Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3

[edit]

Cock Destroyers +1

[edit]
I can't touch this because I wrote the articles, but would "that The Cock Destroyers (pictured) released a "gloriously queer" sex education video for Netflix before hosting Slag Wars: The Next Destroyer" flow better?--Launchballer 13:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For your information, I only created the article to fill a redlink at Megan Barton-Hanson since the GA reviewer was asking about it, there is another hook on the nomination that censors the name as "porn stars", and that Fucking Cunt hook received absolutely no blowback whatsoever at WP:ERRORS (and only rocked up at WT:DYK after the nominator objected to it being run too late). If cunt didn't cause offense then, cock shouldn't cause offense now.--Launchballer 21:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dundonald House

[edit]
My count is 439 bytes before expansion, 2219 bytes after expansion. That is narrowly above x5. --Soman (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1

[edit]

Cock Destroyers +1 (2)

[edit]

Fengshan (general)

[edit]
I can't see any problems with this.--Launchballer 13:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (4)

[edit]
Pinging all participants to Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 202#Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip 2: @Richard Nevell, Piotrus, Personisinsterest, Hydrangeans, and Chipmunkdavis:.--Launchballer 14:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Launchballer, I don't think I got a notification about this message - or at least completely missed it as I was away recently. I have responded to a couple of queries from theleekycauldron in a section below. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2

[edit]

Gitmo playlist

[edit]
The article itself is fine, however the hook requires knowing who Barney is. (Also, I don't see anything about it at WP:DYKG, but I'm not sure how comfortable I am running an article involved in a current move request given the potential for a redirect on the main page.)--Launchballer 10:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xinwen Bao

[edit]
My gut reaction to seeing this was 'the article's lede could do with another sentence', but strictly speaking that's not a DYK issue so this is fine.--Launchballer 10:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3

[edit]

Muthkwey

[edit]
@Ornithoptera, Tenpop421, and Crisco 1492: This is cited to a Master's thesis, which I'd question the reliability of anyway, but it says "Another story tells that our ancestors [...] considered it to be sacred because it came from sʔi:łqəy̓ (Musqueam Indian Band, 2011). Our people were not permitted to walk over or harvest it." This isn't quite what the hook's saying. Going by the nom, I suspect a different reference was intended. (Also, not really a DYK issue, but this would probably deserve {{lead too short}}.)--Launchballer 10:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sʔi:łqəy is defined as a "two-headed serpent" on Page 49, and this source supports the droppings being the area where the grass sprouted. The only thing I'm seeing that is not quite there is "did not" versus "were not allowed to", which I had considered sufficient in paraphrasing to allow. Would "it was taboo to harvest or step over" work better to reflect the source?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence containing "droppings" is only cited to [1], and I don't see it in there.--Launchballer 15:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So it does, my mistake. (I somehow missed the first instance.)--Launchballer 16:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Also noting here that I populated Prep 4, and thus won't be able to touch it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correction for tomorrow?

[edit]

We've been discussing posting correction bullets here and there when we get hooks wrong. I think this would be a good time to test it:

  • Correction: A hook that aired yesterday claimed that "the Holy See has an official anime mascot", named Luce. Luce is only the mascot of the Catholic Church's 2025 Jubilee, and while its design has been compared to anime, it is not Japanese animation or artwork.

Pinging @Tamzin, Wound theology, Secretlondon, Di (they-them), and Crisco 1492 for thoughts :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it was an error

