosed at nomination or caught in review :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't remember having any connection with this article or nom, and I could not find my username in a search there. Am I missing something? Storye book (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
@Storye book: my mistake! I think i was thinking of you re: a different hook. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:39, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
No worries. I am a bit puzzled, though. The nom was only one day late: There has always been some elasticity on that score, and one day's lateness has always been permitted, in my experience. One reason for the elasticity is that international datelines can affect the day count. Storye book (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
If both dates are in UTC, the international dateline doesn't really play a role. I don't have an issue with the time per se, but the fact that I found that myself and not in the review calls for a bit of a poke (it's the kind of thing that should be addressed before the queuer takes a look at it). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Whatever your device is telling you about the date where you are, we are still on international datelines here. I am in the UK. The DYK check tells me that I published my article on date X, and my home calendar tells me that I nominated the same article on date X + 7 days. That should be good enough for an international platform such as this one. That is why we have that kind of elasticity. I have never seen a queuer throw out a nom on those grounds. Having a US-centric POV is fine, until it becomes a motive for potentially excluding certain nominations from the Rest of the World. Storye book (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@Storye book: I think we're talking past each other. The article was created on 19:21, 2023 October 10‎ (UTC). It was nominated for DYK at 12:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC). That's more than seven days. And I'm not excluding anything, I'm just giving the nominator and reviewer a heads-up. What exactly is the issue here? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
The issue is that you're bothering to mention it at all. Storye book (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Tournament of Kings (nom)

@Cunard: I've updated the hook and article to match the source. It does get a little clunky, so maybe we could switch with:

Up to you :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke (nom)

@Schwede66: what happened with this page? Was it incubated at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/politics/New MPs/Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke and then histmerged to Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, so that's why there's no move notice when it was published on Oct. 14? I'm also not sure that Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association is reliable for what it's doing here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron, thanks for checking in. Yes, the New Zealand politics task force prepares drafts for all likely incoming MPs on this page. We try and be super-organised. At the last general election in 2020, all the experienced hands were offline on election night and that resulted in hours of tidy up the next day. This time round, we tried to be a lot more organised. There was a huge team in charge this time as organised through Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/politics/New MPs#2023 election prep. The Maipi-Clarke bio was the only one where some overseas editor beat the team to it and had something in mainspace before one of us could publish the draft that we had. There was some copy-pasting going on and I tidied that up through a history merge the day after the election.
If you think that Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association is not reliable enough, we can simply remove that source; the other reference still confirms everything (there might have been one detail that comes from that source that wasn't in the other, e.g. the school that she was at). Say if you'd like it removed and I get rid of it. Schwede66 21:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I remembered correctly. I have used the Tangata Whenua Social Workers Association's source to confirm the school Maipi-Clarke was at. Shall I leave a hidden note within that reference that it's used to establish the secondary school she attended? Or do you want me to look whether there's now a different source for her schooling? Schwede66 21:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I've resolved it. The blog was copied from a source that was already in the article. All good. Schwede66 21:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
@Schwede66: gotcha, thanks for dealing with the blog. So, the article isn't new, but it is a 5x on Ornithoptera's version, so I'm happy to let it go through :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
No, it is new. It appeared in main space on election day (14 October); our draft would have appeared on the same date had we not been beaten to it. The history merge makes this murky, but 14 October in main space and nominated on 17 October makes this all good. Schwede66 23:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Ahaa, makes sense. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Igbo literature (nom)

  • ... that History of the Mission of the Evangelical Brothers in the Caribbean by C. G. A. Oldendorp was the first book to publish Igbo-language terms in 1777?

@Reading Beans, Storye book, and Vaticidalprophet: While I have a lot of respect for the reviewer and promoter here, particularly where it comes to hook interestingness, I can't in good conscience not challenge this one. I've bumped it back in prep while this is discussed; I'd be happy to swap it back in to whichever queue when that's resolved. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The reviewer and promoter seems to be a regular. I’m not. I’m withdrawing my nomination. Thank you. Reading Beans (talk) 04:41, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
... and what is the objection? Urve (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
theleekycauldron says (above) that the objection is that she believes the hook to be uninteresting. I would question that. To learn and transcribe a language for the first time is an achievement anywhere and in any place. To do it in the 18th century when there was very little (if any) supportive research available is a heck of an achievement.
You can bet that if that had been a South American language, our American readers would have found the hook extremely interesting, because they have been taught something about the Americas at school. Europeans, other northern-hemisphere peoples, and Australians, on the other hand, receive some education about African countries, because Africa has been connected with our own history for thousands of years, so the hook as it stands is fascinating to us. Perhaps a little less US-centric POV about interestingness, and a little more worldwide POV would help in this case. I would love to learn Igbo, because every language represents its own way of thinking. There is more to learn there than boring old grammar. So I don't see any objection to the hook. However, if you want another hook, there is already a suggestion for that in my review, This is a Good Article. Please give it a chance, and don't scare off a relatively new nominator who has already shown herself to be a valuable contributor on WP. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
It is also interesting if you know where the Igbo language is now spoken, which leaves open the question of why the first book was about the Caribbean. (Sadly, this question is not answered, although one can make guesses.) Would including the location of Igbo speakers help? CMD (talk) 09:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, Storye book. I don't think I'd find this hook more or less interesting if it were Arara, Māori, or even Cherokee – I appreciate your perspective concerns, but I don't think they're applicable here. More to the point: I'm no expert in Indigenous cultures, but looking at the article and back at the hook, I would have to imagine that building a narrative of Igbo literature around a bunch of central European, white Evangelical Christians is probably the wrong way to go about it. Oldendorp wasn't the first guy to learn or transcribe the Igbo language, the Igbo people were. He was just the first guy to publish a guide for the folks back in Europe. In fact, the introduction of people like Oldendorp contributed to the decline of traditional writing systems like Nsibidi in the Igbo language, and the decline of oral Igbo literature. (This is just my reading of the article, of course.) So, count me unconvinced that it's an achievement at all. CMD's suggestion about regional disparity did strike me as curious, and I have some ideas of my own. I'll try to write up some ALTs tomorrow, but I gotta sleep. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how whether it's an "achievement" is relevant; the hook simply states, perfectly accurately, that this was the first book published that contained Igbo-language terms. There is no right or wrong way to go about it. The article is fascinating, and it doesn't deserve to be dismissed out of misplaced WP:BIAS concerns; dismissing nsibidi as a simple "traditional writing system" is probably worse on that count. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I take exception to your assumption that the Rest of the World is Europe, and that Europe contains only white, evangelical Christians. Europe is as mixed-race as is the US, and has always been mixed-race. And, regarding Europe and the UK, the primary POV is no longer colonialist - that attitude has been considered inappropriate for a long time now. My point was that the Rest of the World is likely to find the hook interesting, because the Igbo language is interesting. The European missionaries and explorers in Africa did a great deal of damage in the 18th/19th centuries, I agree, but translating languages permits communication and mutual understanding on both sides. Storye book (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your thoughts. I'll say this briefly: AJ29, I also think that the article is fascinating and I don't measure hook interestingness by achievement. For me, it's about whether the hook sparks a curiosity for readers, and I don't think this hook does that (and on that front, achievements usually don't do the trick either, but I wanted to respond to the raised concern above). SB, I'm not sure you understood my argument.
That being said, the consensus in this thread seems to be in favor of the hook. It remains in prep, and I won't pull it out if the nominator tells me not to. As always, I'm happy to defer to your judgement, and we'll see how it does on the Main Page :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
confirmed by nominator at their talk. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Reading Beans, thank you for an interesting article. I have added another sentence with more information about about Oldendorp's book to the article. TSventon (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, TSventon, I appreciate the help. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Temperature

Prep 2: "... that due to climate change in Sudan, temperatures at Wad el-Mahi have increased by 1°C (1.8 °F) per year since the 1970s?"

Referenced, but that can't be right. "since the 1970s" is at least 2023-1979=44 years. 1°C per year since the 1970s is thus at least 44°C. The highest candidate for highest temperature worldwide at List of weather records is 56.7 °C. Subtract 44 gives 12.7 °C, which is coat or sweater weather, not typical Sahara weather, and surely not comparable to a record high. It doesn't add up. Art LaPella (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Art LaPella: does this data lend some insight as to what the correct number should be? Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if that helps since it refers to the wider region, but this old USGS report from 2011 says that temperatures increased in south Sudan overall by more than 1°C since 1975, not per year.[1] Viriditas (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Over the past 30 years, central and southern Sudan have been among the most rapidly warming locations on the globe, with station temperatures increasing as much as 0.4°C per decade…Time series of air temperature data (fig. 2, middle and lower panels, 5-year running means) show that the magnitude of recent warming is large and unprecedented within the past 110 years. It was estimated that the 1975 to 2009 warming was more than 1.3°C for southern Sudan and more than 1°C within the extended Darfur region. Given that the standard deviation of annual air temperatures in these regions is approximately 0.5°C, these increases represent a very large (2+ standard deviations) change from the climatic norm. Such warming, in regions with very high average air temperatures, can amplify the impact of water shortages on agriculture.
One degree is a lot more believable than 44. I believe it's conventional to ping User:FuzzyMagma, User:Chomik1129, and User:AirshipJungleman29. Art LaPella (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I think you need to look to Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C#Main statements, maybe the rate can be linked to this page and the hook could be rephrased.
There is a video from the BBC on the way you can interrupt this 1 degree and how it can be understood but I just cannot find it! but for now see the NASA one (not as plain as the video arrrugh!) FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas and @Art LaPella hmmm, I think you should pull the hook for now. I myself find it difficult to understand this 1 C per year unless it is contextualised by the variance between measured day-average and compared to long-term average (i.e., the Temperature anomaly). And maybe that is not how it meant to mean FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
found it https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PGmhLRKpfAE (not even BBC, VoX!), so this how you understand this 1 C .. not sure how we can fit this in the hook FuzzyMagma (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Right. I think this is one of those hooks that is too ambiguous for us to use. We just had this same problem on another DYK and the nom had to choose another. Even though it was technically correct, it could easily be misinterpreted. Can you choose another hook? Viriditas (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for that. How about:
"... that a large amount of hashish, known locally as "bango", was seized in Wad el-Mahi in 2023?" ref 7adr Mohat FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Nothing to be sorry about. "Increased by 1°C per year since the 1970s" can be interpreted in two totally different ways. I failed to see the ambiguity when I approved the hook. I think the new hook is fine, but I don't know if someone will swap it in from here. Viriditas (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
The word you are looking for is "seized". Schwede66 23:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
btw in the original hook, the word "temperatures" can be replaced by "temperature anomaly" and this will solve the problem FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I was planning to bump this to a later prep today to give us more time to fix this, because the hook as written can't be run, but I see it's been promoted to queue in the meantime. Theleekycauldron as promoter or any other DYK admins, are you able to either bump or pull this? Vaticidalprophet 02:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
FTI currently at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4. We two hooks from Sudan there :) FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

PSHAW suggestion

I see some old noms where as they were closed, a note was added at the bottom "to prep N". That's really convenient. Would it be possible to have PSHAW do that as well (and link it). I know you can find it in the nom history, but a link right there in the closed nom would save clicks. RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a feature that would be nice to have – I tried implementing it in my beta version of PSHAW, but figuring out where the template starts and stops and whether anything is outside of it isn't trivial. Doable, but not high on the priority list at the moment :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
this would be a little easier if it were doable via the template, if we wanna modify that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I had an idea a few years ago which I never followed up on: see here. Instead of putting it at the bottom, it would go near the top, after the "promoted by" note:
The result was: promoted by <username/timestamp>
to <which prep>
This would always go in the same place, so PSHAW wouldn't have to figure out where to put it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
i'm cool with that! if we add a |prep= to {{DYKsubpage}}, it'd be easy. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Queue 1:

Draken (roller coaster) (nom)

@AirshipJungleman29 @Prodaxis @Cielquiparle I'm concerned about the sourcing. The article is almost entirely sourced to rcdb, which I'm unconvinced is a WP:RS. There's not much in WP:RSN about it, but what there is doesn't reach a definitive conclusion. RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Prodraxis as nominator and @Tails Wx as the reviewer. RoySmith is right that overrelying on Roller Coaster DataBase is not so good (it would be better if you find the reliable secondary sources that regularly cite RCDB and cite those instead)...and having now looked more closely at the Korean sources, the quality at the moment is such that if this ran on the main page now, it would probably get sent straight to AfD. At this point @RoySmith just demote it. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
RCDB is reliable by WP:APARKS consensus, see [2]. Meanwhile as for the rest of the content I will check some news archives and stuff to see what I can dig up in the next few days. #prodraxis connect 04:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
@Prodraxis the next few days is too late. This is going live today. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 10:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: @Cielquiparle: I've expanded the article. #prodraxis connect 19:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Most of the hook still appears to be sourced to RCDB, though. Surely there must be better sources? Black Kite (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I've found some non RCDB sources showing that Draken is the tallest, and fastest. As for the part saying it is tied for the steepest I have not found a site other than rcdb, so we can drop that from the hook if necessary. #prodraxis connect 19:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
The best one can say about RCDB's reliability is that it has its ups and downs. RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: @Black Kite: I found this source for steepest and I have added it to the article. #prodraxis connect 21:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Montgomery Brawl (nom)

@AirshipJungleman29 @CJ-Moki @Z1720 The hook includes the quoted phrase "a hilarious recap" which does not appear in the article. RoySmith (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hybernator: approved the hook originally, I only readded the tick when the article's merge discussion was closed. Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Both quotes "hilarious recap" and "song a piece of history deserves" appear in the citation: https://www.thefader.com/2023/08/08/gmac-cash-battle-of-alabama-montgomery-brawl. Does the quote need to appear in the article? Hybernator (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure somebody else could quote chapter-and-verse for a rule, but I'm going with "yes". Seems like an easy enough fix to make the article match the source and the hook. RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I have added the quote. CJ-Moki (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Get Him Back! (nom)

@AirshipJungleman29 @MaranoFan @MyCatIsAChonk The statement in the article which supports the hook needs an end-of-sentence citaiton. RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Done--NØ 01:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

American Viscose Plant Historic District (nom)

@AirshipJungleman29 @DrOrinScrivello @Sammi Brie The article says Bricks were removed from the top and gradually dropped inside the hollow chimneys until the level of debris inside reached the level of the walls. Calling that "collapsing them in on themselves" in the hook is dubious. RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I personally think the wording is an accurate, if succinct, summary of what occurred, but I accede that I may have sacrificed clarity for "hookiness". Would including "gradually" before "collapsing" remove the implication that the collapsing was a sudden event, if that's what you think is dubious? I could also make it hew closer to the wording in the article:
... that smokestacks at a former rayon mill were stabilized by dropping bricks from the top inside the hollow center until the debris inside reached the walls outside?
I'm of course open to further suggestions. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 02:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I'd be fine with this revision. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
That's kind of wordy, so I took the liberty of shortening it a bunch. If somebody wants to go for the longer version, I won't object. RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Issue with an upcoming hook

There is a discussion at Main Page/Errors regarding one of the hooks. Primergrey (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

done, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Don't thank the bot! We don't want it to gain any more sentience than it already has. SilverserenC 22:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
but if we don't, The Bot will be very very angry at us and our queues will be smote! smitten! smited! do you want our queues to be smited? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Half the time I think it messes with the queues on purpose just so it can leave this message to get people to do things for it. All the DYKUpdateBot's little editor minions. SilverserenC 22:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Campbell Soup nomination

Hi, I prematurely promoted Campbell's Soup Cans II to the DYK prep set, can someone undo that? It should probably get a consensus in spite of the improvements made to the article by the nominator. Thanks! PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you can do that yourself PrimalMustelid, but I have reverted your relevant edits and added the nomination back to WP:DYKNA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Extra scrutiny The Wai Nom Prep 1

... that the newly-opened shopping mall The Wai (pictured) has the largest indoor bicycle parking lot in Hong Kong?

On October 11 I advised on the nomination that the "largest indoor bicycle parking lot in Hong Kong" may need more RS, but the fact is still only supported by the trade magazine Inside Retail. Pinging the participants @Timothytyy, Graearms, and PrimalMustelid: I am posting here for opinions about whether there is enough support for the claim in our hook. Lightburst (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Are sources 1, 2 (SCMP), 4 in the article and the one in the nomination not enough? Timothytyy (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Delanie Sheehan (nom)

Hope it's OK to ask, I've got an unreviewed nomination with a forthcoming date request for this weekend (Nov 11). It would bump the photo hook in Queue 5 if I have my time conversions right. Thanks in advance for considering. Hameltion (talk | contribs) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I have reviewed the nomination and it's good to go. I shall leave it to the promoter to decide whether this should be a special occasion hook. Schwede66 20:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh, you approved Queue 5—would you consider swapping this date request hook into that picture slot? I notice there are three species and only one bio in the set, not that I'm unbiased. Also pinging @Vaticidalprophet and Fritzmann2002 as builders of the set. It's okay if it doesn't work out but I'd appreciate if you took a look. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to perhaps swapping one out of the hooks (perhaps the penultimate Lessons in Chemistry hook to balance out the bio/non-bio pattern) but I don't think the hook or image are interesting enough to bump out the image slot of an already assembled and promoted prep a little over a day before that set will hit the Main Page, when there's also a bio image in the queue that precedes it. @Vaticidalprophet: You added the image slot to that set, what are your thoughts on that? - Aoidh (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree with I don't think the hook or image are interesting enough to bump out the image slot of an already assembled and promoted prep a little over a day before that set will hit the Main Page, but don't think the presence of another bio image has any influence on that -- there's rough consensus that "no consecutive bio images, ever" is overly strict/that they can double-up sometimes, and we've had very few lately. Vaticidalprophet 22:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Well yes, I agree that if that were the only issue then there wouldn't be an issue, but I added that to point out that there are some reasons (some more solid than others) to not bump out the current image slot, that being the least solid one which is why I included it last (literally as an afterthought). - Aoidh (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
That last point is moot anyways, but I'd be fine with swapping Lessons in Chemistry. - Aoidh (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I'd also be fine with that swap (I really should've queried that hook at DYKN). Vaticidalprophet 00:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 Done - Added to Queue 5. - Aoidh (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Vati and Aoidh, glad it could fit in somewhere. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Queue 3

Really lovely to see a new promoter get in the mix, Fritzmann2002! Good job :)

North Nias Regency (nom)

@Nyanardsan and Piotrus: same thing as here, but I've bumped instead of pulled :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron Fair point, I support putting this on hold until the citations are properly formatted with cite templates. That also includes expanding stuff like "Badan Pusat Statistik, Jakarta, 2021" - what is this? A book? A brochure? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
There is a helpful redirect at Badan Pusat Statistik. TSventon (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

DYK suggestions?

  1. ... that Gordon Scozzari, a 21-year-old pro wrestling fan, started his own wrestling promotion featuring stars from around the world? Source: Plombon, Jonathan (September 12, 2022). "Unraveling the myths of Gordon Scozzari". SlamWrestling.net.
  1. ... that Max Thrasher was a substitute teacher during his pro wrestling career? Source: "Meet the Principals". Jackson School, K-8. York City School District. Archived from the original on August 19, 2018.
    1. ALT2 ... that Max Thrasher retired from pro wrestling to become a public school teacher and later a school principal? Source: Lee, Rick (September 17, 2001). "PHIL LIVELSBERGER, BIOLOGY TEACHER AND PRO WRESTLER; Wrapping up one career and taking off in another, he's gone from 'bad, bad guy' to teacher". York Daily Record. p. 3A.

173.162.220.17 (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Both of those articles have maintenance tags, and because I don't know that you don't have five credits already, I'd want to see two QPQs.--Launchballer 21:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I see 4 credits from DYKUpdateBot – although technically, none of those were nominated by the IP, they were proxied. Still, though, a QPQ would be in order. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
The wrestling IP has been nominating regularly since 2012 (or earlier, but I happened to read that archive lately). On the one hand, QPQs have obviously been due for a while. On the other hand, dynamic IP makes it hard to track that the reviewer is the same person + suddenly springing this is a little difficult. Vaticidalprophet 21:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I understand if the IP would rather not have an account, but would it be possible to ask them to create one if only for the purposes of tracking and organization? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanksgiving/Harvest-Themed DYK Set

With the recent success of the Halloween DYK set, I'm wondering, what do you guys think of a Thanksgiving-based DYK set for November 23rd? I know that the holiday is most often American in nature, which understandably leads to worries that it's American-oriented, but if we're looking at the wiki page for Thanksgiving, it is celebrated to different extents in various countries, albeit on different dates. This is very shaky, so I can definitely understand not doing it, but at the same time, it would be an interesting drive towards improving and/or creating articles based on Thanksgiving and/or harvests similar to Halloween, and it's very difficult to incentivize such major changes otherwise. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the idea, but like you said, the America centrism might open a whole can of worms. I understand most of our readers are from the Anglosphere and thus have probably at least heard of Thanksgiving. However, it would open up questions about why not do similar themed sets for holidays from other countries. After all, we had that St. James Day set a few months ago which itself was a cause of controversy, and I don't think changing the setting from Spain to America would help thing.
I think having one, maybe two at most Thanksgiving hooks on that date might work as a compromise, but a full set might lead to accusations of us being US-centric. After all, in almost all other cases, when non-Anglophone special sets have been suggested there had been little interest or drive, so Thanksgiving being given special treatment might be seen as unfair. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
I suggest that it’s rather close to the target date; that might be a practical problem. Schwede66 02:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Not to mention, while some of us celebrate the day as Thanksgiving, for others it is the National Day of Mourning RoySmith (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
One or two hooks for Thanksgiving would be great. Maybe not a set. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

WugBot failing to move noms to WP:DYKNA

My nom, DOM Clobbering has been approved by Clyde Franklin for a while (~ 12 hrs) but WugBot doesn't seem to moving the nom to the approved nominations page. Could somebody uninvolved with the nom move it over :) (also ping Wugapodes as the maintainer of the bot.) Sohom (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I've seen it take several hours in the past. It might be something to do with the checklist, because that's the only context I see it in. I don't use the checklist, so can't speculate on what could be the cause. Vaticidalprophet 17:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The review was written below the "Please do not write below this line" line, which means that the review was not actually in the nomination subpage template, but rather after it. Let's see if the bot moves it, now that I've fixed that (as well as some other template errors). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Yay! that worked :) Sohom (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Whoops. Clyde [trout needed] 21:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, that didn't actually work, but the following did: When the bot didn't move it at 19:00 UTC, I took one more stab at it. The {{DYK checklist}} had |status = <!---(instructional comment)--->y and I thought the bot may expect the "y" without an intervening comment, so I moved the "y", and then the bot moved the nom at 21:01 UTC. Clyde, for any future reviews, please remember to put your input before the comment. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Oh I see, though it does feel like something the bot should handle. Sohom (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it should, but for now at least we know what to avoid/look for. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:41, 12 November 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 21. We have a total of 241 nominations, of which 85 have been approved, a gap of 156 nominations that has increased by 12 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than three months old

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Next queue Q2

There is a mismatch between hooks and credits in Q2:

  • Jim Rich has hook but is not in Credits.
  • LGBT history in Massachusetts is in Credits but hook appeared on 8 November.
  • Flathead Lake Biological Station has hook but no Credit.
  • Rachel Yakar has Credit but no hook.

JennyOz (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Jenny. I've had a look at this. PrimalMustelid, when you move hooks around, you must move them together with their credits. I'll tidy this up now; I suspect the problem also exists in Q4 (where some of those hooks moved to). Schwede66 08:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I wasn't aware of the existence of credits in preps/queues pages while I was manually editing the DYK pages, thanks for letting me know. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Q2 has been fixed and Q4 was all correct. Schwede66 08:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for patches Schwede. JennyOz (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Queue 2

Sarah Jane Baker (nom)

Looks fine to me, but I'll open this one to anyone else who wants to take a look, since it's a BLP and I made my thoughts on it clear pre-promotion :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Saikabo (nom)

@Toobigtokale, ZKang123, and AirshipJungleman29: I've bumped this one out because the hook accepts a statement from the article's subject as fact (the paper it's sourced to quotes the author, rather than repeating it in their own voice). Could we find another one? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Oops good catch. How about this: ... that the Korean restaurant in Japan Saikabo suffered a 30% drop in sales after the South Korean president visited the disputed Liancourt Rocks? [3]
This is another fact sourced from the subject, although it's repeated in the journalist's voice.
Alternatively: ... that the Korean restaurant chain in Japan Saikabo has a kimchi museum in its original location? [4]
I have no preference for either hook, please feel free to choose whichever or request alternatives if needed. toobigtokale (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
@toobigtokale: The first one is actually a lot better, thanks! I've swapped it in :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry but the hook as drafted and showing on the main page is embarrassing; grammatically poor and implies that there is one Korean restaurant in Japan. It should say something like '...that Saikabo, a Korean restaurant in Japan, suffered...' GiantSnowman 12:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
? Isn't the grammar correct, just the prose could have been improved?
While I think it's possible to read that Saikabo is the only Korean restaurant chain in Japan, I think it's the less common reading. Similarly, you can say "the hamburger restaurant blah" or "the fried chicken chain KFC", and people wouldn't read that they're the only thing of their type.
I do think your suggested wording is better though; eliminates the possible ambiguity. toobigtokale (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Queue 4

Chancellor Hut (nom)

@Panamitsu, Thriley, and PrimalMustelid: I've bumped this one, because sources in the article disagree as to whether the hook is true. Carlson 2023 says it's "one of the oldest", while Heritage New Zealand says it's the oldest at "high level". Van Noorden (not Hall) 2013 does say it's the oldest. I'd like a more definitive source than any of these, or a clear consensus, before going with this hook. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that the hook is correct as it is. Alpine huts often get shifted (sometimes by only a few metres) due to erosion, change of avalanche passes, etc. There are older huts than this one that are not in an alpine environment. What the hook says is that this is the alpine hut that's never been shifted that's oldest. Carlson is probably not wrong by saying that it's "one of the oldest huts in New Zealand in its original position"; note that she is not making the restriction of talking about alpine huts, though. Schwede66 23:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

History of Turku (nom)

@Peltimikko, TSventon, and PrimalMustelid: The original hook didn't appear in the article (as far as I can tell), so I've changed it to this:

Let me know if you'd like something else, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I think I wrongly assumed that the 16th century was still the Middle Ages, but in any case I prefer your hook to the original. TSventon (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I was more driving at "second most important" ≠ "second largest", but yeah, either way. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
I also can't say that I'm a fan of how much article is sourced to webpages made by the city, but I think I've trimmed it back to a more acceptable level. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Gembong Warsono (nom)

@Juxlos and Piotrus: I've bumped this one, both because there's already another Indonesian politics hook in the set (PrimalMustelid, trout :P) and because I'm not entirely sure that it's interesting for a politician to criticize a leader of the opposing party. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

As I said in the nom, the hook is not very interesting, but nobody had an idea for anything better. Sometimes, notable people are just plain boring... shrug. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
In such cases it may be better to simply not nominate them for DYK at all, instead simply focus efforts on more feasible subjects. There's also no shame in failing nominations because there's simply no suitably interesting hook: it's already a DYK criterion that hooks have to be interesting, and that not being met should be a cause for rejection just like any other criterion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, it’s the "German dumpsters" part I thought could be somewhat interesting. Juxlos (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
This is a politician who according to the Jakarta Tribune avoided the 27 July 1996 incident where some of his colleagues died because he went home early. According to the article, this was an event that (understandably) defined his later party political choices. I'm not sure why those details aren't in the article, and if they were I feel they'd fit into something hooky. CMD (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Rereading with Juxlos' comment in mind I've come around to that too. Is "... that Indonesian politician Gembong Warsono once criticized the use of German dumpsters?" a bit snappier? CMD (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Same information, and less “uninteresting” content. Probably best to pull out the “governor” part, I agree. Juxlos (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Roberts Point Track

This has just gone live. Immediately prior, theleekycauldron removed this wikilink: [[Hiking in New Zealand|tramping track in New Zealand]]. Having lived in New Zealand for a few decades now and having seen blank faces too many times when I mentioned the word "tramping" to foreigners, I don't think that removing the wikilink is a good idea. There are too many people who do not know that "tramping" is the local lingo for "hiking". Schwede66 00:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Schwede66: perhaps we shouldn't be using localisms in the first place? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't know. "Tramping" is deeply entrenched, e.g. it's a tramping track, a tramping hut, tramping gear. To call it "hiking" would feel wrong to New Zealand ears. Spelling of hooks, and choice of words, follows the language variant used in the target article. I can't really think why that should be any different with New Zealand English. You wouldn't use "autumn" in a North American hook, would you? When I read "fall" for the season, I always have to think about what that refers to. Schwede66 00:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I can see where you're coming from, but you also have to remember that the Main Page has readership from around the world. Not everyone is going to know every localism out there, and one word that may have a common definition in one Anglophone country can be the same in another. The way I see it, there's two solutions for this: use the word "hiking" (as in the title or the article), or keep the link for the benefit of non-Kiwis. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
I'd keep the link. I didn't see the April 2023 move discussion that resulted in Hiking in New Zealand; had I seen that, I would have certainly objected. Schwede66 03:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
It was me that added the wikilink to the hook for the word tramping when I did the original hook review. Very much because, although it is the common term in NZ, it will be less well known around the world. I agree with @Schwede66. ResonantDistortion 13:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Help needed to unstick this Sugarbush Hill nomination

I need help to unstick a nomination for Sugarbush Hill nomination. Lightburst (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Reopening a DYK discussion

Hello! A little while ago, I nominated the article Isaac Saul for DYK, but it was rejected because it was embroiled in an AfD debate (and it was ultimately deleted for lack of high-quality sources). Since then, though, I have substantially expanded the number of sources, republished the article, and I believe it's ready. Do you know what I can do to get this nomination reopened? I can't just nominate it manually, because the page "Template: Did you know nominations/Isaac Saul" is already occupied with the discussion from the old nomination. Mover of molehillsmove me 16:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Mover of molehills, you can't reopen the old nomination, but you can create a new nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Isaac Saul 2. TSventon (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the current version and the one that was deleted, they look almost identical. What has changed to make this person notable since then? RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Now renominated at AfD. TSventon (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Queue 1: The Wai (nom)

@PrimalMustelid @Timothytyy @Graearms @Lightburst As noted in the original review, the "biggest" claim is a problem. The sources are almost certainly all rehashes of a press release, so I don't have much faith in them. And even if we do end up using that hook, it needs an end-of-sentence citation. RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed citation.[5] Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Prep 7 refinement: Conversations about Important Things

I have a minor style refinement suggestion for Conversations about Important Things to check with you:

This is because the Important Conversions is a series of lessons rather than a one-off, and it's also an ongoing thing. --Minoa (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Queue 7: Boloco (nom)

This appears to fail "The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change" as written. @PrimalMustelid @MaranoFan @Grk1011 RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I was surprised to find no hooks about wages, as there's great hook material there. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Is it that it doesn't have a time period identified, so it is technically likely to change depending on when it's read? If so, how about: ...that by late 2023, there were only two locations left of Boloco, which once had 22 burrito restaurants throughout the northeastern United States?. Grk1011 (talk) 15:30, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that was the problem. On the other hand, this doesn't seem very interesting. "Restaurant chain had a lot of locations in the past, but only two are left now" is true for lots and lots of restaurant chains. What makes that interesting? RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Queue 2

Noveloa

Pinging nominator @Fritzmann2002:, reviewer @SeoR:, promoter @PrimalMustelid:

The article and the source say that pollution, not litter, scatters this far-red light. When I read litter, I think of trash and candy wrappers, while pollution makes me think of chemical run-off or untreated sewage. Therefore, I would like to change "litter" in the hook to "pollution". Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

That is a fair point, and I should perhaps have raised a similar question at the first review. I'd support the change, for clarity / absolute accuracy vs source. SeoR (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I have made the above proposed change. Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Lessons in Chemistry (novel)

Pinging nominator @Justiyaya:, reviewer @Onegreatjoke:, promoter @PrimalMustelid:

  • ... that while writing Lessons in Chemistry, the author self-studied chemistry and was a full-time copywriter?

The source used for this hook says, "It was 2013 and she was a creative director at an advertising agency". I don't think creative director is the same as a copywriter. Can we change "copywriter" to "creative director"? Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Z1720, the article says During the five years it took her to write the book, she kept her full-time copywriting job, and taught herself chemistry, even trying some experiments from a decades-old textbook, "The Golden Book of Chemistry Experiments". which is what I was referencing. I believe she got inspired to write the book as a creative director, but I'm not really sure if that's the same job she held during the bulk of the writing. Justiyaya 04:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I was referencing the LA Times source because that is what is used in the article to verify the claim about her job. I have added refs to the paragraph to show where each of the information comes from to help readers verify the information. I think this has been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Queue 5

Modern Jewish historiography

Pinging nominator: @Onceinawhile:, co-creator @Andrevan:, reviewer @Launchballer:, promoter: @PrimalMustelid:

The article contains numerous instances where citations are needed. I have added cn tags to the article to indicate these locations. These will need to be resolved before the article can appear on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for reviewing. I've filled in the cites. Let me know if you see anything else. Andre🚐 02:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I checked the article and I think this issue has been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Andrevan, you are a machine. Let me know what brand of coffee or tea you drink so I can stock up. Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Fast Forward by Counter Culture. Buy beans by the 5 lb bag. espresso machine, but any drip coffee or aeropress/french press or Chemex will do fine. If you have a Keurig, throw it out the window like that guy from that movie. I take with half and half and sometimes a pinch of cinnamon, but straight or water/ice will do. Andre🚐 09:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Deshong Art Museum hook typo? (nom)

"...that a teenage boy stole over $300,000 worth of paintings..." is in the nomination and is correct English. Somewhere along the way to Queue 2, an apostrophe-s after the money amount made it in, and it is not correct. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above, and have removed the 's with this edit. If others object, this can be changed back without consulting me. Z1720 (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

New in DYK

Hello. I'm new in DYK, and I would like to nominate the article Square pyramid that just changed its status. However, I would probably require guidance directly after I have read the instruction and some criteria, just in case to improve my comprehension of this interesting system in Wikipedia. I appreciate someone's explanation. Thank you. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dedhert.Jr Hi. I took a quick look at this does indeed appear to be eligible. As you've noticed, our instructions are unfortunately confusing, but the quick version is go to Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination, click the big blue "Create DYK nomination" button and fill out the resulting form. But before you do that, think about some intesting hooks you can suggest. A hook is a short teaser to get somebody interested enough to click on the article title and read it. I'm thinking something along the lines of "... that the Great Pyramid of Giza and Chlorine pentafluoride share a fundamental structural design? might work. I wouldn't sweat getting a perfect hook; part of the fun of DYK is people haggling over better ideas during the review process :-) RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith I'm also thinking about the other hook: "...that the square pyramid can be used to construct another new polyhedron?" but these hooks can be applied to any other pyramids article such as Pentagonal pyramid. But I guess I agree with your hook. Nevermind, will try to find another interesting hook. Thank you. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Britten's birthday, 22 November

Canticle I: My beloved is mine and I am his was written with the idea in mind to feature it on Benjamin Britten's birthday, 22 November, which is also the feast day of St. Cecilia, patron saint of music. Sorry, I had other things on my mind, but would like to return to the tradition. It would need a review, and a swap as the prep (2) is already full. Sorry about the inconvenience. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

We have several hooks now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It's reviewed now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt and MyCatIsAChonk: Can the hook be changed to the suggestion below:
This ALT replaces "setting" with "using" as I was confused by the phrasing, and one of the sources states that the poem is "A Divine Rapture" (and I couldn't access the other source, so I think this is correct). Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for looking and your diligence! I usually prefer "set to music" over "use", but "to music" would be longer and repetitive, as "tenor voice" already hints at music. We could also get Britten to the front for active voice, and could say "composed" for more clarity earlier in the sentence. However, I like the intriguing title in the front. Just for the consideration of others:
ALT0c: ... that Benjamin Britten composed Canticle I: My beloved is mine and I am his for the tenor voice of Peter Pears, using poetry from A Divine Rapture by Francis Quarles? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt and @Z1720, I personally prefer ALT0c, but b works too. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Approved I'll approve ALTc for promotion. If one more editor approves this hook, an admin can add it to Queue 2. Z1720 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I also like ALTc, and give my approval. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, all! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I have promoted this to Queue 2. Z1720 (talk) 21:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Queue 6

Mona Williams (nom)

This article was previously at Mona Williams (Guyanese writer), which is a non-recommended disambig style for biographies with shared professions. This kind of article is exactly the kind that shows how it's a problem -- she was born in Guyana, but has lived in New Zealand for most of her life. I've moved it to Mona Williams (writer, born 1943), the usual disambig-with-shared-profession structure, but it needs to be updated in queue by an admin for WP:MPNOREDIRECT. (I was aiming to get it done before the queue move, but fell down the priority list.) Vaticidalprophet 00:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

done by JPxG :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:21, 21 November 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 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through November 2. We have a total of 275 nominations, of which 115 have been approved, a gap of 160 nominations that has increased by 4 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than three months old

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Closing a rejected nomination

I always struggle to find the instructions for closing a rejected nomination (I wanted to close this one). Please remind me: where do those instructions live? Have others trouble with finding these, too? Is there a better place for storing those? Schwede66 20:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

you should be able to use WP:PSHAW for that? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Ah yes. Does it say that in the instructions somewhere? Having a look around, there isn't really a "logical home" for it. WP:DYKPBI might come closest. Schwede66 21:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
As no-one responded or objected, I've added some instructions to Wikipedia:DYKPBI. Schwede66 21:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that reject was valid. The reviewer rejected because "the article had become a redirect", but it'd been moved and restructured, not converted to a redirect to a different pre-existing article. (This is a statement on "the rejection that was made", not about a rejection of that nomination in general.) Vaticidalprophet 21:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Oh. I had checked that it was indeed now redirecting and took the reviewer at their word. If it's been moved rather than redirected, that's of course a different story. I shall reopen this again. Schwede66 21:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Ehhh. I wouldn't have reopened it. But if you think there's a new hook, then sure. (My original message on this was a bit stricter -- if you think there's a new hook, of course feel free to reopen, but if you're just procedurally reopening, it's been sitting around for quite a while without progress.) Vaticidalprophet 21:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, your initial message to me wasn't clear at all. I reopened this based on what I understood you told me. Schwede66 22:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Where is the QPQ confirmation tool?

Looking for link to the tool you use to confirm if it's indeed one of the nominator's first five DYK nominations? Cielquiparle (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably the most reliable way is to go here and change the URL, to see someone's creations in template space. There's the "QPQ checker" tool in the DYK toolbox at every nompage, but it checks credits, not nominations. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Where exactly is the "QPQ checker tool in the DYK toolbox at every nompage"? I just know I used to be able to find it easily under "useful tools" but am having trouble locating it now. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Ah it is in the DYK toolbox. I see it now. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron Is it me, or does the DYK Toolbox periodically disappear from every nompage? (Can't seem to find it anymore.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: it'll show up when you're viewing the nompage directly, but not through a transclusion :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Queue 7

Conversations about Important Things (nom)

The hook says "interrogation" but the article says "investigation"; those aren't the same thing. @PrimalMustelid @Minoa @Maury Markowitz RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll accept "police investigation". The DW source says that there was at least one case where the police got involved. --Minoa (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Done RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Palembang City Regional House of Representatives (nom)

The word "grandest" is in the hook but doesn't appear anywhere in the article. @PrimalMustelid @Juxios @Nyanardsan RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Stan Mataele (nom)

Technically, the hook verifies, but it's a mouthful. Hopefully somebody can come up with a less verbose alternative. @PrimalMustelid @BeanieFan11 @Dahn RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

  • ... that Stan Mataele was caught lying about his football experience to get on his college's team, but he made the squad anyway and was all-state?
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  • That's better, I'll go one step more with:
  • ... that Stan Mataele was caught lying about his football experience but made his college team anyway and was all-state?
RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Too bad we can't just shorten it to:
Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I went with my own suggestion :-) RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

5x

If on the day of a recent death the article starts at 600 characters and I start editing when it gets to 1000 characters, do I have to expand 5x from 600 or 1000?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

600. It's x5 in the last seven days, so you could in theory nominate an article you've never edited.--Launchballer 20:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Queue 2

Penitential of Finnian

@PrimalMustelid, Kingoflettuce, and Juxlos: This is another one of those first/biggest/whateverist hooks. The hook states "is the oldest known" but the article only goes as far as "is believed to be the earliest known". RoySmith (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Some of the sources are unambiguous about its being the oldest, while others say it "arguably" or "probably" is the oldest of the bunch. This isn't exactly a controversial topic so I didn't think it would be very necessary to further qualify the hook. But since you've brought it up, I don't see a problem with tweaking the hook to match exactly what the article states. Cheers, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 20:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Newburgh, Dutchess and Connecticut Railroad

I can't find where in the article is says anything about the railroad being stolen. RoySmith (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@MaterialWorks @Pi.1415926535 @Johnson524 RoySmith (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I believe it's a paraphrasing of the first paragraph of the § Expansion section. — mw (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Correct: ... the D&C officers decided to take back their railroad. In the early morning hours of March 22, the president and secretary led a "dramatic midnight train run" beginning at Pine Plains. They tore up tracks at the engine house, woke up a conductor to operate a train, and took possession of the stations along the line. The cited sources describe it using "captured", "occupied", "seizure", and "took possession", so I think "stole" is a reasonable wording for the DYK. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
OK, that's good enough for me, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
That certainly makes sense, I see the concern but I think people will get that "stole" is a little more complex than put in their pocket given that its a railroad and not a diamond. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Lady Six Monkey

I posted about the hook on the Errors page, but no one seems to have noticed there...

Kymothoë (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Kymothoë, possibly errors page watchers thought the problem was unclear or didn't sound serious. If you want to change the hook, it is easier for admins if you suggest a concrete change. TSventon (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Queue 1

Luca Salsi

@Gerda Arendt, Launchballer, and PrimalMustelid: There is a paragraph that was not cited in the article; I added a cn tag to indicate the paragraph.

Also, the article does not say that Salsi received the monikor of "baritone superman" because of his performance in Ernani, which the hook above specifies. I was not able to verify this in the two English sources used for this fact: is this verified in one of the non-English sources? If so, can this be clarified in the article? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Z1720. I translated from the German Wikipedia, and didn't study the sources as thoroughly as you did, and as I should have. I'll dig in more, but a quick reply:
I corrected that the Met performance was a concert (as the German said). Salzburg yes, but not at the Met, where Domingo, with his cold, stood on the side and instructed him how to play the next scene.
I dropped the sentence about the Superman. Possibly that was in the header of La Stampa in the printed version, but in the online version the header speaks about the seven hours (and I just took it as it came from the German Wikipedia, happy to find refs for a change). Hook possibility to play with (probably too long, I dropped the composer of Lucia to shorten, but Ernani will be too little known to do that):
I'll look for sources for the paragraph, and drop what I can't reference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I fixed the paragraph. It mentioned 5 roles, the first claiming to be his first Verdi role. I found no source to say that specifically, but it's simply the first mentioned in the article, as the observant reader will perhaps gather without being pointed at it. I found an independent source for that one and two others, with dates (even full cast if more is wanted). The two remaining roles appear later in the article, so I just dropped them at that point --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Launchballer, PrimalMustelid, and Z1720: I do wonder if a simplified hook that just says " ... that Luca Salsi (pictured) performed leading roles in two operas in seven hours at the Metropolitan Opera?" also works. To me at least the fact that he performed two operas within the space of seven hours is the main interesting point here, the specific operas in question are less important. I understand the desire to highlight the operas in question but the hook is about Salsi and ideally the focus should be on him, mentioning the other operas and the context just adds complication to what is already a pretty interesting hook fact in itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Gerda Arendt and Narutolovehinata5: I could not find mention of the seven hours in the article, nor the times when the performances happened (only that it was an afternoon and an evening performance). This will need to be added to the article if either of these hooks are to be used. Personally, I prefer the shorter hook. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Drop the seven hours, I suggest, - they are in a header, but not really encyclopedic. The repertoire of this person should show, imho, not only something sportive. The 30 minutes notice are more interesting.
Personally I really don't think the mention of the roles is necessary. The impressive thing here is him doing two roles on the same day, the other parts just unnecessarily complicate the hook. In most cases you don't need to include all details to get the main point across. Hooks are hooks not filmographies. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:35, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
I think the mention of the roles is nice, especially as it's the focus of the hook. What I would cut is the location, which just distracts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Only that it is the one opera house in the world that even lay people will recognize. Whatever, only a few hours are left to change the hook. The hook was approved with the roles and the house, and we don't have to change anything but the "superman", imho. Is an admin ready here, or do I have to look for someone on ERRORS? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
If you asked me to name "the one opera house in the world that even lay people will recognize" I would pick the Sydney Opera House. It may not be the most important one to opera buffs but it is the most iconic as a building. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Fascinating building - I was there - but what we need is an admin to fix the hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Admin found. Now we can continue to discuss Sydney vs. New York. While I agree that the Sydney building is more dramatic, a foreign singer reaching the Met may tell a reader more than the same person reaching Sydney. In New York, he stepped in for Plácido Domingo, in Berlin he recently took over Verdi's Macbeth from the same, in Harry Kupfer's staging that is worth seeing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
That is entirely about what information this would convey to an opera buff. To lay people those things are equally meaningless. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Akazehe

@Zanahary, Generalissima, and Vaticidalprophet: The "Lyrical content" section does not use inline citations, the first paragraph makes statements that need verification, and the 10-tiered hierarchy references Isaac Ndimurwakno, who is not used as an inline citation. These will need to be rectified before the article can appear on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Fixed! Wasn’t sure (and still am not sure, so please take a look) how to place citations for extracted content like lists and translations. The Ndimurwakno attribution comes from the Facci source, now cited inline again. Zanahary (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
@Zanahary: My concerns listed above are resolved. What you have done in the article is fine, as a reader can determine how to verify the information. Z1720 (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Queue 3

8th Session of the Central Committee of the League of Communists of Serbia (nom)

@Vacant0 and 97198: Article looks solid :) on placement, I've bumped this one out of the image slot, because I worry the image diverts views to the article on Slobodan Milošević. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Quách Thị Trang Square (nom)

@Đại Việt quốc: I've shortened the hook pretty drastically, so I suggest you take a look and let me know if you have any issues before airtime :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: That seems like a modification of ALT0, which was not the one that Arcahaeoindris approved (he/she wasn't sure whether it was interesting). I'm okay with either, so as long as you are aware of it being ALT0, everything should be fine. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The key point of ALT1 (which is also what makes it interesting) is the fact that the bust was erected secretly and hurriedly during a protest, rather than having a formal inauguration. Excluding that whole point makes it no different from ALT0. Đại Việt quốc (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm interested to know what the reviewer thinks, then – I think the new wording's a bit brisker and snappier, but I'm happy to re-add that detail. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: DYK suggestions

Hi. I just saw this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 196 regarding my DYK suggestions. I would have replied there but I can't edit the page. I submitted both of these articles last year and were each approved on Nov. 1. I believe I submitted it within the 7-day limit. I only just saw the maintenance tags today but I have no problem making the necessary changes. I am confused what the specific issues are. For example, the intro for Mitsuharu Misawa is much longer than Max Thrasher and it's a GA-class article.

Also I've only suggested 4 articles I've written (and another written by someone else) since 2021, and only because the DYK main page specifically told me to. My only contributions to Wikipedia were to submit articles I wrote during COVID, and these two are my last ones. Is it really necessary for me to create an account if I'm no longer editing on Wikipedia? 173.162.220.17 (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Please do not reply in archives, your replies will likely not be seen. It is not needed to create an account to edit Wikipedia, but to participate in a process like DYK where the tracking of contributions is part of the process, an account is helpful for allowing that. DYK also requires tracking and participating in discussions, which an account facilitates. Also note that there is a technical bar to IP participation in DYK in that it requires creating a nomination page, so when you do not create an account and instead nominate here, you are requesting that another volunteer takes the time to do a proper nomination on your behalf. I've removed the length tag, agreed on that point, but this is an example of why participation in discussion helps figure these questions out. CMD (talk) 02:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a complaint. I was only responding to the replies in the archived discussion. I understand what you're saying, and I do appreciate the Wikipedians who've nominated DYK nominations on my behalf, but as I've said I don't regularly contribute to WP:DYK. If fact, it's practically a once a year occurrence. I left suggestions here because that's what the DYK main page said to do. If nobody wants to create them that's fine. 173.162.220.17 (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Queue 5

Coins of the New Zealand pound

My only concern here is that "fridge" might not be a word that everybody understands. RoySmith (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems to be common to both US and British English? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Would changing fridge to refrigerator be better then, if it's more recognisable? Personally, I would call it a fridge (am in UK), but the full name refrigerator seems fine to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
My concern was whether it was an Americanism. Apparently it's not, so it's fine the way it is. RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Queue 6 - Leonard K. Carson

Queue 6: Leonard K. Carson (nom)

  • ... that during World War II, Leonard K. Carson led an air combat school within his fighter unit, called 'Cobbler College'?

@Toadboy123, Maury Markowitz, and Bruxton: The reference calls it Clobber College rather than Cobbler College. Unless I'm overlooking it being mentioned in the other three references it appears that Clobber College is the correct name but I wanted to make sure this is accurate before I changed the hook. Is Clobber College correct? - Aoidh (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes it is. Must been a typo from my side when creating the nomination. Toadboy123 (talk) 10:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll correct it in the queue and the article. - Aoidh (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh: Sorry I missed that. Bruxton (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Aoidh, I don't understand why "Clobber College" is given single quotes when WP:QUOTEMARK would seem to require double quotes. I've modified the article to use double quotes, and the queue should be modified as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset:  Done - Aoidh (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

How many quotes are too much?

This Boy's Life: A Memoir is a DYK nomination and I kind of wonder how many quotes are too much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

That’s a perfect example of "too many ". That’s a straight rejection in its current state. Schwede66 14:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't go that far or take such an extreme position. Certain subjects, topics, and disciplines rely on quotations more than others. With that said, I think the problem at hand can easily be solved with sufficient, targeted paraphrasing, so I see no need to reject or decline it when such a simple fix is possible. Viriditas (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Agree with @Viriditas. It reads more like a "first cut" of a Reviews section, which can easily be edited to read more smoothly. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I said "in its current state ", which leaves the door wide open for an editor to come along and fix it. Schwede66 09:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
The nom has done some edits [6] Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Queues

We're down to one filled queue. I can't promote the next one because it's got one of my hooks in it. If somebody can do that, I'll do the next one. RoySmith (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would also argue that ALT1 of Michael Goldstein is more interesting.--Launchballer 17:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
@DYK admins: pretty please? Lightburst (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of days 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 November 7. We have a total of 285 nominations, of which 95 have been approved, a gap of 190 nominations that has increased by 30 over the past 10 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than three months old

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Shall we list those 14 MP articles as sub bullets so that they can be crossed out individually? Schwede66 16:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I think that would be a bad idea; having a list of 36 is pushing it, and making this 50 articles long would be excessive. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Pooping plant seeds nomination

In Prep 7, we've got "... that the gecko Teratoscincus roborowskii eats caper fruits and disperses the plant's seeds in its feces?". The problem is "animal species X eats plant species Y and disperses the plant's seeds in its feces" is true many many values of X and Y. I'm having trouble seeing how this meets the "interesting" requirement. RoySmith (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how thats an argument against it meeting the interesting requirement. That logical would seem to preclude the vast majority of what we've published under DYK. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I think the point is that it's mundane, as that's what animals do: they ingest seeds and disperse them. It would be like saying "... did you know humans eat food, then use the toilet to eliminate their waste?" On the other hand, most people probably don't know that seeds use this strategy to propagate themselves. It's how we got a lot of plants that originate elsewhere. One thing that does bother me, that's never been adequately explained, is how birds are able to do this over long distances when they have to eliminate after about 1.5 hours? Anyway, that's for another discussion. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I take it you haven't read the article? The relationship between the lizard and the caper is not mundane. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
The problem there is that you shouldn't have to read the article to understand that the hook is interesting. The hook should be interesting enough on its own that it tempts you to read the article. RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
How can it both be completely understood without reference to the article and also tempt you to read the article? Aren't those for the most part mutually exclusive? We click on DYKs specifically because there is something that we do not understand and wish to learn more about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
ALT2 ... that the gecko Teratoscincus roborowskii has a mutualistic relationship with the caper bush?
ALT3 ... that the gecko Teratoscincus roborowskii is effective disperser of caper bush seeds?
Please consider the above hooks. If either is satisfactory, a citation will be needed directly at the end of the sentence which supports them. Flibirigit (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I added the nomination to the section heading above. I know that this is a common thing among animals but I gave it a pass based on the specificity of the caper seeds. Bruxton (talk) 02:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, it is mundane for people who are familiar with biology. Is it mundane for the average reader of the Main Page? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I would argue that the average Main Page reader who doesn't know vaguely of the idea that some plants reproduce by having animals transport their seeds probably doesn't care enough about biology to want to learn about Teratoscincus roborowskii. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't know. Isn't the goal of DYK at least partly to make people read about stuff they otherwise wouldn't be interested in? I mean, I don't think a hook about plants should only appeal to those who are into biology but can be enjoyed by anyone.
For what it's worth, I still think the original hook is better even if it's not something limited to the gecko in question. It can still raise eyebrows, I don't think ALT2 and ALT3 have the same effect. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Sure, DYK hooks should definitely appeal to the broad audience! We're in agreement there. But people who know that some plants rely on animals for seed dispersal aren't automatically biology nerds, they're mostly just regular people with access to a wealth of knowledge and some amount of curiosity. Among the set of people who didn't know this already, the subset of people who are going to care is small. But that's just my opinion: we'll see what the readers think when we read the stats pages back tomorrow. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, "transporting seeds" can mean a lot of things, some more interesting (by poop?) than others. I can definitively imagine a non-biologist being interested in an animal that transports seeds by poop. ALT2 and ALT3 are a little more technical and thus less interesting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Would you argue that we should never include wars in DYK because everyone knows that most states have settled political conflicts through them? This doesn't seem like a standard which survives application to other topic areas. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: I would certainly argue that an article being about a war does not automatically make it interesting. A hook about a war is interesting when the hook is intriguing or unusual, same as any other hook. If you're asking whether I think a not-insignificant proportion of hooks should just be stopped at the gate on those grounds: I sure do. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I fail to see how this is interesting; this is a fairly well-known concept that seeds "pass through" anidmal digestive tracts as anyone who's ever seen very much animal manure in their life will already be aware of this. (Although yes, I was raised on a farm so I've seen more animal poop than most people. Although the hogs were gone by the time I came around .) We should be avoiding hooks whose primary attraction seems to be scatological - we're an encyclopedia, not a group of middle schoolers at recess. Hog Farm Talk 03:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I fall towards the view of seeing this as banal, carrying seeds is somewhat what poop does. The most hooky portion of the article feels like the holotype location mislabelling, if there is a desire for change. CMD (talk) 06:01, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Comment after the set ran I was a bit surprised- the hook did not do well 3,193 views 133.0 per hour. Contrast with the image hook in that set which got ten times as many views. Bruxton (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

september 1983 laws

i am sorry to mention this, but unfortunately, it looks like the initial version of this article was largely copied from the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article (specifically, this version), and the nominated article is currently not long enough to satisfy the eligibility criteria mentioned at wp:dyksplit. a comparison via earwig of the aforementioned article versions can be found here. neither the edit summaries nor the talk pages appear to mention the split, so i can understand why this issue may have been missed before.

to be clear, i don't know if there is a copyright, close paraphrasing, or attribution issue here. it's possible that all the copied text was originally written by the nominator or was already in the public domain to begin with; i simply haven't had the time to check. i am only raising this as a wp:dyksplit issue. i remember there was another dyk hook that was mistakenly accepted and ran on the main page last month, even though it did not satisfy wp:dyksplit, so i just wanted to raise this issue before the hook was scheduled to appear on the main page. apologies if i am missing something obvious. dying (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Well dang. "it's possible that all the copied text was originally written by the nominator" the copied text seems to come from the nominator's 30 August 2023 rewrite of National Reconciliation (Sudan). Rjjiii (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
good catch, dying! have pulled :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron given how this conversation went (see dying response and mine below), are you going to put it back? FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
@FuzzyMagma: done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
@Dying to add to the previous point "it's possible that all the copied text was originally written by the nominator". The text you mentioned was moved not copied and expanded way beyond what beyond the version that you used in earwig. How about you do the earwig analysis with the current version of September 1983 Laws and if you reach the same conclusion, I am happy for the hook to go FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Btw you can just click on both articles stats and see who is main contributor so you will to know if “that all the copied text was originally written by the nominator”. You did the crazy bit of comparing two old versions of two different articles why not do the easy bit too FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
if it's established that September 1983 Laws is at least 80% new text, this nomination can go forward. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
If that is the rule even when I wrote both articles around similar time and decided the split when one ran too broad while nominating one and leaving the other; then I guess I will wait for the article to pass GA FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
@FuzzyMagma: if you split the text less than seven days after publishing to mainspace, it's still new if you nominate within seven days of putting it in mainspace? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I moved the Nation Reconciliation article to the mainspace on 13 October and the September 1983 Laws article was created on 16 October. So yes less than 7 days FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
oh, i completely missed that the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article was moved to mainspace shortly before the article was split! thanks for pointing that out, FuzzyMagma. also, although the article was moved to mainspace just over a week before the nomination, i'm happy to let that slide.
interestingly, the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article wasn't actually the article i had first compared the nominated article with; i only ended up stumbling upon that after a bit of digging. i think what had first caught my eye was the similarity between the nominated article with the "Islamism in Sudan" article. the latter article was first created in mainspace in 2020. according to this earwig comparison, there seems to be more than a 20% overlap between these two articles. if the overlap with "Sudanese Greeks" (here) and "Legal system of Sudan" (here) are also taken into account, it seems as if expanding the nominated article to satisfy the fivefold expansion requirement at this point would be difficult to achieve.
apologies for the confusion caused by using the comparison with the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article. at the time, it looked like presenting that comparison would have made the issue more obvious. dying (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
No worries. Just for clarification, I was the one who expanded the Islamism in Sudan article from a stub to the existing size (by 90.2%) starting from 31 August 2023 and did not nominate the article as it relayed on one source and I need to improve so it can fit the front page. The text the might have started all of this, as you said, was copied later on 20 October from the September 1983 Laws and not the other way around. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
i'm sorry, FuzzyMagma, it looks like you misinterpreted what i was trying to say. the date that the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article was moved to mainspace is irrelevant because the copied material previously appeared in the "Islamism in Sudan" article. if only the date that the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article was moved to mainspace mattered, then editors can effectively renew text copied from other articles by first copying the text to an intermediary article in draftspace first.
i'm not sure why you provided the diff dated 2023.10.20. the only substantial text copied there appears to be an accidental duplication of some caption text into the prose, which you later removed anyway in this diff. i suppose you could say that the text was copied from the "September 1983 Laws" article to the "Islamism in Sudan" article, but that's simply because it was already in both articles before you duplicated it in the "Islamism in Sudan" article. in any case, the duplicated caption text wasn't what initially caught my eye anyway.
the comparison i provided in my last comment between the "September 1983 Laws" and "Islamism in Sudan" articles was based on the latest versions at the time because you had requested that i compare the then-current versions in your earlier comments. to make more clear what text was copied, here is a comparison between the current "September 1983 Laws" article and the "Islamism in Sudan" article at the time the "September 1983 Laws" article was created. this comparison clearly shows that more than 20% of the current text in the "September 1983 Laws" article had already appeared in mainspace before the article was created.
i think it is possible that you had actually copied the text in question from a different article, or even from an offline draft, but had lost track of what text you were copying to which articles, and didn't realize when you created the new "September 1983 Laws" article that you had already copied much of the text to the old "Islamism in Sudan" article more than a month earlier. if so, that would explain why you may not have realized that this article was ineligible when you nominated it. dying (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I don’t agree with your statement. the comparison that you are showing is the current September 1983 Laws with a version of Islamism in Sudan, I know that from the similarity in the lead which I copied as I said on 20 of October. So you cannot hyperbolically make the jump that because some of text match now equals that they are the same.
i don’t think I misunderstood anything, you start your argument with comparisons from the National Reconciliation (Sudan) which I dismissed, shifted later to Islamism in Sudan stating that the article existed since 2020 which I again dismissed by I pointing out that actually I am the one who expanded the article starting 30 August 2023, and you now again shifted to compare recent versions of the articles.
anyway, the two versions that you compared were within almost the 7 days. Compare the current article with a version that was not copied from the National Reconciliation (Sudan) and was 7 days older and I would happily pull the plug on this
also please make sure that the new (non copied) prose is less than DYK length requirement FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
FuzzyMagma:
  • when you are referring to "the similarity in the lead which I copied as I said on 20 of October", are you just referring to the fact that, in the diff you provided, you copied the {{multiple image}} template from the "September 1983 Laws" article to the "Islamism in Sudan" article? i don't think that's relevant. i was comparing the prose, not the images nor the captions. i believe wp:dyksplit also only considers the text in the prose. in addition, the last earwig comparison i provided uses a version of the "Islamism in Sudan" article that predates the addition of the duplicated images. by the way, the duplicated images weren't what initially caught my eye either.
  • i didn't conclude that the articles are the same because some of the text matches. i said that "more than 20% of the current text in the 'September 1983 Laws' article had already appeared in mainspace before the article was created", and therefore concluded that "this article was ineligible when you nominated it". the articles are clearly different, but i believe they are not different enough for the "September 1983 Laws" article to be eligible for dyk. wp:dyksplit allows splits to be eligible for dyk "if the copied text does not exceed one-fifth of the total prose size", but this is not the case here.
  • i am not sure why you are stating that i should "[c]ompare the current article with a version that was not copied from the National Reconciliation (Sudan) and was 7 days older". i believe that is what i already did. the earwig comparison i had previously provided is a comparison between the "September 1983 Laws" article on 2023.11.08, and a version of the "Islamism in Sudan" article on 2023.10.01, nearly three weeks before you nominated the "September 1983 Laws" article at dyk.
    i can provide another one that shows that the duplicated text was in mainspace much earlier than that if you'd like. this earwig comparison clearly shows that more than 20% of the prose of the current "September 1983 Laws" article was already present in the mainspace "Islamism in Sudan" article on 2023.08.31, fifty days before the dyk nomination.
regardless, you don't seem to have noticed what i was trying to do with the last paragraph of my previous comment, so i will be more clear. i was trying to give you a decent out. being unfamiliar with wp:dyksplit, or unaware that this nomination violated that criterion, is an understandable error, so you won't suffer much reputational damage for withdrawing a nomination if that was the case.
you probably didn't realize this, but i had actually chosen to bring this up as a wp:dyksplit issue as a favor to you. there are a number of other issues with this nomination, and citing wp:dyksplit seemed the least accusatory of the options. did you want to take the out now? dying (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
“trying to give you a decent out.”!!!
“reputational damage”!!!
” as a favor to you”!!!
bro, Are you ok?! I thought we normally need to assume good faith!
weird!
is that how you normally say “sorry”? Or “I was wrong” or “oops”!
I just debunked your half-baked detective work so just stick to the facts and do nothing for me please
no one asked you for favours 🤦‍♂️ FuzzyMagma (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
alll righty, let's everyone take a step back. @FuzzyMagma: The crux of the matter seems to be that per this earwig report, more than 20% of the current version of September 1983 Laws had already existed, in mainspace, at Islamism in Sudan, for over two weeks. That means that September 1983 Laws is neither new nor a fivefold expansion. Unless you dispute that claim/I'm grossly misreading the diffs, I'm pulling this article. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
I already beaten this claim to the ground earlier. Just recycling old arguments does not make it new. Above I clearly outlined that, see my comment that started with “No worries. Just for clarification, I was the one who expanded the …”
it was not fun to defend myself and work, like I copied someone else work when I was the one who wrote the three articles in question and picked one that I thought interesting for DYK
am I to be expected to argue with someone who shifted their argument three times? I did refuted their claim three times and then just decided this is not about the article this is someone who does not like to be wrong
I had the same encounter in Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Gadallah Gubara with the same editor and yet kept my cool down and sliced through this one and the other one.
Typically when you understand that you made a bad call, you apologise or just quietly walk way. We all been there BUT doubling (tripling!) down when your argument doesn’t hold water and starting using some above language is just strange!
I leave it to you to decide. And just for the sake of closing this. Even if you remove the text with 20% similarity in the articles, you will still have an article that is more than the DYK required prose length, i.e., The problem has nothing to do with WP:DYKSPLIT which states that "Articles featured at DYK must exceed 1500 characters of prose. Text that is not original does not count, including text copied from the public domain and from other Wikipedia articles.". Still I did some paraphrasing to just ease your mind, see here. Hope this resolve this situation FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
@FuzzyMagma: The relevant text from WP:DYKSPLIT is Splits from non-new articles are ineligible, but if the copied text does not exceed one-fifth of the total prose size, the article can be considered eligible as a fivefold expansion of the copied text. It doesn't matter that the text is originally yours, or even originally from this article – if that text appears in mainspace over two weeks, elsewhere, before this article does, the text in the article isn't new and the above part of DYKSPLIT applies. With that in mind, I'm going to pull. I suggest you stop levying personal attacks at dying – WP:ANI would be the place to go if you have a legitimate grievance with their behavior in this thread. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
WP:ANI will not help and would likely just increase bad blood. It only really helps if one party is clearly engaging in persistent misbehavior. Rjjiii (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Definitely a fair point – i didn't think FM should file a thread there, and I didn't when I said that, but if they have a user-conduct issue, it's better there than here. Ideally, the stick could just be dropped. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
@Rjjiii Maybe you need to read this vomit Template:Did you know nominations/September 1983 Laws at the end FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
FuzzyMagma, you nominated an ineligible article for DYK. I would seriously recommend dropping that stick right about now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Are we reading the same Template:Did you know nominations/September 1983 Laws? Have a look to the end of the “discussion” and if you think I am the one with a stick then I can gladly put it where it belongs FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
And assume good faith even if you think it’s ineligible. Mistakes happens but slander is intentional FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

the "September 1983 Laws" article has a number of instances of close paraphrasing. some passages are so similar to versions of the sources translated by google that it is difficult to describe the instances as paraphrasing. i do not believe these problems are limited to this article.

apologies in advance for the length of this comment. i have chosen to only show a few examples to illustrate the issues involved, but the problems appear to be extensive enough that it was difficult for me to keep this comment brief.

first off, if you are like me and prefer to author contributions from scratch rather than try to rework the text of a source, here is a reminder of what wikipedia considers unacceptable close paraphrasing. also, note that the quotes below from arabic sources have been taken from translations by google. links to these translations have also been provided.

september 1983 laws

article:     Nimeiry was allied with the Muslim Brotherhood led by al-Turabi and allowed the group to carry out its advocacy, political, and economic activities. The Brotherhood took advantage of the opportunity to order to empower itself and take control. The group blessed the announcement of implementing the laws of September 1983 and had massive marches in support of the move. It also provided political support for the laws through its advocacy platforms, student organisations, and voluntary organisations, as well as its cadres of judges such as Muhammad Mahjoub Haj Nour and Al-Makashfi Taha Al-Kabashi.
source:     ... Nimeiry was allied with the Muslim Brotherhood led by ... al-Turabi [and] allowed the group to carry out its advocacy, political, and economic activity. The latter took advantage of the opportunity in order to empower itself and take control. The group blessed the announcement of implementing the laws of September 1983 and took out massive marches in support of the move. It also provided its political support for the laws through its advocacy platforms, student organizations, and voluntary organizations, as well as its cadres of judges ... such as Muhammad Mahjoub Haj Nour and Al-Makashfi Taha Al-Kabashi.
article:     As many as 300 Sudanese endured the painful amputation of limbs. These punishments, administered by emergency courts, were inflicted on those found guilty of stealing property worth over $40. These amputees faced constant social stigma and accusations, making it increasingly challenging to secure employment. Their severed limbs were perceived as marks of criminality, leading to wrongful arrests and a life of taunts as they walked the streets. In many cases, these punishments shattered family lives, as returning home without a limb brought shame. ... However, they rallied together to form a self-help association, aiming to establish small businesses and obtain medical and legal assistance. They ... faced opposition from the government, citing concerns that it might be used as a front for criminals and disrupt the Sudan's form of Islamic justice. [footnote marker removed]
source:     ... as many as 300 Sudanese who have lost one or more limbs .... Emergency courts routinely ordered amputations for people found guilty of stealing property worth $40 or more. For those who received such punishment, stares, accusations and harassment are constant. Employment is, for them, an ever-diminishing expectation. ... Their severed limbs represent badges of criminal guilt ..., making ... wrongful arrest common. They are taunted .... The punishments sometimes brought an end to family life; to go home without a limb would mean shame .... The amputees have formed a self-help association ... to establish small businesses and obtain medical and legal assistance. ... Peter Anton von Arnim ... said the Government's arguments ... included accusations that it would be a front for criminals, and that would upset Moslems who favored the Sudan's form of Islamic justice.
article:     Also in 1984, Nimeiry began proposing broad constitutional draft amendments to the 1973 Constitution to declare Sudan an "Islamic republic" (article 1 of the draft amendments), and for the president of the republic to be "a leader of the believers and the head and imam of the state" (article 80 of the draft amendments), and for the sources of Sharia to be it is the law and custom that does not conflict with it (article 59 of the draft amendments). It also stipulated that it is not permissible to enact a law that conflicts with Islamic law and the consensus of the nation (article 65), as the text thus excluded non-Muslims by consolidating the religious state's dominance over aspects of public life.
source:     Then, in 1984, Nimeiry began proposing draft broad constitutional amendments to the 1973 Constitution to declare Sudan an "Islamic Republic" ( Article 1 of the draft amendments ) and for the President of the Republic to be "a leader of the believers and the head and imam of the state" ( Article 80 of the draft amendments ), and for the sources of Sharia to be It is the law and custom that does not conflict with it ( Article 59 of the draft amendments ). Then the 1998 Constitution came to glorify the religious foundation by introducing a text on "the nature of the state," which stipulated that governance in the state belongs to God, the Creator of human beings ( Article 4 ). It also stipulated that it is not permissible to enact a law that conflicts with Islamic law and the consensus of the nation ( Article 65 ), as the text thus excluded non-Muslims by consolidating the religious state's dominance over the aspects of public life.
  • source cited: https://archive.today/20231120070148/https://www.jstor.org/stable/4328194
    source examined: https://archive.today/20231120070156/https://www.ida2at.com/history-islamic-movement-sudan/ (google translation)
    this example is odd because, although the paragraph discusses mahmoud muhammad taha, his movement, and his execution, the cited source doesn't appear to cover the details of the paragraph that it supposedly supports. i did notice, however, that the paragraph is a close paraphrase of one in a different source.
    curiously, an earlier version of this paragraph is nearly identical to one in the "Islamism in Sudan" article, while the citation there correctly points to the source which it closely paraphrases. to attempt to satisfy the wp:dyksplit criterion, as explained here, the paragraph in the "September 1983 Laws" article was changed, largely in this edit, to reduce the amount of overlap between the "Islamism in Sudan" article and the "September 1983 Laws" article. the new paragraph, however, remains a close paraphrase.
    to make more clear how FuzzyMagma's recent edit of the paragraph resulted in less text being highlighted by earwig without actually resolving the close paraphrasing issue, i am also including below how the paragraph looked like before the edit, as seen in this version of the article.
article:     The Republican Brotherhood, established by Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, represented another Islamic movement in Sudan. This movement endorsed the idea of Islam having two messages and discarded various Islamic traditions. It promoted peaceful relations with Israel, gender equality, criticised Wahhabism, advocated for freedoms, opposed the enforcement of Islamic penal codes, and supported a federal social democratic governance system. Taha vehemently opposed the prohibition of the Sudanese Communist Party, denouncing it as an undermining of democracy, despite not being affiliated with communism. He was convicted of apostasy in 1968 and faced a similar sentence again in 1984.
earlier:     Another Islamic movement in Sudan was the Republican Brotherhood, founded by Mahmoud Muhammad Taha. This movement embraced the concept of Islam having two messages and abandoned numerous Islamic practices. It advocated for peaceful coexistence with Israel, gender equality, criticised Wahhabism, called for freedoms and refraining from implementing Islamic criminal punishments, and championed a federal social democratic government. Taha strongly opposed the ban on the Sudanese Communist Party and condemned the decision as a distortion of democracy, even though he was not a communist. He was sentenced to apostasy in 1968 and again in 1984.
source:     There was another movement of Islamic thought in Sudan, which was the "Republican Brotherhood" movement, which was founded by Mahmoud Muhammad Taha. This movement adopted the idea that Islam has two messages, so it abandoned many Islamic rituals. It also called for peaceful coexistence with Israel, and complete equality between... Both genders, criticized Wahhabism, called for respect for freedoms and non-implementation of Islamic criminal punishments (legal hudud), and called for a federal social democratic rule. He also strongly opposed the ban on the Sudanese Communist Party and considered the democracy that makes that decision a "monoty" of democracy, even though he was not Communist. A Sudanese court sentenced Mahmoud Muhammad Taha to apostasy in 1968. This was repeated in 1984 .... [footnote marker removed]

islamism in sudan

one of the ways that FuzzyMagma works can be seen in the history of the "History of the Islamic movement in Sudan" redirect, which now points to the "Islamism in Sudan" article. the first version of this page is essentially a translation of this cited source (google translation). note that google's translation of the title of the source is identical to the title of the page: "History of the Islamic movement in Sudan".

i do not know if FuzzyMagma was working off a version of the source translated by google, as i cannot tell if the text is a close paraphrase of google's translation, or simply a version of the source translated by another service. i picked a random paragraph to provide a comparison below.

draft:     Following the fall of Nimeiri's regime, al-Turabi and his associates established the "Islamic National Front." This newly formed group participated in the Constituent Assembly elections and secured the third position, amassing 54 seats. This achievement positioned them as the leading opposition force. Al-Turabi once again excelled in playing the role of a influential opposition party, effectively thwarting Sadiq al-Mahdi's endeavor—head of the government and the parliamentary majority—to suspend the contentious September laws and push forward peace negotiations with the southern region.
source:     After the overthrow of Numeiri's rule, Al-Turabi and his men founded the "National Islamic Front," which ran in the elections for the Constituent Assembly and won third place after the two historical parties, with 54 seats, which made it the leader of the opposition. Al-Turabi succeeded once again in acting as a pressing opposition party, disrupting the attempt of Sadiq al-Mahdi, the prime minister and majority leader in parliament, to suspend the controversial September laws and initiate peace negotiations with the south.