[edit]
Subsectioned by Tamzin at 21:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
The 2025 Jubilee is overseen by the Holy See, so she is for intents and purposes a mascot of (owned by) the Holy See as a mascot of one of its projects. In this case the word "anime" is being used to describe the art style, not necessarily Japanese animation; "anime style" is a well-known phenomenon even in art that isn't necessarily from Japan. I don't think the hook is inaccurate, it just uses the terms in a slightly different way than you interpreted them. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a difference between having a mascot for a specific procession and being a mascot of the organization as a whole. Miraitowa and Someity are only mascots of the 2020 Olympics, not all of the Games in perpetuity. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it would not be inaccurate to describe Miraitowa and Someity as "Olympic mascots" or "mascots of the Olympics". They are not the mascots of all Olympics, but they are examples of mascots of the Olympics. I think the same thing applies to Luce here. Luce is not the mascot of the Holy See, but she is a mascot used by the Holy See. "The Holy See has a mascot" does not necessarily only imply the former. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I am going to note that Merriam Webster gives a more general definition of anime as "a style of animation originating in Japan that is characterized by stark colorful graphics depicting vibrant characters in action-filled plots often with fantastic or futuristic themes"; Britannica likewise gives "a style of animation that was created in Japan and that uses colorful images, strong characters, and stories that have a lot of action". Although several dictionaries do require Japanese origin as part of their definition, there is a shifting in the language to recognize foreign animation in the anime style as anime. (That being said, our article for non-Japanese anime like Totally Spies! is at Anime-influenced animation, so that link would have been better on the main page). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also agree with Di that this is "a mascot owned by the the Holy See" (i.e., the Holy See has this mascot), even if it is not "the mascot of the Holy See".  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does any reliable source call her an "official mascot of the Holy See"? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what I'm saying she was. In fact, it's the opposite. I refer you to Di's response above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        But that's what the hook said she was! The full hook was "... that the Holy See has an official anime mascot?" Does that claim appear in any reliable source? If not, it is an error for our purposes. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        That's what you are reading the hook as saying. I, as with Di, am reading it as "... the Holy See possesses/owns a mascot", which is entirely supported by the references. Di has made the point very succinctly below: "The hook did not call her the Holy See's mascot. The hook stated that "The Holy See has a mascot", implying ownership. It's like how if I said "The Olympics have ferret mascots", that doesn't necessarily mean that Tina and Milo are the only Olympic mascots or that they represent all Olympic events."  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I will point out that I wrote the hook originally, so my interpretation as referring to ownership is the correct/intended meaning. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm glad that was your intended meaning, Di, but I would expect it to have been, since I know that you're a capable and competent editor who participates in good faith, and the alternative would have been you introducing a deliberate error, which is not something I suspected of you even for a minute. You made a mistake in wording, not even that large a mistake, but still a mistake that will have now given the wrong impression of Luce's status to anyone who read that hook. It's not the end of the world, but should be corrected, and the fact that you read the hook as saying what you intended isn't really what matters. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Your and Di's Olympics example relies on the syntactic ambiguity of "The Olympics" meaning either "an individual instance of the Olympic Games" or "the International Olympic Committee". Per [2], Tina and Milo are "the official mascots for the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Milano Cortina 2026", and that is how Tina and Milo describes them. To say "the Olympics have ferret mascots" would be not incorrect, but imprecise, owing to that syntactic ambiguity. There is no such ambiguity here. The Holy See is never referred to as the 2025 Jubilee. The Holy See is an entity coördinating the 2025 Jubilee, which in turn has a mascot named Luce, which in no way makes Luce an "official mascot" that the Holy See "has", at least not in the way those words are interpreted by normal people. A better comparison here would be saying "... that the United States has an official mascot who is a bear in a hat", which likewise is not true at least as most people would interpret that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that "The United States federal government has a mascot that is a bear in a hat" would be a totally acceptable and accurate claim to make. It does not imply that Smokey represents the entire government, just that the government uses him. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Precisely. This "syntactic ambiguity" doesn't stop other sources from using similar phrasing. Like, say, "The Vatican’s cartoon mascot for Jubilee 2025", "The Vatican has a new mascot: an anime girl named Luce", The Anime Mascot of the Catholic Church", etc. etc.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Those are all WP:HEADLINES. The body of the first says "the Vatican has launched a cartoon mascot unveiled Monday as the cheerful face of the Catholic Church's upcoming holy year" and later in a caption "the official mascot for the Catholic Church’s 2025 Jubilee Year". The body of the second says "The Vatican announced the official mascot for Jubilee 2025". The third is WP:FORBESCON, so not an RS, but regardless doesn't call her the official mascot of the Holy See either.
        More generally, if this is what it's going to be like every time someone suggests a correction—essentially, people involved in an erroneous hook reversing all existing principles of hook accuracy to make it a game of "Is there some theoretical way that the hook isn't an error?"—then we should probably just give up on the process right now. As with Di, I'd suggest you step back and let uninvolved parties comment here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        "The Holy See has an official anime mascot" is not the same as "Luce is a/the mascot of the Holy See". The former implies ownership, the latter implies that she represents the Holy See specifically. Like, if I said "Nintendo has an electric mouse mascot", that does not mean that Pikachu is the mascot of Nintendo. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Is it literally correct that Nintendo has an electric mouse mascot, where has strictly denotes corporate ownership? Sure. Are 99% of readers going to interpret that as saying "Pikachu is the official mascot of Nintendo, broadly construed"? Also yes. Communication is a two-person game, and I think it's worth clarifying when we miscommunicate. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I should hope not, given that the whole point of a is to indicate "one of several". When I say I have a pen, or I have a pineapple, I'm not implying that mine is the only pen or pineapple in the world (or even my only pen or pineapple). It's the same in this case: they have a mascot, but it is not necessarily to the exclusion of all others. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Fine, 99% of readers interpret it as "Pikachu is an official mascot of Nintendo, broadly construed". Which it isn't, not unless Harry the Hawk is an official mascot of Tony Ressler. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not anime, it's anime-style (according to outsiders). It's also not an official mascot of the Holy See (see above). Secretlondon (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree that the "anime" part is borderline. Calling her the Holy See's mascot, though, was a clear misstatement of fact; being close to correct doesn't make it not a misstatement. And if we're correcting the clear error, might as well correct the borderline one too. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The hook did not call her the Holy See's mascot. The hook stated that "The Holy See has a mascot", implying ownership. It's like how if I said "The Olympics have ferret mascots", that doesn't necessarily mean that Tina and Milo are the only Olympic mascots or that they represent all Olympic events. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am going to heavily disagree on the "there is a shifting in the language to recognize foreign animation in the anime style as anime." This is indeed happening to some extent, but it's very inorganic and is indeed something of a sore point among anime fans. The ones who are pushing for the "redefinition" of "anime" are usually the producers of these series themselves. But I digress, this is getting offtopic. Suffice to say, calling Luce an "anime mascot" is debatable, perhaps calling her "anime-style" would have been a suitable compromise. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What a correction would look like