most of the subsequent edits of that page largely deal with adding links to the text. after that was done, FuzzyMagma copied that text to the "Islamism in Sudan" article, along with some additional text as well as code for a few images. (this earwig comparison makes it more clear that virtually all of the prose was copied verbatim.)

since then, the prose in the "Islamism in Sudan" article has barely changed. in fact, the paragraph i had picked randomly above can still be found here in the article, virtually intact. as FuzzyMagma as previously mentioned here that "I was the one who expanded the Islamism in Sudan article from a stub to the existing size (by 90.2%) starting from 31 August 2023", this means that a substantial portion of the current "Islamism in Sudan" article remains a closely paraphrased version of a single source.

wad el-mahi

these concerns do not appear to be limited to this dyk nomination and the "Islamism in Sudan" article. i also took a look at the "Wad el-Mahi" article, currently nominated at dyk. i picked an arabic source and an english source at random to spot-check.

article:     ... Major General Yassin Ibrahim Abdel Ghani, acting governor of Blue Nile State, announced that his government is making efforts to address the problems of providing water.... He allocated 8 billion Sudanese pounds, with support from UNICEF, to rehabilitate Wad el-Mahi's water station, which covers a number of residential cities in the East Bank.
source:     Major General Yassin Ibrahim Abdel Ghani, the acting governor of Blue Nile State, ... said ... that the state government is making ... efforts to address the problems ... of providing ... water .... He added that (8) billion pounds were provided ... with support from UNICEF to rehabilitate the Wad Al-Mahi water station, which covers a number of residential cities in the East Bank ....
article:     July's confrontations were partially triggered by these land conflicts
earlier:     The violence in July was partially triggered by these land conflicts
source:     The violence in July was partly triggered by conflicts of land ownership
——————————
article:     This resurgence of violence follows an earlier outbreak in mid-July, where intercommunal clashes claimed numerous lives and forced thousands to flee to safer areas.
source:     The intercommunal violence that erupted in mid-July ..., which left at least 105 people dead and caused thousands to flee to the ... safe parts of El Roseires, has flared up before. [link removed]
——————————
article:     ... individuals displaced and seeking refuge in ... schools and nearby camps. The closure of markets due to the ongoing violence has left local residents in dire straits while trying to meet basic needs, as government offices remain shuttered.
earlier:     ... individuals displaced and seeking refuge in ... schools and nearby camps. The closure of markets due to the ongoing violence has left local residents struggling to meet their basic needs, while government offices remain shuttered.
source:     ... people have been displaced and are taking refuge in schools and in a nearby camp .... Markets have closed due to the conflict so local residents are struggling to meet their basic daily needs. Government offices are also closed.

i figured that the above was enough to show that there were problems with the article, so i didn't really look into any of the other sources. i haven't checked to see if there were any issues with wp:dyksplit, so theoretically, this nomination could be saved by simply rewriting everything that is problematic. however, i don't know how much of the article is problematic.

kalakla

i wasn't sure if i just happened to pick three unfortunate examples of FuzzyMagma's articles, so i looked at a list of the articles FuzzyMagma created and picked a random recent one: "Kalakla". as before, i only needed to compare the article with one source before i found an instance of close paraphrasing.

article:     The history of Kalakla goes back approximately 450 years, since the arrival of Sheikh Ali bin Muhammad bin Kanna .... Hamdallah bin Muhammad Al-Awadi also came to the region in the same era .... The two intermarried and the name Kalakla came to include all of them. The ancient Kalakla people migrated from Al-Manjara to the today's Kalakla, an area located south of Al-Hammadab and Al-Shajara. The Kalakla people worked in agriculture, and cutting trees and lumber.
source:     The history of Al-Kalakla goes back approximately 450 years, since the arrival of Sheikh Ali bin Muhammad bin Kannah .... Hamdallah bin Muhammad Al-Awadi ... came in the same era to this spot ... and the two intermarried, so the name (Al-Kalakla) came to be included in them. The ancient Kalakla migrated from Al-Manjara to the land of gravel, which is the area south of Al-Hamdab and Al-Shajara .... The Kalakla worked in agriculture, cutting trees ....

again, to be clear, i don't know if this is the only instance of close paraphrasing in the article, as i only really looked at one source.

coda

i quickly skimmed through FuzzyMagma's contributions list to see if there were any deleted edits that were evidence of prior copyright violations. it did not take me long to find this series of deleted edits. (courtesy pinging Diannaa so that she is aware of the issues mentioned here.) i don't know how far back these issues go, as i stopped searching soon after finding that.

i remember raising the issues of copyright violation and close paraphrasing in FuzzyMagma's nomination of the "Sara Gadalla Gubara" article back when i was hoping to promote the hook there, and i am disappointed to learn that FuzzyMagma has yet to commit to avoiding such issues. it is a shame that the "September 1983 Laws" article is currently ineligible for dyk, as i had liked this hook too.

courtesy pinging the reviewer for the "September 1983 Laws" article again, as an issue separate from wp:dyksplit is being raised. also courtesy pinging the reviewer for the "Wad el-Mahi" article. dying (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify in this particular example? Is there currently a problem with the version of the Wad el-Mahi article, or are you concerned with older versions? As you correctly stated, I edited it to correct any problems based on Earwig. I haven't taken another look, but I'm assuming based on what you've said here (correct me if I'm wrong), that you aren't concerned about the current version of Wad el-Mahi, but earlier versions and the overall pattern of editing on other articles by the same editor. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Viriditas, unfortunately, i do not believe that your edit resolved the close paraphrasing issue. i think it simply reduced the amount of text that was clearly copied directly from the source. had the text surrounding the passages highlighted by earwig also been free of any close paraphrasing, then what you did would have resolved the issue. wp:fixclosepara gives an example of how to address a close paraphrasing issue. to be clear, though, i think your rephrasing was an improvement.
i am concerned both about the current version of wad el-mahi and the overall pattern of editing. the close paraphrasing of the arabic source i spot-checked remains in the article. i don't know how much of the rest of the article consists of close paraphrasing. apologies for not having been more clear about this before.
earwig was designed to find text that was copied verbatim from sources. it is much more difficult to code an algorithm to catch instances of close paraphrasing. (this discussion covers earwig's limitations in a bit more detail.) in any case, i can understand why you missed the close paraphrasing of the arabic source, as we normally assume good faith with respect to sources that are not in english. dying (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. In that case, I must disagree, as I explicitly reviewed the Erowid Earwig report, made the changes, and observed that the issue had been resolved. But you're saying the issue wasn't resolved? No, I don't see that. Viriditas (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
i am currently assuming that "Erowid" refers to earwig, but if you are using something i am not familiar with, then i admittedly have no expertise over the reports it provides.
i agree that the earwig report comes up relatively clean. however, i believe there is close paraphrasing present in the article. note that earwig does not detect close paraphrasing. (it also does not translate sources.) the instructions for reviewers include a warning about earwig, which is also reproduced in the edit notice for dyk nominations.

The Earwig tool can be helpful for detecting direct plagiarism, but it will not catch close paraphrasing and only checks certain types of sources; manual spot-checks should also be carried out.

are you saying that you do not believe there is any close paraphrasing in the "Wad el-Mahi" article? dying (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a typo. I've crossed it out. Please show me the close paraphrasing in "Wad el-Mahi". Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, dang, again. @Viriditas and Dying: Regarding Wad el-Mahi, I don't see issues with the English-language source texts. With the Arabic source text, our article appears (I am relying on machine translation) to include direct translations of the source. Under US copyright law a translation is a derivative work that would require the permission of the copyright holder (unless the source is in the public domain) to upload and license to Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Copyright violations oddly does not discuss translations, and I have seen at least one talk page argument about this before. Perhaps the policy needs to be explicit about this? Here are several places in addition to where dying highlighted in the Was el-Mahi article, that our article translates rather than summarizes the source text:

Article:     [...]the Governor of Blue Nile State Hassin Yasin Hamd announced the members of his new government and appointed Muhammad al-Mahi, commissioner of Wad el-Mahi locality.
Source:     The Governor of Blue Nile State announces the members of his new government [...] also appointed [...] Muhammad Al-Mahi, commissioner of Wad Al-Mahi locality.
Article:     Abdel Ghani initiated an electricity project in the Umm Darfa Al-Hilla area in the Wad el-Mahi locality. The Savings Bank for Social Development financed the electricity project at a cost of over 121 million Sudanese pounds, and its successful completion is expected to bring multiple benefits at local, state, and national levels.
Source:     Abdel-Ghani [...] inaugurated [...] the electricity project in the Umm Darfa Al-Hilla area in the Wadalmahi locality. [...] the Savings Bank for Social Development, as it is the financier of the 121 [...] and the project will have multiple benefits and gains at the local and state levels.
Article:     [...] the Anti-Narcotics Department in the Blue Nile Region successfully apprehended a criminal network involved in smuggling cash from Wad el-Mahi locality to the regional capital. Police Colonel Adam Gedo, Director of the Anti-Narcotics Department, received information about the network's activities.
Source:     The Anti-Narcotics Department in the Blue Nile Region succeeded in ensnaring a criminal network active in smuggling cash from Wad Al-Mahi locality to the capital of the region. Police Colonel Adam Gedo, Director of the Anti-Narcotics Department [...] had information [...] about a criminal network [...].

FuzzyMagma, I hate to be a downer here after you reached out, but I think any translated portions of the above articles need to be rephrased, to meet the Wikipedia's policy at WP:COPYOTHERS. And regarding September 1983 laws, I would say that the excerpts from alhurra.com and arab-reform.net also appear to be translations. If you raise September 1983 laws to a GA, I will happily re-review it for DYK; it still is an important topic that Wikipedia did not previously cover. And finally, sorry all for not catching this in my initial review, Rjjiii (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I saw the name dying and stopped reading tbh. Do what you think need to be done FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
Rjjiii, you are correct: translations are problematic as they are clearly derivative works. this doesn't seem to be discussed on the page you linked, though the issue is mentioned at the "Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright" page. also, the listings of possible copyright problems at wp:cpn often includes a number of translations.
in any case, now that the concerns about the overall pattern of editing have been raised at wp:cci here [perm] and at wp:an/i here [perm], i wanted to focus on how we should address these copyright issues as they relate to dyk.
if FuzzyMagma is unwilling to correct the issues in this article, and no one else wants to adopt the nomination, then i assume the nomination should just be closed. the article was initially started in draftspace by a different editor, so if the copyright issues aren't addressed, it may be better to just revert the article to that earlier version, delete the intervening edits, and move the article back to draftspace. FuzzyMagma has made one edit to the article since the an/i report, but it only addressed the last of the three examples of close paraphrasing that Rjjiii mentioned. i would be happy to give FuzzyMagma all the time necessary to address all of the issues, but i don't know if a proper rewrite is forthcoming.
the hook for this article still interests me, and i would like to save it if possible. although FuzzyMagma appears to have since rewritten one paragraph and reworded another two paragraphs by combining them into one, i don't think attempting to satisfy the fivefold expansion requirement is feasible. if FuzzyMagma successfully addresses all of the copyright issues, i would be happy to overlook the wp:dyksplit criterion if others are; i had only raised the wp:dyksplit issue to prevent something that appeared to be a clear copyright violation from being featured on the main page.
another alternative i was considering is rewriting the article from scratch myself. if the current article were to be deleted as a copyright violation, and the relevant material in the "Islamism in Sudan" article and the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article were to be similarly excised, i believe a new article on the topic could satisfy the dyk criteria, if i understand dyk's policy regarding deleted articles correctly.
the "Islamism in Sudan" article, before the recent additions, appears to have been almost entirely based on a public domain source, whose use has been properly declared, so i assume that reverting the article back to that version will resolve any copyright issues with that article. similarly, it looks like the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article can be saved by reverting to this version of the article, because that version appears to simply be a copy of a properly declared public domain source.
does this sound like a good idea? admittedly, if i were to rewrite the article, it would be nowhere near as detailed as the current article, but at least it will be free of copyright violations. we could just leave the nomination as is if that is the case, as i would still like to give credit to FuzzyMagma.
i'm not sure what to do with the "Kalakla" article. it looks like FuzzyMagma created it by translating the corresponding article in ar wikipedia, so it's possible that the close paraphrasing issue may have been copied from there. i don't know if the article is worth saving, or even if there's anything to save. is this something we should address, or should we wait for a copyright investigation to handle it? dying (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
@Dying: What's the usual time frame for a copyright investigation? Once they come to a decision will FuzzyMagma have a chance to resolve any issues found? Rjjiii (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
good questions, Rjjiii. i don't know how long an investigation would take; i've never done anything with cci before. i know that some investigations can take a long time. this list of open investigations shows a few that have gone on for more than a decade. this page, which appears to list all the completed investigations, suggests that the time it takes for an investigation to close may vary greatly. i believe there have been investigations opened in which the editor in question ended up feeling remorseful and tried to help clean up the mess, so i assume that FuzzyMagma will have the same option. dying (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

i wanted to note that, at an/i, FuzzyMagma has now acknowledged [perm] having "made errors, taken shortcuts in some articles, and not taken things seriously as [he] should have", and has stated a desire to "make necessary corrections". i am all for leniency, so would be happy to give FuzzyMagma the time needed to bring the articles in question up to dyk standards.

however, FuzzyMagma has also stated [perm] being busy enough that, aside from this weekend for an edit-a-thon, edits will probably not be forthcoming until christmas. i admittedly don't know much about how we generally deal with copyright issues. is it okay to leave the problematic articles as is until then, or should some sort of cleanup be done in the meantime? dying (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

2023 chicago marathon

i stumbled upon a possibly controversial issue with how to present a hook in one of my own dyk nominations, and thought i might bring the issue to the wider dyk community to obtain feedback on how best to proceed.

Sifan Hassan
Sifan Hassan

alt2: ... that, during the 2023 Chicago Marathon (female winner pictured), four course records were broken?

   source: https://archive.today/20231118084354/https://www.runnersworld.com/races-places/a45444043/chicago-marathon-2023-results/
There were four course records set on a near-perfect day for racing in the Windy City.

alt2a: ... that, during the 2023 Chicago Marathon (female winner pictured), five course records were broken?

this year's chicago marathon saw the fastest performances at the chicago marathon ever (1) by a male runner, (2) by a female runner, (3) by a non-binary runner, (4) by a male wheelchair athlete, and (5) by a female wheelchair athlete. (i do not believe anyone has competed as a non-binary wheelchair athlete yet.) however, sources appear to only report four of those performances as course records.

i am not sure if the non-binary runner division was simply inadvertently overlooked, or if records set in that division are not considered course records. i actually couldn't find a reliable source that explicitly compares the fastest non-binary runner in this year's race with that of last year's race, which was the first chicago marathon with a non-binary division. as a result, alt2a may technically fall under wp:or. however, the use of alt2 might be interpreted as unfairly treating the non-binary runners as invisible.

Launchballer wisely brought up the wp:calc exception during the nomination discussion, and although i wouldn't have relied on that exception unilaterally, upon reflection, i think alt2a could fall under that exception if there is a consensus here that such a conclusion would be routine.

   source: https://archive.today/20231118084346/https://www.runnersworld.com/races-places/a45447543/chicago-marathon-nonbinary-results-2023/
Jake Caswell was the top finisher in the nonbinary division at the 2023 Chicago Marathon, running a time of 2:38:05 on a cool morning. [...] This marks the second year that participants were able to register as nonbinary. [links removed]
   source: https://archive.today/20231118084331/https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chicago-marathon/ct-chicago-marathon-2022-20221009-2efoym36xzhc7o675yawiakpha-story.html
Fedorowski said Blank Bruno won the first nonbinary division with a time of 2 hours, 47 minutes.
   source: https://archive.today/20231118084308/https://patch.com/illinois/skokie/skokie-runners-complete-2022-chicago-marathon
In the newly formed non-binary division, Blank Bruno, of the United States, was first in 2:47.12, according to the unofficial results. [link removed]

from those sources, would it be routine to conclude that jake caswell, the fastest non-binary runner in this year's race, also set a course record? alternatively, is this an instance where we should use wp:iar? (full disclosure: i recently created the article on caswell.) dying (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

According to this source, there is "no “elite” nonbinary division, as in the male and female races, or any finish line ribbon or monetary prize". Let's be honest, if there were, it would be pretty easy for an amoral male runner who is fairly good but not a contender for anything serious to ... y'know. I would suspect that RS won't consider a division record a "course record" for the same reason. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
The official race press release does not mention Caswell as setting a record, though they do mention Caswell as having the best 2023 time of non-binary competitors: they would certainly do both if Caswell had officially achieved both. It isn't a course record if the organization doesn't say it is; this isn't simply a WP:CALC matter. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 and BlueMoonset, you both bring up good points. admittedly, i may have been anchored by how new york road runners (nyrr), the organization that puts on the new york city marathon, treats the non-binary division in many of their races. i believe, in general, nyrr tracks the best performances in the non-binary division alongside the records in the men's and women's divisions, and also offers the same prize money to all three divisions. (see, e.g., here and here.)
however, i am currently unable to prove that the organizers of the chicago marathon similarly track the performances of the non-binary runners, which is why i hesitated to mention "five" in the hook. (i remember finding the chicago sun-times source mentioned above, but wasn't sure if it was an accurate depiction of this year's race, as the article covers the race from last year.) by the way, it might be interesting to note that cal calamia, who won the non-binary division for this year's new york city marathon, was assigned female at birth.
in any case, in response to feedback here, i have now requested, and received, approval for alt2. thanks, both of you, for your input! dying (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

NZ MP mass nomination

I just spotted that the NZ MP mass nomination has been moved to the approved page. Of the 29 bios, 14 have yet to be reviewed. I suspect that using green ticks for individual bios is what's confusing the bot. I've manually restored it on the unapproved page, but somebody who understands the inner workings of the bot better than me might want to suggest or implement an intervention. Schwede66 19:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

i meant at some point to streamline the reviewing process with a table. gah. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
From a purely technical point of view, I suggest whoever is going to build the hookset for this one start reserving as many one-line hooks as they can find so this doesn't blow up the main page layout. RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Good idea. It’s also good to remember that we don’t have to have eight hooks in a set. ITN, for example, often has hooks added or removed for main page balance purposes. Schwede66 16:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't be reserving any one-line hooks at this point; who knows how long it's going to take for the remaining dozen-plus articles to be reviewed? Also, Schwede66 is correct: for past multi-article hooks with long or many links, we have reduced the number of hooks in the set with it so we take up the usual amount of room on the main page: each prep and filled queue page has links to allow an editor to see how the section will look when promoted to the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Queue 4

Ashraf Dehghani

@Grnrchst, Vice regent, and AirshipJungleman29:

  • ... that little has been known of the exact whereabouts of Iranian communist leader Ashraf Dehghani since she escaped prison in 1973?

I could not verify that little is known of her whereabouts after her escape; the article describes her activities in the 70s and that she fled to Europe in 1981, where little is known about her life after this point. Also, It seems like Vice regent only approved the main hook, which is not the one that AirshipJungleman29 selected upon promotion. Should the hook be changed, or something clarified in the article? Z1720 (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Source: "It is believed that Dehghani is in Germany, although very little is known about her personal life after her prison escape." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
If this is the case, the article should state what the sources says above, and make clear that during her activities in the 70s her whereabouts were unclear. Z1720 (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Done. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The concern above has been resolved and I do not have further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Fred J. Wiseman

We really need to find a better image. This one is totally unrecognizable at the size it's going to run. RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I swapped the image for the one that is used in the infobox of the article; I hope someone with more technical know-how than me can crop and zoom in the portrait used in the DYK queue. Z1720 (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
That is a much cleaner image @Z1720: Bruxton (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Daniel McCaffery

@HouseBlaster, Acebulf, and AirshipJungleman29:

I have added a citation needed tag to the following sentence: "He went on to face the Republican nominee, Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas Judge Carolyn Carluccio, in the general election." This will need to be removed or cited before this article appears on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

This was fixed by the nom.[7] Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

History of Qing (People's Republic)

@Remsense, Generalissima, and AirshipJungleman29:

  • ... that the Chinese government began compiling an official history of the Qing dynasty in 2002, but as of 2023 a protracted political review is forestalling its publication?

I have added two cn tags, which will need to be resolved before this appears on the Main Page. It would also be nice if images could be added to the article so that the yellow "images needed" banner could be removed. Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Z1720, I have tried to locate potential images, but I have struggled immensely due to the topic. Remsense留 02:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
@Remsense: An image added to the article doesn't have to be pictures of the History of Qing product. Some potential ideas:
  • At the beginning of background, add an image of Sima Qian, who started the tradition of compiling the history of the previous dynasty
  • At the end of background, a picture of the 2002 CCP Central Council could be added to showcase who approved the research proposal
  • An image of a significant figure of the Qing dynasty, or perhaps the last ruler of this dynasty, could be added.
Many other ideas can be considered, and a thread opened on the talk page if you wish to continue brainstorming ideas. Z1720 (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I will do so! And thank you very much for the additional scrutiny, the last thing I would want to do is submit a potentially not-so-useful article about this topic for which I am very invested to a general audience. One more question: would it be acceptable simply to include the URL to the page on the website where one can search through digitized documents for the second citation required? Remsense留 02:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
@Remsense: I would prefer that the exact url of the document is used instead of a link to the database, as it will make it easier for others to verify the information. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I've also added the citations as required, could you give them a look? Thanks again! Remsense留 23:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Citations have been added, so this is resolved. I have no further concerns with the article at this time. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Queue 5

List of songs recorded by Tate McRae

@Bruxton, MaranoFan, and Kingoflettuce: This needs an end-of-sentence citation for both facts (ballet and accident).

@MaranoFan: I am hoping that you can address this before the set runs. Just a couple days left. Bruxton (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Done.--NØ 05:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith, it looks like this was taken care of, but in the DYKmake credits, there's a missing line break before the one for this nom; can you please insert it? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Whoops, thanks for the ping. I think I got it right this time. RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Murder of Jiang Ge

@AirshipJungleman29, Toadboy123, and Juxlos: Needs an end-of-sentence citation.

Note, I took a look and tried to fix this, but neither of the hooks are directly mentioned in the article. There are several instances of sentences and phrases that are similar, but it's not explicit. Also, one of the sources cited for the hook(s) isn't even used, it's only in the external links section. As far as I can tell, the nominator wants the reader to interpret the hook from the "Public opinion of the case in China" section, which is understandable, but isn't exactly how we do things. Viriditas (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Sounds like this needs to get pulled. RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
That might be a good idea. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Done RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas, RoySmith, and Narutolovehinata5: Sorry for the late response as I did not get notified regarding the status of my hook here. I have made the changes in the article to ensure the hook is explicitly mentioned and also integrated the source from the external link into the article. Toadboy123 (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Toadboy123 has made recent changes updating the hook with the source. I think it is good to go now. Viriditas (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I see that the nomination template has already been tagged as "needing a new review", so I assume at some point somebody will come along and re-review it and everything should progress normally from there. RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Queue 6

Marceli Godlewski

@7&6=thirteen: @Marcelus, Applodion, and Bruxton:

The article needs a citation for where Godlewski is buried. I indicated the location with a citation needed tag. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Fixed Marcelus (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

HMS Trent (1796)

@Ykraps, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Bruxton:

There are two places in the article that require citations, which I have indicated in the article with citation needed tags. Z1720 (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: Oops. Done. --Ykraps (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Special occasion move

Would someone be willing to move Christmas horror into the Special occasion holding area for the 24th? The reviewer supports the move but isn't sure how to do it. Thanks for the help, didn't want to let it work itself out since it's only a couple weeks away. Valereee (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: I moved it a little while ago. Bruxton (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee: Bruxton (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Valereee (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Q7 11 Dec

Lautaro

  • ... that the position of the volcano Lautaro was only clarified thanks to aerial imagery?

Ping to nom Jo-Jo Eumerus

Does "The 1959 eruption was observed from aircraft, clarifying the position of the volcano," equate to "was only clarified thanks to"? And doesn't say anything about aerial imagery, only that it was observed? Valereee (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Aye, there was a long-standing mystery of which mountain(s) there are active volcanoes; seeing the eruption from aircraft resolved that mystery in favour of Lautaro. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Can we make that clear in the article? Valereee (talk) 13:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Put a footnote to explain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Noah

  • ... that British child artist Noah completed the backgrounds of paintings by worldwide celebrities including Ed Sheeran?

Ping to nom Whispyhistory

Any objection to tweaking:

  • ... that British child artist Noah created the backgrounds for paintings by worldwide celebrities including Ed Sheeran?

The reason I ask is that when I first read the hook, I thought it meant he was doing completion work -- that the celebrities had created paintings with the background work still to be done, and this teen was completing the paintings (which was a not-uncommon thing for artists' apprentices to do.) Valereee (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes.... adjustment is okay with me. Whispyhistory (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Request to add Guy Lombardo to the "Did You Know" queue

Z1720 @DYK admins: Cia fellow editors: If possible, kindly add the biography about Guy Lombardo to the DYK queue for review, ASAP using the hook which is related to NEW YEARS DAY as described below. Many thanks in advance for your help & HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!!

Guy Lombardo

(
)
Photo of band leader Guy Lombardo
Photo of band leader Guy Lombardo

Created by William Crump (talk). Nominated by 160.72.80.178 (talk) at 18:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Did you know; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

160.72.80.178 (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)NHPL 160.72.80.178 (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

The article has not been created, expanded 5x, or promoted to GA in the past seven days, meaning it is ineligible for DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks: I thought that it might be possible for use is a DYK since it has been augmented substantially in the past few day and also nominated for a GA review within the past few days (which I assume is pending) and is so well documented. In any case, many thanks for the help. HAYPPY NEW YEAR to all!160.72.80.178 (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2023 (UTC)NHPL
@RoySmith: Thanks for taking a look at the DYK request for Guy Lombardo. If you have some time, perhaps you might help with the Good Article Nomination for this biography as posted on the article's talk page. Lomnbardo was not only an internationally acclaimed musician and and recording artist-- he was also an active speed boat racer and sailor who consistently won several international competitions and introduced his own line of fiberglass speed boats way back in the early 1960's! Enjoy & happy sailing! 160.72.80.178 (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)NHPL

References

  1. ^ "Encyclopedia of New Year's Holidays Worldwide" Crump, William D. McFarland & Co,London, 2008, p. 101

Patti Smith

I was feeling kind of good about the 10k views my Michael Goldstein hook got. Then I noticed Patti Smith, the secondary link, got 18k. Oh well. I guess it pays to be famous. RoySmith (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I suspect a lot of viewers were hoping they'd see the image. Just a thought. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Ha! I think that is true @AirshipJungleman29:. Although a normal day for Patti Smith's article is 2-3k. Bruxton (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
I also think the order of links in a hook can affect the number of views the target gets. Valereee (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

blocked nom, new hook needed

The nominator at Template:Did you know nominations/Muppet Theory has unfortunately been AE blocked. The hook has a sourcing issue, but it's an article that I do think is pretty great as a DYK entry. Anyone up for suggesting some hooks? (Or up for disagreeing with me over the sourcing issue?) Valereee (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: I made a few comments at the Nom and also proposed two new hooks. The article would benefit from a few more edits. Some items in the article are mentioned and can be expanded upon so that the article is more informative. If any of you has time please do look it over and edit. Bruxton (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Bruxton, I've approved for both of your ALTs, agree that the article could use some work, though, if anyone has time/interest! Valereee (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Toolpocolypse: dykmoverbot and dykstats

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T319711
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T319712

The infrastructure (Sun Grid Engine) that runs a bunch of older tools is being shut down soon. I see two items on the list of tools that will break when this happens which look like they'll affect DYK: dykmoverbot and dykstats. Are those still in use? If so, is there a plan to migrate them off SGE? RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

dykstats isn't mine, my tool operates under "leekbot" – @wug, is your tool still in use? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping; this should be resolved for wugbot. — Wug·a·po·des 21:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
and a ping to @ErrantX, in case dykstats is something i'm not aware of. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Image captions Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3

I wondered if we have image caption conventions for DYK? I ask in regard to this image caption which appears to be too long. There is some guidance in our manual of style MOS:CAPLENGTH. Bruxton (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, waaay too long! "Secretary Blinken plays the blues" perhaps. The rest is in the hook. Johnbod (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I like Johnbod's version. And while were there, I think the hook would be better if it were shorter as well. Plus,
would probably work better for the image at the small size. RoySmith (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
What about "Secretary Blinken performs at music diplomacy initiative launch"? Would that still be too long? W9793 (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Blinken plinkin' RoySmith (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Blinken was plinkin, lol. I like the copped image and if you feel some tweaks to caption and hook can be made in prep a fix on the fly would be appreciated. Bruxton (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I have changed the image and used the shortened caption. Bruxton (talk) 21:02, 12 December 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 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through November 14. We have a total of 294 nominations, of which 83 have been approved, a gap of 211 nominations that has increased by 21 over the past 11 days (and 70 since November 1). Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations; with those 211 unapproved noms we are overflowing the Nominations page (the last two of them can’t be seen), so each one reviewed, when it is eventually approved, helps more reviews to transclude fully by reducing the overflows.

More than three months old

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Queue 6

Crystal Dynamics

@IceWelder, Bri, and Bruxton:

In the article, the sentence has two citations: the Noclip Youtube video, where I was not able to find the claim, and the videogameschronicle which states that it was the first American company to receive a development kit (which to me is not the same as being licenced, unless I'm missing something.) Can you clarify where this information is verified in one of the sources? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The video features the claim at the timestamp indicated (8:25–8:40). It is an interview segment with Strauss Zelnick, the CEO at the time of the company gaining its license. The full quote is:

However, I did have the presence of mind within a few days of joining Crystal to realize that we had to diversify our platforms, and we became the first third-party licensee of the new Sony platform in short order.

The PlayStation being that "new Sony platform".
I refined this based on the Video Games Chronicle source, which asserts that it was the first American company to do so. In the 1990s, receiving an official development kit and being licensed to develop for it went hand-in-hand. IceWelder [✉] 10:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
@IceWelder: Thanks for the explanation. The above satisfies my concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:52, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
To further this, I just found this Wired article, which states:

At the time, Sony was offering PlayStation software development kits – a set of tools for building new games – to a few select designers, but only in Japan. But Cerny talked his way into a kit for Crystal Dynamics, in part because he could read and sign the Japanese contract. The Sony exec who handed him the contract, after meeting him for the first time that day, was Shu Yoshida. "Crystal Dynamics became the first non-Japanese development group to work on the PlayStation," Yoshida says.

I just added this source to the article. The hook could now be shortened/amended to:
Would this be possible? IceWelder [✉] 14:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
@IceWelder: I approve this hook change. @Bri and Bruxton: Would you two also be OK with this change? Z1720 (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hook confirmed at source, looks good to me. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
@Z1720: Green tickY Bruxton (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you all! Customary ping @Z1720. IceWelder [✉] 21:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I have replaced the hook with the one proposed above. Z1720 (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Christmas set?

Are we doing one, because now's about the right time to start work on the articles if people are interested! Kingsif (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea of one or a few hooks on all holidays. If we have them. Bruxton (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I have a Christmas hook in mind, so how long do I have to complete it? Could I submit it, in let's say, seven days? Viriditas (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Looking over Template talk:Did you know, Thomas Fritzsch and St. Joseph, Wedding both look like possibilities. I also see approved Cross Temple, Fangshan and Yule cat. So you're already half-way there. RoySmith (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I think it's still submit a DYK nom 4-6 weeks before a planned date. Might get some lee-way for special sets... Kingsif (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, I won't waste time on it if you don't think it will make it. The proto-hook and article-yet-to-be-created that I'm working with right now is
"... that Chanticleer performs at First Congregational Church of Berkeley on their annual Christmas tour?"
As far as I can tell, they've performed a concert at that church during Christmas week almost every year for the last two decades, but since they've been around since 1978, it could be that they've performed a Christmas concert at the church for 45 years, I don't yet know. Either way, it's sort of interesting if they've been performing at that church during Christmas week for that long of a time. But, if you don't think it's interesting, I won't attempt to write it. Of course, if anyone else wants a go at it, have at it. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Update: I've just looked through the official history book of the church, and it has half a dozen Christmas hooks ready to go. I think I might work on this, submit the hooks, and hope for leeway. Viriditas (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
Viriditas, I'm not quite sure where the "4-6 weeks" came from. Six weeks is the ceiling, but the floor is much lower; a nomination any time in the next two weeks should be fine; after that there's a major risk not getting a review in time, and after December 17 does run afoul of the minimum before the requested date. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Another question that's probably been asked a lot is, can the Christmas hook sets run for more than 24 hours due to people in different time zones celebrating the holiday? I take it the answer will be no, under the assumption that the only time that counts is UTC, but it is worth asking. Of course, if the answer is yes, that's good for others who wish to submit hooks, since it means more hook submissions stretched out over two days instead of one. Viriditas (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Thinking further, why not go one better and do a full set on Christmas UTC and one per day after Monday, Dec 25, until Friday, January 5, 2024, to celebrate the Twelve Days of Christmas? I thought I would just throw that out there. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
I would be opposed to a Christmas set running longer than 24 hours, and frankly think a reserved spot for each of the next eleven days is pushing things. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
We should do one set, on Christmas Day UTC. That's it. RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Bad things can happen if Christmas is every day. Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. Valereee (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I said rule of thumb is submit a DYK nom 4-6 weeks before a planned date, not "in 4-6 weeks"... Kingsif (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
I've nominated a Christmas song recently. The current hooks aren't too Christmassy but thought it might be worth a mention.--NØ 22:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
I really hope ALT0 checks out, because that made me howl. I could probably 5x Messy in Heaven, but given that I have an on-hold nom for the song's cowriter Dan Fable, I want to wait until his AfD closes first.--Launchballer 23:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
If N0 can get Meghan Trainor's condoms on the main page, then surely I can get Patti Smith's underpants. RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
There are some small issues with the Yule cat Nomination but it may be able to be considered for this set. I am too busy to nominate the main image in the article for deletion on commons it is definitely not allowed based on Icelandic FOP. Bruxton (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Looks like that's worked out now Kingsif (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Just 5x'd Messy in Heaven.--Launchballer 11:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I've begun constructing the Christmas set in prep 7, but I've noticed that Valeree had expressed a wish for Template:Did you know nominations/Christmas horror to appear on Christmas Eve. Which is better? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey, @AirshipJungleman29, I have a mild preference for Christmas Eve (becuz: Scrooge) but if others are trying to fill a set for Christmas Day, that's fine too. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I did notice that Wrap Me Up was suggested here but is currently scheduled for the 17th. Should it be moved?--Launchballer 12:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  • (late to this) We nominated Nikolauskirche, Oberndorf (where Silent Night was premiered) today, needs a review and should be for 24 Dec because of the premiere, and I nominated Verbum caro factum est a while ago, for 25 Dec, needs a review. For 22 Dec, please see below. It's not too often that we have the 300th birthday of a composer portrayed by Gainsborough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Queue 2

Witch Fire

I'm concerned about WP:CLOP. In "Aftermath", The Witch fire combined to burn 197,000 acres, killed two people, injured 40 firefighters, and destroyed 1,141 homes and 239 vehicles is basically copy-pasted from what looks like an AP wire story. The oddly phrased "combined to burn" makes it obvious where this comes from, because the original article read "The Witch and Guejito fires in October 2007 combined to burn...". This was obviously copy-pasted and then "and Guejito" removed. Somebody else should look at this to determine the severity of the problem and whether it can be easily fixed. @Bruxton, The4lines, and Panamitsu: from the DYK nom and also @Sammi Brie: who passed it at GA. RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I looked at this issue in the review @RoySmith. It's very difficult when it's a recitation of facts for which you have limited phrasing, but I did miss the "fire combined" part and that is my bad. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the check @RoySmith:. I stated in the nom that Earwig was down for me, but I could have gone back after promo. Checking it now it looks like something that can be fixed quickly. I will leave the fix to the other parties. Bruxton (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll also note that the numbers are almost certainly wrong now as well, since those were the numbers for two combined fires and now we're just talking about one of them. So whoever fixes it should look at that as well. RoySmith (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Just to backup what Bruxton is saying, Earwig has been off and on for the last week or so. I tried using it yesterday, and it took me about 30 minutes to get in. Viriditas (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I've reworded that sentence a little bit. I'll note that typically in all the sources I've seen, the Witch and Gijuito are counted as one fire. The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions) 00:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I've fixed the numbers and replaced the source with an offical CAL FIRE source. The4lines |||| (Talk) (Contributions) 03:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Question about DYK length guidelines

Hi all

I'm reading Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines to understand if an article I've written is elligible. I have a question about what counts towards the length, does it include quotes and image captions? I cannot find this written down anywhere, does anyone know if these do count? I'm not asking for personal opinion, I'd like to know what the rules are so I can improve the wording of the guidance to make it clearer. If this hasn't been decided then how would a decision be made?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@John Cummings: Quotes in running prose do count, blockquotes and quote boxes don't – image captions don't either. Hope this helps! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron thanks very much, can you tell me if this is written down anywhere or just accepted practice? It would be useful to have this in the documentation for people wanting to do DYK for the first time or just occasionally. John Cummings (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:DYKPROSE. CMD (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks very much, I think I just misread that part, the language isn't super clear. One question, if I submit the article for review when it qualifies for DYK but then the article is altered to where it doesn't qualify for DYK (eg the nuber of characters is reduced to below 1500) then what happens? Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
It would be evaluated as it is at the time of review. If there are changes after that point any issues raised would be subject to a discussion here or at WP:ERRORS. CMD (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
It basically depends at which point the error is caught. If the reviewer or promoter (closing editor) catches it, it stays on the nomination page. If the queueing admin catches it, it either goes here or on the nomination page. If everyone misses it until it gets on or near the Main Page, it goes here or on WP:ERRORS. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
John Cummings, just a reminder that you need to submit a DYK nomination within 7 days of publication in mainspace (or five-fold expansion or Good Article status). TSventon (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Queue 7

Herb Dell

@BeanieFan11, Bagumba, and Bruxton:

  • ... that NFL head coach Herb Dell also officiated games of the team he coached?