[edit]
Subsectioned by Tamzin at 21:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
I like this idea, but some suggested tweaks:
  • "hook" is jargon and could be replaced with "entry"
  • "said" is preferable to "claimed", standard in corrections in newspapers etc.
  • I don't think "only" is necessary
  • "its" would work for the design, but when saying "its design" the pronoun is referring to the character, so "her" would be correct.
-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, so something like:
  • ALT0a: An entry that aired yesterday said that "the Holy See has an official anime mascot", named Luce. Luce is the mascot of the Catholic Church's 2025 Jubilee, and while her design has been compared to anime, it is not strictly Japanese animation or artwork.
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah! Oh and maybe "ran" over "aired", to keep with the newspaper-y feel. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was trying to figure out what to do with that one :) ALT0b: An entry that ran yesterday said that "the Holy See has an official anime mascot", named Luce. Luce is the mascot of the Catholic Church's 2025 Jubilee, and while her design has been compared to anime, it is not strictly Japanese animation or artwork. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that a "correction" is necessary. I have explained that the hook refers to Luce being owned by the Holy See, and she does indeed fit multiple definitions of anime. This correction feels overly pedantic over a misinterpretation of the language used. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Di (they-them): You don't need to reply to every message to say it wasn't an error. That's already being discussed above. Maybe this should be subsectioned off into "whether it's an error?" (although this was already discussed at WP:ERRORS) and "what correction if any to run". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love the idea of a correction. It would help DYK take ownership of misleading hooks. Secretlondon (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the regulars here who is into anime, seeing non-Japanese originating works being called "anime" triggers my anime fanboy senses. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too wordy, which as mentioned below seriously compromises Main Page balance. Would request that the correction be delayed for a couple of days while a better layout is worked out. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least. And the two displaced hooks need to go back in.--Launchballer 19:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 and Launchballer: huh? It's two lines on my screen, same as the two hooks I removed. Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow is balanced for me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]
Subsectioned by Tamzin at 21:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Are we doing anything about the large amount of whitespace under "On this day" on Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow?--Launchballer 02:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I bumped a couple of hooks back, but OTD probably has to cover the rest. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't support this. We shouldn't be rearranging sets so close to showtime.--Launchballer 12:32, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, if we want to correct mistakes, it's kind of the only way. Unless you're saying we put corrections in the back of the queue and air them a week later, which I don't love because we'll be reaching barely any of the same readers. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that there are more people reading two sets aired days apart than people reading two sets aired weeks apart? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For sure you're right on that; i just meant that if we're gonna air a correction, we ideally wanna reach as many people who saw the original hook as possible, so the sooner we air it, the better. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This correction at least takes up a disproportionate amount of space and has involved two hooks being bumped back through no fault of their own. We are not the only ones making errors. If we are to do this, then it should not be part of our box.--Launchballer 20:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All right, well, pulled. I'll just say for the record that I don't think a dedicated corrections box is really ever gonna happen, especially since the MP only makes a handful of on-the-page errors every month. And yeah, hooks get bumped sometimes, it's arbitrary and it happens. There goes our chance to be the example that leads to other areas making their own corrections and eventually maybe getting a dedicated box, though. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)That's not the point of a correction. Most newspaper corrections are buried away in a little box on page 17. A correction is to show the world that you adhere to at least one aspect of the journalism standards. Far better for DYK's purposes would be a link at the bottom, next to the others, which displays "Errors" and links to a page where potential errors and corrections could be stored. FWIW, I don't think think a syntactic ambiguity of the above sort even deserves a correction, but whatever. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:46, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why we don't try to have some kind of errors page listing all the errors we've had? I vaguely remember it being proposed before. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I'd like to see (I believe I've mentioned this before) is to have the entire history of a hook in one place. Right now it gets scattered across the nom template, one (or possibly more) threads on this page, and maybe on WP:ERROR. RoySmith (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is there really no interest or appetite among the regulars for some kind of place where pulls, corrections, etc. are listed or mentioned? I don't know if the correction thing that Leeky proposed was the best option, but having zero form of accountability for errors doesn't seem optimal. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer a standard template for talk pages. It could add each usage to a category for main page corrections, and it wouldn't need anything beyond a |diff-url= parameter. The talk page is already the standard place to discuss or read about updates and corrections to an article. Many online news sites note their corrections on the article page, not on the main page. This would also be more permanent and transparent than a one-day main page notice.
    Previously, I added Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed/2023–24 to the list of Archives and copied in a bunch of other corrections from another archive, but this is something that can only exist if someone is going to put the work in to maintain it. Rjjiii (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with an Errors link next to "Archive/Start a new article/Nominate an article" complete with recent errors.--Launchballer 19:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A dedicated errors page?