My interpretation of the above hook was that Dell officiated the games after he was head coach. There was an extensive conversation about this hook in its nomination, but I don't think the above can work as written. Here are two suggestions below:

  • ALT10a: * ... that NFL head coach Herb Dell officiated games of the team he would later coach?
  • ALT10b: * ... that NFL head coach Herb Dell officiated games featuring the team he would later coach?

Or something similar? Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

  • I'm not certain I see the issue; Dell officiated games of the team and coached the team as well (at different times), but the hook doesn't specify a time range (just that he officiated games of a team and that he coached games of that team) – I think it is more interesting that way. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@BeanieFan11: I think the hook currently in the queue implies that he officiated the games after he was a coach, when the article says that that he officiated the team before becoming their coach. I'm fine to leave it as-is if others disagree with me. Z1720 (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@Z1720: Thanks for the message. I like ALT0b that you proposed. It is more accurate in my opinion. Bruxton (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton: Though, ALT10b sounds a bit awkward to me as well; it says that NFL head coach Dell officiated the games of a team he would later coach; that's implying that he already was a head coach of another team and officiated games of a team he did not coach, and then later coached them, which is also not accurate. I like the original one as it does not state the time-frames. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
In the DYK nom's original hook, the problem was that it said " at the same time", which is not correct. The current Q7 version does not explicitly stated when he was coach and official. I don't see a problem to leave it open-ended to interpretation with the details in the bold-linked —Bagumba (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
This is a somewhat confusing hook. I think @Z1720: was trying to make it understandable and clarify the timeline. I can get behind whatever you all decide. Bruxton (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
There's no requirement that a hook must explicitly state a timeline, so I'll defer to the nominator's preference. —Bagumba (talk) 14:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Credits Nom Queue 7

My question: is there something screwed up in the credits on Queue 7? I only show one person in the credits for this nom. But it looks like Mandarax is getting nom credit? The nom credit is between that hook and This Boy's Life But it does not look like Mandarax nominated either one. Maybe that needs to be moved to a correct nomination somewhere? I looked through all of the hooks in the queue and I do not see where it should go. Bruxton (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. When I encountered the Honour Chen-Williams nom, it looked like this. I fixed the template, which automatically filled me in as nominator. I then patched a bunch of things, including removal of my visible nomination credit, but I forgot to remove the credit template. So, I would appreciate it if an admin would remove that nom credit from Queue 7. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Mandarax. It will require an admin. But, I believe you deserve an award for all of your work in this section, so I will get on that. Bruxton (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 Done – Schwede66 18:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Awwww, thanks, Bruxton! And thanks, Schwede66 for taking care of the template. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Pillar Point Bluff

It's too late to do anything about it now, but the Pillar Point Bluff hook that's currently running seems like a good example of distracting people from the main topic. The hook is:

Not only does San Gregorio Fault come first, it's (at least in my mind) the most interesting link in the hook. It's certainly the one I clicked on first. It'll be interesting to see how the clickthrough numbers play out tomorrow. RoySmith (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) True. The proof is in the figgy pudding. Bruxton (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
It's my fault. I should have emphasized ALT2 in the nomination ("... that Pillar Point Bluff is one of only two places where the San Gregorio Fault comes ashore?). I'm learning. Viriditas (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Probably too late, but given that we sometimes allow hook changes even when live either here on WP:ERRORS, was it not a possibility to simply swap out the wording? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I suppose that would have been possible. In any case, the numbers are in. San Gregorio Fault outscored Pillar Point Bluff by almost 2:1. I think the take home lesson is that if you want people to read your article, make it the only link in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Error in creating Template:Did you know nominations/Muskan Ahirwar

Hi all

I've just tried to nominate a DYK and I got an error message saying I need to create the page manually which I've done at Template:Did you know nominations/Muskan Ahirwar however I don't know if its worked correctly and don't know if it will get automatically added to the list of nominees. Can someone please take a look and fix anything that needs fixing. Also I'd like to nominate it for the picture for the DYK section, I think its a good image and shows the work she does well. I don't think there have been many images of young people living in slums in India achieving something great on the main page before.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added the nomination manually; it is up to the prep builder what they think most appropriate for the slot.--Launchballer 09:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks very much Launchballer, can I just check its been added to the correct date? It was created on the 9th. John Cummings (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, but it was nominated today.--Launchballer 09:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Launchballer I assumed it should be on the 9th because the title of the sections are "Articles created/expanded on December ...". Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
So it does. I usually use a tool and nominate immediately, so I've never needed to know that. My mistake. It's now under '9'.--Launchballer 09:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for your help :) John Cummings (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
John Cummings I have transcluded the nomination to the article talk page as that also did not happen automatically. TSventon (talk) 23:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Queue 3

Nivelon de Quierzy

@Kingoflettuce, Fritzmann, and Lightburst:

It is a pretty extraordinary claim that a person had possession of the staff of Moses in the 13th century. What proof is there that it was the actual staff, and not a forgery, misrepresentation, or just a belief that this is the actual staff? I feel uncomfortable putting this on the main page, even if it is cited to a source, without some qualifiers over who claimed this to be the case. Z1720 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, this can't run like that. I found the article this is sourced to. The list of relics include "the heads of the Baptist and Thomas the Apostle, the top (“crown”) of the head and one of the ribs of Saint Blaise, two bits of the cross, the rod of Moses, the reed with which Christ was beaten," At the very least, this needs to be qualified with "claimed to", "said to", or something like that. RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith and Z1720: That is my fault. Religious artifacts are usually without provenance. I saw a program yesterday that showed 5 different entities claiming to have the Holy Grail. And the Christian Bible actually makes no mention of the "cup" - yet many think it exists. I think we could run it with RoySmith's suggestion. Lightburst (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I think you'll have a hard time finding "actual proof" that this was the "actual" staff (or as Lightburst notes, most religious artefacts for that matter). I'd imagined that our readership would be intelligent enough to discern that. But RoySmith's suggestion makes good sense. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I have added "claimed to have" to the hook. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Queue 4

Mario Party DS

@The Green Star Collector, Silver seren, and AirshipJungleman29:

The word "minimized" is in quotes in the hook, but the word does not appear in the article. Should a different word be used instead? Z1720 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The article and source discusses the "Minimizer" to shrink the characters, hence why the term "minimized" is in quotes in the hook. If you want the word minimized used in the article, feel free to add it. But I, as the reviewer, was fine with the item term and source usage in the article, hence why I approved it. SilverserenC 19:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Another solution might be to remove the quotes in the hook. Z1720 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
That works too. SilverserenC 20:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
The hook works for me, regardless of whether the quotes are included. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Härnösand Residence

I've taken the liberty of uploading a better version of the image and replacing it in the queue. I assume the page protection bot will notice and do its thing before this hits the main page. RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Queue 1 Oxford Guide

Does someone mind considering rephrasing the hook I submitted that's currently sitting in Queue 1? I realized that it's awful verbose. My suggested rewrite is "that The Oxford Guide to the Book of Common Prayer: A Worldwide Survey made historian Alec Ryrie suspect that "there is such a thing as 'Anglicanism' after all"?" Apologies for the late-stage suggestion. Also, is the proper procedure for such a request to first post here or to first bring it up on the hook template's talk? Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Valereee (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "newness"

I just made this edit to add a bit of info and an incoming link to an article I just published. If and when I decide to revisit the H. L. Lawson & Son Warehouse article and expand it beyond a stub, would that one edit count against the "newness" of the expansion re: DYK eligibility, or would the timing begin once I started the expansion in earnest (assuming I begin later than a week from now)? If the latter, would I be correct in assuming the prose count needed to be 5x expanded would include my recent addition? This is something I've been curious about as I've occasionally made small edits to articles to update links, and don't want to box myself out of potential future nominations. Thanks in advance for any help. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It would need to be expanded 5x from when you begin "in earnest", so yes, including anything you add before then. Kingsif (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
@Kingsif That's what I expected to be the case, just wanted to make sure. Thanks for your answer. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
@DrOrinScrivello, you can also work on the article as much as you like in your sandbox until you're ready to begin the final week of work in the article space. Valereee (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts before promotion of Nom

The Rape of Lucretia, c. 1640

Hook: * ... that the painter of The Rape of Lucretia (pictured) updated the ancient legend by setting the scene in the bedroom of a contemporary Italian home?

Notice to the reviewer and nominator: @Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ficaia: I would likely promote the hook sans image. I imagine that the subject matter may disturb some of our readers so I wanted to get thoughts from others. Thoughts about the hook and image. One helpful guide for us might be WP:CENSORMAIN.

Bruxton (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I personally think the image displays well as a thumbnail and would be an attention-grabbing DYK image. The essay you mention doesn't seem to have been edited much at all in recent years, so I'm not sure how much weight it carries. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The Rape of Lucretia, c. 1640 (adjusted for exposure)
I'm not sure if it's the violence or the exposed nipple which you think will shock people, but I'm OK with running it on the front page.
I have uploaded a version with the exposure brought up and we might want to use that instead. While this "improves" the image, I'm always hesitant about this kinds of adjustments to works of art. For all I know, the painting is intentionally dark and my "correcting" the exposure isn't actually an improvement. I also note that the article contains photos of three contemporary variations. The exposure values vary wildly. I don't know if the three paintings were executed in different styles or it's just the random vagaries of how each photograph was taken. That's not strictly a DYK issue, but it does bother me. RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm personally not wild about the image running on the main page; it's not just a nude woman but a rather disturbing depiction of a violent crime. I recollect a bit of backlash a while back to running a hook with a photograph of two soldiers torturing a prisoner. Kymothoë (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Genoa Conservatory

I would appreciate some other opinions at this discussion. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Can I check if my approved nomination is working properly?

Hi all

I nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Muskan Ahirwar which was accepted, however when I made the nomination something in the template broke and it didn't get added to the review queue properly and thankfully this was fixed after someone helped. Can I just check its now in the right place to get added to a queue? I don't really understand how this stuff works so I just wanted to make sure its still on the production line and hasn't fallen off because of a faulty template or something.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It's been moved to Template talk:Did you know/Approved.--Launchballer 13:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, is this the right place? I guess the next step is its added to a queue? John Cummings (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Usually. I'd keep an eye on the nom just in case.--Launchballer 15:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Oddity in the December 18 noms

I'm seeing them as a horizontal list of templates, anyone know what's going on? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Happens when the page gets too long for all the nominations to transclude, as is probably the case here. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Yup, the WP:PEIS limit has been reached. Around 5% of that comes from Template:Did you know nominations/Vanessa Weenink alone, so if we could get the remaining eight reviews done that would seriously help. I'll do a couple later. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
The big problem is that we have well over 200 unapproved nominations, which is the underlying problem: we've been having too many nominations to transclude on and off for over a week. Finishing the Vanessa Weenink nomination is only a temporary fix; what we really need is more people doing extra reviews beyond the QPQ requirement. If that doesn't work, there is a mechanism to have those with over 20 DYK credits do two QPQs per nomination rather than one, and we may need to invoke it for the first time if things don't improve. Having 200+ unapprove nominations is far too many. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
See WP:VPT#Increasing the post-expand include size for a related discussion. RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
That being said, we're managing a sequence of queues which feed into each other. This is a well-studied problem both in computer science and in real-world engineering. Fundamentally, the number of rejections plus the number of published hooks has to equal the number of submissions over the long run. That's inescapable. Things like increasing the PEIS or the number of prep areas (as has been discussed before) provides some additional buffering against peaks and lulls. Having people do more reviews doesn't help at all, it just pulls stuff from one queue into the next one faster.
Switching back and forth between one and two hook sets per day isn't a perfect solution, but it provides enough slack that in practice it works, at least from the math point of view (although it sucks for other reasons). In theory, our submission rate could drop so low that we can't keep up with 8 hooks in 24 hours. Or it could increase to the point where even running 16 per 24 hours doesn't keep us from hitting the PEIS limit. I've never seen either of those happen, but I wouldn't be surprised if people who have been doing this for longer than me can remember such times. RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
The early history of User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates shows that we sometimes had three or four updates per day a decade ago. I have no memory of those times, but I do remember even earlier times when admins would manually update DYK and there were no QPQ reviews. —Kusma (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
How many successful submissions are we getting per day? I've suggested before increasing the number of hooks on the front page.--Launchballer 16:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith, Having people do more reviews doesn't help at all, it just pulls stuff from one queue into the next one faster ignores the basic architectural fact inherent at DYK that QPQ reviews will never equal the number of new nominations because there are always new nominators who are exempt from QPQ. If there aren't volunteers doing extra reviews out of the goodness of their hearts, the number of unreviewed nominations will continue to grow until it breaks the bank. This has always been true. We do sometimes have people who enjoy doing extra reviews, and the number of unapproved nominations has dipped well below 100, but these people have been thinner on the ground in recent times, which is why we're in trouble now. Without volunteers doing extra reviews, at some point we need to get those extra reviews done in some other way. For the approved hooks, we have an automated process for going from one to two sets per day and back based on how many approved hooks and filled sets we have, which does an adequate job of keeping that part of the process moving along, but it does nothing for when inactivity on the reviewing end jams up the Nominations page, as is happening now.
Kusma, when I started at DYK, three sets of 6 hooks per 24-hour period was the standard rate, with occasional drops to two sets or up to four sets (for example, we'd be at four sets per day during the Summer Olympics). I arrived after the manual updates gave way to automated ones, so I can't speak to how things were way back then. I do know that we've never not had enough approved hooks to handle at least one set per day in the past twelve years, which is how long I've been around DYK, and I don't see any signs of nominations slowing down to that extent. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense, thanks for the correction. RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I have to ask. Why are these things listed for like 1 to 3 months ? Have we considered to just procedurally close everything that people haven't completed in a week or two ? This approach to show this many talk pages doesn't scale. We have known this ever since the days of AfD/XDF which use subpages per day exactly for this reason. P.S. I removed some more bytes from the templates, but it's like drops in the bucket. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I would love to see us be more aggressive about rejecting problematic nominations. I'm all for extensive hand-holding for new participants, but often the longest knock-down, drag-out battles are with experienced noms who just won't stop pushing for what they want. The needs of the many... RoySmith (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I've been pushing for this idea for years now, where we have to be more willing to reject nominations if they just aren't turning out, but unfortunately it often results in arguments, especially when editors refuse to accept rejection. To be fair, I'm sure all of us have been guilty of this at least once in our DYK careers, but I agree that, if a nomination is taking too long to be addressed, or if there are no suitable hooks at all, we have to be willing to reject them, even if it hurts feelings. And for us editors, we should probably learn to move on instead of arguing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I suggested something like this, but the proposal didn't pass – maybe a more focused one could take it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, although I'd want a specific exemption for articles at AfD since they're outside of our control.--Launchballer 21:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Prep to queue

@DYK admins: Please consider that we may need an administrator to promote more preps to queue because the holiday is here. We may be running a skeleton crew this weekend. But some of us are manning the blinking cursor now. :) Bruxton (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination Article Muppet Theory

This Nomination needs a tick for a single additional hook, and then a promotion; maybe even that same editor. Thank you all. Bruxton (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Queue 6

2023 Chicago Marathon

@Dying, Launchballer, and AirshipJungleman29:

I could not find in the article where it says that four course records were broken. Can you point out where it says this? Thanks Z1720 (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It is clearly outlined in the lead and body, Z1720. The men's, women's, men's wheelchair, and women's wheelchair course records were all broken. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks AJ29, I see where this is outlined in the article now. I consider this issue to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Grandfather Indian

@Dying, Theleekycauldron, AirshipJungleman29, and Rjjiii: can anyone take a look at Grandfather Indian and assure me that there is no copyvio by translation? I'm trying to pass this for use in the Christmas queue. Earwig isn't helpful in this regard. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I would request a paraphrase of some of the sections highlighted below. These are a few notes from the BBC source via Google Translate; not an in-depth review:
BBC: "[...] in 1939, a children's play in Rio promoted the [...] meeting of Santa Claus and Grandma Índio. President of Brazil from 1930 to 1945 and from 1951 to 1954, Getúlio Vargas (1882-1954) had sympathy for the figure, [...] There are [...] stories that he personally committed himself to transforming Grandma Índio into a symbol of Brazilian Christmas — but, given the lack of documentary evidence,"
WP: "In 1939, a children's play in Rio de Janeiro featured a meeting between Santa Claus and Grandfather Indian. Getúlio Vargas, president of Brazil during the periods of 1930–1945 and 1951–1954, had a fondness for the character. There are stories he endeavored to turn Grandfather Indian into a symbol of Brazilian Christmas, but they lack documentary evidence."
BBC: "In 1935, as reported by O Estado de S. Paulo, it was Grandpa Índio who brought gifts to orphans [...] in an action promoted by [...] the predecessor institution of the current Military Police."
WP: "In 1935, as reported by O Estado de S. Paulo, Grandfather Indian brought gifts to orphans in an action promoted by an institution that preceded the Military Police."
BBC: "the president would have hosted a Christmas event to introduce Grandpa Índio to children in a stadium in Rio. According to these reports, the audience did not approve [...]"
WP: " Vargas would have been the host of a Christmas event in 1931, to introduce Grandfather Indian to children at a Rio de Janeiro stadium. According to these accounts, the audience did not approve [...]"
Take care, Rjjiii (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas and @Rjjiii, tried some copyedits there. Can you check it? Still figuring out how to distance the text as much as possible from the sources to avoid issues. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I've struck the 3 highlights above; thanks for addressing it. Regarding "distance" in a general sense: I find the best method is to take notes in one place (app, file, notebook, etc.) and write from those notes in another place. Good luck, and merry Christmas in advance, Rjjiii (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Campus of the College of William & Mary

Per Narutolovehinata5 reminding me about the six-week window for holds on hooks, I was hoping for an IAR extension to permit its consideration for a Valentine's Day (14 February) run. It is currently unreviewed, so I understand if consideration for an extension has to wait until that happens. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Fine by me. I do wonder if it's worth reviewing the six-week window altogether, because I do my QPQs from the top, and I almost never review anything that young (I just reviewed Lou Daukas, which was sixty days, and I was surprised to see the phrase '1 month' in the timestamp).--Launchballer 11:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
The removal of the six-week window has been discussed before, and while I personally would be in favor of it being eliminated, the suggestion was rejected. I can't remember the exact reasons why, it might have involved logistics but I'm not sure anymore. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
This reminds me, I should try helping clear the queue tonight. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Queue 7

Cross Temple, Fangshan

@AirshipJungleman29, TheLonelyPather, and Remsense: The hook says "only surviving Nestorian Christian site in China" but the article says "only surviving Nestorian site in China" I'm not sure those are the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

As far as I've ever known (and based on my sanity double-check just now), "Nestorian" only refers to one of several branches of Eastern Christianity that somehow sprouts from the "wrong" side of the Council of Ephesus in the 5th century. If I'm wrong about this, I really apologize for any sloppiness. Remsense留 16:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
They are the same thing, RoySmith. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. See Nestorianism. Johnbod (talk) 01:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Phyllis Boyens

@Bruxton, Thriley, and Z1720: There's a serious amount of WP:CLOP. One paragraph is almost word-for-word from https://bluegrasstoday.com/phyllis-boyens-remembered/. I don't know if it's WP:G12 material, but it's not far. RoySmith (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

  • I did not catch the CLOP concerns in my checks: I went through the article just now and made some changes that will hopefully alleviate some of these concerns. Additional edits are welcome. Z1720 (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
    • The hook is too long at 223 prose characters, and the nomination was promoted before it was given final approval by the reviewer. Perhaps it should be pulled back and reopened; at a bare minimum, the hook needs to be trimmed. Given the concerns here, it appears that too much attention has been given to rushing Christmas hooks through the process in order to fill a set instead of promoting only what's truly ready to go. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
      Ugh. I had noticed that the hook was kind of verbose but didn't take the time to check the count, so I'll take some of the bad on that. Between that, and the copyvio issues and the fact that it got promoted without a tick, I'm going to pull this. If we can't find another on-topic hook to replace it, I guess we'll just run with 7. RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
My fault, I suggested a new hook above in the "Time to get the Christmas Day set ready to be promoted to Queue" section of this page Bruxton (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I have approved ALT0a on the nomination page. Z1720 (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset, Z1720, and RoySmith: Sorry for my rushing and fumbling about. I did edit the article a bit added a few references and will continue to work on it. I see other editors like @Valereee: have also worked the article a bit. Bruxton (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you all so much. I should have fixed it up more before nominating. I got a little too excited when I saw a possible Christmas Day hook while gathering information. Thriley (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@Thriley: the cooperative editing is my favorite activity on Wikipedia. Seeing the other editors provide research, layout and prose. I was a bit too hasty with my bold moves and I hope it is all sorted now. I hope you have a happy holiday season. Bruxton (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Are the CLOP concerns resolved? I noticed two paragraphs that were still pretty close and revised them. It looks several editors have done a lot of editing to revise the whole page. Earwig isn't showing anything and I believe the original issues were with online sources, Rjjiii (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@Rjjiii: Thank you for your edits. I think it is tightened up now. Bruxton (talk) 00:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I’m always glad for your collaboration! Thanks for all the help in the past. I look forward to a new year of DYKs! All the best, Thriley (talk) 01:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Yule cat

@AirshipJungleman29, SilverTiger12, and Bruxton: I'm reasonably sure https://brookstonbeerbulletin.com/the-yule-lads-of-iceland/ copied from us, but it's worth some additional eyes on this to be sure. RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes this is on the page of the source Origins of the Yule Lads: So who are the Yule Lads, and where did they originate? According to Wikipedia, “[t]he first mention of the Yule Lads can be found in the 17th-century Poem of Grýla. Grýla had appeared in older tales as a troll but had not been linked to Christmas before. She is described as a hideous being who is the mother of the gigantic Yule Lads, a menace to children.” Bruxton (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@Roy Smith and Bruxton: Agree with Bruxton that's it's good to run. I've added a dummy edit also. Several websites have a similar version of the lead text because:
  1. An older version of Yule Cat existed on Wikipedia since 2012.[8] It's pretty small so I checked the 3 general sources there and don't see any plagiarism or copyright violation.
  2. The Wikipedia text was copied onto various websites including this excellent 2014 Tumblr post and this surly ornament.
  3. The previous Yule Cat article was merged into Icelandic Christmas folklore on 2 January 2019.
  4. All sources that include similar material can be assumed to be copying from Wikipedia if they are post-2012.
Could an admin somehow attach the history of the tiny article that once existed back to the proper and informative article that now exists? That doesn't affect DYK, but this seems a good time to mention it, Rjjiii (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Queue 1

Virginia Bolten

@Grnrchst, Gerda Arendt, and Bruxton:

Unless I'm missing something, this article has already appeared on DYK on 14 February 2010, and is therefore ineligible for DYK. Is my observation correct? Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: It appears that you are correct. It is part of the talk page project section up top. Bruxton (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
You are correct, and I'm sorry but never checked (although it would be so easy). Question is if our rules could accommodate that an article is raised in quality from something just long enough to GA class. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Aye you're correct. Apologies for not noticing. This DYK happened almost 9 years before I created a Wikipedia account and over 13 years before I began working on this article for GA. If this makes it ineligible, I guess I'll have to accept disqualification. :/ --Grnrchst (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
@Z1720: A suggestion: I do not see any sports related hooks or bios in that set. So we can move this hook from Prep 7 to Queue 1 to take the place of the Virginia Bolten hook.
  •  Done I checked and moved William Brault to Queue 1. Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Jules Meysmans

@Frzzl, UndercoverClassicist, and AirshipJungleman29:

In the DYK nom, Frzzl states that the language referred to in the hook is Interlatino. The article states "A Romance-based constructed language, which he called Interlatino, was published in 1912." However, the article doesn't specify that he created the language. Since the source is not in English, I do not want to add the information unless it is verified in the source. Does the source verify that he created the language, and if yes can it be explicitly added to the article? Z1720 (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the query - tldr; yes, he created it.
This confusion is from my translation, so apologies. The original source says: "... la lingvopropono kiun Meysmans publikigis en 1912, signifoplene nomita Interlatino". The key word here is publikigis which I've translated as "published" - a mistake on my part because I've assumed the reader will understand it as "release"/"announce". If Gobbo wanted to refer to publishing as in a printing house, he would use the word "eldoni", not "publikigi" – a semantic difference in Esperanto that I didn't translate well.
The language is also listed in Věra Barandovská-Frank's (professor of Interlinguistics; subject expert) 2010 Latinidaj Planlingvoj [Romance constructed languages] as "Interlatino, Meysmans 1912;" – here's a version used for teaching.
Hope that's fine,  Frzzl  talk; contribs  11:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
@Frzzl: For the article, can you explicitly add that Meysmans invented Interlatino and cite it to one of the sources listed above? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 Done – I found a Russian-language source that went into more detail about the language, so I've added some text and used the word "created".  Frzzl  talk; contribs  17:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I consider the above resolved, and I am AGF the non-English sources used to verify this information. Z1720 (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of days 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 November 21. We have a total of 295 nominations, of which 102 have been approved, a gap of 193 nominations that has decreased by 18 over the past 10 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than two months old

More than one month old

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) 17:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Tony Tribe

I'd like to ask for a second opinion on the state of the article. Right now, this is a bit of a complicated case where the article talks about claims that the subject was killed in a car accident in the early 1970s, but the article talks about him being active under another name during the period after his supposed death. However, as brought up in the nomination, some forum posts and other discussions suggest he did actually die in a car accident after all, albeit in the late 1970s rather than the early 1970s. Thus, it seems that it's possible that him dying in a crash did happen, but the rumors about his death simply got the date wrong. Considering this context, as well as how the article would seem incomplete if it didn't have acknowledgement about his ultimate fate since the article in its current state implies he's still alive, what should be done here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

For context, he appears to have recorded under the names Tony Mossop, Tony Tribe, and Tony Kingston. All the images I could find are as follows: Soul Seekers, Mossop (both 1966, scans of album artwork via Discogs), Tribe (circa 1969, Trojan Records' Facebook), Kingston (1972, scan of album artwork via Discogs), and Kingston (1974, RPM).--Launchballer 13:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Might be last call for the Christmas set

Last call for Christmas hooks. This is what the set looks like now: (set). We can also swap the main image if a better one is found. I notice there was an image available for the Christmas horror nomination. Bruxton (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I’m out. Tried to write an article about the church (mentioned above), only to find the sources were written from the POV of obscurantism. As a personal rule, I generally avoid such sources, so I won’t be participating this year. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
That's a shame. I just noticed above there may be one or two in the pipeline needing review. I am ok with this partial set of it is all we have. Bruxton (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I was really excited about it, as the church has a fascinating history. Not sure why they choose to write their history in such a way, but nothing I can do. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The Scrooge image for Christmas horror is good if the hook ends up moved to the 24th, but not sure it works as well on Christmas Day. Valereee (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Christmas eve or Christmas day hooks waiting for reviews or approvals

Christmas Eve (Queue 6):

Christmas Day (Queue 7):

There's a difference between Christian-related and Christmassy - what have St. Joseph, Wedding, The Many Faces of Jesus, & Messy in Heaven to do with Christmas? The other 3, fine. Johnbod (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Mostly explained in the comments by noms and others in their respective DYKs. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I have read through the comments and noms of St Joseph, Many Facesa & Messy, and I agree with Johnbod that the proposed hooks are not Christmassy. I would prefer that the link to Christmas be more explicit in the hook for those three noms. Z1720 (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I've just been through the 3 hooks, noms and articles, & I'm not seeing this at all, except for the dedication of the church to St Joseph, which is pretty tenuous. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Anyway, there are currently 4 spare places, & the set has one church (or temple) already. If Lange, Verbum caro & Nikolauskirche (Oberndorf) are used, then St. Joseph, Wedding could be used, though that gives 3 churches in total. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I have to agree with Johnbod, the only ones that have anything to do with Christmas are Willem Lange and the two music hooks. I don't think we should have more than one music hook in the set, looks like Gerda prefers the 24th for Nikolauskirche. Valereee (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I should perhaps have updated St. Joseph, - now hat we have a pictured hook for 25 Dec, it should not run that day, rather any day, perhaps 26 Dec which is still Christmas in Germany. The Nikolauskirche makes sense only 24 December because of the "Silent Night" connection, which means Christmas Eve. - Could people please also think of 22 December, 300th birthday of a composer painted by Gainsborough (twice), and not yet reviewed, and please please pictured ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
"the "Silent Night" connection, which means Christmas Eve" perhaps does not work so well in the Anglosphere... Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
"Night" is closer to Eve than Day even in English, no? Besides that we have already some Christian music in the 25 Dec set. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
There's probably a hook somewhere along the lines of "... that Messy in Heaven temporarily dropped 62 places on the UK Singles Chart due to the resurgence of Christmas hits" (see the second half of Reception), on which there's probably an entire article I could write.--Launchballer 14:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
I could conceivably write a Many Faces hook with a Christmas tie-in, but I think it would be far inferior to my current proposed hook, and regardless anything about erotic films is going to be out of place here. So I concur on keeping it out of the Christmas set. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 21:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Actually, what does Cross Temple, Fangshan have to do with Christmas? The article doesn't mention Christmas at all. Pinging AirshipJungleman29, not sure there's any connection to Christmas? Valereee (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
    • Wasn't aware there was a specific criteria Valereee; the nominator wanted it on the 25th December, and as it's Christian-related I put it there. I'm not that familiar with the details of Christmas/Christianity, but it does seem appropriate. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
      Thanks, AJ29, I hadn't noticed the request. TheLonelyPather, was there a reason you requested the 24th or 25th? Is there some particular connection to Christmas for this church? Valereee (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
      Hi @Valereeeand @AirshipJungleman29, I put it there because it is Christian-related. It is not related to Christmas itself. Maybe we can think of a particular Christmas-esque hook?
      If there are other articles that scream Christmassy, I am happy to give them a spot for the public good, but now it seems that Template:Did you know/Preparation area 7 has four empty spots, so let me go back and think of some Christmas-esque hooks.
      I think the hooky part about the article is that it is an ancient Christian site in a country that you wouldn't expect an ancient Christian site, and the site had also been used by Buddhists. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
      Okay, gotta try Christmas carols.
      ALT2: ... that the Cross Temple, Fangshan, was Nestorian Christian in the golden days of Yuan?

      Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I just created Template:Did you know nominations/Kurt S. Adler- Adler was a Jewish refugee from a Nazi Germany who started one of or perhaps the largest importer of Christmas ornaments into the United States. It would be great if it could run on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day. Thriley (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Reviewed by Z1720, I've promoted to prep 7. That prep currently has three non-bios in a row, I'm thinking maybe start alternating those? Valereee (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
I am reviewing an article at GAN, Abed's Uncontrollable Christmas, which I think would be a great article for this set. If your nomination is successful Bilorv, would you be interested in nominating the article for DYK? Z1720 (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
If you're looking to fill a Christmas slot and a TV article provides additional variety then I'm happy to nominate. Hook suggestions welcome — Bilorv (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
@Bilorv, forgive me, not familiar with the show and just took a quick look...so this is a typical sitcom, but this particular episode was done in stop-motion animation? I think you could totally build a hook around that. Valereee (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I promoted Verbum caro factum est, but I'm wondering if it's really interesting ... that Verbum caro factum est, a motet for six voices for Christmas by Hans Leo Hassler in Venetian polychoral style, has been arranged for brass ensembles? Is arranging for brass ensembles unusual? And do we really need six links? Ping Gerda Arendt, Z1720. Valereee (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! - We can of course not link the composer (but this isn't Bach or Mozart), nor motet and brass (trusting that people know already). The hook says in other words that the music works without words and sounds brassy, which is not too little about a 16th-century work, imho. If you don't agree, we can of course stop after "polychoral style". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt, so could we write:
... that Verbum caro factum est, a Christmas motet, was written as a choral piece for six voices but has been arranged for brass ensembles?
Do the brass instruments take the parts of the voices? Is that something worth calling out -- that is, is it unusual? To me, raised on Peter and the Wolf, that's quite interesting.
Valereee (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
We could but compare my reply to Johnbod below: we'd get further away from the original music. This piece, more than 400 years old, still gets performed, - that is part of the "arrangement" message. If we don't say how old it is (by mentioning the composer) we loose the contrast. At Hassler's time, this Venetian style was the latest fad which he had learned in Venice and "imported", and some readers will know that, but to tell the others is probably not the objective of the hook.
I heard it with the Dessoff Choirs, last year (in their 99th year), but didn't want to bring it up in January so waited for the next Christmas, - that would be another example, but I thought singling out individual performances was not a good idea. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, by Gerda's standards .... One might go with: "... the former pope's brother released a recording of the Christmas motet Verbum caro factum est? We surely don't need to link "Christmas", least of all on 25 Dec. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
We surely don't have to link Christmas, - I overlooked that one. - Your proposal connects to some distantly related person, a pope's brother without saying that he is a choral conductor, instead of to the composer, leaving nothing about the music in the hook, no period, no "polychoral", which is not exactly my idea of speaking about a piece of music. But it's the saeson, - if we have to I won't fight. People shouldn't read Wikipedia on Christmas day ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, mostly they don't - it always gets the lowest views of the whole year. But I think many like a quiet break from family excitement for a while after lunch. Johnbod (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
One slot left in prep 7. Are we saving that for a specific hook? Lightburst (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I think we're just waiting for more Xmas hooks. If we get two that are definitely Christmas (rather than Christian) related, I think we could replace the Cross Temple. Especially if we get additional bios, as the Cross Temple is the second church hook in the set. Valereee (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
See Template:Did you know nominations/Abed's Uncontrollable Christmas. — Bilorv (talk) 23:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Per a comment in the nom, I propose Template:Did you know nominations/Shalom chaverim for Christmas Eve. I thought it was too late, also have already half a nom in the set, and would prefer it on New Years Day, or any day in 2024. But see comment.