[edit]

This has been discussed multiple times before, but it seems there is at least some interest for a dedicated DYK errors and corrections page. How should one be maintained, where can be it linked to, and who is willing to maintain it? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I have been uninvolved in this discussion, here’s my take. I think a “correction” of sorts should be added after concensus (as the beautiful discussion above is a great example) that a “correction” hook should run. It could be a separate box and only run after this concensus is reached, sort of like FLs but not by-day. EF5 22:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A dedicated errors page that isn't limited to just whatever is currently on the main page (i.e. people can bring up errors from any DYK) would be very useful for tracking the actual error rate.
I would also be highly interested in tracking the DYKs for articles that were later deleted/merged/redirected. JoelleJay (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Tyromancy

[edit]

@Jonathan Deamer, Rlendog, and Hey man im josh: A version of the hook with the noun form (fortune-telling) instead of "to tell fortunes" would make it more clear that this article will not actually help readers to tell fortunes using cheese. Rjjiii (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Rjjiii, fair point! I personally don't think it's strictly necessary, but it doesn't do any harm or make the hook significantly less succinct. So, how about:
All that said, I can see it's been moved to a prep area now and I'm not sure what the policy is on changing hooks after that. If you know, please feel free to go ahead and change, otherwise perhaps @Rlendog or @Hey man im josh could kindly advise. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They can still be tweaked once in prep @Jonathan Deamer. Noting for you and @Rjjiii that I went ahead and did so. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that the change is necessary but I don't have a problem with it. Rlendog (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing do @Hey man im josh; I'll know about prep area changes for next time! Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all! Rjjiii (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Negative Israel hooks

[edit]

Even if each hook on its own is fine, to meet WP:DUE we may to have to intentionally begin spacing these way out or to reject some. Currently we have:

  1. Template:Did you know nominations/Shadia Abu Ghazaleh
  2. Template:Did you know nominations/Barquq Castle
  3. Template:Did you know nominations/Eurovision Song Contest 2000
  4. Template:Did you know nominations/Genocide in the Hebrew Bible
  5. Template:Did you know nominations/Old City of Gaza
  6. Template:Did you know nominations/Tel al-Sultan attack

And since the Israel–Hamas war (October 7), we've already run many hooks in this vein, Rjjiii (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not hatchet our counts before they chicken. Two of those are less than a fortnight old and a non-Israeli hook can probably be found for the Eurovision article. (Probably. I'm yet to read it.) Three of them are quite old and I can see them timing out. Let's see which are Approved before jumping to conclusions. (I see one Israeli hook in prep 1, but that might get kicked back again.)--Launchballer 19:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Israel-related hook in Eurovision Song Contest 2000 is just one alternative out of four. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All queues are empty

[edit]

The next prep for promotion, Prep 1, is being held up by my Cock Destroyers nom and the Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip hook. @AirshipJungleman29:, you said that you were "torn" as to whether the Cock Destroyers should run - have you come to a decision (and if not, would you entertain a hook that doesn't mention them by name such as the nom's ALT0)? And @RoySmith:, have your concerns regarding the Israeli hook been resolved (and if not, what needs to be done and by who)?--Launchballer 00:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

took prep 1 to queue, will do the checks in a couple hours; might end up bumping the two hooks mentioned here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hesitant to answer that question because I suspect I'll get dragged into a detailed discussion which I don't want to get dragged into (i.e. the "what needs to be done and by whom part). But, broadly speaking, yes, I think the article has POV issues and I think we'd be better off not running it. And, to be honest, I've looked at promoting this prep a few times and every time I look at the title of the first hook I decide I just don't want to go there. RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

[edit]

The Cock Destroyers (nom), redux

[edit]

@Launchballer, Crisco 1492, and JuniperChill: I'm aware of the discussion above expressing concerns that seem to be based on WP:DYKGRAT. Reading through the discussion – and I don't have the strongest stomach – I think this is a pretty clear case of NOTCENSORED. The C of E's hooks were unsuitable because they were intentionally crafted to be more vulgar and sexual than they had any need to be, but to stop this hook from running would basically be saying "no one who puts the word 'cock' in their work title can have an article about their work featured at DYK", which I think is plainly contradictory with NOTCENSORED. Compare that to Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. One Solid Gold Object in Form of a Rooster, which really is just gratuitous writing.