I boldly moved Cross Temple, Fangshan to Prep 6 to make room another Christmas hook, as it seems we have many candidates above. I am also amenable to moving Willem Lange to Queue 6 (Christmas Eve) to allow another slot on Christmas Day. Shalom chaverim might also be a Christmas Eve candidate because it was recorded on the eve. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  • @AirshipJungleman29: reverted my action above, and proposed running nine hooks on Christmas. Considering the number of Christmas hooks proposed above, this might need to be discussed further. Does the community want to run Cross Temple, Fangshan on Christmas? How many hooks do we want to have in the Christmas set? Z1720 (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
    It would be great to run Nikolauskirche (Oberndorf) on Christmas Eve as it is the 205th anniversary of the premiere of Silent Night there. Thriley (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
    • Cross Temple, Fangshan was requested to run on December 24 or 25. Willem Lange was requested to run on December 24. Nikolauskirche, Oberndorf was requested to run on December 24. None of the hooks currently scheduled to run on December 24 are relevant to the day. Why is the solution to kick Cross Temple to Prep 6, to run Willem Lange on Christmas Day, and to ignore the Nikolauskirche completely? It seems to me like there is a much easier route, Z1720. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
      @AirshipJungleman29, I agree with @Z1720, Cross Temple should go to a different prep, it has zero to do with Christmas, and the fact the nom asked for one of those dates is immaterial.
      Nikolauskirche could run Christmas Eve, all it takes is for someone to feel like swapping it in.
      I object to a 9-hook set when at least one of the hooks has nothing to do with Christmas, which is the theme. Valereee (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I have promoted Nikolauskirche, Oberndorf into Queue 6; another editor will have to check the hook to ensure that the DYK criteria has been followed. Z1720 (talk) 14:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
    I checked it, and I actually swapped the hook for ALT1, which the reviewer had preferred, as it seemed less wordy and convoluted. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I have also moved Willem Lange to Queue 6 because it fit better with Christmas Eve. If ALT0 of Shalom chaverim is promoted, we can consider moving it to Queue 6, too. Z1720 (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: I think our readers may be puzzled as to why we are including Cross Temple, Fangshan in the set of Christmas hooks. Unless we have no more christmasy hooks? I agree with @Valereee: that an editor request does not require us to use it in the themed set. Bruxton (talk) 15:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Do you have a suitable replacement, or are you willing to run with only six hooks Bruxton? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: I count eight at the moment. It can be swapped out in the queue if a better candidate emerges. Bruxton (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I suggest you recount. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Time to get the Christmas Day set ready to be promoted to Queue

At the moment, Prep 7's incompleteness is blocking its promotion to Queue 7, and in turn has gummed up the prep-to-queue promotions and is preventing further promotions to preps in general. The set needs to be completed with no blank hooks—if we don't have nine hooks now, then eight is fine—and promoted. Once it's in place as Queue 7, it can be given all the edits and exchanges and additions and subtractions needed—we seem to have plenty of admins around working on the set. If necessary, a non-Christmas hook can be moved in temporarily; we should certainly not queue up any set with blank entries. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I agree with the urgency of the queue promotion. I promoted one hook which brings us to 8. I was bold and reduced it to 8 hooks and if other changes are needed it can happen in the queue. Bruxton (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith has completed the promotion to Queue 7. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Bruxton, no matter how urgent, an unapproved nomination should not have been promoted, as you did with Template:Did you know nominations/Phyllis Boyens: the hook, at 223 prose characters, is way too long, and the reviewer had not given the nomination a final tick. RoySmith, giving you a heads-up, since you've already promoted Prep 7 to Queue 7, and I can't deal with this issue myself now that it requires admin privileges. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
My apologies to all, I thought it was the most Christmassy of the group. Checked it for copyvio and confirmed the hook. Missed that it was not ticked. I can help sort the mess. Bruxton (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith and Z1720: For the hook I suggest removing the Loretta Lynn name drop and trimming to:
  • I like ALT0a better. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
    Promoted. I think Grandfather Indian works better than Cross Temple. Valereee (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Note, article title is now Grandpa Indian per talk page discussion. Viriditas (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with Valereee. Cross Temple is not a Christmas hook and Grandfather Indian would be better in this set. Z1720 (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @Z1720 and Valereee: I agree with a change - pinging the @DYK admins: . Since Z1720 reviewed the nomination they cannot promote it and since Valeree ivoted here they are likely involved. We have 21.5 hours before the queue runs. Bruxton (talk) 02:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
    I have time and will read the above to figure out what needs doing. Schwede66 02:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I've swapped in ALT0a for Phyllis Boyens. Schwede66 02:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Oops we needed a different action. Grandpa Indian add3ed to queue 7 in place of the Cross Temple, Fangshan hook Bruxton (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
ALT0a above is different to what was in Q7. Valereee or anyone else, shall I revert to what was there? Beyond that, I've moved Cross Temple, Fangshan to Prep7 and promoted Grandpa Indian to Q7. I'll now do the checks for the latter. Schwede66 02:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Schwede66: I think the Phyllis Boyens hook works either way but maybe leave the way it was since it got workshopped somewhere else after this thread. Happy holidays to you in NZ! Bruxton (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy holidays (to all) in return. I've done the admin checks and there's a bit of AGF necessary (re copyvio and the "gifts" part of the hook) due to my inability to read Portuguese. I shall restore the first part of the work as requested. This should thus all be done. Schwede66 03:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Schwede! Valereee (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

2024

Presently building preps 7 and 1. I wondered if we might have any New Years Day or 2024 related hooks. If we do not have any do not worry about it; I think we are still not done with the Dec 25 set from what I read above. Bruxton (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thank you, I checked that one out just now and promoted to Prep 7. Since it is for New Years Eve I might swap it with a hook in Prep 6. Bruxton (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Bruxton, I was thinking that the big New Zealand hook would be an interesting way to end this year or start next year; it will probably be approved to WP:DYKNA in the next day or two. Of course, given its length, there probably won't be more than four hooks in total in that set. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Good to know. Maybe we should take our direction from the kiwis? Bruxton (talk) 15:05, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps. December 31 might actually be more appropriate, because for NZ that will be half in 2023 and half in 2024. Thoughts @DrThneed and Schwede66:? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, New Zealand shuts down completely over the Christmas/ New Year holidays. Many people do zone out from everything and won’t follow the news etc. The one possible exception is the announcement of the 2024 New Year Honours, which is usually released on 31 December. With that date falling on a Sunday this year, the list will be released on 30 December instead, although I doubt many people will know about it. So from a Kiwi perspective, the MP item coming out on 31 December would be missed by most locals as they are on holiday. People will return to normal from 8 January onwards. If you want to run this as a year end item, I won’t mind. If there is queue shuffling required when we get to it, I’m happy to help. I’m not sure that we’ll hear from DrThneed; her parents are visiting from the other end of the world at present. Schwede66 18:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh ok, that's very good to know. I'm obviously involved too so can't promote: I'll leave it up to Bruxton and the other promoters. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Queue 2

International Championship Wrestling (Mississippi)

@Chipmunkdavis, FuzzyMagma, and PrimalMustelid:

There are two passages that require citations: I have marked these with a cn tag. Since the creator of the article is an IP, I have left a message on their talk page. Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Turbo Dismount

@Captain Galaxy, Launchballer, Firefangledfeathers, and PrimalMustelid:

The source used for this hook in the article is a video, but the location of the information is no evident. Can someone give me a timestamp so I can verify this information?

Also, there's a sentence that requires a citation: I have labelled it with a cn tag. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The word 'bankruptcy' appears at about 3:04. I heartily recommend the 'Show transcript' button. I considered that phrase a fair summary of the Updates section, although perhaps it should come out as off-topic.--Launchballer 16:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Launchballer, I didn't know about the transcript function on YouTube. The verification concern is resolved, just need a citation for that sentence. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The quote that needed the citation has since been removed due to lack of support from citations. CaptainGalaxy 17:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
I do not see other uncited passages so I consider the above resolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Lake Patzcuaro salamander

@Etriusus, Thriley, and Bruxton:

There is a sentence that requires a citation: I have labelled it with a cn tag. Z1720 (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: It looks like a paragraph lead sentence/summary but I will wait for the primary editors before editing the article myself. Bruxton (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
This is Etriusus (I’m very far from my computer for the holidays). I’ll resolve this tomorrow when I get home. This is a bit of a semantics issues, the article says “this does not occur naturally.”
Compare this to:
FN 16- “Metamorphosis in nature has not been observed”
I’ll qualify that sentence to ‘metamorphosis has not been observed in the wild’ or something to that effect and be more granular with the sourcing. (Will ping when done)
2600:100D:B088:51A5:B0D4:660C:3233:6B1 (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
@Etriusus, Thriley, and Z1720: I have removed the uncited sentence because this runs tonight. The sentence can be restored if it can be cited. I first tried to find the source which would support the sentence but I was unsuccessful. Bruxton (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Queue 3

Clarence McGeary

@BeanieFan11, Tails Wx, PrimalMustelid, and Ravenpuff:

After the hook's promotion, Ravenpuff copyedited the hook with this edit and caused it to exceed 200 characters. Is there anything in the hook that can be taken out or changed to get it back under 200 characters? Z1720 (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Changing "Clarence McGeary was a football player and coach" to "the football player and coach Clarence McGeary" would help it flow better anyway, not sure if that'll get it below 200.--Launchballer 01:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Would it be accurate to say he "possessed" a Purple Heart? I reckon that would be 200 dead.--Launchballer 01:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I went with the former suggestion, which is 198 characters. I'm not sure it is the best solution, so I wouldn't mind reading other editors' thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 23:54, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Detrans (short film)

@TechnoSquirrel69, Nathan121212, and PrimalMustelid:

While the article talks about the film being advertised on Twitter, I could not find where it specifically stated that the hashtag was used as part of the marketing campaign. Can you point out where this is, or can this be explicitly added and sourced in the article? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

It's mentioned several times in the cited source as well as many other sources. You can see more about the promotional hashtag and a screenshot of their campaign here. They paid $1 million to take advantage of the "Timeline Takeover" placement ad feature which used the hashtag #DETRANS in the banner and forced it on all users. As you can see from the screenshot of the marketing campaign, the hashtag is prominently featured. When it began to trend, hashtag activists took over the promoted hashtag to run a counter-narrative. Most of the mainstream sources cover this. Viriditas (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Another source confirming that Prager bought ads on twitter for the movie here. It's an inline citation in the article too. Nathan121212 (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
PS Ignore that, I see my source uses Viriditas's linked article which should be a sufficient enough reference. Nathan121212 (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@Nathan121212: Thank you for pointing out where this is stated in the sources. However, I still cannot find where the Wikipedia article states that #DETRANS was used to promote the film. Can this be added to the article? Z1720 (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
I could probably help out. Viriditas (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Done.[9] Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
The above concern is resolved. Thanks everyone. Z1720 (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Queue 4

Sophie von Maltzan

@SeoR, Pi.1415926535, and PrimalMustelid:

There is a sentence that needs a citation, which I have indicated with a cn tag. Z1720 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

On the case, thanks. 19:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC) SeoR (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
The above concern seems to have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Shootings of Sydney Land and Nehemiah Kauffman (nom)

I think we'll need some extra eyes on this one to get it unstuck. At issue is this cited source from the Toronto Sun, and whether it's reliable. Thoughts appreciated :) (cc StonyBrook) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow @Theleekycauldron:. I just read the names now and I can say that I know of this case through Sydney Land's mother (Connie Hagler Land). I do not know CHL personally but I come across her messages because she has been campaigning for justice. I am not sure I have time but will see if I can make time to look at the article and nomination concerns; of course others with more time available are also welcome to check. Bruxton (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I have a lot of issues with this. The first one is Doug Poppa and the Baltimore Post-Examiner. Have a look at this article which is used here. It starts off normally, but look where it goes half-way through as Poppa veers off into a personal-opinion rant about the police department ("Shame on you Metro Police / Wow, what the hell is going on in this case / This is a disgrace"). This reporter, whose articles are used many times, does this is pretty much all of his stuff (i.e. here ("That is extremely disturbing to me. I believe that there is much more to Tobiasson and her daughter Sarah’s involvement in the homicide case." - I mean, wow). A look at Poppa's recent output shows that it mostly seems to be about UFO sightings.
Also, timelines. In the lead paragraph we have "as of January 2023 no arrests had been made in the killings of Land and Kauffman." - that's a year ago. As regards Valentine, we have " As of August 2019, he remained incarcerated at Warm Springs Correctional Center on the firearms charges." - that's four years ago. And as I said at ERRORS, I also have issues with "committed suicide" in the hook; given the quote from the deceased ("If I wind up dead, remember I wasn't suicidal.") we do not use that phrase in the article, saying instead that her death was "ruled a suicide". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Kite (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Thanks for the message. Do you think that editing can overcome these issues? I noticed that the article needs to be tightened up - I edited a bit of the lead just now. Bruxton (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh, almost certainly, but I think it'd take a bit of work. Getting the timeline into shape, removing anything that's solely sourced to BPE (the tabloidy stuff really needs trimming anyway) and making sure everything is up to date. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this Black Kite. Back on November 8, I proposed the following ALT to address your concerns: ... that six years after Sydney Land and her boyfriend were shot to death, both her mother and a judge friend who took an interest in the investigation were found dead of gunshot wounds? As far as the timeline goes, those were the absolute latest dates I could find in the sources available to me (there is more updated info on the person of interest in this source, as well as verification of the judge's quote, but honestly I was hesitant to use it due to WP:NYPOST). In regards to Poppa, I'm not familiar with the UFO stuff, but his credentials as an investigative reporter seem solid. I was very careful to steer clear of any speculative language he used, dealing only with the hard facts and using attribution where needed. StonyBrook babble 05:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Global Engagement Center

What is happening with Template:Did you know nominations/Global Engagement Center? It was approved on December 1,[10], and moved to prep area 2.[11] It was then raked by Theleekycauldron on December 3 to queue 3,[12], but for some reason it was deleted from that queue on December 5.[13] Can we get it reinstated back into the queue please? Viriditas (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I've put it back into Approved. I can't pshaw it because six out of seven preps are full and the other already has four US hooks and I can't promote prep 6 because it's got one of mine in it.--Launchballer 19:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
my bad, I forgot to put that back in dykn! My issue was that the approved slightly non neutral hook, along with much of the article, rests on non-independent sources. I see that some of that was cleaned up in review, but not enough for showtime. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
When I completed the review, somewhere on the order of 20 independent sources had been added, per my insistence, accounting for almost half of all sources in the article. Additionally, the hook in question was neutral and supported by independent sources. I made this clear in my reply to one of the objections to my closing review. Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
half? articles should be predominantly based on independent sources. also, the article contains what in any corporate article would be categorized as "cruft", and that makes up for a lot of the content sourced to the government. I suggest it be pared back significantly. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
You’re distorting what I wrote. I did not comment on the applicability of WP:PSTS (which nowhere says "predominantly", you may be confusing it with notability). I commented specifically on the state of the article when I came to it as a nominator. The fact that half of the sources are now secondary is acceptable depending solely on how they are used, not on the notion of a basic headcount, which of course varies depending on what they support. I also dispute your characterization of the hook as non-neutral. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Update: New reviewer requested. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Queue 1

George Willis Pack

@Rublamb, Hameltion, and AirshipJungleman29:

I have added a citation needed tag next to a sentence; a citation will need to be placed or the sentence removed before it appears on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I removed the sentence in question. Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Nomination Ping promotor Narutolovehinata5 Bruxton (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The above issue is resolved. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Queue 7

Artificial planet

@Piotrus, TheLonelyPather, and Lightburst:

With this edit, the page has been changed from an article to a disambiguation page. I have pinged the editor who performed this edit on the page's talk page. Please note that this hook might need to be pulled until this situation is resolved, or the bolded text might need to point to a different page. Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The editor who did the disambiguation responded very quickly, and I think we have determined the mix-up. I reverted the disambiguation of artificial planet, so this is back to being an article and doesn't need to be pulled. Z1720 (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Z1720 Lightburst (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Not technically a DYK issue, but how can a hook about artificial planets not include ringworld? Maybe we could do:

... that some artificial planets are inside-out?

which would at least be worthy of the quirky slot. RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Cross Temple, Fangshan

@Schwede66 I'm trying to understand the history here. This was in Queue 7 once before but you moved it back to a prep in Special:Diff/1191528110. Was there a problem the last time? If so, did it get fixed? RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith, this had been placed in the Christmas set, but even though requested for that date it wasn't really a Christmas hook, and consensus here on the talk page was to replace it in that set with an actual Christmas-related hook when one became available. I am unaware of any issues with the hook or article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, the edit summary could have been more meaningful. This was moved just to make room for another hook; there were no other issues. Schwede66 16:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

E. S. Brusky

This will be two Greenbay Packers hooks in consecutive days. Maybe this should be run another day?

And while I'm here, the hook says "at least the first nine years" but the article says "at least the first decade".

RoySmith Nomination I see the discrepancy now. I thought we were safe to say "at least the first nine" because the source supporting that fact said "almost ten years". Our article said although for at least the first decade the position was unpaid which I now see was not accurate. I edited our article so that it matches the source and hook.
I also did not see an issue with running Packers hooks in two consecutive sets but if you like I can look to separate them. Also pinging Gonzo fan2007 so that they can follow the concerns. Bruxton (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
As a general rule, it's better to keep more variety from day to day. I just raised the question here in case somebody else felt a need to address this. RoySmith (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Switch Disco

RoySmith, the song title "Everything" was changed from quoted to italics, but per MOS:MINORWORK it should be in double quotes. Can you please change it back? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

TIL :-) RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Maintenance tag

@DYK admins: On the main page right now is a DYK article with a tag. December 2017 North American winter storm. During RFA someone templated the nominators weather articles and this one was in the queue and went live about a half hour ago. What should we do about this maintenance template? Bruxton (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

If it's not justified, then remove it. If it is justified, then we'll pull the hook. Schwede66 00:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I've removed it. I don't think the cites to the storm events database are excessive myself, with lots of secondary sourcing also present.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
@Amakuru: That was the right move IMO. I also just looked at the article talk page and see that editors mentioned several secondary sources to show WP:LASTING. The nominator has had enough punches at their unsuccessful RFA. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Need second set of eyes

@RoySmith: Per this previous discussion, I made this change to the hook in the queue. Please support me or revert me depending on where you stand. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Looks good to me. RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: I think it works and thanks for notifying us! Bruxton (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

22 December wish

Composer Carl Friedrich Abel was born on 22 December 1723, 300 years ago, and a new catalogue of his works appeared this year: Template:Did you know nominations/Catalogue of Works of Carl Friedrich Abel. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Catalogue of Works of Carl Friedrich Abel: four hooks are now approved. We don't have a 300th birthday often. Is there a chance to get it in on his birthday? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

asking again

asking again, having listened to two hours, music and interview, on Deutschlandfunk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Just to say I am happy for my Bou hook to be delayed to make room for this.--Launchballer 21:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! It would need an admin, and perhaps more than one supports for the idea. The day is tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
@DYK admins: Please delay my Bou hook and replace it with this.--Launchballer 11:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
  • While I am not opposed to the special occasion request itself, it was probably unnecessary to make multiple requests across several days and pinging users or admins for the request to be granted. Admins are very busy and requesting them to make changes with such a short notice can be seen as inconvenient. One message was probably enough: asking about the request three times on three separate days may be overkill and could be misinterpreted as being begging by other editors. Special occasion requests, while desired, aren't always granted, and when it happens, it's regrettable but it's not a major loss (note I'm speaking in general here rather than this specific request). Admins will respond to discussion sooner or later, pings like that are probably unnecessary unless it's something that needs urgent fixing, like for example an issue with sets or a hook that needs to be pulled. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
    I would not have asked multiple times and places if this initial request from 10 December had been acknowledged. This may be the only time in my life of this kind of significance. What will our readers think if we present this hook in 2024, instead of the birthday? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
    Does it really matter if it runs tomorrow or in 2024? The hook itself doesn't need to be on the birthday itself; it running on his birthday would just be a bonus. Indeed, readers may not even be aware that tomorrow is his birthday, so regardless if it runs or not tomorrow, I don't really think most would even think about the date the hook runs. As in, it wouldn't matter to them if it ran tomorrow or in 2024.
    Like I said earlier, I'm not against it running tomorrow, it's just that it's not a major loss if the request isn't granted in time since the hook wording itself is not time dependent. Remember that admins are busy and making requests like this at such a relatively short notice can be quite inconvenient since it would require some work and energy.
    In addition, when I brought up how it may not be appropriate to make multiple requests about special occasions on several days, I wasn't specifically talking about this nomination but in general. Indeed, the opinion would also apply to other editors who may have special occasion requests and have brought it up multiple times. I'm sure many of us have been guilty of doing this at least once in the past (I can admit to have done it myself before), but regardless, making multiple requests to grant a special occasion date may not be a good idea depending on the circumstances. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
    The preferred hook (of 4 approved) says "where he was born on 22 December 1723" which makes sense (and a lot of sense imho) only that day. I also wonder what readers may think if they read some day in January that the book was created for his tercentenary (as the other 3 hooks say) and find that it was in the past. It's "no major loss", but looks as if Wikipedia was not good in timing. - That's my last appeal at common sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Same topic, 28 December

A hook was promoted to prep 5 by User:AirshipJungleman29, without image, and an edit summary saying that the hook was too boring for an image, and modified there. I suggested to unpromote the topic, and look for a better hook in the nomination, suggesting: ALT2a: ... that the new Catalogue of Works of Carl Friedrich Abel, describing now 420 compositions of the viol virtuoso (pictured), was introduced at a festival for his tercentenary?

  • trying to avoid the repetitions (of catalogue and the composer's name)
  • trying to say that it's not just a list of works but a book with 420 detailed descriptions (+ indexes, timeline, illustrations ...)
  • mention instead that Abel was a virtuoso on the viol - he was the last, btw. - If the image was taken, that rare instrument could be gathered from it.

I believe that the image alone is interesting and therefore should be shown:

  • It provides the information that he was famous enough to be portrayed by a leading artist of the period.
  • It shows the period (without extra words).
  • It shows his high social status (without extra words).
  • It shows him as a player as well as a composer (without extra words).
  • It adds that the centre of life of this German musician was London (without extra words).
  • It is a great image, worth showing to our curious readers.
  • I love the little dog, - it adds so much about the person (without extra words).

I beg you to consider that we deal with a notable musician around his tercentenary, and a great scientific book about him and his works. Can we please either discuss hook and image here, or in a reopened nomination, the latter giving us more time? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Couple of clarifications: this is concerning Template:Did you know nominations/Catalogue of Works of Carl Friedrich Abel, which was promoted to prep 4, not prep 5; the edit summary did not say "that the hook was too boring for an image"; the modifications were done later by Ravenpuff; and the suggestion above was put forward at my talk.
My position was that a) I could not unilaterally replace a hook, thus serving as both reviewer and promoter, and b) as we receive roughly twice as many picture hooks as DYK can run, around half have to be promoted without images; it is very clearly unsustainable to do otherwise. It also seems unfair to me if hooks get to be de-promoted after nomination and held indefinitely upon nominator's request. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Picture hooks are always at the discretion of the promoter, and while we all desire to see our image hooks to be on the front page, demand is higher than supply and not all requests can be accommodated. It's disappointing whenever it happens, speaking as someone who has experienced this feeling multiple times. However, it's ultimately the promoter's decision on whether or not to promote (or demote) a hook with regards to the image slot, and the nominator's requests, while should be noted, in practice can't always be granted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I am also a bit disturbed by what seems to be proposed here: unpromoting a hook just because the nominator is unhappy with it not being in the image slot, with the request to be promoted to an image slot later on. Doing this would open a can of worms and set a precedent that we would ideally not want to be common: hooks being promoted or unpromoted per the nominator's request just because they are unhappy with its placement, or not accepting anything other than an image slot. Prep building is already difficult as is, and accommodating requests like this, especially if other editors decide to do something similar, could result in all sorts of situations that would ultimately just lead to more work and burden on prep builders, who are already swamped with work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I did this as an exception, because I don't think there will be any other image as worthy of presentation to our readers in my lifetime. I hoped the promoter would understand that, but was told to go here. We missed seeing this image in OTD, on the day of his tercentenary because blurbs are not done for births, and images are only done for blurbs. So I went to DYK, see above. We missed the day. I would like to have the image at least later, because of our readers, but was told to make the composer a GA to make it happen. Rather than trying that, I came here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Does it really matter if Abel is not an image hook? The hook will still be featured on the Main Page, isn't that what's important? You have to understand that nominators can't get everything what they want, and if things don't go their way (this includes nominations failing, a non-preferred hook being promoted, or even not being promoted to the image slot), it can be disappointing but nominators have to move on. It's not the end of the world.
I'm also going to be honest here. Most if not almost all if not even virtually all of our readers, if it was in the image slot, would not even notice or care about any of the details you brought up. At the end of the day, it isn't the context that matters to the promoter, it's if they think the image would be a good fit to be featured. To others, they would have just seen the picture as a painting of a composer, and I doubt they would know or care about the context behind it, much like readers generally don't care about the contexts of other image hooks.
You have to let this go. You have to understand that you cannot always get what you want, and asking editors to adhere to your wishes to the point of, in your own words on the 28th, begging, will either leave a bad taste on other editors' mouths, or paradoxically may only make editors more disinclined to fulfil your wishes. You already have somewhat of a reputation for getting upset when editors do not agree with your wishes or your requests are not granted, and this whole discussion is probably not helping with that reputation. Again, it may be disappointing if it is ultimately not featured as the image hook, but at the end of the day, it will still be featured and that's what matters. It's not a major loss nor a big deal in the long run. Besides, there will always be other opportunities for your other nominations to be featured as an image hook. This isn't the end of the world. And your experience is far from being yours alone: even I and many others here have had similar experiences in the past, but it doesn't mean we have to sulk about it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year everyone

Given that it's already January 1 over here as well as in places like Australia and New Zealand, I'd like to greet everyone a happy new year and a job well done for 2023. Here's to a 2024 full of good hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy NY from New Zealand! Schwede66 16:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year Narutolovehinata5. Thanks for always toiling in the noms. Raise a glass to another year of making this corner of the front page interesting. Bruxton (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Shubinator (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about half a day ago, so as the new year begins, 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 November 27. We have a total of 298 nominations, of which 94 have been approved, a gap of 204 nominations that has increased by 11 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than two months old

More than one month old

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) 03:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Die Kuranten (nom)

@Kazamzam and Launchballer: I've substituted "first" for "oldest" in this hook since I think it might be misread as implying that the newspaper is still in publication – I'm aware that there has been some discussion about the "oldest Jewish newspaper" claim, but I hope that this change still makes sense despite that. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Use of "first" in hooks should be deprecated. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
@Viriditas: I want to encourage you to help with promotions. Get the pshaw tool and have at it! Happy 2024! Bruxton (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Triassosculda

@AirshipJungleman29 @Abdullah raji @PrimalMustelid The article doesn't say anything about April. Also, missing an end-of-sentence citation. RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the source again it seems to have been published on the last day of March rather than April. Also which sentence needs the extra citation? Olmagon (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The article has to say that Triassosculda was discovered in March 2023, and that sentence needs a citation to the source which supports that statement. And once that happens, then the hook needs to be changed to also say March. RoySmith (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Stephanie of Courtenay

@AirshipJungleman29, Surtsicna, and Johnson524: the hook says "divorced", the article says "annulled". Those are not the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You learn something every day. Perhaps "... that when her niece's marriage to the king of Jerusalem was annulled ..."? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I've updated the hook in the queue. I'm not entirely happy with the wording, but at least it matches what the article says now. If somebody has better wording, go for it. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Actually, the more I look at this, the less I'm happy with the hook at all. Surely we can find something to say about the subject herself, rather than her niece? RoySmith (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
An alternative hook was proposed. Surtsicna (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The Chequers, Potters Bar

@AirshipJungleman29, JacobTheRox, and Whispyhistory: CANR/whatpub does not strike me as a WP:RS. And the "only" claim is similar to the "first", "biggest", etc kinds of claims in that it's almost impossible to verify. And certainly not from a bloggy sitle like whatpub. This hook seems problematic. RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  • The CAMRA site is the blog of the local branch, and whatpub is WP:UGC (there's even a "submit updates" button). The hook may well be true, but it's not well sourced. Actually, I'm not even sure the subject is notable, but that's a separate discussion. Black Kite (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith, @Black Kite: thank you for your concerns. I understand the problem with the hook being a first/biggest/only, but I disagree with the idea that the sources are not WP:RS. Reference:
Middlewood, Les (2019). "A pint at the local #13 The Chequers, Potters Bar". CAMRA. Archived from the original on 23 May 2022. Retrieved 4 November 2023.
(reference 5 on the page) is a publication in the form of a news report by CAMRA. It is a reliable, independent, published source, as as necessitated at WP:RS.
Reference 7 on the page ("Chequers, Potters Bar". whatpub.com. Retrieved 2023-10-25.) is by WhatPub, the reliability of which was discussed at this RFC. The conclusion was that it was not WP:UGC, because "updates" that users could enter are simply suggestions to a team of reviewers. The source was considered appropriate for use on the page, and is used in many other places on Wikipedia. As User:Banks Irk said, CAMRA has a number of other publications, including books and periodicals, published over decades.
If there are any other issues with the article you would like to discuss, please don't hesitate as I want nothing more than to see the article on DYK! Kind regards, JacobTheRox (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
That RFC also says, "What they do in terms of actual editorial oversight of WhatPub is a mystery". I'd be inclined to accept it for non-controversial facts within their area of expertise, but a statement like "was the only pub in the UK with traffic lights in its car park" is controversial because we have experience with statements like this ending up to be wrong. Also, the distribution of traffic lights in car parks is probably not something the WhatPub staff are experts in. This has all the hallmarks of an urban legend; it sounds fun, and people keep repeating it, but there's no real proof. RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Whatpub is not a reliable source. Anyone who's on the committee of their local CAMRA branch can edit this information, and in my experience, it mostly comes from people's own research, at best with help from local historians (but most of the time from things they hear about pubs being opened, closed etc). Definitely WP:UGC. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Plus, most of the History section is almost word-for-word from the https://southherts.camra.org.uk/ source. Certainly WP:CLOP, possibly into WP:G12 territory. Given the sourcing problem above, I don't see how we can run with this. RoySmith (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree... article needs a whole rewrite. Whispyhistory (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
This disagrees with you - 16.7% is still pretty high I guess, but I'm working on ce the article now. Surely WP:G12 needs a lot higher percentage than that! JacobTheRox (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Don't just look at the big number at the top. Read the text and compare it to the source. For example, "The Chequers pub originally occupied the building across the road from the current site." is essentially the same sentence as "The original Chequers pub occupied a building opposite", but earwig doesn't pick it up because some of the words have been rearranged. It's like that for the rest of the section. That's WP:CLOP. RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I realize this was very last minute, but I just noticed that the problems raised here still hadn't been addressed, so I pulled the hook. RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Julia Figueredo

@AirshipJungleman29, Krisgabwoosh, and Mary Mark Ockerbloom: I'm concerned about the hook for two reasons. From a DYK nitpicky rules point of view, the hook fact is buried in a note; I'm not sure if that meets our requirements. But more importantly, Figueredo is notable for having been elected to national office, not for being a midwife. And the hook isn't even about her being a midwife, it's a commentary on the social status of midwives in Bolivian society. I don't see running that kind of hook. RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Of all my nominations, this one is admittedly the largest stretch between hook and article content – the original version didn't even include Figueredo's name. While interesting on its own, I think I can get behind your reasoning, and perhaps I can circle back to this hook when – I don't know – I write an article on midwives or something.
If I were to write a new hook more closely aligned with the article, how would I go about doing that. A re-nomination now probably exceeds the seven day rule, unless an exception can be made there. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Hooks get rehashed at the last minute all the time. Just suggest some alternates here on this thread. Reading through the article, maybe:
ALT2: ... that Julia Figueredo was the first indigenous woman to be elected president of La Paz's parliamentary delegation?
RoySmith (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Krisgabwoosh and RoySmith: Confirming that ALT2 is stated and cited in the article. I would be tempted to add "In 2013" to the hook. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
    I would prefer to leave the "in 2013" off. The goal of a hook is to entice somebody into clicking on the link to read the article. Adding the year into the hook isn't going to make it more enticing. RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
    I can get behind this hook – without "in 2013" – but linking "La Paz" to the article on La Paz Department (Bolivia) to avoid confusion with the city of La Paz. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
    I've replaced the hook with ALT2, with the La Paz Department (Bolivia) link as suggested. RoySmith (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Poison: Iitai Koto mo Ienai Konna Yo no Naka wa

@AirshipJungleman29, IanTEB, and Lullabying: We're stating something in wiki voice based on a blog post. I know this is the quirky slot, but I'm not sure it gives us that much latitude. RoySmith (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  • The source attached to the hook sentence is indeed a blog, but there's a Mashable reference [14] near the end of the section which appears OK. Mashable is OK for pop culture content (see RSN discussion here). Perhaps the ref should be moved to the first paragraph of that section as well. Black Kite (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  • If this refers to Internet Watch: they are a part of Impress Watch, which was listed as reliable on WP:VGRS, so I figured it was OK to use. Even if internet Watch isn't reliable (there was no real discussion on the VG project and the author name isn't a fantastic sign), tons of replacements are available: the above mentioned Mashable article, Oricon, The TV (published by Kadokawa Corporation), brief mention in Billboard Japan, and probably a few more. IanTEB (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Today's DYK isn't actually something to 'know'?

Why is it notable that one random journalist, with no expertise in linguistics, made the exaggerated claim that 'Geordie Greep has an accent that has been described as "geographically unclassifiable"?' As a native Londoner, that's a load of rubbish. He is clearly speaking in MLE (Multicultural London English) with some sort of lisp/minor speech impediment. I guess you can say that MLE is by its definition geographically unclassifiable, but its also a very common and well established accent, and this DYK makes it seems like he sounds so unusual. I just do not understand how this off-handed comment that one journalist said casually is now front page of wikipedia? FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

His article itself even states 'raised in Walthamstow. He has considered his upbringing in the town beneficial, citing its cultural diversity as "brilliant for a young person" '. This almost confirms for sure that he is speaking MLE as 1. That accent/dialect is spoken widely in areas like Walthamstow and 2. He states explicitly how much the many different cultures in London influenced him and 'raised him', which is by definition where the MLE accent comes from. FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, this seems like even less than trivia. Uninteresting and possibly insulting. Why wasn't an actual fact such as that he met his band mates at school or that his interest in playing guitar started with a video game used instead? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

We need to be more willing to reject nominations if they are stuck or are unsuitable for DYK

One of the recurring issues with DYK, and one that helps contribute to DYK's large backlog, is that nominations often sit around for ages with little-to-no progress being made. In some cases, it's for reasons beyond anyone's control, such as reviewers being unwilling to review them. However, in cases where a review is ongoing but progress on addressing the nomination is slow, we need to be more proactive or at least willing to reject them. These stuck nominations often turn into time sinks when efforts and energy could instead be diverted to more urgent matters or nominations that need the attention. This of course does not mean we should automatically reject "stuck" nominations; sometimes they're stuck for understandable reasons. However, we do need to be more willing to reject them if they cannot be brought to standard within a reasonable standard.

Similarly, we also need to be more willing to reject nominations if the hook proposed, or the hooks proposed, are not suitable. For example, they either don't meet the interestingness criterion, or they are all unsuitable due to being inaccurate, unclear, or lacking proper sourcing. If an article simply does not have enough suitable material to base a hook, we should be more willing to reject these nominations, instead of trying to squeeze out hooks that in the end may not actually be that good of a hook and were only proposed just for the sake of there being a hook and the article passing.

I understand that in both cases, nominators' feelings may be hurt. This is understandable and we probably have all felt the feeling of disappointment or frustration if things don't go our way on DYK. But we have to work for the good of the encyclopedia, and especially on DYK, the interests of our readership should be above all, even if it may come at the expense of hurt feelings. Disappointment is understandable, but editors need to learn to move on from such cases and perhaps find another outlet for their efforts. Perhaps the article just wasn't right for DYK but it can mean more energy and effort to contribute more suitable material. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Couldn’t agree more. Schwede66 14:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Same here. But I'll add that I'm a lot more willing to put in effort to teach a new submitter how this works than to argue with an old hand who's just insisting on getting their way. RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Prep 1

Die Kuranten

  • @PrimalMustelid, Kazamzam, and Launchballer: This is another one of those problematic "first" hooks. How do we know for sure there weren't any previous Jewish newspapers? Has somebody done a comprehensive survey of all Jewish journalism for the past 5000 or so years? I see @Schwede66: brought this point up in the nom page but apparently was overruled. Skimming the nom, it looks like more attention was given to finding an interesting hook than to finding a verifiably accurate one. RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
    • RoySmith, see also above, where "oldest" was changed to "first" after promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
      There's no fundamental difference between "first" and "oldest". Both are claims that there were no Jewish newspapers before this one, which is difficult or impossible to verify. RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
    I guess I said my piece already. Schwede66 02:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    @RoySmith: usually, we have to go through the original-research ringer on these because newspapers are too quick on the draw to declare something the first – but I think the academic sourcing is solid. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Does someone mind slightly altering the phrasing of this hook to be shorter. See my suggestion:

Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Dolly de Leon

@Pseud 14, MaranoFan, and Bruxton:

Both the article and the source say that de Leon was the first Filipino nominated for Best Supporting Actress (BAFTA) and Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in Any Motion Picture (GG). This hook needs to reflect that distinction. Z1720 (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720, MaranoFan, and Bruxton: IMO the hook is fine as it is. De Leon is recognized for being the first Filipino to have been nominated for either awards in any category as mentioned in article. These sources also suggest that De Leon made history as the first Filipino talent to be nominated for a Golden Globe award and the first Filipina to be nominated for a BAFTA, without distinction to a role/category. The hook appears to be succinct as promoted/edited by the DYK promoter(s). Pseud 14 (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Pseud 14: The source used in the article made the distinction. I don't want to run a hook with two sources in disagreement. Are there other sources that can clarify? I'm not looking for anonymity; if the majority of sources say de Leon was the first Filipino nominated in any category, then it can run. Z1720 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Z1720: I've replaced that source with the two sources listed above. Ref 56 and 57. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Pseud 14: Replacing the sources in the article doesn't satisfy my concerns, because I know there is a source that contradicts this hook. Since this is an extraordinary claim, there must have been other outlets that discussed her achievement with these nominations. Are there other sources that specify that she is the first Filipino ever to be nominated for these two awards, and not just for these specific categories? Z1720 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Z1720: then we can just modify the hook to say for a Golden Globe and BAFTA for Best Supporting Actress. Every source Ive looked at mentions she is the first Filipino nominated in the category. To avoid ambiguity we can add the category if that is satisfies your concerns. I won’t have time to weed out every source that mention the same achievement, whether international or local publications. Please modify as you find fit. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Bruxton: modified hook : Alt1 ... that Dolly de Leon (pictured) was the first Filipino to be nominated for a Golden Globe or a BAFTA Award for Best Supporting Actress? Pseud 14 (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I have used the above ALT in the queue. Admin are welcome to make further changes without consulting me, including reverting if sources state that she is the first Filipino ever to be nominated. Z1720 (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Unless the previous source says that other Filipinos had previously been nominated for other category awards, that source does not contradict the original hook, it just provides further specificity to what she was nominated for. Just saying. Kingsif (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I considered that too, but then I thought "Saying that it was the first Filipino ever would be a better statement than first Filipino in the category, so why add the qualifier?" Statements about being the first to something have been criticised on DYK, so I want to be extra careful in this instance. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Robert Ballagh

@SeoR, Pbritti, and AirshipJungleman29: There are numerous unreferenced passages (marked with cn tags) and 4 cite errors in the references. These will need to be resolved before this appears on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I restored the version as the article appeared before the substantial edit warring and as it stood on the nom's approval. If the editors involved can't agree to keep the page stable and maintain references, I would like to lodge my withdrawal of approval for the nom and would encourage a DYK clerk to swap it for another hook. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I have also removed some material that appears to have been improperly cited and moved one citation in order to demonstrate that it verifies content that was otherwise without reference. I have some suspicion that a great deal of the citation-less material may have been verifiable, but given the edit warring and that this a BLP, I have removed it until it is demonstrated as appropriately referenced. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello all. I am sorry this is giving extra work. It *was* thoroughly reviewed - thanks to the two fellow editors involved - and approved in a stable form, as the record shows (13 Nov - 29 Dec, 99% unchanged). Last week, another editor noted some concerns about aspects of it being a bit detailed, and made some substantial edits - and to avoid edit warring, I made a few modest further edits and stepped back, keeping hands off it for some days now (so it stabilised again, aside from a couple of IP edits). I did suggest that the best bet might be to leave major editing until after DYK, to avoid complications, and maybe we could just agree that - we have had a good conversation about our writing approaches. @Hesperian Nguyen:, would you agree to wait until say 7 Jan, and then edit away? Between now and then, the only edits being to close any referencing gaps, for example? SeoR (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there was warring and I didn't know of the date for the DYK. (I still can't seem to see where this is listed? How to find out about this?). I think the page is not in great shape yet and needs work for reasons already discussed on its Talk. I can wait on more editing if it helps make the page better in the long run. Regards, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Hesperian Nguyen: Unfortunately, there's no automatic way that you'll be notified that the page will run at DYK (unless there's a tool/script I haven't seen before). However, a quick way to check if something is up to run at DYK soon is, if you see there is a DYK nom that's transcluded on the article talk page, seeing if the discussion has been closed (usually, it'll be all purple) but there is not notice at the top of the talk page that notes the day it ran at DYK. Generally, that'll mean it is in a prep or queue to run within two weeks. As for holding off on edits, I can't tell you not to edit an article–this is a collaborative project. However, page instability may preclude this article from running at DYK if issues are introduced. I'm glad that discussion seems to be proceeding civilly and effectively. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you all, and I agree, this proceeds in a good way. Then I propose that I go ahead and fix the referencing issues noted by fellow editors, leaving all other editing for other hands after DYK. I'm just back to work but given how soon Main Page appearance is, I will prioritise doing that tonight. SeoR (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
@Z1720:, I am happy to report that after a good efficient discussion above, the article is in compliant state, with references supplied for all of the noted items, except one, which I think is unnecessary to put back (it was about a family member rather than the subject). I re-sourced, as my notes from the leading source were unavailable (cloud storage!). I still hope to secure one artistic image, but that will only add. I will do one last ref. check. SeoR (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I checked the article again and the citation and referencing concerns seem to have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Shootings of Sydney Land and Nehemiah Kauffman (nom)

I think we'll need some extra eyes on this one to get it unstuck. At issue is this cited source from the Toronto Sun, and whether it's reliable. Thoughts appreciated :) (cc StonyBrook) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow @Theleekycauldron:. I just read the names now and I can say that I know of this case through Sydney Land's mother (Connie Hagler Land). I do not know CHL personally but I come across her messages because she has been campaigning for justice. I am not sure I have time but will see if I can make time to look at the article and nomination concerns; of course others with more time available are also welcome to check. Bruxton (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
I have a lot of issues with this. The first one is Doug Poppa and the Baltimore Post-Examiner. Have a look at this article which is used here. It starts off normally, but look where it goes half-way through as Poppa veers off into a personal-opinion rant about the police department ("Shame on you Metro Police / Wow, what the hell is going on in this case / This is a disgrace"). This reporter, whose articles are used many times, does this is pretty much all of his stuff (i.e. here ("That is extremely disturbing to me. I believe that there is much more to Tobiasson and her daughter Sarah’s involvement in the homicide case." - I mean, wow). A look at Poppa's recent output shows that it mostly seems to be about UFO sightings.
Also, timelines. In the lead paragraph we have "as of January 2023 no arrests had been made in the killings of Land and Kauffman." - that's a year ago. As regards Valentine, we have " As of August 2019, he remained incarcerated at Warm Springs Correctional Center on the firearms charges." - that's four years ago. And as I said at ERRORS, I also have issues with "committed suicide" in the hook; given the quote from the deceased ("If I wind up dead, remember I wasn't suicidal.") we do not use that phrase in the article, saying instead that her death was "ruled a suicide". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Kite (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Thanks for the message. Do you think that editing can overcome these issues? I noticed that the article needs to be tightened up - I edited a bit of the lead just now. Bruxton (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Oh, almost certainly, but I think it'd take a bit of work. Getting the timeline into shape, removing anything that's solely sourced to BPE (the tabloidy stuff really needs trimming anyway) and making sure everything is up to date. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this Black Kite. Back on November 8, I proposed the following ALT to address your concerns: ... that six years after Sydney Land and her boyfriend were shot to death, both her mother and a judge friend who took an interest in the investigation were found dead of gunshot wounds? As far as the timeline goes, those were the absolute latest dates I could find in the sources available to me (there is more updated info on the person of interest in this source, as well as verification of the judge's quote, but honestly I was hesitant to use it due to WP:NYPOST). In regards to Poppa, I'm not familiar with the UFO stuff, but his credentials as an investigative reporter seem solid. I was very careful to steer clear of any speculative language he used, dealing only with the hard facts and using attribution where needed. StonyBrook babble 05:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Striking the ALT per latest improvements to the article. See nom for ALT2 (modified) or ALT1. StonyBrook babble 13:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Poll: is this hook interesting?