So, all that aside, the "gloriously queer" part doesn't check out. One, it should be attributed, and two, the source doesn't say the video is "gloriously queer", it says the curriculum is. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the options are "... that The Cock Destroyers (pictured) released a sex education video with a curriculum once described as "gloriously queer" for Netflix before hosting Slag Wars: The Next Destroyer?", which is clunky, or leaving the quote out altogether. (Possibly worth adding "trans-inclusive" to the hook instead?)--Launchballer 10:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
was gonna say "trans-inclusive" too, although... as a trans person, I do worry about the stereotypes that might reinforce. outside opinions needed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do wonder if one option would just be to split the hook into two separate hooks: one for The Cock Destroyers, and one for Slag Wars. I am neutral on whether or not we should mention the duo's name in the hook (in this case, it's arguably not gratuitous since it really is the group's name), although one solution could be to avoid mentioning them by name. Something like "... that a pornographic double act (pictured) released a trans inclusive sex education video with a curriculum once described as "gloriously queer"?" If too clucky, we could remove "pornographic" and just call them "a double act". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, we also have an article about The End of the F***ing World which was popular in 2018, although the name is already censored. But anyway, I dont think its harmful to include the name of the duo as that's a proper name. It clearly reminds me of one obscure Austrian town that has the f word on it. And would Scunthorpe be allowed especially with a phenomenon named after it? JuniperChill (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that going out on "the most-subscribed video on demand streaming media service" (from Netflix's article) adds interest and I meant that "trans-inclusive" instead of "gloriously queer" (as in "a pornographic double act (pictured) released a trans-inclusive sex education video for Netflix"); for the amount of extra words "gloriously queer" would require, I'm not sure it's worth it. I don't know enough about trans stereotypes to comment on it and I have no opinion on whether the hook should be split in half (other than this is more than two months old and I'm uneasy about reopening the nom!), but for now I would suggest any of the following as hooks:
... that the game show Slag Wars: The Next Destroyer, intended as a celebration of sex work, has been described as "fun for all the family"? (actually, is that one too gratuitous?)
... that a scene in Slag Wars: The Next Destroyer was a contender for one reviewer's "television moment of the year"?
... that the second series of Slag Wars: The Next Destroyer aired four years after the first? (maybe "due to what a presenter described as a "viscous email", but is that too clunky?)
... that Sophie Anderson delayed undergoing buttock augmentation for her series of Slag Wars: The Next Destroyer?
... that although the first series of Slag Wars: The Next Destroyer only took four days to film, two of its contestants and its host had to quarantine for two weeks beforehand? (could we keep this vague and say 'clear their diaries' or somesuch instead?)--Launchballer 12:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: This is due to hit the main page in less than four hours. Could you please either remove "gloriously queer" or change it to "trans-inclusive" or otherwise change the hook so it's compliant?--Launchballer 20:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who promoted this article, I'm fine with running an alt hook. I also think that this hook is alright for the main page. I get that this policy is stricter on the main page, but people hear cocktail all the time. Peacock. I also said above about Cockfosters being a London Underground station. At the end of the Piccadilly line. We also had issued with the image earlier when I promoted it as it was two separate images, but its now fixed now that its merged. JuniperChill (talk) 11:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not words that contain "cock", of which there are dozens, but the word "cock" used entirely sexually, and probably sensationally by those who did the naming. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (nom), redux

[edit]

@Richard Nevell, Piotrus, and Crisco 1492: There are a couple of discussions above about the number of articles we've been running that reflect badly on Israel, and whether this article in particular should be run. I can't really speak to that, because I'm only here in my capacity as a DYK admin to verify this specific article. If the community wants to or doesn't want to run it, that's up to them. I'm happy to pull it pending further discussion.

But I do have NPOV concerns on this article. First is the line Israel's destruction of cultural heritage in Gaza has been conducted in a systematic way. First, systematic actions are necessarily intentional, and per this article, intentional destruction is a war crime, so this sentence directly entails the assertion that Israel has committed war crimes. That could be a reasonable assertion if the sourcing were there for it, but of the four sources cited, it's only 2–1 with 1 abstention: Procter 2024 and Taha 2024 support it, Bisharat 2024 avoids making that assertion and only says it could amount to war crimes, and Tastan 2024 is an unreliable source that should be removed. I think the claim would need to be well-established among reliable sources (i.e. RSes assert that it is well-established) in order to be asserted this way.