Did you know ...

Let's make a scale from 0 to 3, 0 = not interesting at all, 1 = partly interesting, 2 = interesting, 3 very interesting. I'd be interested if you said so without looking at the nomination (to avoid bias) which can easily be found on the article talk page if wanted. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

1.5? I'm not so excited about the first half of the hook. I assume many (if not most) performers make their debut in some kind of children's event, so nothing there to pique my interest. Reading over the article I found "She appeared as both Venus and Gepopo" to be the most interesting thing, and I see that's the second half of what you proposed, so my recommendation is to emphasize that. RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
0. Combining two unrelated facts in a hook is normally to be avoided anyway, a singer starting in a children's chorus is very meh, and "she appeared as both Venus and Gepopo" is only interesting if you don't know that this is nearly mandatory, i.e. the composer has specifically indicated that the roles should be played by the same person, as was done by Sarah Aristidou (Needcompany), Barbara Hannigan, Hila Baggio in Dresden, Sara Hershkowitz, Susanna Andersson, ... By the way, the claim in the article that she performed in the German premiere of the opera is wrong, as shown by the Dresden link. The actual German premiere seems to have been in Hannover. So, a hook combining one uninteresting part with one which only looks interesting if you don't know that this is the custom, to combine these two roles. Fram (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I still think the bit about playing both parts is interesting. My knowledge of music is limited, and of opera even more so. But I expect that's true of most of our readers. People usually complain that Gerda's hooks are only interesting if you know the musical backstory, so I can't get upset about a hook which is only interesting if you don't know the backstory. I do think this point should be mentioned in the article however. A good hook is a tease, but at least let the reader in on the joke when you get them to click. Le Grand Macabre says Gepopo, chief of espionage, sung by the same soprano who performed Venus; it might be good to clarify in that article that this is by design and noted in the score, as opposed to an oddity of one particular performance. @Grimes2: who looks like they've been the most recent maintainer of that article. RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
We could clarify that by saying: ... that coloratura soprano Anna Nekhames performed first in the Bolshoi Theatre's children's chorus, and in 2023 at the Oper Frankfurt the double role of Venus and Chief of the Gepopo in Ligeti's Le Grand Macabre? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
0.75, with a potential of 1.75; the only interesting part is the bit about playing both Venus and a chief of espionage. Everything before is filler fluff and should be trimmed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
0 Why does it matter that they played this role? It's like saying that a soldier participated in a battle, or an actor was a lead in a movie: their occupation is that they would be participating in an activity like this, so why is this important? What makes this event, or their participation in the event, special? A reader who is unfamiliar with this topic should realise why this is special from reading the hook. Z1720 (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Gepopo is one of the great coloratura roles in opera, so why not something like "performed as Gepopo an high, wailing aria, that consists of "code language"". (citation from the wiki article of the opera) Grimes2 (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
as written, 0 – doesn't really make me want to know more. If we just focused on the second half, I'd say 0.8. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd call it maybe a 0.5 ("very limited interest but only to non-experts, who probably won't be interested because they're non-experts"). Something like ... that Anna Nekhames played the dual roles of the goddess Venus and a chief spy in Le Grand Macabre with coloratura acrobatics that "seem[ed] to go beyond the vocal limits" would be minimally interesting, I think (maybe 1.25): I'm not a huge fan of "a reviewer said this" hooks but they're better than "a person did their job" ones. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 19:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd be a fan of that. Kingsif (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Support Grimes2 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Calling it a 1. But the interestingness isn't the problem for me, we have so many 1-level hooks now that I think upholding a higher standard isn't going to be practical. No, the issue is that this hook is a run-on sentence. I'd just cut the Bolshoi Theatre part to fix that (to make it "...Nekhames performed at the Oper..." - haven't seen the nom to know if this has been mentioned. Kingsif (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
  • For me, because I have a specific interest in opera—it's a 1.
  • For a general audience, which DYKs should be targeting—it's unfortunately a flat 0, as far as I can tell. Remsense留 23:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Step 2 learning

From some responses above I gather that a shorter hook would be more welcome, so - cutting out where she came from, and her early activity on the stage of one of the top houses known in the world, where she had the chance to hear the top performers of that house:

Reflecting the wish to mention the kind of performance (which was not yet in the article when I wrote the first hook):

Questions from me regarding the comments above:

  1. Isn't the title "Le Grand Macabre" making curious, regardless of it being an opera?
  2. Isn't Ligeti's centenary (in 2023 when I wrote the hook and the production of one of the key operas of the 20th century was staged - another one in Vienna) - the composer from whose music that of 2001: A Space Odyssey was drawn - reason enough to mention his name on Did you know at least this one time?
  3. "highlight the variety of information" is one of five goals of DYK - is there a good reason to reject varied information? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Identifying something specific: there's a lot of proper nouns in the hook—and most people will not be immediately comfortable putting all of them in context. Many people will get halfway through and their eyes will glaze over because they don't really know what it's talking about.
Here's a thought: ideally a hook will have one or two unfamiliar names, one of them probably being the topic itself. Here's my try:
Remsense留 08:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
That's a pretty good proposal actually. If others are fine with the proposal we can use that instead for the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I do wonder if a slightly-modified version, something like ALTØ1 ... that soprano Anna Nekhames had to be "acrobatic" in her dual role as both Venus and the Chief of the Gepopo in a 2023 production of Le Grand Macabre? would be better since it would mention Nekhames first and thus encourage readers to click on it first instead of clicking on the article for Le Grand Macabre. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I think that's an improvement on mine, certainly! And of course, I'm happy if my suggestion is in any way helpful. Remsense留 08:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for thinking, but we need some way to say that it's vocal acrobatic, not real acrobatic, and believe the term "coloratura acrobatic" does a god job. I also believe that "Ligeti" (6 characters) should not be omitted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree, I don't think the distinction is necessary. It's a hook, not a complete thought. If anything, this is a case where some ambiguity might intrigue the reader. The word being in quotes reinforces this—if it were straightforward, the quotes would not be required, it would just read ... that soprano Anna Nekhames had to be acrobatic in her ...
  • It's not about character count per se—though with a limit of 200 that always matters—like I've said above, it's about avoiding information overload. While I personally love him very much, most people reading don't know who Ligeti is, and i think [unfamiliar surname]'s [unfamiliar work] is a formation that is particularly likely to make an otherwise uninvested reader stop reading. The topic is about making a hook interesting, not making it shorter.
Remsense留 08:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
ps: you can save chars by avoiding the redundancy of saying "double" and "both". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"Coloraturo acrobatic" is a very poor translation, "acrobatic coloraturo" would be better. And she didn't "have to be" acrobatic (which makes it sound like she she had to perform while making somersaults or jumping on a trampoline), her vocal performance was described as acrobatic. Oh, and the article now claims that this was "the German premiere of the revised version" of the opera, without any evidence for this claim; the use of "premiere" in one source just indicates the first date that this particular staging was shown in Frankfurt, nothing more. Is there are any reason why so much effort is spent on so many of Gerda Arendts hooks, while most other prolific DYK contributors don't seem to be such a drain? Just reject it and move on to the next. Fram (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree that in several cases, simply outright rejecting her nominations for lack of an interesting hook would be the ideal option (this is mainly for articles without suitable hooks, articles that have something usable do not apply and should be passed if they meet the guidelines). It would save DYK a lot of time and effort. However, she is rarely willing to let her nominations be closed or rejected. She has also, in the past, expressed frustration if her requests are not granted: for example if her special occasion requests are missed, or if a hook other than her preferred wording or fact is promoted and featured.
Several editors here have experienced being on the receiving end of her frustration when either they review her nominations and state that the hook is uninteresting, or they propose a hook that has wordings or facts different from what she wishes. Given previous experiences, it could be the case that at least some editors here may not be necessarily be willing anymore to engage with, review, or reject her nominations considering how they would often turn into time sinks if things do not go according to her wishes.
Having said that, in the case of this specific nomination, I would be open to Remsense's suggestion if there is consensus to run it and she agrees to it, because otherwise I can't see the nomination running given the consensus has largely been against her originally proposed hook. I can sympathize with Gerda. Her goal is to make classical musicians and opera performers more known, either via DYK or via ITN. As someone whose DYK specialization is on a similarly-niche topic (anime voice actors and musicians), I share that goal of wanting more people to learn about the subjects I write about. It's just that there's probably a better way to do it since, as statistics have shown, her hook wordings have generally scared away readers more than attracted them, with her classical music hooks consistently being among the least-viewed hooks on DYK. This is just my opinion, but I believe that hooky facts about opera singers, for example highlighting unusual or fascinating aspects about them, even if they're not necessarily about their musical careers, would do more to promote these people and encourage to learn more about them than the status quo of hooks that may appeal to Gerda and other classical music fans, but not necessarily the general public. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
It does seem, reading through previous conversation, that the user does not seem interested in what the average reader may or may not get out of a hook. Moreover, she doesn't even seem interested in what reviewers—who constitute a class far more actively engaged than the average reader—may or may not get out of a hook.
I am not sure what the point of polling for advice on the subject is if her criteria for "general interest" ultimately remains coterminous with "her interest", other than to eventually obtain permission through sheer attrition. Frankly, I would meditate on the fact that neither the the topic nor even the hook are "hers". Remsense留 10:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Didn't we have a HUGE discussion about this a year or two ago? I thought that the project had reiterated that "singer sings songs" (or other "guy does something bog standard for his job" type hooks) weren't going to be allowed going forward. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
In October 2022 we did have an RfC that modified the interestingness criterion, requiring that hooks be perceived as intriguing or unusual to non-specialist audiences (a less vague and more explicit wording than the previous "interesting to a broad audience" wording). In practice, it hasn't always been applied, and there have been several cases of hooks by multiple editors that have slipped through the cracks, as RoySmith can attest to with recent examples like Teratoscincus roborowskii.
As for the "people doing their jobs" hooks, while they're generally discouraged, they're not outright banned and there hasn't been an actual discussion to my recollection about restricting them. At most, there's some consensus to discourage hooks that are basically saying that a person played a particular role in a media without additional context, although in practice some hooks with that format have still been approved as that consensus does not appear to be widely known or enforced. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, we did. What we didn't have was a discussion about Gerda's consistent WP:FORUMSHOPping all over the place (on this page, on user talk pages, and, on one memorable occasion, demanding a change at WP:ERRORS) in increasingly frantic attempts to grind everyone down and force her preferred versions onto the main page against consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
If we aren't going to make sure that the hooks are actually interesting, then why go through the process at all? Just post whatever the proposer wants with no oversight. Or just post a list of recently created or updated articles with no blurbs, just the bare links. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
There's of course, the other more sensible solution: be more willing to reject nominations that are unsuitable, either because they have taken too long to get up to standard, or because the hooks are not interesting enough. It's true that views on what may be interesting differ from editor to editor, but we do need to be more willing to bring up to the nominator if a hook isn't interesting, and be more willing to close nominations if there isn't a suitable hook that could be found or agreed upon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
That was all implied in "make sure that the hooks are actually interesting". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
  • At the nom, Gerda Arendt, you say "Here this very young singer performed one of the hardest roles". That's something a hook could be built around, IMO, if there's a source for that? Certainly I think that's the kind of thing that should be in the article, and if it's the case, someone out there must have mentioned it somewhere.

ALT83a.2: ...that at not yet 30, Anna Nekhames performed one of opera's most demanding coloratura parts, that of the dual role of Venus and Gepopo in Ligeti's Le Grand Macabre?

Valereee (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

How to move forward with this nomination

Based on the above discussion, there does not appear to be consensus to run the original hook that features both Bolshoi and the roles. Two proposals were made here for alternative hooks, one by Tamzin and the other by Remsense, as possible alternatives, but neither have gotten much discussion on whether or not they are suitable: there were some comments suggesting that Tamzin's proposal may be marginally suitable, while there were also a couple of comments suggesting that Remsense's hook or my rework would also be a possible option. However, it doesn't seem that either hook has reached the level of consensus. With this in mind, should the nomination still move forward, or should it be closed as unsuccessful? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Back in 2012, I asked: "who decides what readers read?", and it's still the same question. Who decides that readers might be interested in a little Latin motet but not in a key work of the 20th century, with an interesting title even? trailer --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Without Gerda budging, close as unsuccessful. Overwhelming consensus is that her hooks are uninteresting for a general audience, and she is unwilling to make any changes. It's really as simple as that. Feel free to copy and paste this over as my vote in the future when this precise series of events happens again.
Moreover, regardless of her motivations, it cannot be said that she operates in anything but total bad faith with every other person involved in the process until someone approves her hook. Frankly, I cannot see why she should be permitted to participate in DYK if this pattern of behavior, already years-long, continues. Remsense留 07:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Prep 1: Die Kuranten (nom)

The current hook is

However, the article says "Die Kuranten is considered by some as the oldest Jewish newspaper, although others consider the Spanish-language Gazeta de Amsterdam from 1672 as the oldest Jewish newspaper." We can't have hooks that present a disputed issue as fact, and it is especially bad if the hook disagrees with the article. A minimal change might be "the first Yiddish newspaper" but I haven't looked into the sourcing for that claim. Pinging nom @Kazamzam, reviewer @Launchballer, promoter @PrimalMustelid. Can we fix this while in prep (would need to be soon, it is the next one up for promotion to queue) or does this need to be unpromoted and sent back to WP:DYKN for further workshopping? —Kusma (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There’s a discussion item further up the page about this nomination. Schwede66 21:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. See #Die_Kuranten above. The discussion there does not change my opinion that the hook is not an accurate representation of the article and should not be posted on the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This needs to get unpromoted. When I raised my original objection, it was based just on reading the hook, i.e. I got triggered by seeing "first". But now that I'm looking at the article itself, the hook clearly does not, as @Kusma notes, say what the article says, which is "considered by some..." RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I would unpromote rather than move this to prep. Schwede66 21:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I've pulled this and reopened the nomination form. Schwede66 00:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 6

Nancy Nash

Queue 6: Nancy Nash (actress) (nom)

@Silver seren, FloridaArmy, Launchballer, and AirshipJungleman29: The article itself says nothing about dropping out, and that she hadn't even started college yet: This conflicted, however, with her prior plans to start studying at the University of Texas the following week and she had to convince her parents that pursuing a film career was more important. The problem I'm seeing is that the source mentioned at the nom and attached to the sentence in the article doesn't appear to verify either, and just says "...Nancy persuaded her parents that a motion picture career is as important as a college education." It doesn't say she dropped out, which college or when she planned to start, or anything like that, only that she chose acting over college. I glanced through some of the other sources but couldn't find anything verifying these facts, am I overlooking something? - Aoidh (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The source does mention University of Texas (bottom of first paragraph), however I may have put two and two together to make five in saying that she definitely left. Just in case I've also missed something, I invite Silver seren to provide an ALT.--Launchballer 16:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
You are correct, I apologize and I see that part now. I don't know if "in three days" quite means the same as "the following week". My understanding is that you have to had started college to drop out of it, but that might just be a misunderstanding on my part, but ideally I think there should be a source supporting that wording, given the often negative connotation around referring to someone as a drop out. - Aoidh (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
If you are accepted to a university and registered to begin classes (which would indeed be done if you're three days out from starting them), then yes, you would be dropping out if you chose not to go to the university. This isn't the same thing as getting an acceptance letter months out and choosing not to go. That wouldn't be dropping out, but it's not the same thing as this situation. Should the nom instead read:
Is that better, Aoidh, Launchballer? SilverserenC 16:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Fine by me.--Launchballer 16:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I've added it as ALT2 in the nomination page. SilverserenC 16:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks both of you, I've updated the hook with ALT2. - Aoidh (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Letter to the American People

Queue 6: Letter to the American People (nom)

@PhotographyEdits, Knightoftheswords281, MaxnaCarta, and AirshipJungleman29: Earwig shows a considerable match with this page which doesn't necessarily indicate which copied from which but does raise a concern. The text of the "Contents" section was added on November 17 in its entirety by User:Marokwitz where the off-wiki site says it was last updated on November 18, though it doesn't say what was updated and I could not find any archived versions of that page to compare against. My concern is that the text in the Wikipedia article was added in a large chunk that just happens to be the only part found in the other source, is written in a very atypical style for a Wikipedia article, and is only sourced to the Observer's republishing of the letter itself, making much if not all of it WP:NOR as it is an analysis of the primary text. For these reasons, I'm highly concerned that the entirety of Letter to the American People#Contents is a copyvio and should be removed but I wanted to get feedback on this first. - Aoidh (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I doubt that Aoidh. A quick look at other pages on the website shows extensive copy-pasting from large language models (compare this summary to what you get if you type "Sapiens book summary" into ChatGPT) or, indeed, from elsewhere on Wikipedia (compare this page with List of state highways in Tamil Nadu). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Given that each page on that site is user-submitted it would make sense that there is a variety of origins for the various descriptions. I mentioned this because it is a possible concern, not because I am convinced it is a copyvio but to do my due diligence in checking this, as the review on the nom page didn't mention this and I wanted to particularly see with User:MaxnaCarta if EarWig even matched it at the time, which if it didn't would strongly indicate that site copied from Wikipedia (which is what I strongly suspect but I felt I would be remiss if I didn't mention or follow-up on). However I'm also mentioning it because of the WP:NOR issue with that section, not only the Earwig match. - Aoidh (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Just to fully clarify I'm not trying to accuse Marokwitz or anyone of copyvio, I just want to make sure any concerns are settled before it hits the main page where the concerns might be brought up, and so to avoid the chance of the hook getting pulled or anything like that I'd rather it be discussed before that is all. - Aoidh (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I wrote this text myself on November 17, based on the original; I guarantee there was no copying involved. I never saw this "instapdf" source - they must have based their document on the Wikipedia page. You are correct that this is a summary of a primary source, and relying on a secondary source is preferred, but I found no such source on November 17, when the letter suddenly went viral. Marokwitz (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm quite sure that's the case with regard to the matching text (especially when I started comparing diffs, your initial text isn't as much of a match as the slightly changed version that came later, which indicates they copied from Wikipedia) and I apologize if my initial comment seemed accusatory or anything, not my intention at all I just want to head of any ERRORS discussions that might pop up and risk the hook being pulled is all. I'm hoping MaxnaCarta can chime in but even without their input I'm fairly confident after looking at it more that you did indeed write the initial text and that it was not copied from this other site. The WP:NOR is a potential concern given WP:DYKCITE, I've done a preliminary search but do you think that now that time has passed and more coverage has been generated that non-primary sources could be added to the section? If that can be reasonably achieved I have no other concerns. - Aoidh (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Marokwitz: Pinging just in case. - Aoidh (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
No offense taken; that is perfectly fine. Marokwitz (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Marokwitz, I did a copyvio when I approved the hook (as is required in all hook reviews) and had no issues. I do see the similarity now. I'd consider rewriting some of the sentences just to avoid any issues. But that is a suggestion purely because I know how quick some (not Aoidh, in fact, I believe they have raised this issue because of) editors can be to take issue with even a sniff of a copyvio and try to get the hook removed out of precaution. A little paraphrasing, and this clears up any possible misperception from anyone. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
After doing a deeper look I think I can reasonably show through diffs that that site copied the Wikipedia article rather than the other way around, though the differences are minor because there haven't been many edits made since it was added. However the differences are there; it wouldn't match the newer version of the text as it does if Marokwitz copied from that site, their initial edit would have been the one to match. I do think the sourcing needs to be addressed but I think I can reasonably show at ERRORS how it's not a copyvio if it comes up. - Aoidh (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The page in question was clearly created one day after, on November 18 and copied my original text and not the other way around. You can take my word on it. Marokwitz (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
@Marokwitz neither of us either doubted you for a second I’m sure. I’m glad it was raised. Not because you may have copied. But some other editor may have falsely perceived it to be the case. There are editors who scrutinse the mainpage for copyvios (and understandably, it is a concern). — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Guillermo Torrez

Queue 6: Guillermo Torrez (nom)

@Krisgabwoosh, Grnrchst, and AirshipJungleman29: This one may just be a nitpick on my end, but it seems misleading to descibe someone who had leadership roles within Movimiento al Socialismo/Movement for Socialism as merely being sympathetic to the group. - Aoidh (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it could be argued that Torrez's membership in the sector were what prompted him to eventually join the party. Furthermore, the hook uses "leaders" plural, so it has to account for the sector as a whole – Torrez just being one example. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Since he specifically is the subject of the hook the leaders part can be amended as needed. I think omitting that he was in the group in a leadership role and not just sympathized with it could perhaps be reworked. - Aoidh (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requesting guidance

I am requesting guidance on a series of hooks by the same editor currently in the nominations pile and the approved pile. User:Owais Al Qarni has produced a series of articles on books, which to me generally seem to be written in non-encyclopedic tones, often encompassing MOS:PUFFERY and MOS:WEASEL. I would like some of the regulars here to provide clarity on whether I am seeing things, and if I am not, whether the articles all need to be worked on to meet WP:DYKCOMPLETE. The articles and nominations are:

I do not know whether this is the standard for book-related articles, and so I bring this here, instead of spreading it across a dozen DYK and talk pages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

My general impression, clicking around a few of these, is that the articles sit in the uncanny valley w/r/t looking like Wikipedia articles, but they seem to be basically encyclopedically written (if a little too deferential too the author, I imagine that was picked up from the academic sources). "This looks funny" is the reason a DYK nom is challenged a not-insignificant percentage of the time, so I won't begrudge you if that's what it is, but it'd be a shame if all of these ended in failure despite them being mostly on-target in the important ways. Are there any quotes that stick out to you? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't think they should end in failure—just that the puffery should be rewritten theleekycauldron. Al-Wafa bi Asma al-Nisa has been approved; it contains sentences like
  • "Beyond its scholarly weight, this opus reshapes the landscape of hadith scholarship",
  • "It serves as a catalyst for contemplation, delving into nuanced inquiries",
  • "the initial volume immerses readers in an exploration of the intricate world",
  • "Enhancing this narrative are captivating visual aids",
  • "facsimiles of pertinent certificates offer a tangible glimpse into their scholarly pursuits",
  • "The biographical journey commences with an in-depth focus"
  • "volumes 11-13 shed illuminating insights ... Subsequent volumes [present] a mosaic"
etc. Additionally—and I've just noticed this—the "Content" and "Methodology" section verges upon WP:CLOP from this source.
There is also a problem with excessive elegant variation. Look at all the times scholars are mentioned in Islamic Revival in British India: "According to Francis Robinson", "Amedeo Maiello observes", "Yohanan Friedmann identifies", "Yohanan Friedmann urges", "Christopher Shackle highlights", "Gowher Rizvi underscores", "William R. Roff sees it", "Christopher Shackle positions it", " Yohanan Friedmann acknowledges", "Francis Robinson commends", "Amedeo Maiello praises", "Gopal Krishna opines", "The Daily Star rates it", "Annemarie Schimmel criticizes". No two verbs are the same! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a good argument for cutting down on the puffery a bit. I would support efforts to trim and replace. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I think the biggest policy problem here is value judgements in wikivoice – those are a policy problem per WP:VOICE, these statements and works should be treated more neutrally. The ELEVAR and academese are irksome, but not the top priority here, imo. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I've looked a bit further at potential CLOP issues, after noticing it above, and it's not that great. Just comparing the last sentences of the "Theme" section from Islamic Revival in British India with the cited source: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Article Source
"The author adeptly demonstrates that Sufism played a pivotal role in the school's spiritual life, often intertwining with roles like Mufti and Shaykh. Deobandis, in their role as shaykhs, challenged the spiritual leadership of Sufis associated with medieval saints' tombs. While opposing perceived deviant Sufi customs, they endorsed practices like contemplating the shaykh's image for spiritual concentration, distributed amulets, and were credited with kurämät. A significant portion of Deoband's fatawa also delved into matters related to Sufi practices." "The author has shown that Sufism was an important element in the spiritual life of the school and that the roles of mufti and shaykh were frequently performed by one and the same person. The Deobandis provided, in their role as shaykhs, a spiritual leadership which challenged that of the Sufis associated with tombs of medieval saints. While opposing Sufi customs which they considered deviant, they encouraged practices such as tasawwur-i shaykh (conceiving of the shaykh's image as an incentive for spiritual concentration), distributed amulets, and were credited with karamat. A considerable part of the fatdaw issued at Deoband also dealt with matters related to Sufi practices."
That's way too close to the original source and needs to be completely rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I could see how The Ulama in Contemporary Islam might appear that way, perhaps even promotional, but looks might be deceiving. I can't say for sure just yet whether there is a problem. The issue is that this is a niche subject that requires a bit of academic expertise, so I think we would need an expert on religion to take a closer look. I will say that it is well written, almost professional in tone. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I've recently taken a couple stabs at writing about modern religious-interest academic books (one has run on DYK, another is waiting). The nom that I reviewed did seem a bit on the praising side, but I felt it was sufficiently comprehensive and neutral. This is a hard balance, as academic reviews on niche subjects tend to be very polarized. I say continue tagging sections/articles when you feel something is up, but I wouldn't say there's enough here to broadly reject these noms. A valid concern, though, to be sure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  • This is an issue separate from the guidance being asked here, but the nominator now has over five nominations, meaning they now need to provide a QPQ. However, they have not provided a QPQ for their newer nominations. I'm not sure which nomination is the one where they need to start providing QPQs, but given that over a week has passed since the most recent ones, they need to provide a QPQ for them to pass regardless of the concerns raised above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
    Yes exactly. It becomes very difficult for a reviewer to understand which nomination would be having a requirement of a QPQ. These articles in my opinions should go to the GOCE for extensive copyediting and this is as @Narutolovehinata5 says, separate from the guidance being asked here. Mere copyediting should not be a reason of getting these nominations rejected. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I've had a look and the above list of DYK nominations is complete. The order of nominations was slightly out and I've adjusted that. You get five free nominations; from nomination 6 onwards, you need to provide a QPQ. After being prompted for one, you have a week to provide the QPQ; after that, the nomination can and should be rejected if nothing's forthcoming. Schwede66 20:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I've left the nominator a final message on whether or not they will be able to provide QPQs. If we don't receive a response, or if the response is negative, we may have to close the nominations starting from Al-Raid (the first five nominations would not be affected by this as a QPQ is not needed for them). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
    I’d be more hardnosed than that. If someone refuses to provide QPQs from nomination 6 onwards, I’d regard that as GAMING. That’s not on, and I’d thus reject the prior nominations as well. Schwede66 19:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
    And since it’s a requirement to issue a warning to a user when GAMING is suspected, here’s a ping to serve as one: Owais Al Qarni. Schwede66 19:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
    @Narutolovehinata5 and Schwede66: Hello, everyone. Please be kind. Although I've been on Wikipedia for over three years, I recently started contributing to DYK. I wasn't familiar with QPQs before, which led me to ask Narutolovehinata5 if retracting four out of nine nominations is feasible. Could you kindly provide guidance on the withdrawal process? Currently, I aim to keep five and close four. I've gained some techniques on crafting perfect DYK hooks, and I'm committed to providing QPQs for each of my DYK contributions soon.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
    There is no need to withdraw Owais Al Qarni, you just need to review some other DYK nominations and review a few of your articles for close paraphrasing (see above table for an example). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
    I have a lot of QPQ I can donate so we can avoid having to reject anything. Can I donate some of my reviews to allow this to go forward, or is that against the rules? Ping me to let me know if I can help save this. Viriditas (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
    @Viriditas: If possible, please consider donating 4 QPQs to me. Now, I want to address my 9 DYK nominations before I start reviewing other nominations.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
    I would love to, but I don't think it is allowed. If you can get the okay, you can have them. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
    I definitely would think it would not be allowed. It would be highly unfair to other editors to allow Owais to have as many as nine freebie nominations without being required to do even a single QPQ review when other editors only get five at most. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
    Right, I understand. I don’t see it as an issue of fairness, but I get that others do. Forward and onward… Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
  • I have now marked the four most recent nominations for closure due to a lack of a QPQ, although they may continue if Owais is able to provide QPQs for each of them. The other five nominations are not affected as the QPQ requirement only kicked in starting with Al-Raid, though the other issues raised above remain to be addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @AirshipJungleman29: What is your current evaluation of "Al-Wafa bi Asma al-Nisa"?–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Owais Al Qarni: This is just to make things clear: will you be able to provide QPQs for the four nominations that require them? Meaning, will you be able to review four nominations by other editors and provide links to them in your four relevant nominations? If you need help with reviewing editors here are willing to help. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    Asking four additional QPQs is seriously unfair. It appears Owais is not enough interested in reviewing four other nominations (I was willing to donate one QPQ subject to his willingness of reviewing other three nominations. Doesn't appear to be so. As such, I'd be glad to take over all the four nominations, provide QPQs and help address any DYK questions in the nominations. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
    Considering QPQs are expected of every DYK nominator, I think they're perfectly fair TheAafi. Still, there is no guideline that says you cannot provide QPQs for other editors (it was recently done for the NZ MPs hook), so please provide them for the three remaining nominations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    @AirshipJungleman29 What I mean is that asking someone to donate a single QPQ to help understand the process is fair, but more than one, and four, doesn't seem fine. Given your suggestion, I'll overtake the nominations that I'm interested in. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    TheAafi, QPQs are not intended so that the user understands the process, they're intended to make the process function. Knowing Wikipedia users in general, they would be more than happy to nominate and leave others to do the grunt work of actually reviewing nominations. A massive backlog would build up, and DYK would stop functioning. Thanks for taking on the responsibility for the other nominations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    TheAafi, please provide the QPQs, or the nominations will be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC) I see there was a conversation on your talk page. Apologies for the ping. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
    @AirshipJungleman29, I had earlier though to takeover three of the four nominations, but given what @Narutolovehinata5 said on my talk page and here, makes more sense, I've decided to only work on one of the four nominations. Best regards, ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
    I do not consider the proposal to require four QPQs unfair. If anything, allowing Owais to have nine freebie nominations instead of the usual five is highly unfair to other newcomers to DYK. Other editors, once they have made five nominations, are required to provide QPQs. One of the reasons the QPQ requirement exists is so that DYK regulars have the skills to both nominate and review articles, it's not meant to be a one-way street. Requiring other newcomers to do QPQs after only five nominations, but giving Owais a pass with nine nominations, could lead to concerns about special treatment and the like. Remember that DYK is supposed to not give special treatment to any editor: regulars, newcomers, and those in between are meant to be treated the same.
    I would be open to The Aafi becoming a co-nominator and assisting with the nominations. In fact, I would even encourage it. However, the QPQ thing is something that feels unfair. At most, I think we could allow one QPQ donation as a compromise, but allowing Owais to have multiple freebies, out of an apparent lack of interest in reviewing nominations, when other editors are not given the same treatment, not only could raise concerns about double standards, but could even encourage future editors to do something similar (as in, make multiple nominations but decline to provide additional QPQs over a lack of interest or skills). At the very least, I would like to see Owais review, with assistance if needed, some nominations, at least to give them experience in the reviewing side of DYK.
    As for the NZ MPs hook, that's a completely different circumstance. For one thing, DrThneed has already contributed to DYK before and has already provided multiple QPQs. Indeed, some of the hooks, including four that were originally part of the hook but were since nominated individually, had QPQs by her. In such a case, donations are just fine (and indeed, in this case, was needed for practicality purposes) given that DrThneed already did her part and contributed QPQs. By contrast, Owais has not provided a single QPQ nor has started one, so their cases are not identical. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
    Seconding the concerns about avoiding even the appearance of a double standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7

Existence

If we really wanted to have fun with this, how about:

... that ...

although with deference to the #Quirky vs. clickbait? thread above, maybe we'd have to hold that for April 1st. RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: That might work if we IAR - it plays on the title. I did not comment on the #Quirky vs. clickbait? thread, but I thought it was appropriate that you added to the hook since in my mind it was a tongue cluck after clicking and seeing that it was a song. WP:PLA Lightburst (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Not a fan, but I wouldn't stop this assuming the second ellipsis gets bolded (otherwise it is too difficult to notice that it is a link). —Kusma (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
In the example I gave above, it is bolded :-) RoySmith (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh, wait, no it's not. What was I thinking. OK, in this example, it's bolded...
... that ...
That's better. RoySmith (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Haha, that’s brilliant. Let’s do that. Schwede66 21:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not really a fan of doing this, as many readers wouldn't understand what was going on. Pinging the nominator Phlsph7 for their thoughts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Also not a fan. Am dubious about it even flying on AFD. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
If the ellipsis hook is to be used I suggest only doing this on AFD. I understand everyone's desire to do quirky hooks but this is starting to become overkill. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Seems like prep 3 is a good choice as it already has just over 1000 characters and there is presently an open spot hanging out there Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3. To Narutolovehinata5 I do not think that we have been overdoing the quirky hooks. Lightburst (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I actually like the idea of holding this for Play with their heads day. RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the suggestion is really quirky. But I don't understand the relation between "..." and Existence. "..." is usually used to indicate a continuation or as a placeholder or an ellipsis. ... redirects to Ellipsis, which does not talk about existence. The article Existence does not mention "..." or ellipses. The best I can make of it is that "..." can mean almost anything (depending on the context) and existence is a very wide concept. Is there something that I'm missing? If we really want to use it then we should probably wait to April Fools' Day. The hook would be great for the article Ellipsis if someone ever decides to bring it to DYK. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The concept of a nonexistent object is certainly a prime candidate for AFD, but a hook featuring just an ellipsis would not work IMO, and most of the other hooks proposed are not great either. In which case, I suggest this nom be held over for workshopping prior to running on AFD. Gatoclass (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: The hook for this nomination is in Template:Did you know/Queue/7, it has been approved by a nominator, reviewer, prep-promotor and queue-promotor. Are you suggesting it be pulled for workshopping? Because it will run on the main page in about 9 hours. Lightburst (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
For clarity, the hook set to run in a bit over six hours is ... that it is controversial whether there are things that do not exist? As I noted above, I think it should run in six hours as it is, not be held for AFD. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I was just making a fun suggestion. It doesn't seem there's much support for that, so I'd say just let it run the way it is. RoySmith (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

NZ MP mass nomination: thank you

Well, this has been a massive undertaking. The New Zealand MP mass nomination from 17 October is going to close soon and thanks are in order. Firstly, DrThneed as my co-nominator; it's been most enjoyable to work alongside you once more on a big project. The various bios have been worked on by many editors, and apart from DrThneed and me, we have Adabow, Chocmilk03, HenryCrun15, Idiosyncritic, Kiwichris, Lcmortensen, MerrilyPutrid, Moondragon21, MW691, Nurg, Pakoire, Paora, Vaticidalprophet, and Villian Factman to thank. Various DYK volunteers have commented on the overall process and helped out in various ways, including BlueMoonset, Chipmunkdavis, Fritzmann2002, Kiwichris, Narutolovehinata5, Urve, and Vaticidalprophet. Thank you also to the reviewers, which were 97198, AirshipJungleman29, Bremps, Chocmilk03, Hameltion, Knightoftheswords281, Miraclepine, Queen of Hearts, Sammi Brie, and Shivashree. Lastly, we had a couple of good souls chip in with some QPQs: Lightburst and theleekycauldron. I hope that this list is complete and I do apologise if I've missed anyone. This is just those contributors listed on the nomination page; I acknowledge that there have been a number of discussion at WT:DYK – thank you to those contributors, too.