Second, there's the quote box at the top of #Cultural heritage in Gaza. Per MOS:PQ, pull quotes are not allowed because it's a form of editorializing, produces out-of-context and undue emphasis, and may lead the reader to conclusions not supported in the material. While this quote box isn't a pull quote, it does place an undue emphasis on Humber's viewpoint, which I don't think is proper in a GA/DYK. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: If the format of the Humbert quote is an issue, then I would assume that the same applies for Shah. As such, I have adjusted the format so that the quotes are part of the main text. In the discussion with User:Chipmunkdavis I focused on the relevance of the quotes themselves, but I see that the format may have been an issue.
On the more complex matter of intention, in addition to the four references listed in the lead (it seemed appropriate to include references there as it is the kind of point that should be evidenced) can be added the following which are used as references elsewhere in the article:
  • Hawari (2024) who describes the "intentional targeting of cultural heritage sites"
  • The Palestine Exploration Fund refers to "reports of any individual or organ of the State of Israel engaging in the removal of the cultural heritage of the Gaza Strip"
  • The Middle East Studies Association's statement specifically mentions "deliberate destruction of the historical landscape of the territory".
  • Isber Sabrine of Heritage for Peace (quoted in Saber 2024) described it as "very clear and intentional".
These were not all used in support of the statement in the lead to avoid citation overkill, but certainly could be. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Nevell: Hawari 2024 is a self-described blog, the PEF and MESA sources are organizational statements, and it's telling that Saber 2024 is only quoting without repeating the claim in its own voice (and describes South Africa's case as "alleged"). Even if all of those checked out, though, I would want to see an RS assert that it is widely accepted as true that Israel has committed war crimes before putting such a claim in wikivoice. I don't think you have it yet. Since we're two hours to showtime, I think it's best for me to bump this hook again while we sort this out. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, my focus was on the hook, not on the minute issues in the article. I agree there may be NPOV issues, but if there are not tagged, then it's just talk page hot air. If they are tagged, then the article should be pulled and frozen until they are resolved, or dropped if they cannot be resolved in a reasonable timeframe. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Eternauta: tercera parte (nom)

[edit]

@Cambalachero: I'm aware you've explained the author/self-insert merger at length, but you should really make it clear in the article so that this doesn't come up at ERRORS. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moses da Rieti (nom)

[edit]
  • ... that a poem by Moses da Rieti includes an encyclopedia of the sciences, a Jewish paradise fantasy, and a post-biblical history of Jewish literature?

@Andrevan: This is both a bit of a close paraphrase of the source and, at the same time, not necessarily correct. The source says in its abstract that "the poem is at once an encyclopedia of Jewish and secular sciences, a description of the 'Jewish Paradise' and a history of Jewish literature". I'm pretty sure the secondary author here is using "encyclopedia" figuratively, not to mention that abstracts aren't always reliable? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is correct though I can see what you mean about the paraphrasing. "Miqdash meat" has an encyclopedic style. It describes the poem as more like an encyclopedia in verse, where secular knowledge mingles with sacred knowledge, See here: [3] antos 3 to 5 of The Entrance Hall are encyclopedic in style. Here we will limit ourselves to the most general description of their content, emphasizing the narrative framework that justi®es the long passages of description. These cantos are devoted to the secular sciences. The ®rst covers the classi®cation of these sciences Ð the seven arts of the trivium and quadrivium Ð Historiography is thus presented as the human o²spring of the revelation that has ceased to occur. In part, Rieti's historiography is typically Jewish, in that its heroes are scholars rather than kings or warriors; but it is also unconventional in that it includes not only talmudic sages and rabbis but also poets and philosophers down to the author's own time. Rieti draws up a long list of scholars, brie¯y but accurately identifying them by their works and deeds. Andre🚐 21:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czarodziejski okręt (nom): intriguing?

[edit]

I'm not sure this hook passes WP:DYKINT, but out of respect for the fact that it's made it through a nominator, reviewer, and promoter, I wanted to do a strawpoll here first. Do uninvolved people think this hook is likely to entice a reader into clicking on the article? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's interesting from the POV of someone like myself who is intrigued by the deep genre of SF, which doesn't seem to have a bottom; I also think Poland is on the map when it comes to the genre, given the status of Stanisław Lem. It's too bad more couldn't be said about the robinsonade in the hook, given how wildly popular this genre has become in film in just the last 20 years. So yes, I would be clicking on that as fast as I can, but I can't say the same for others. Could it be made more interesting? Yes. Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's too bad that WP:DYKFICTION applies, given that I think a hook based on the following quote is a much more interesting option:

The novel can also be categorized as science fiction because Umiński describes advanced, futuristic for his time wireless telegraphy with a range of 5,000 km, and what is effectively a radio, which he calls a "metatelephone".