To me, this collaborative working is what makes Wikipedia such an enjoyable place. Thanks, everyone – you are all awesome! And greetings of the season; hope you are all enjoying some well-deserved IRL holidays. Schwede66 03:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that's been a while. Thank you, Thneed, et al. for your contributions to Wikipedia. And what can I say except you're welcome for the review? Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 03:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
It took quite a while but I'm happy this is finally about to cross the finish line. I do think the compromise we were able to work out, with there being a mass nom but some of the best possibilities being spun off into their own individual hooks, worked out in the end. Especially when how the main multi-article hook took a long time to be completed while the individual hooks were able to already be featured on the Main Page quickly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for looking after this @Schwede66 - sorry I have been MIA the last few days, very unreliable Wifi our AirBNB has put paid to Christmas editing for me so far! A huge thankyou from me to everyone that chipped in with getting the original articles up to DYK standard, contributing QPQs, reviewing and polishing etc. It's lovely to be part of such a big effort! @Narutolovehinata5 I find it amusing that the experience I had with this multihook this time around is quite different to last election three years ago. I'm pretty sure it all happened very fast last time, with people leaping in to review really fast (not going to strain my Wifi trying to check though). DrThneed (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Great job, everybody. It's nice to contribute to part of a larger group effort. Bremps... 15:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
As a bystander, I have always been fascinated my these multi-nom hooks. Great example of collaboration. Happy holidays! Ktin (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Nice job team! — Knightoftheswords 22:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Schwede66 has said People will return to normal from 8 January onwards January 8 is about the time to run this which puts the hook in Prep 7. I am not sure I will have the time to go through all of the articles prior to promotion but I can try. Maybe another editor can assist with final checks? Also three hooks are in prep 7 now, how many hooks will we run in the set with the mega-hook? Bruxton (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
@Schwede66, @DrThneed & others: thanks for all the hard work! Looking forward to seeing this up on the main page. :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

BTW, I've dropped the mass nomination into my sandbox to simulate the main page. With 6 hooks, the main page is about balanced. (there's currently one hook empty; you've got to add it manually to my sandbox to check the impact) Schwede66 02:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66: I added the sixth hook to your sandbox. It appears we could fit another hook. Bruxton (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. Looking good! Schwede66 21:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thumbnail size?

There's a discussion going on now on the village pump about increasing the default image thumbnail size. It doesn't directly affect {{main page image/DYK}}, but it's related so noting it here for those who might be interested. RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks like it has been decided = Larger it is. Lightburst (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Any idea when that will kick in? Schwede66 01:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The queues are empty!

Pinging @DYK admins: in the hopes that we can get a few queues filled, or at least one! Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that's a problem. I do have time and have promoted Prep5. It does, however, contain one article where I was the reviewer. Could one of the other admins thus please do the admin checks for the Queen Victoria Monument, Wellington? Schwede66 01:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I've been promoting a lot of preps to queues lately, but I am feeling burned out with DYK and getting really busy both on-wiki and off. It would be great if other admin can come back and promote sets more often, because I will be taking a step back (but not going away). Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm in much the same place. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Obviously I've been there for quite a while. I got not only burned out but felt demotivated by the fact so many admins who nominate regularly don't want to pitch in to do moves to queue, and I finally just landed on "I'll do a move to queue for every nom I make" as what was less likely for me to feel like I just wanted to go away altogether. Honestly I'd love to see how many noms are made by admins per year. If it's in the hundreds, which I'm sure it must be, I suspect we'd get a lot less admin burnout here if everyone would just commit to even that much pitching in: make a nom? Move a prep to queue. Valereee (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
One of the reasons I don't like doing queues is you tend to be yelled at on WP:ERRORS every time you miss something, which puts people off doing it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
We need people who point out things we missed, so it is a Good Thing if people use ERRORS. The question is whether we can do that without people feeling yelled at more than they deserve. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Yep, that's one of the reasons a lot of people don't want to work at DYK. :D It's an extremely visible project, and many errors reports include a "look how DYK fucked up again" approach. :D Working DYK is not for the fainthearted. Valereee (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Er, that was a joke...not suggesting anyone is fainthearted. Valereee (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, DYK queues can be a serious time commitment. Look at the lot (Q5) below! And you've got to be thorough or else it's see you at Errors, as Ritchie says. Or you get tired and overlook a wee detail, as I did with the Baldwin-Reynolds House nomination, and the yelling may come from a disgruntled nominator (which, in this case, did not happen). Being able to say sorry and having a thick skin helps, apart from having time on your hands. Schwede66 19:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
And regarding Valereee's comment, maybe we should be more hard-nosed and deal with "look how DYK fucked up again" comments as WP:HARASS. I can think of at least one editor who has repeatedly made this comment. Let's push back on that. Schwede66 19:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66, I did the admin checks, and I'm not seeing that there's a cite at the end of the sentence that supports the hook, nor in the cites at the end of the paragraph? Ping to Generalissima. Valereee (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Fixed this. It's the "Gilding Defended" by the Otago Daily Times. Generalissima (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I posted to WP:AN and managed to recruit Waggers to help. Welcome Waggers to DYK! RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    Awesome! Say if you want a hand or a look over your shoulder, Waggers, when you get going. Schwede66 19:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks, Waggers! Definitely install PSHAW. You still have to do the human checks, but the tool makes the actual move foolproof. Valereee (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to offer another thought. Promoting to queue is a serious job; it's a mini-review of eight hooks. It takes way longer than to review a nomination. Has it ever been discussed whether to offer a QPQ credit for this task? I know that I would see that as an incentive to "do more"; that's for sure. I appreciate that this may leave us a few hundred reviews short per year, but we do have a mechanism of requiring double QPQs when the number of unreviewed nominations gets too high. Although we've never invoked this rule yet. Anyway, there are certainly downsides with this, but are those outweighed by the potential gains? Schwede66 23:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that promoting to Queue would mean only sysops would be involved. Would expanding the idea to promoting to Prep also help? Though in such cases it could be used in conjunction with the double-QPQ rule: like perhaps in lieu of doing two DYK reviews, they can do one review and one promotion instead. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
It's much cleaner with promotion to queue, as it always involves a full set. Prep builders can deal with one hook at a time. I don't really have an appreciation whether prep builders usually make a full set, or whether it's more mixed and most preps are worked on by several editors. Schwede66 23:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
It's mixed. If we're running out of preps and a prep builder has the time, they might build two complete ones. If there's a hole or two in a set, they might fill that hole. Unlike moving to queue, there's an element of creativity that can attract people to promoting to prep. You're solving a puzzle. Moving to queue is just checking the work of others, really.
I do think giving a QPQ for moving a set to queue would be an incentive for some. It's a fairly large job that is almost always done by a single person. It might also help relieve the issue of a set containing an admin's QPQ review, as we'd I assume end up with fewer sets that contained such a hook by one of the admins who does promotions. Valereee (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Can I request this DYK for AAPI heritage month (May 1st)?

 Courtesy link: Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Pierce (soldier)

Hi WT: DYK,

I might have created a decently niche article Joseph Pierce (soldier), a Chinese man who fought for the Union Army during the American Civil War and settled in Connecticut afterwards. Can I please ask that it be featured for the Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month on May 1, 2024, which is more than 6 weeks away? Many thanks! Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about half a day 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 December 1. We have a total of 325 nominations, of which 122 have been approved, a gap of 203 nominations that has decreased by 1 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than three months old

More than one month old

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) 06:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

Kihwan Sim (nom)

Gerda Arendt, I can't see where that part of the hook is referenced that says it was "the first production with the new GMD, Thomas Guggeis". AirshipJungleman29 was the reviewer; maybe they can point me in the right direction. Schwede66 02:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

"In 2023 he appeared again as Mozart's Figaro in the first production with the new GMD, Thomas Guggeis..." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I can see those words, AirshipJungleman29, but I can't see where those words are backed up by a reference. Schwede66 05:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66 and AirshipJungleman29: Looking at this hook, I do have some concerns. Is this really an interesting hook? Perhaps it is to an opera fan, but someone who isn't, the significance is not at all obvious, especially if the reader is not familiar with Guggeis or knows what a GMD is. Personally I would instead suggest the following:
ALT ... that Kihwan Sim, a bass-baritone performer at the Oper Frankfurt, learned to play the tuba during his two years of military service?
Because of this, and given that this hook is scheduled to go up tomorrow, I'd probably suggest at least bumping it down to a Prep while the hook is sorted out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll move it. Schwede66 03:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for moving. I have a DYK today (see above, the one where I thought we had almost objective reasons to show an image but we don't ), and a RD, and OTD tomorrow, and two GA reviews pending): too much of a good thing. Will the people who don't know what a GMD is (and are regarded unable to find out per link) know what a tuba is? Is that trivia anything worthy to be known about him? ... as would be his signature role, - he is not the typical Wagner singer that readers will associate with bass-baritone, but flexible and agile, in voice and action. We can drop Frankfurt and Guggeis, but not Mozart if we don't want to put him in the wrong corner. (Have you even read the bass-baritone article?) More next week, I have to prepare a busy weekend RL. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Again, the issue here is that the hook does not seem to be interesting to people who are not as well-versed in opera as you are. I very much doubt that our typical reader would even get or know what a typical Wagner singer is like, so it doesn't really matter to them. Besides, the Wager connection isn't even in the hook so I have no idea why you are bringing it up here.
Will the people who don't know what a GMD is (and are regarded unable to find out per link) know what a tuba is? The thing is here, people who are not into opera, and perhaps even those who are into opera but not deeply into it, may not know what a GMD is. On the other hand, even the average person at least knows what a tuba is, it's a very iconic instrument. Hooks are meant to appeal not opera fans and assume intense knowledge or context about opera, but rather the typical reader who may have little-to-no knowledge about the topic. That is the kind of audience that the ALT is aiming for, not the Gerdas of the world. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Since the hook is scheduled to go up in four days, might as well start a discussion on it ahead of time. @Schwede66 and AirshipJungleman29: what are your thoughts on the ALT hook, as well as Gerda's reply above? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, Narutolovehinata, and I think the ALT hook it suitable. I sense that the average person would know what a tuba is. Personally, I'm not a useful yardstick as I used to play it! Schwede66 01:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I guess we can wait for AJ29 or another reviewer to chime in then to review the hook and replace the current hook if necessary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I like it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I guess this means it's time for someone to replace the hook in prep now, since AJ29 is fine with the new hook and has given approval? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66Asking if you can promote the new hook or if an uninvolved sysop's input or action is required. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I've replaced the hook but given that it's currently in Prep4, anyone could have done it, I suppose. Schwede66 03:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I see this only now, and hate that hook. This is a living person, about whom we say too little, - no more than "bass-baritone performer at the Oper Frankfurt", "learning the tuba during military service". This will stick with him in the archive and on the talk page. I would say nothing if it was only for the few hours on the Main page, - do you understand?
  • Please read the linked article bass-baritone to see that it's typically applied to the heavy roles by Wagner.
  • With nothing specific, he could be a singer of small roles of servants and fathers, - no indication of a major achievements, while what he did was perform the title role in a Mozart opera (a composer that most readers will know) in the opening performance of the opera house of the year 2023 with the new musical director.
  • Why remind him and all of military service, long past? I am all for peace.
  • I suggest if you can't accept a hook about him and Mozart, drop it altogether. Suggestion - as I'm all for peace;
ALT: ... that Kihwan Sim performed the title role of Mozart's Figaro as a voice student in Seoul and in 2023 at the Oper Frankfurt?
You can also return to the hook we had (expanding GMD). I duplicated the ref to the sentence and replaced GMD by "musical director". The ref (Sternburg) says in the teaser "Dem neuen Generalmusikdirektor Thomas Guggeis gelingt ein fulminanter Start – und die Oper Frankfurt hat wieder einen todsicheren „Figaro“ im Programm", which Deepl translates to me as "The new General Music Director Thomas Guggeis gets off to a brilliant start - and Oper Frankfurt once again has a sure-fire "Figaro" in its programme". The header reads: "Thomas Guggeis dirigiert „Figaros Hochzeit“ an der Oper Frankfurt - Das sind die schönen Augenblicke der Zärtlichkeit und des Vergnügens", translated: "Thomas Guggeis conducts "The Marriage of Figaro" at the Frankfurt Opera - These are the beautiful moments of tenderness and pleasure". This is the story I came to tell, invited by "Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page." Not military service. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
For goodness' sake, Gerda Arendt. How many times do you have to see the results of discussions like #Poll: is this hook interesting? to remember that literally everyone else finds your hooks catastrophically boring?? You have proposed hundreds of hooks saying nothing more than "opera singer does their job", probably doing most of your articles a massive disservice in terms of the attention they receive; you have been told this endlessly, and yet onand on and on and onyou go, disrespecting everyone who tries to engage with you in good faith. Quoting above: "it cannot be said that [Gerda] operates in anything but total bad faith with every other person involved in the process until someone approves her hook."~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
For goodness' sake: I feel I have a responsibility towards a living person. Better no hook than that one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, a living person. A person with history, quirks, interesting facts, etc. Not an indeterminate bass-baritone (yes, I read that article). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Some discussions later: I don't get behind the "military" hook. It's in the queue for tomorrow, so needs an admin. You can just remove it, no hook is better than that one. Or replace it by the one suggested above. Or replace it by the one we had before called unsourced, but I sourced it by a reference that was in the article. I'd like to keep this low-key, especially as I'm travelling and with company for the day, a birthday. I don't want to have to call for help at ERRORS or on ANI ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It's on the Main now. I invite you to look a bit into his personality and performance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Did you look? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Queen Victoria Monument (nom)

@DYK admins: Just noting here, as indicated above, that another admin needs to check this one as I was the reviewer. Schwede66 02:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima, Schwede66, and Bruxton:

The hook says the intervention was from the British. The article says "The lacquer was later removed after continued public pressure." The source says "This angered New Zealand’s leading sculptor of the time, Richard Gross, and the lacquer was soon removed in response." So unless I'm missing something (which is quite possible) I don't think these line up. Can this be clarified? If I don't respond, others can make the necessary changes if needed. Z1720 (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It refers to "... the British Society of Sculptors protested the lacquering", Z1720. Schwede66 02:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Just realized I forgot the second of two sources on the hook itself. It's cite #23 in the article, found here. I'm so sorry for the mixup. Generalissima (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Generalissima: I don't think the source supports "The lacquer was later removed after continued public pressure" as I cannot find the public pressure in the source. Should this be changed in the article? Also, I would also move the Otago Daily Times source to the end of the paragraph to support the lacquering removal information. Z1720 (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Good point on moving the cite. I said public pressure because of the fact that it was being raised at city government hearings, but I realize just "pressure" is a better phrasing since Gross played a pretty big role. Generalissima (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
My concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Kansas Business Hall of Fame (nom)

The hook fact is true, but neither Pizza Hut nor Russell Stover Candies appear in the article. One has to go on a goose chase to verify the hook fact. Bsoyka or anyone really, can the article's prose please be expanded so that the hook fact actually occurs? Schwede66 03:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Added mentions to the article prose. Not sure I love the format yet, but I think it's better than nothing and that's a separate thing to think about away from WT:DYK. Thanks for pointing this out! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 05:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Bsoyka, thanks but your addition is unreferenced, hence not good enough. But never mind, I also expanded the article and the issue is thus fixed. Schwede66 05:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

1939 Liechtenstein putsch (nom)

The source for the hook fact is in German and has been misinterpreted. What's written there is plural ("days", not "day") and I have corrected both the article and the hook fact. Schwede66 03:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Next problem; those passages in larger font are (nearly) identical. Can you please attend to this urgently, TheBritinator?

Close paraphrasing
Article "Forgotten History-Liechtenstein during WWII"
The German National Movement in Liechtenstein (VBDL) itself formed after the Anschluss of Austria in 1938, advocating for the integration of Liechtenstein into Nazi Germany.[4] A slogan associated with the party, Liechtenstein den Liechtensteinern! (Liechtenstein for the Liechtensteiners!). This implied a radical populism that would threaten the allegiance of the people of Liechtenstein to ruling Prince of Liechtenstein Franz Josef II. The German National Movement in Liechtenstein (German: Volksdeutsche Bewegung in Liechtenstein, VDBL) was a National Socialist party in Liechtenstein that existed between 1938 and 1945. The VDBL formed after the Anschluss of Austria in 1938, and advocated for the integration of Liechtenstein into the Greater German Reich.

The organization disseminated its ideology through its newspaper, Der Umbruch.

A slogan associated with the party was Liechtenstein den Liechtensteinern! (Liechtenstein for the Liechtensteiners!). This implied a radical populism that would threaten the allegiance of the people of Liechtenstein to ruling Prince Franz Josef II.

Whilst TheBritinator is currently editing, nothing is happening to this article. As I probably won't have time in the hours before this goes live, I shall pull this nomination and find a replacement. Schwede66 05:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I apologise, I received no notification for this message regarding my DYK nomination, otherwise I would of attended to it sooner.
Regarding that, what exactly regarding the article is something that was taken from the main VBDL article itself from before I started working on these two articles, which I I am assuming whoever originally made the article must of taken that part from the book, I quite honestly did not check that part as again I just took it from already used text. If this needs to be addressed, then I can happily re-write that part to be more original.
May I ask though, will this allow my hook to be revalidated? It was accepted before, though granted with a minor translation error that has now been fixed. TheBritinator (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66 I have edited the article and paragraph in question, please advise. TheBritinator (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
That's still too close, TheBritinator. Schwede66 22:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure how I am supposed to do that any further without changing it's meaning. I could just remove that part about Franz Joseph II if it's not necessarily needed. TheBritinator (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I've rewritten it for you. That also means that somebody else needs to now check the nomination; I can't approve my own work. Schwede66 22:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated. TheBritinator (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Baldwin-Reynolds House (nom)

This is the replacement hook for the 1939 Liechtenstein putsch. And what do I find? Moved into mainspace on 6 Nov; nominated 16 days later on 22 Nov. Crikey! I would assume that Pbritti, as a regular at DYK, knows the rules about new articles. Broc, who was the reviewer, didn't pick up on this but they are a very new editor. What do we do about that? Schwede66 09:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The answer is simple: the hook should be pulled and the nomination closed as the article is ineligible. Hopefully, this can be a learning experience for Broc, who can receive guidance regarding the intricacies of DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
You are right. Pulled and rejected. Schwede66 10:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66 and Narutolovehinata5:, Pbritti has noted that the article was nominated as a 5x expansion, not a new article. I believe it satisfies that criterion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
A small trout (a herring really) for Pbritti and an explanation for Broc. Not really that big a deal, shouldn't make too much of it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Ouch, that was an honest mistake from my side. Thanks for pointing it out! --Broc (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I would suggest installing the DYKcheck tool: it will allow you to check an article's length and newness. If an article is not new enough, the tool would show red instead of yellow. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back and Broc: No need to trout—I nominated a 5x expansion. Not sure why no one seems to have noticed that until I pointed it out. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Are you sure? The Nov 14 (seven days before nomination on the 21st) article is 2,604[15] and 2,604 x 5 is 13020... Not 7,500. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: Articles can be made eligible via a fivefold expansion of an article's prose [bolding mine]. The massive parameters of an infobox do not count for or against article size. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
What is the math then? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
616 B (104 words) prose pre-expansion, 3477 B (585 words) post-expansion, per my character-counting script. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
That checks out, thanks for explaining. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies, Pbritti. That's a 5-times expansion within 8 days. I've put the nomination back into the approved folder. Schwede66 18:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
More than perfectly ok, Schwede66! I've made enough errors at DYK to know how easy it is. Thank you for your hard work on the project, especially with how overloaded DYK has been for a while now. You all do great work! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Apologies to everyone involved! While my earlier comments about newness stand, if the article is indeed a 5x expansion then it should be eligible. Eight days is just outside the 7-day requirement, though in practice we do tend to IAR such cases so it should be fine. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
No apologies necessary, Narutolovehinata5! Mistakes like that aren't personal and happen all the time (well, at least they do for me). Worth noting that the expansion itself occurred within two days (Nov 20–21), but I had marked the article for expansion with a template a week prior but didn't make any substantive changes until later. But thank you for the IAR note–you all have given me leniency before and it's always appreciated! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I indeed used the DYKcheck tool, and had decided that it fulfilled the criteria; I unfortunately do not recall the details of my decision. I think @Pbritti's math makes sense. Broc (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

Catherine, Princess of Wales

@Lightburst, MSincccc, and Seddon: is taking photographs of your kids really something that meets our interestingness requirement? RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No its a fact that many don't know that Catherine's an amateur photographer who is often the person behind some of her kids' and other royals' official portraits. If you are not convinced, we can proceed with ALT1. But please I have worked for long to see a hook related to the Princess on the Main Page and most possibly on her birthday this Tuesday. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised that this hook could be considered uninteresting. If it was any other person, it could be typical. Even if it was simply a case of Kate taking pics of George and Charlotte, maybe. But the hook is about her hobby being photography and the official pictures were by her herself. To me, that's the unusual aspect. The official portraits were taken by none other than her, an actual royal, instead of a different person, not to mention the fact that a royal could have such a hobby in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Something being interesting is rather subjective. If other people feel the hook works, I have no objection. RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Pity she doesn't sing opera? Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
That take seems somewhat hidden by the wording of the hook. Perhaps using "portraits" may help with other tweaks, eg. "...and was the photographer for some of her children's official portraits". CMD (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
This was in really bad taste. This is a living person. She holds no important post. The hobby she has is a common hobby: clicking pictures on one's own children. It is highly is unremarkable. Even though some may find it interesting, I'm assuming it would be people belonging to her home country, and that too of a certain traditionalist inclination. Out there there are millions of things that are deserving of more attention. Royal families, especially the British one, isn't one of them. DistributorScientiae (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hermann Alfred Tanner

@DYK admins: After I promoted this, I realized I was the GA reviewer for it, so somebody else will need to review this. RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done @RoySmith: I've reviewed it and with the caveat that I'm AGF on the offline German-language source (which I do not speak) everything looks good to go from what I see. - Aoidh (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Kathanar – The Wild Sorcerer

The first paragraph is an exact match for famousfix.com/list/indian-historical-fantasy-films. I'm pretty sure they copied from us, but another set of eyes to confirm that would be appreciated. RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That source definitely wasn't there when I ran Earwig before. I just followed the link and it took me to https://www.famousfix.com/topic/kathanar-the-wild-sorcerer, which uses the same links as us. They've copied us.--Launchballer 17:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3: 11 Jan

NZ MPs mass nomination (nom)

I've just moved prep 3 to queue but the lead hook is one that I nominated. @DYK admins: could one of you please check that one? The tricky check is the hook fact; when Bremps dealt with it, I pointed them to this Google Sheet (tab "changes with final results") and that cleared things up. The electoral system is a bit hard to follow and the changes from preliminary to final results have been written up in the target article, but trying to follow what's going on becomes a lot easier by looking at that spreadsheet. Any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. My guess is that between DrThneed and me, we probably have all the nominated articles on our watchlist to ensure that there aren't any shenanigans going on (in fact, I semi-protected one of the articles the other days after continued disruptive editing). Schwede66 17:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Schwede66 I've got all of them on my watchlist as of just now. Exciting to see this finally getting close to the front page! DrThneed (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@DYK admins: Did anyone care to take a look? I'm certain that all is in order but it would be (INVOLVED) negligence if I didn't prompt ya. Schwede66 22:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Green Bay Packers awards (nom)

Pings to Gonzo fan2007 (nominator) and ZooBlazer. There are several problems here:

  • I can't see the hook fact in the article. Where does it say that the AP NFL MVP Award has been given out 28 times?
  • If I follow the source given in the nomination, I count 30 awards; not 28. Am I right or am I counting the wrong thing?

A prompt response would be appreciated because this will hit the main page soonish. Schwede66 18:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Schwede66 I see where you are coming from. I was relaying on basic math for the first part (i.e. that the award has been given out over 28 seasons from 1995 to 2022), with the seven awards to Packers players being evident in the table. Maybe a revised hook like:
ALT1 ... that since 1995, the AP NFL MVP award has been given to a player for the Green Bay Packers seven times? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
That will do the trick. Thanks! Schwede66 19:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66 My bad, I probably shouldn't have taken a list as my first review/QPQ. I thought that if the info was supported in the table, that was okay to use, but at the same time it should probably be mentioned in the text as well. It does look like it is 30 total. I must have forgot to count or I miscounted something while I was checking the number of Packers winners.
Not a good look for me in my first review. -- ZooBlazer 18:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
DYK is a complicated business; it's very easy to not get every detail right. I've been at it for coming up 15 years and further up this page, I made a big review blunder. Hence, all is good, ZooBlazer. What we want is for all to be correct when it hits the main page and through collaboration, we'll get there. Schwede66 19:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Languages of Lebanon (nom)

I've moved this item to here to make it a subsection of the Q3 discussion. Schwede66 20:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

"* ... that the languages of Lebanon are so commonly code-switched between that "hi, كيفك [kīfak]? ça va?", which combines English, Levantine Arabic and French, is a typical greeting?"

Seems like either a word was left out after "between" or, more likely, that "between" was left over from a previous version of the hook and should be deleted? Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It's referring to code-switching between languages. The "languages" having been already mentioned. The formulation is grammatically sound, and I didn't have an issue myself on first reading, but if it could be misunderstood, a rephrasing may be needed. Kingsif (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
OK, I see your point that in this formulation, "between" is meant as an adverb, but in a sentence this dense I surely wouldn't be the only person to make that mistake. Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
How about "... that speakers so commonly code-switch between the languages of Lebanon that "hi, كيفك [kīfak]? ça va?", which combines English, Levantine Arabic and French, is a typical greeting?" It does add four characters to an already lengthy hook. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I was going to suggest that, because code-switching states that code-switching or language alternation occurs when a speaker alternates between two or more languages, the "between" is already built-in and not needed, so * ... that the languages of Lebanon are so commonly code-switched that "hi, كيفك [kīfak]? ça va?", which combines English, Levantine Arabic and French, is a typical greeting? might be better. But on reflection @Firefangledfeathers's proposal is much neater. Bazza (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Maybe a shorter version:
... that "hi, كيفك? ça va?" is a common greeting in the languages of Lebanon?
I think most readers will recognize that there's three different languages represented there without needing to call them out explicitly. RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't really make sense though. The greeting isn't in the languages of Lebanon, its in their application (if that makes sense). I like Firefangledfeathers' hook better. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
OK, just a suggestion. RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, merci ktir for your feedback.
Would it make sense to say
... that code-switching in Lebanon is so common that...?
Also, the C-cedilla in ça va should be capitalized, no?
And should there be a space between the question mark and "Ça va ?", per French punctuation rules, or do we keep it as is, since the kifak has the left-to-right question mark, not the right-to-left one (؟)? FunLater (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Right. This is now in Queue 3. I've adopted the changes suggested by FunLater including all the little tweaks (which is beyond my realm of knowledge; I rely on the info provided to be correct). The main difference to the hook suggested by Firefangledfeathers is that it avoids a link to code-switching; if readers don't know what that is (and most won't), they can find out by reading the target article rather than the link directed traffic away. The resulting link is a tad EGGY but acceptable in my view. If others disagree, we can revert to Firefangledfeathers' hook. Schwede66 18:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm confused about the "[kīfak]" part. Is that an optional word, an explanation of how to pronounce the Arabic text, or what? RoySmith (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
It's the transliteration of the text that's written in the the Arabic script.
We can just use "kifak" to make it less confusing, which is used by the sources and in the commonly used alphabet Arabizi. We can also use kīfak, which is in IPA. FunLater (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Both Arabizi and the Arabic script are used when writing Levantine Arabic. FunLater (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I think what would be less confusing would be to leave the kifak out and just use the arabic text. The point of the hook is that the phrase is constructed using three different languages. Even I, who speaks no Arabic, recognize the Arabic letters as being Arabic. Likewise, while I have just a few scattered words of French, I recognized the French text as being French. And that's really all we need in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
But then the question mark would be weird.
"hi, كيفك? Ça va ?" is wrong because the question mark is in the opposite direction
and "Hi, كيفك؟ Ça va ?" looks weird FunLater (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
For context Arabic script is written from right to left, so the question mark is also in the opposite direction of the most used scripts. FunLater (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Which leads to the obvious question, why isn't it "hi, [kīfak] كيفك ? ça va?". You generally place transliterations after the original, and in the case of Arabic, "after" means "to the left of". RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I still consider it after, since most of the text is left to right. The Lebanon article and probably most articles on this wiki do that. It's how it's commonly done. FunLater (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Here is how your sentence reads: ➡️➡️, [➡️➡️➡️] ⬅️⬅️? ➡️➡️➡️ ?
I feel like the arrows that are in brackets are what almost everyone would read first.
Despite its flaws, I think I now prefer "hi, كيفك؟ Ça va ?"
The templates are include in this message, two for languages and one so the italicized question mark doesn't touch the quotation mark.
Does anyone have any issues with this way of writing "hi, كيفك؟ Ça va ?"? FunLater (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks; I've copied this latest version to Q3. Schwede66 22:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, @Schwede66 FunLater (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

A more fundamental problem is that the article has a couple of maintenance tags, and that's not allowed. FunLater, do you have time to address that? If you don't, then I'll pull this out of the queue to give you all the time you need. Schwede66 19:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll remove the "Symbols for writing numbers" section (even though it can be partly verified from the images).
I'll also remove French from the languages used to communicate between some speakers.
This would lead to the only uncited claim being that "people in Lebanon who come from other countries in the Levant may use their own Levantine dialect" (which is obvious, what matters is the population numbers, which are cited). Should I also remove that for now until I find sources later?
I think it's worth noting that I added the maintenance tags. FunLater (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
In the second line, I'm referring to the "used as the main way to communicate between some native speakers of Levantine in Lebanon" part, which has a citation needed template. FunLater (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 Done @Schwede66
I addressed all the tags, mostly by removing the uncited claims. FunLater (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Schwede66 20:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Next issue, FunLater. I see that you created the article on 8 September 2023, utilising content from some other articles, including Lebanon (Language section). Here's an archived version of one of the sources from March 2023. It contains content (a footnote) that is very close to what we've got in your article. I suspect this got into your article from one of the other articles. Here's a comparison:

Text comparison
Source (archived version; March 2023) Article
The first Armenians to arrive were Cilician Catholics in the eighteenth century, escaping the harassment of the Armenian Orthodox Church from which they had split. Many more arrived in flight from massacre by the Turks in 1895-6 and the greater genocide of 1915. Yet more came when France failed to establish an Armenian entity in Cilicia in 1920-1921, and the final influx arrived from Alexandretta when France handed this to Turkey in 1939. The first Armenians to arrive were Cilician Catholics in the 18th century, escaping the harassment of the Armenian Orthodox Church, from which they had split. Many more arrived in flight from massacre by the Turks in 1895–1896 and the Armenian genocide of 1915–1917. More came when France failed to establish an Armenian entity in Cilicia in 1920–1921. The final influx arrived from Alexandretta when France handed this to Turkey in 1939.

Onceinawhile, it seems you missed that when you did your Earwig check. There is, of course, a chance that the source copied its material from that Wikipedia article. FunLater, could you have a look where this comes from, and whether the original WP text is older than the Minority Rights Group source? Schwede66 20:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The Minority Rights Group article is older. Would replacing the note with this paraphrased version work?
"According to Minority Rights Group,[citation] Cilician Catholics seeking refuge from the Armenian Orthodox Church's persecution initially came to Lebanon in the 18th century. Subsequent and bigger immigration waves arrived due to massacres by the Turks in 1895–1896 and the Armenian genocide of 1915. More arrived when France's attempt to establish an Armenian entity in Cilicia failed in 1920–1921. The last influx resulted from France ceding Alexandretta to Turkey in 1939." FunLater (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
That would be great. Thanks, FunLater. Schwede66 21:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 Done FunLater (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

LGBT and Wikipedia

Currently in Prep 7:

I have been unable to verify this hook from the article in question. The only part of the article that appears to pertain to the question is the following:

In 2019, Rachel Wexelbaum, an associate professor at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota, United States, wrote, "For LGBTIQ+ people and those searching for LGBTIQ+ information, Wikipedia has proven invaluable in countries where LGBTIQ+ publications, media, or visibility may be criminalized or cut short due to AIDS NGOs leaving those countries."[2] It can also be valuable for those in communities where this information is socially marginalized;[3]: 91  a notable example is the experience of transgender author and activist Abby Stein, who discovered the idea of being transgender on the Hebrew Wikipedia.[4]

- that mentions just one person, Abby Stein, who apparently discovered her identity via Wikpedia, but the rest of the paragraph only speaks of LGBTIQ people finding useful information on the topic in Wikipedia, which is not the same thing.