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's quite interesting. I like the combination of Jules Verne, Poland, and 1914. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know what a robinsonade was, but as you all do I won't object to it on that basis. I do think that the hook should probably start "that the 1914 Polish robinsonade" for concision.--Launchballer 23:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Barragán (nom): intriguing?

[edit]

Same as above :) I'm not sure this hook passes WP:DYKINT, but out of respect for the fact that it's undergone extensive discussion, I wanted to do a strawpoll here first. Do uninvolved people think this hook is likely to entice an average reader into clicking on the bolded article? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to me personally because I'm a lifelong fan of classical and jazz music; but I find the hook way too long and I think it should be shortened. In other words, "... that classical clarinetist Pablo Barragán originally wanted to be a jazz saxophonist?" Now, I'm sure that's not the best hook we can create, but I think it's usable. I'm particularly interested in the intersection between classical and jazz, and sometimes, not very often, the two can collide or meet, and that's where the magic begins. So reading a hook that tells me an accomplished classical musician originally wanted to be a jazz saxophonist is endlessly fascinating for me, but the hook shouldn't be so long. What's missing from an interest POV is why Barragán stuck with one instrument instead of the other, or why he was originally interested in the sax. That would be a great hook. Viriditas (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would that hook say at all that he is accomplished if no accomplishment is mentioned? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did he want to play sax? Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the nom I mentioned that it would be better to not mention the orchestra by name, but Grimes2 really wanted it to be mentioned. For what it's worth, I do think that the best option would be a very simple hook like "... that classical clarinetist Pablo Barragán originally wanted to be a jazz saxophonist?", although the proposed ALT4b might be a suitable compromise. The issue is that I think the link would distract from the main point of the hook, and many times (but not always), the most straightforward option is the best. Pinging Launchballer as promoter and for further input. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to strawpoll uninvolved people, but I do appreciate your input :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I (article author) don't find it intriguing and said so in the nom. The worst part is "played at festivals" - tell me any notable musician who didn't? Also: he first played in the orchestra (as an orchestra member), then as a soloist. I typically think we should say something about what the subject does now, not wanted to be as a child, and then claim that was the "main point". I got used (over 5 years by now) not to be heard. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a recurring issue among your nominations, and it has to be repeated here: it is not about what you find intriguing, it is what the reader is likely to see as intriguing. That's the whole purpose of WP:DYKINT. It talks about the reader, not the nominator or contributor. Hooks are not always intended to be about a subject's claim to fame, but rather to highlight something that is likely to make the reader want to read the subject's article more. That's why they're called hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not do this again, okay? I just took a look at the source and I see a great hook. It turns out that the point isn't that Barragán wanted to play jazz saxophone as a kid, it's that he wanted to play clarinet more because it reminded him of the sound of a human voice.[4] That's the hook. Viriditas (talk) 11:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT ... that Pablo Barragán originally wanted to be a jazz saxophonist, but became a clarinetist because it reminded him of the human voice?
It would require being added to the article, but the German source (based on GT at least) seems to confirm the fact. Not sure if "it" should be "the clarinet", or if the context is already clear enough. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the wording could definitely be improved upon, but that's the point. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, keep ignoring me. I'll be out for two weeks, and won't take my laptop. You will have to make changes to the article yourselves. I was quite pleased with mentioning the orchestra where Palestinians and Israelis play together. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Enjoy your break and remember to take lots of great photos. Viriditas (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely more interesting—and more respectful of the human. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems there's loose consensus to go with the proposal. Can someone swap the hook in prep, as well as add the information to the article? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 19:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.[5][6] Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just found this, in English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I should have guessed; Benny Goodman is the major inspiration for many musicians who take up the clarinet. Viriditas (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added.[7] Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I personally do not find it or any of the alts interesting at all... but I don't have a background in music so maybe I'm just missing something. JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would you find interesting? Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

[edit]

Eddie Sheldrake

[edit]

@Theleekycauldron, Bagumba, and Tenpop421: The hook talks about selling chicken, which isn't mentioned in the article. Also, only somebody who understands basketball would get why it's unusual for somebody 5-foot-9-inch to be a top scorer (WP:DYKINT). RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: I think the fact that basketball players are tall is a minimal amount of knowledge to presume (I have never watched a game and am non-American, but I know that much). In the article, it talks about how he ran KFCs, and KFCs sell chicken. We could add this to the article, but the hook isn't a huge departure from the text. Tenpop421 (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: It's sourced that he owns KFCs (Kentucky Fried Chicken). I could source and explain the chicken connection explicitly, if needed, but it also seems WP:SKYISBLUE. The record-setting part of the hook is accessible to all, even if the height requires some domain awareness to identify the added significance. —Bagumba (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ontology

[edit]