Pinging the nominator @MyCatIsAChonk: and the reviewer @Seddon:. Gatoclass (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gatoclass, the quote from Wexelbaum's paper supports the claim that many people have found valuable information in suppressive communities, but I can see how the phrasing doesn't quite align. To be closer to this, how about:
ALT1d: ... that coverage of LGBT topics on Wikipedia helps people learn about LGBT topics in areas where information is suppressed?
Or the sort- if anything, just a mild rephrasing of the current hook would work. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@MyCatIsAChonk: That reads like a promotion of Wikipedia (even though I know assume it's not meant to), avoidance of which there's a policy which I can't remember. Bazza (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, that sounds too promotional to me too. Gatoclass (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
On another note, is a hook like that particularly unique or surprising? Coverage of many topics on Wikipedia helps people learn about things that they may not otherwise have. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but I think the point is that people in countries where LGBT topics are suppressed are using WP to learn about them. Black Kite (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@Gatoclass good point, how about just using ALT0 in the original nomination? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Again MyCatIsAChonk, it reads as excessively promotional to me. I think I could accept the original hook however if it was trimmed as follows:
* ... that Wikipedia editors have organized various campaigns to improve LGBT coverage on the site?
Would that be acceptable to you? Gatoclass (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
@Gatoclass, that's much better, thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:54, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 Done,[16], thanks - Gatoclass (talk) 08:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 6: 14 Jan

Forest Van Hook (nom)

The hook as promoted was ... that Forest Van Hook was so large that he had to buy two tickets when attending sports events? Problem is that this neither matches the article (He attended many Illinois games and always bought two tickets due to his large size) nor the source (He always had two tickets, since he weighed more than 300 lbs). There is no compulsion expressed. I shall change the hook to read "that he always bought two tickets"; please sing out if I've got that wrong, BeanieFan11 (nominator) or Tails Wx (reviewer). Schwede66 18:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Anton Charles Pegis (nom)

The hook as promoted was ... that by popular demand, philosopher Anton Charles Pegis continued to teach graduate classes for three years after becoming an emeritus professor? That's a bit boring, isn't it? It's not unusual at all for professors to keep lecturing once they become emeritus. Isn't there something more interesting to say about his philosophy? Pinging Arbitrarily0 (nominator) or Panamitsu (reviewer). Schwede66 19:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

  • What's interesting is not so much that he continued lecturing, but that he continued lecturing by popular demand. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
    Ok. Fine by me. AGF on the offline source. Schwede66 22:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

31 October 2023 Jabalia refugee camp airstrike (nom)

I've pulled this hook. The prose is made up of 36% direct quotes and with that, it's a WP:COPYVIO not good writing. Note that it's nowhere defined what proportion of an article can be made up of quotes, but I suggest that 36% is far too much to be acceptable. I'll copy these comments to the nomination form. Schwede66 20:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC) And I'll attend to the hole later. Feel free to plug it for me if someone is so inclined. Schwede66 21:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I would think that whether it's a copyvio is about the percentage used of the quoted source, not the percentage of the overall article that is quotes. It's basically impossible to infringe a work's copyright when quoting one or two sentences of it. Heavy use of quotes is generally bad article-writing, but even WP:COPYQUOTE (an essay) focuses on extensive quotation of individual sources, not overall usage. So I'm not sure there's any policy violation here, or even essay violation. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 21:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Tamzin, the source length is what is relevant here. As far as the article is concerned, it’s not main page ready. Editors have an opportunity to tidy it up. Schwede66 21:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Al-Wafa bi Asma al-Nisa (nom)

In the discussion further up the page, I stated that I regard the nominator's (Owais Al Qarni) refusal to provide QPQs beyond the first five as WP:GAMING. I further stated that I would thus reject the first nominations that are QPQ-exempt as well. Nobody openly agreed with me. What's happened since is that Narutolovehinata5 had a discussion with the nominator on their talk page. Owais Al Qarni eventually stopped responding and has deleted that discussion from their talk page with an edit summary "solved"! I'm now even more inclined to reject the first nominations as well, including this one, but won't do so until other editors say that they agree. Schwede66 19:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's appropriate. 5 free nominations is a cornerstone of DYK policy; the noninations which have gone beyond that limit have been rejected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I would disagree with rejecting the other nominations solely on those grounds as the QPQ requirement only kicks in after the 5th nomination. Thus, it shouldn't apply to the first five. Of course, the first five nominations should stand on their own merits and should be rejected if they do not meet requirements and/or have issues that are not addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

William Carter (nom)

The hook as promoted was ... that composer and conductor William Carter began a career as a professional organist at the age of nine?. The problem is that neither the article nor the sources that aren't behind a required subscription say that he was a professional at age 9. I'll nuke the word "professional"; please sing out if you think otherwise, 4meter4 (nominator) or Gerda Arendt (reviewer). Schwede66 18:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Schwede, this seems overly obtuse. He was given a paid post as an organist at a church at 9. That's a professional job. The Biographical Dictionary of the Organ has a whole list of organists in that post at that church. To put it another way; if someone began working as a physician at the age of nine in a hospital but the source didn't say they were a professional it doesn't mean that we can't understand that they are a professional doctor. Likewise, if someone begins working in a church doing a paid job that is their lifelong career; we can conclude that when they began earning money doing the work of their profession that is when they became a professional. The main reason why I prefer professional; is the fact that he was in an official organist office (ie a job with a title) and was not an amateur player or volunteer. 4meter4 (talk) 19:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Where does it say that it was a paid position, 4meter4? Not in the article; all it says is that he was "appointed", and that may very well have been a voluntary position. Schwede66 19:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
He is listed in the organist post at the church in the Biographical Dictionary of the Organ. You can also look at the parish records which are housed in the London Metropolitan Archives. It's a paid official role of long standing.4meter4 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
If it's a paid position, can you please spell that out in the article? Schwede66 19:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that is necessary. Organist posts are paid in the Anglican Church. That would be like clarifying a doctor is paid in a hospital job in an article on a doctor.4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
It is unusual for a nine year old to have a paid position anywhere so I think Schwede66 is right that we need to cite it. It is not WP:BLUESKY to me. Our hook fact needs to be cited in the article per our DYK criteria. Lightburst (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@Lightburst That may be true in today's world but that is categorically false for 1840s Great Britain. This was the period of the Industrial Revolution when the majority of children living in London began working in paid factory jobs by the time they were eight years old on average and children made up 35% of Britain's entire workforce. (see See Child Labour in the British Industrial Revolution, World History Encyclopedia) While certainly being an organist at a young age was unusual (that is why this is a good hook), being a working child in a paid job at the age of nine was normal at that time and place in history. Only the wealthy could afford to give their children a work-free existence. Even the middle classes often put their children into paid jobs or working apprenticeships during this period.4meter4 (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
We can AGF on sourcing as long as nobody raises a reasonable objection. That's been done so we need a better source. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Organist posts are professional jobs in the Anglican Church; the same way a priest is a professional job. We have multiple high quality sources (three) stating he held the post of organist at Christchurch, Rotherhithe, London in 1848. All of them state this. Two of them specifically say he was nine years old when he was appointed to this post. There is not a verifiability problem here.4meter4 (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
For my two cents on current interpretation of guidelines, 4meter4 is right and this hook verifies to its source. The current DYK guidelines were modified to account for exactly this scenario, as raised by Tamzin at the GA guideline RfC:

Consider a sentence like "The plaintiff claimed that the city's actions had violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects freedom of speech". Suppose the citation, a high-quality law review article, does not explicitly say that the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, because that's so basic a claim that it often goes without saying. The proposed wording would say that this citation is insufficient, even though the claim is trivially verifiable.

It'd be ridiculous to make the source actually say that an organist is a paid position, because – well, it is. Not every low-level source should have to give every bit of context; an organist (in this context) is widely acknowledged to be a paid position that requires non-trivial skill. When someone is hired to a job that is considered a profession, they are a professional. When someone is in Paris, we can say they were in France, even if the source only says "I vacationed in Paris last June". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
What if you were in the other Paris? Lightburst (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
If The New York Times mentions in passing someone's Paris vacation, would you remove a link to Paris because it's not clear that it's that city? When there's nothing to suggest otherwise (i.e. the article isn't about my 2023 road trip through Texas)? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Just for the record: I'll be happy with whatever the consensus is. Schwede66 21:00, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I have reinstated the word "professional" based on the above discussion. Let that not stop you from discussing this further. Schwede66 23:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Heart of Frédéric Chopin

I gotta say, when I read today's lead hook, I assumed it was click-bait. Turns out, it's a completely straightforward statement of what happened. Bravo. RoySmith (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, quite incredible really. I had followed the same "is that clickbait?" path. Schwede66 00:11, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Probably gonna get some clicks for the right reasons. Bruxton (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
What did the musician say to the undertaker? "Hey, why are you chopin that guy's heart out?" RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Crickets. lol. Well the hook did ok. 29,554 views 1,231.4 per hour. Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Muppet Theory

Muppet Theory

Currently in Prep 6. This looks like a classic WP:NEOLOGISM to me. I notice that since creating the article, the user in question has been indef blocked for tendentious editing. Suggest this one be pulled and perhaps listed at WP:AFD. Gatoclass (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  • I don't think I'd even bother sending it to AfD, I'd merge a few sentences into Dahlia Lithwick and be done with it. But yeah, needs pulling. Black Kite (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
    Pulled. That made a hole in the prep that’s the next one up for promotion to queue. Schwede66 16:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
    I've filled the hole in Prep 6 with a hook from Prep 1, so the former can be promoted when an admin is available. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Gerda Arendt's hooks on DYK

Upon deep reflection this was a bad idea and a mistake I deeply regret, as such I am withdrawing this discussion and learning from the experience. I sincerely and deeply apologize to Gerda and everyone else involved here and it is perhaps for the best to move on from this experience and learn from it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:45, 11 January 2024 (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.

Gerda Arendt is currently DYK's most prolific contributor. She has been a well-regarded member of the DYK community for over a decade, and her contributions are very much well-regarded.

However, over the years, several editors have raised concerns about Gerda's hooks. In particular, they have stated that several of the hooks that she has proposed may not meet the DYK criterion on interestingness, whether "interesting to a broad audience", as previously defined, or "likely to be perceived as intriguing or unusual to readers with no special knowledge or interest", as it has been since a 2022 RfC which grew out of a discussion surrounding one of her nominations. These concerns from editors have been backed up by viewership statistics, which show that her role hooks (hooks that are about opera performers performing roles) are generally among our worst-performing hooks in terms of views.

Another issue raised by reviewers and others is her behavior when they deem a hook uninteresting. Despite the fact they are a near-constant in her nominations, Gerda still objects every time this issue is brought up, often resulting in discussions that are longer than the articles nominated. There have also been concerns raised by some editors that her actions could violate WP:OWN.

With this in mind, this discussion is started to discuss on whether or not the aforementioned issues are a problem for DYK. In addition, the question is also raised on if restrictions on Gerda's hooks are needed, or if they are not necessary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Not getting the response you wanted, huh? Funny. SilverserenC 01:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
No thank you on the thanks, Narutolovehinata5. My comment was not in support of you or any of this. SilverserenC 01:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I understand where you're coming from and I'm really deeply regretting all of this happening. That is why I thanked you, because your comment put sense into me. I don't know what to do anymore because I feel like I just made a very bad decision that I know I'm going to regret for a very long time. I'm deeply sorry for everything that happened and, most of all, I'm very sorry to Gerda. I'm very sorry for my tone, I should have never done this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:10, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I think at this point anyone who reviews one of her noms knows what they're getting themselves in for. Unless we hit too many hooks, her prolificacy is mostly appreciated. Kingsif (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Look, I find a lot of the hooks interesting. I'm not a music guy, but I like church history and ritual; Gerda's hooks kinda waltz around that niche. Does it sometimes feel like DYK is a bit heavy on the German music history? Yeah, if you're looking for it. But if someone was looking for it, they'd probably wonder what's up with all the William & Mary hooks over the next couple months. DYK is for the imperfect parts of Wikipedia to get shared with the world, to show them we're still a growing collaborative project committed to the accessibility of all kinds of knowledge. I say we just forget this dust-up happened and go back to collaborating (and, occasionally, accidentally stepping on each other's toes). ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree. I also regret my earlier engagement, and would like to restate my apology to Gerda. I also apologize for not apologizing a few days ago—I was embarrassed and didn't want to trouble her more about it. Her contributions to the site are very valuable. Remsense留 01:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
There's so many things wrapped up here, but I'll concentrate on just one specific point. @Narutolovehinata5, you say her role hooks ... are generally among our worst-performing hooks in terms of views. My earnest response to that is, "Why do we care?" We're all volunteers here. We write about what interests us. None of us have quarterly OKRs around how many clicks DYK generates.
I'm not being facetous here. I'm honestly curious why it's important how many clicks a hook gets and why that's an indicator of how much value somebody is adding to the project. RoySmith (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
If I may answer on my own behalf: I think we are all invested in exposing readers to subjects that may spark their interest and enrich their life. The metrics are an extremely flawed, non-conclusive way to measure whether how much we may be doing that. Remsense留 02:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Considering there's a discussion farther up on this page about quirky vs clickbait, it seems clear that clicks isn't and shouldn't be the point of DYK. SilverserenC 02:29, 11 January 2024 (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.

Hook duration dynamics

For a while we have used a 12/24 hook duration system, which seems to work O.K., but seems unfair to some subjects which gives us either a once a day or twice a day rotation. It goes back and forth between a 365 sets per year and 730 sets per year rate. We generally fall between those two rates so this works. Once I mentioned it would be fairer to switch between 16/18 which is between 486.6 and 547.5 sets per year, which might be a bit tight of a range to work. However, what about switching to a 16/24 system, which would make sure all hooks get more fairly exposed worldwide. The 16 hour periods would entail 2-day periods where 3 sets run for 16 hours each. It would take longer to reduce high hook inventories, but it would be fairer to all hooks.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

How many hooks do we get through per year? I've suggested increasing the number of hooks on the main page before now.--Launchballer 15:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I meant 'per set'...--Launchballer 16:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The possibility of 18-hour sets (not 16) has been discussed before, but the calls were rejected for both technical and practicality reasons. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
16 hour sets sound sensible to me, though I'm sure I've suggested this before... Yes the times will vary for sets (so not always at 12 o'clock UTC), but it will stop the frequent 12/24 hour hook shenanigans. And 16 hours works better than 18 in my opinion, as it cycles better (3 sets every 2 days, whereas 18 hours is 6 sets every 4.5 days, and so a 9 day cycle until it's back to 12 o'clock change time). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
16 hours gets you 3 sets every two days; 18 hours is 4 sets every 3 days. When I started at DYK, we had 3 sets per day, or 8 hours, so 12 hours or 24 hours both seem like extra time to me, and I don't see any need to change; 12 hours is a lot, and 24 is an extra bonus. But whether it's between 12 and 24, or 16 or 18 is picked, it won't be exact, and we will have to switch at some point. We've been in a recent lull, and WikiCup is beginning, which adds to the rate of nominations; similarly, there will be a GAN backlog drive in February or March which will also increase the number of DYK nominations. Something to think about. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I remember 6 hour time slots when I started. But that is the past. Of course no subject is entitled to exposure time. I am just saying since we have the system, it is more fair to have those that don't get 24-hour slots get 16-hour slots rather than 12-hour slots.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Proposals to vary from 12 or 24-hour timeframes have been repeatedly shot down due to special occasional requests wanting to be on a certain date. Flibirigit (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Flibirigit, 16-hour sets would not interfere with date requests any more than a 12-hour set would. In any two day cycle there would be three runs: a.) 0:00-16:00 day 1, b.) 16:00-8:00 day 1/day 2 and c.) 8:00-0:00 day 2. On the UTC clock/calendar, a day 1 date request could get the a slot and the day 2 request could get the c slot. Depending on the part of the world that the subject is of most interest to the b. slot may also be an option. If the UTC clock/calendar is not most relevant, the 12-hour set or 16-hour set would both be a matter of figuring out which slot is best for the hook.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Must admit, my morning coffee has not kicked in yet. Why 16 over 18? Ktin (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
16 feels a bit neater, because you crank through 3 sets in 2 days, then start the cycle again. With 18, it would be 4 sets over 3 days, which is a little more complex to think about. Personally I'm fine with this proposal, it would be good to get to a point where we rarely need to change the frequency. Obviously having the year by year stats would be useful for that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Hmmm. I see. Typically one of the concerns I have thought through is daytime in certain geographies and night time in certain other geographies when the hooks run. 24 hours solves for that quite nicely. However, 12 hours does not solve for that. If we were going for something in between, I think of 18 which is right in between 12 and 24. Ktin (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Ktin, the point of varying from 24-hour sets is to reduce the backlog by presenting an above average number of hooks. 18-hour sets is a rate of 486.6 sets per year, but 16-hour sets is a rate of 547.5 sets per year. Last I heard we do somewhere in the low 500s. Someone can probably tell us what the exact number of sets we did in the last couple of years.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
497 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
2023 52 28 48 35 40 30 39 37 42 31 30 31 443
2022 62 38 42 41 38 44 45 39 44 51 41 31 516
2021 57 40 62 60 48 49 56 62 42 42 45 48 611
2020 61 47 31 42 62 53 52 53 54 33 41 43 572
2019 31 39 48 31 31 30 31 51 50 31 30 38 441
2018 54 28 29 41 45 30 31 31 30 31 30 54 434
2017 52 55 49 31 31 30 51 31 40 31 30 31 462
Total 369 275 309 281 295 266 305 304 302 250 247 276 3479
Might have got carried away, but if I can add up, we did 443 sets last year (or, at least, that's the number of times "ago) (utc+" appears), and I think the COVID spike's over. (September 2016 contained a day with three sets, so any earlier than 2017 isn't a fair comparison.)--Launchballer 16:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Launchballer. This measures the outflow and is an important number for sure. Do we have the ability to measure the inflow? I think that is the number we need to look at. If we want to be specific we should use Inflow multiplied by probability of acceptance. That will tell us how many entries will come through our prep queues.
My mind continues to remain fixated with the 18 hours number to ensure that each time zone gets a good shot at having hooks during their daytime. My thinking 24 hours = Each time zone gets the hooks during their daytime. 12 hours = half and half. 18 hours = somewhere in between. Ktin (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
If there is a way, I don't know it. For me, 18 hours is a non-starter because every third day would not have a set to itself, which would obstruct date requests on those days. I remain in favour of increasing the number of hooks per set; nine and ten hook sets would be equivalent to between 410.8978125 and 456.553125 eight-hook sets.--Launchballer 21:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Launchballer, these are the two alternatives to the 12-hour alternative:
  1. 16-hour runs:
    1. a.) 0:00-16:00 day 1,
    2. b.) 16:00-8:00 day 1/day 2
    3. c.) 8:00-0:00 day 2
If a person wants either day 1 or day 2, there is a clear set preference for either day.
  1. 18-hour runs:
    1. a.) 0:00-18:00 day 1,
    2. b.) 18:00-12:00 day 1/day 2
    3. c.) 12:00-6:00 day 2/day 3
    4. d.) 6:00-0:00 day 3.
I did not realize your point until considered a request for day 2.
Yes 16-hour (and 12-hour) alternative runs retain date preference availability on the UTC clock/calendar. 18-hour runs is a problem.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
P.S. Lunchballer, please clear up the math so I can see where 410.8978125 and 456.553125 come from.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
365.2425 divided by 8, and then multipied by 9 and 10. (.2425 is 97 leap years out of 400, and I like the number 365.2425 because it divides cleanly by 7, i.e. there are 52.1775 weeks in a year.)--Launchballer 22:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Launchballer, your precision with all the decimal places lost me for a second. Forgive my simplified math below. I do concur that the optimal solution would be to have 24-hour sets year round with 10 hook sets. That would put us very close to the annual run rate. As long as we don't have any COVID-like production bumps it would probably result in equity across all DYK hook subjects. The question is whether a longer DYK would still be acceptable. We would need to get ITN and/or OTD to expand to offset this change for desktop viewing balance.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Ktin, I didn't really realize normal production is that far below 500 sets/year. We could say that 2020-2022 are all COVID bump rates. Right now when we have a high inventory of approved articles we go to a 12-hour run. This is a pace of 730 (365*2) sets per year. Because this is an above average number, it helps us reduce the high inventory very quickly, but some subjects only get 12 hours of exposure. 730 reduces the inventory because it is far above our average production rate (see the year-end totals). 16-hour sets is a pace of 547.5 sets per year, which is a rate that over the long haul will reduce our inventory (except for the 2020-22 COVID lockdown production bump). 18-hour sets is only a pace of 486.6 sets per year, which may be a bit above average, but will may not reduce the inventory any where near as quickly. In fact if production fluctuates during the year, at a time when production of approved articles is high and inventory is high, we may not even be reducing the inventory, but it would probably keep inventory from ballooning too much until production goes back down. Let's say we believe we produce about 450 sets of approved content per year. We could predict number of days of the year (x) that we would be at 24-hours sets as follows:
  1. 18-hour set alternative: x*(1) + (365-x)*4/3 =450-->x=110
  2. 16-hour set alternative: x*(1) + (365-x)*3/2 =450-->x=195
  3. 12-hour set alternative: x*(1) + (365-x)*2 = 450-->x=280 (current situation)
18-hour sets would not be that bad actually, it is just a question of whether it keeps inventory from continuing to balloon at times when inventory is high.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Number of hooks in each set

As an offshoot of the above discussion, I want to consider the number of hooks in each hook set.

DYK has not always had 8 hooks per set: January 2005 had a seemingly-random number, January 2007 had between 6-8/set, January 2010 had 8/set (with 4 sets running each day!), January 2012 and January 2014 had 7/set. Its back to 8/set in January 2016, which I think has remained that way up to today.

If DYK reduces the number of hooks per set, it will give more attention to each article in a set, especially those in the middle. For main page balance, fewer hooks mean that TFA can have longer blurbs; speaking as a WP:TFA blurb writer, it can be hard cutting material to 1025 characters and fewer DYK hooks means TFA can take up more space on the main page. Likewise, from an OTD perspective, if there are fewer DYK hooks, OTD can run fewer hooks in its section to achieve Main Page balance. Fewer hooks per DYK set also means that prep-to-queue promoters do not have to review as many hooks, which will hopefully get more admin to help out here.

If DYK adds more hooks to the set it will mean we cycle through hooks more quickly. OTD recently increased the number of births/deaths on each day from 3 to 4, which sometimes adds a line to OTD. I've noticed that OTD is further down the page than DYK about once a week; sometimes the number of OTD hooks is reduced from 5 to 4 to achieve main page balance. I would surmise that, from a Main Page perspective, there is space to have more DYK hooks if that is decided upon.

Looking forward to reading additional thoughts: should DYK increase, decrease, or keep the number of hooks the same per set? Is your opinion contingent on how often DYK runs sets? (so, for example, if DYK went to 16h sets, would you want fewer hooks per set?) Z1720 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Z1720, we have been at eight hooks per set for quite a while, as you note, and that is because that's what we need to fulfill our part in balancing the main page. We are not operating in a vacuum. Indeed, it has been suggested that we do slightly larger prep sets, but there was fierce resistance here from prep builders to including more than eight hooks per set. I doubt we have the option of attempting to reduce the number of hooks at the present time, though, as you note, if we wished to expand to nine hooks (or maybe even ten), that would likely be welcomed by our colleague main-page sections. As I'm not building prep sets, I'll let those who do weigh in on set size. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
For exactly balancing the Main page, we should perhaps be flexible in the hooks per set. The short hooks that we tend to have would make it often more balanced with one or two more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

By User:Launchballer's mathematics above, it seems likely that if we switched to 10-hook sets, we could probably go year round with 24-hour sets. That would be equitable for all hook subjects to get equal treatment. This is the alternative (and optimal) method of more equitable exposure for all hook subjects. Otherwise, we would have to return to considering whether we could raise the high inventory hook duration from 12 hours to 16 hours per other considerations above while continuing with an 8-hook policy.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

P.S. note that the (potentially) year-round 24-hour 10-hook set would result in reduction in number of annual DYK LEAD images. There would only be 365 per year, rather than 450ish.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Z1720, BlueMoonset, and Gerda Arendt: Are we going to seek a serious consideration of year round 24-hour 10-hook sets?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
    • TonyTheTiger, I'm certainly not in favor of doing so. I don't see any buy-in from prep set builders, who made the most vociferous objections to prep sets that large the last time increasing from eight per set was proposed. If they are on board, that's one thing; those who are building prep sets have been stressed for some time, and making things more difficult for them—and for the admins who later recheck the sets and may not be as willing to check ten hooks at a time rather than eight—could break DYK if it loses us willing prep builders and queue promoters who are in short supply as it is. (Less important, but still cogent: I don't think ten per day is going to hold up over the long haul without modification.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
        • User:BlueMoonset what do you mean by modification? Do you mean that you do not expect a total of 3650 hooks during the year. 24-hour sets would probably require some weeks with 9-hooks. But isn't having year-round runs of 24 hours with set sizes varying between 9 and 10 easier than having 8-hook sets varying between 12- and 24-hour runs easier. Alternatively, are you saying there is so strong of a seasonality that trying to make fairly constant sized 24-hour sets is impossible?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @TonyTheTiger: I don't think this thread has generated enough discussion yet to warrant a change, but maybe others will comment soon. I greatly dislike switching from 24h to 12h sets, and would prefer that this is eliminated. There are many ways to accomplish this without DYK running out of hooks or having a backlog, and I wanted to put forward other options. Z1720 (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
  • User:Z1720, I think the discussion should have gone forward. I was a bit surprised that User:BlueMoonset wanted to shut down the conversation. Almost all other sections of the main page only change at midnight. I think it would be an improvement for DYK to do so as well. I am unfamiliar with any significiant seasonality to DYK production. Thus, it seems to me that we could have 24-hour sets that generally switch between 9 and 10 hooks. We could also switch to 12-hour runs with 5-hook sets, but this would make the section to small and require too much adjustment by other sections.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Strongly opposed to more than eight hooks in a set. Set verification is already a very difficult, time-consuming task, and it's unreasonable to expect admins to do ten hooks at a time. Having said that, 8 hooks is not set in stone and we can always run more or less from time to time if we have a set that is clearly too short or too long. But ten hooks as the standard - no. It's not just about the difficulty in reviewing large sets either - more than eight makes it harder to build a balanced set without repetition of topic, and a set of more than eight - unless the hooks are short - is just throwing too much information at the reader. Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

  • regarding the idea of having a five-hook set every 12 hours, what if we bumped the character limit up to 250 and included two images per set? dying (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC) [struck idea for leniency. dying (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)]
    Short hooks are better. Even 200 usually means it's getting hard to read and understand quickly. 250 would be even worse. RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with Roy; short hooks are better. And yes, Leeky, I'm saying that with a straight face. Schwede66 00:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
    oh, i actually agree that shorter hooks are generally preferable. ideally, the main thing that should be taking up the extra space in this proposal is the second image. i just figured that, if we have the space for it, it might be nice to be a little more lenient on hooks that hinge on a more complex idea. however, i'll strike that part of the proposal if it's distracting from the main point. dying (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Removal of New Zealand & Green Bay Packers articles from the main page please

Im tired of seeing them. BeanieFan11 or whatever... Porkman34 (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Porkman34, if you'd like to see a larger variety of content, then I suggest putting in the work, improving the articles you'd like to see, and nominating them to appear on the main page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Mindful of WP:NOTFORUM. But I'd laugh, if the Packers won the Super Bowl. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Well at least we've now set a precedent for absurdly long hooks by allowing that NZ hook that's taken way too long to get through DYK..... Joseph2302 (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Eww, I hadn't even seen that. Major fail and WP:TROUTs to whoever signed that one off... the rules clearly state that "The hook cannot exceed 200 prose characters".  — Amakuru (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Not that I'm a fan of these mega-hooks, but in all fairness, WP:DYK200 does say For articles with multiple boldlinks, text in boldlinks after the first do not count toward the limit. RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see... perhaps I'll have to downgrade my trout to a guppy then...  — Amakuru (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Seen this, Amakuru? Wikipedia:Did you know/Multiple Article Hook Hall of Fame Schwede66 16:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
It is comforting to know that dinosaurs did better than New Zealand MPs. RoySmith (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Thankfully, we see very few of those long multis since users finally saw sense and modified the QPQ rule to require one QPQ for every nominated article rather than one per hook. Gatoclass (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: Bruxton (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I do make a good number of football hooks, but I had nothing to do with this one. How do you know about me with your first edit, @Porkman34:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "So You're The Packers Fan In New Zealand". WordPress.com. Retrieved 11 January 2024.

RoySmith (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe David Bakhtiari jumps off bridges in New Zealand would work? lol... ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
lol. That just might work! David Bakhtiari slamming beers. Maybe we can connect the Packers or Bakhtiari to beer in New Zealand. Bruxton (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Prep 6

I have filled out Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6. This is my first time to fill a prep and to use the PSHAW tool. I'm posting a notice for experienced editors who need to check up on inexperienced work. Rjjiii (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Besides what I said just above, you also have to watch the balance - I try to have bio non-bio, bio etc. Also you have to be aware of geography. In other words separate hooks so we do not have a US centric set. Look to make the set sample the world. Bruxton (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@Rjjiii: Also be aware of mixing, so I try to only put one sports related hook, one education, one literary, one radio station, one geography, and so on. Bruxton (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Modified hook for Going Infinite

I made an article for journalist and Number Go Up author Zeke Faux. I’ve modified the hook for Going Infinite to include his name. Would this be ok to run?

... that Michael Lewis, author of Going Infinite, compared rival author Zeke Faux to the subject of both their books, convicted fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried? Thriley (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Thriley, as long as you weren't naming Faux, it could be argued you were staying clear of WP:DYKHOOKBLP: Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided. With Faux now named, and said to be comparable to Bankman-Fried, I think you've probably stepped over the line. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. There’s nothing in the hook that implies that the accusation is ridiculous. Should have thought about this a bit more! Thriley (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2: 17 Jan

Cora Victoria Diehl (nom)

The hook says Cora Victoria Diehl was elected as the first woman to hold office in Oklahoma Territory. In the article lead, it says that she served as the first woman elected to public office in Oklahoma Territory, the lead is unreferenced, and it is the only mention in the article of her being first. TulsaPoliticsFan, can you please add this fact to the body of the article and give it a reliable source? Schwede66 02:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I can add a cite if it's needed, but the body already mentions (with cites) it was the first territorial election in Oklahoma Territory, so it'd be impossible for there to be a woman elected before her in Oklahoma Territory. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
It must be cited as it's the hook fact. For starters, she had a predecessor. The source from The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture states the fact. Schwede66 03:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Resolved – thanks. Schwede66 18:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Children's book illustration (nom)

The hook is: DYK that modern children's book illustration techniques include photography? The article, in line with the relevant source, states that photography was introduced in the 20th century. For clarity, I shall state here that we are talking about the period from 1 January 1901 to 31 December 2000. The source talks in the relevant passage about innovations in book printing in the early years of the century, particularly in the use of photography, .... Hence, we are talking about something that was introduced some 120 years ago, and to me, that clashes with the word "modern" in the hook. Piotrus (nominator) and Sahaib (reviewer), can you please come up with a better hook? Schwede66 03:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

We can just remove the word modern from the hook. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
IMO the article also contains a number of sentences without sources. It certainly wouldn't pass muster to appear on the Main Page at OTD or ITN. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Black Kite, can you please place 'citation needed' tags so that Piotrus knows what to work on? Schwede66 18:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I never like doing that to be honest, but I've put cn tags on the most obvious unsourced parts, if not all of them. It may well be that the cites at the end of many paragraphs actually sourced the whole para, but I'd like to see that stated if so. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I am sorry, but yes, everything there is sourced to the next citations. We do not cite every sentence, and I do not believe there are any controversial claims that require higher than above citation density. Repeating the same cite for every sentence in a paragraph would be an overkill and AFAIK it is not recommended by MoS. (I say this as the person who wrote Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited, but I've seen and written many modern FA and GA where not every sentence is cited). I'll be happy to revert myself add requested citation if you can show me part of MoS that requires this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
That's fine, but I'm always a little lairy about multiple consecutive "unsourced" sentences. Anyway, thanks for reverting that, it wouldn't let me do it on my mobile (I'm back on a proper computer now). Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
If that's not allowed, you can nominate all of the articles I've got to FA status at WP:FAR. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Patrice Gueniffey (nom)

Two issues here:

  • I wouldn't have signed off on the article as it's basically still a stub. Yes, it (just) clears the minimum character hurdle, but it's an extremely thin biography. This is a bit of a judgement call and by itself, this may not make the nomination fail.
  • The bigger issue is that the publications section is mostly unreferenced. ISBNs are accepted as references, which means that the sections "collective works", "contributions", and "prefaces are (mostly) unreferenced.

Pinging Thriley as nominator and Pbritti as reviewer. Schwede66 03:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The article is long enough and, as reviewer, I have elected to accept it at this length. I've removed the listings that lack ISBNs or external links, though both standard policies/guidelines and the MOS (see WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY) suggest that lists of works are acceptable self-references when published as reliable source media. I guess they occupy a weird exception to the NOR and PRIMARY norms. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you Pbritti. I was unsure of the policy for the section without ISBNs. I’ve seen articles run on DYK before without them. Thriley (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I shall regard this as resolved – thank you. Schwede66 18:57, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Killings of Sydney Land and Nehemiah Kauffman (nom)

PULLED
Pulled from queue. If you want to discuss this further, please head over to the nomination page. Schwede66 04:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

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


I have some discomfort over potential BLP issues. For example, there's this sentence: Both women shared the belief that Valentine was not being charged in the killings by law enforcement because he was a police informant. Earlier in the article, it is explained who Shane "Suga" Valentine is. There's no citation following that statement. Cross reading the rather lengthy reference (just under 4000 words), I can't find where that's stated. Even if we had a solid reference for it, do we really want to say on WP that two women believe that a living individual isn't being charge for killings because he was a police informant? Schwede66 00:00, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I suppose I better ping some people for their input. StonyBrook is the nominator. Panini!, Theleekycauldron, Z1720, Bruxton, RightCowLeftCoast, and Launchballer have commented on the nomination page or reviewed the article. AirshipJungleman29 promoted to prep. Schwede66 00:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Looking through the history, that claim was originally attributed to the Toronto Sun, but then - maddeningly - the reference was removed and the claim left in. That should probably come out.--Launchballer 13:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
As I said in the previous discussion about this hook, I'm not happy about anything being sourced to Doug Poppa of the Baltimore Post Examiner, whose articles regularly contain his own personal views about the cases, the police and anything else he's annoyed about. [17] Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah; I searched for a previous discussion on this page but given how long ago this was nominated, I should have really looked through the archives as well. I shall make a mental note of that. I remain rather uncomfortable about the article in its current state. Schwede66 19:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Having now looked into Black Kite's comment more closely, I can only agree. Doug Poppa is a loose canon. Of the article's 31 sources, 8 are from Poppa; many references used several times. StonyBrook's last edit was prior to this discussion starting. I shall reopen the nomination form and I will copy the two sets of WT:DYK discussions onto it. I suggest that this article might just not be suitable for the main page.
If you have any further comments, I suggest you post them on the nomination form. Schwede66 04:34, 15 January 2024 (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.

Robocop statue

Resolved

RoboCop statue

Currently in Prep 6. First paragraph in "design and construction" section is unsourced. Pinging nominator and reviewer Gobonobo and Frzzl. Gatoclass (talk) 08:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: The ref was hidden. I'm waiting for the whitelisting of a link to Kickstarter at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2023/12#kickstarter.com that should be a reference at the end of that paragraph. gobonobo + c 08:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I've just linked the archive url as a workaround. gobonobo + c 09:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Okay, that will do, thanks - Gatoclass (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Tragedy by the Sea

Was it necessary to run this photo on the front page? I know about WP:NOTCENSORED, etc, but do we really need to be trafficking in somebody else's personal misfortune? RoySmith (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

As the photo was taken 70 years ago, I suggest it's ok. The same photo taken much more recently would be a different story. Schwede66 04:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Tragedy sells as it got just shy of 42,000 views. In the words of the great wordsmith Don Henley, "It's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry". Really though, when I decided to write about the Pulitzer images, this one struck me and I spent quite a bit of time trying to find out what happened to everyone.
The image was taken 70 years ago and the couple were in their thirties, they are now dead; John died in 1987 and Lillian died in 2021. The baby, and the photographer are also both dead. One blog post I encountered had a story about a sister to the baby, who was 14 at the time, but I found no actual RS to confirm. The blog post did not even get the parents names right. Going forward, I have a few less tragic Pulitzer image articles in the hopper. Each one of them made me want to know more. Bruxton (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
That's a legitimate point about the age of the image, but I hope we don't judge the quality of our work primarily by how many clicks it gets. RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Whether we like it or not, we do use views to judge how well we did. We keep score Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics and even have an All-time views list; and editors get a special notice when their hook gets the most views. Views is not everything but it shows us what the readers are interested in. Bruxton (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Protector Shoal

@DYK admins: I did the GA review of this, so somebody else should look at it. RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: just a reminder that somebody needs to review this. This is going live in about 36 hours. RoySmith (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll take a look. Schwede66 18:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
All good. Schwede66 18:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

1855 Kansas Territory elections

@AirshipJungleman29, Gen. Quon, and Orygun: The article says led to many in Kansas denouncing it as the "Bogus Legislature", which isn't quite the same as led many Free-Staters to dub the elected body the "Bogus Legislature" in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Ping didn't arrive, so @Gen. Quon and Orygun: the way I see it, there are two choices. Either "Free-Staters" could be simply removed from the hook, or the article could be changed to "The legislature's decision to eject most of its members led to many Free-Staters denouncing it as the "Bogus Legislature". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I checked source, it says it was: "...considered by its antislavery opponents to be an illegitimate Bogus Legislature." While it does not use the words "Free Staters", I think that is a reasonable synonym for the "antislavery opponents" in Kansas at that time. Nevertheless, it might be simpler to drop the words "Free-Staters" from the hook to avoid any issues with its wording.--Orygun (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
    OK, I've done that. RoySmith (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Baldwin–Reynolds House

@AirshipJungleman29, Pbritti, Schwede66, and FloridaArmy: This is complicated, so I'd appreciate more eyes on it. The article lead looks like it's copied from uncoveringpa.com/visiting-baldwin-reynolds-house-museum-meadville, except that maybe they copied it from us, and tracing that through gets confusing. The text appears to come from the first revision of this article, which is commented as "Splitt off from Meadville, Oennsylvania". That attribution satisfies our WP:COPYWITHIN rules, modulo it being a typo for Meadville, Pennsylvania, but fine. That's about as far as I got; somebody who is better at sorting out these things really should look at it and verify that uncoveringpa copied from us or the other way around. RoySmith (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a question for FA, but I don't recall seeing it when I did a cursory copyvio check when approving the draft. I'm willing to wager that it's a mirror of us, but I can't be certain. I can't look deeper this week due to work. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Given the text is cited to that website, we poorly paraphrased from them. This was pre-split, and not the work of FA. CMD (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Looking into this further, the original text was added by a different editor to the source. Nonetheless, the original text seems much more clearly mostly taken from Uncovering PA (2016 version). CMD (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I didn't review this other than the timeliness of the nomination (which I got completely wrong, but never mind). Hence, I never checked Earwig. However, I did have a look at the uncoveringpa.com website earlier today and that is definitely original text, and not a WP mirror. Schwede66 04:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
It looks like there's legitimate copyright issues, so I've pulled this hook and I'll demote it in a moment. I'm a little concerned that it got through two levels of review without anybody catching this; it was pretty obvious from the earwig report; even if the full analysis was complicated, it should have at least been flagged for further scrutiny. RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
I think I've fixed it, if anyone else wants to check my work and repromote. Valereee (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_196&oldid=1197929393"