@Crisco 1492, Phlsph7, and Paul2520: The hook feels kind of easter-eggy to me. In the context of numbers, the word "real" has a specific meaning, i.e. Real number and that's not what's meant here. RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it wasn't using scare quotes for real, it seemed like the typical ploy of multiple meanings of the same word that made it hooky. The original seemed OK. —Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7

[edit]

Malik Arslan (nom)

[edit]

@Aintabli: This hook puts two non-bolded links next to each other (a sea of blue), which is discouraged by WP:DYKMOS. Any ideas on rephrasing it? Or perhaps one of the links could just be removed. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aintabli and Jlwoodwa: "Mamluk Sultan" can probably be unlinked, since it's the first link in Sayf al-Din Khushqadam. Rjjiii (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which bits of this are essential to understanding why this is interesting? I'd cut this down to "that Malik Arslan was assassinated due to his ties with the Ottomans".--Launchballer 00:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removing Sayf al-Din Khushqadam is okay by me, but I believe mentioning which state was behind his assassination helps us better grasp this event's significance, which is the budding rivalry between the Ottomans and Egypt through a buffer state. So, it could be "...that Malik Arslan was assassinated on the orders of the Mamluk Sultan of Egypt due to his ties with the Ottomans?" But I would be okay with Launchballer's suggestion if this version also has issues. Aintabli (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that. (I haven't assessed it, but might do if I queue the set.)--Launchballer 00:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

[edit]

The Bear season 2 (nom)

[edit]

I previously raised a copyright issue about this article, which turned out to only be unattributed copying within Wikipedia. But I didn't realize until now that copying within Wikipedia has DYK implications beyond copyright. The prose of the article's first revision was split from The Bear (TV series), so per WP:DYKSPLIT the article can only qualify if it has been expanded fivefold from that revision. According to the DYKcheck script, the article was expanded from 2619 to 4835 characters of prose (not even a twofold expansion, let alone a fivefold expansion). I'm sorry to point this out just two days before the hook's scheduled to run, but I don't think it meets WP:DYKCRIT. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjks28, Lbal, and Theleekycauldron:. TSventon (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lede and the two short sections appear to be newish, but the Reception section is straight out of the mother article and come to 1361 (and is still there warts and all), so at most around a 3.55x expansion. With regret, I'm pulling this. Please seriously consider putting this through WP:GA.--Launchballer 16:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with Sheetz–Wawa rivalry from prep 3.--Launchballer 16:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

[edit]

Kaunas Carillon

[edit]

@Pofka, Thrakkx, and JuniperChill: Very minor concern: shouldn't the hook not use parentheses? WP:DYKMOS says not to use parentheses unless absolutely unavoidable, and this does not appear to be one of those cases. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at WP:ERRORS to that effect.--Launchballer 18:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, hadn't seen that guideline before. We can replace the parentheses with commas? Thrakkx (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had the bracketed part moved to the front and reworded slightly.--Launchballer 01:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 17. We have a total of 305 nominations, of which 143 125 have been approved, a gap of 162 180 nominations that has decreased by 24 6 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

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) 21:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies: I added the eighteen untranscluded nominations on the Nominations page to both the total noms and the approved noms, but should only have added it to the total noms, since none of them are approved yet. The totals have been corrected in the intro. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Successive NFL hooks

[edit]

Right now we have four NFL hooks in the Queue, which already doesn't meet the "try not to put topics in consecutive hooks" guideline for prep building. In addition to that, three of the hooks are "first NFL player from X" hooks. Can we space out the hooks somewhat to make DYK not look like an NFL fanzine, and/or modify the hooks so not all of them revolve around firsts? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped Roger Farmer in prep 1 with Benjamin Franklin Shumard in queue 5 so that they're all separated. The glut is caused by BeanieFan11 getting a bunch of them through GA at the last backlog drive, so I'm not too bothered for now, however we can always kick some more back so they're spaced further apart.--Launchballer 01:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just pinging BeanieFan11 informing them of this discussion since they may have been unaware of it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The glut certainly limits our choices, as the foosball is taking up a good portion of our BLPs, which we already try to limit. I think the last prep I populated got down to October 20th, just because the non-biographies are getting tapped.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

[edit]

My DYK nominations were closed due to a DYK timeout, simply because they weren’t reviewed within the required two months. Reviewers repeatedly apologized for the delayed review process, blaming it on being "too busy." This is not my problem; it's the reviewers' fault. They only got around to reviewing my nominations right at the last minute. So, what’s the issue, DYK review team? If you’re volunteering, shouldn’t you take your responsibilities seriously? I pinged multiple times, yet my nominations were still delayed and ignored. When they were finally reviewed, they were rejected—a truly frustrating move. Where can I report these DYK reviewers and promoters for intentionally delaying reviews and failing to do their jobs? Hteiktinhein (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them, @Theleekycauldron and @Launchballer are worsted. Shame on you. Hteiktinhein (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry your nomination wasn't successful. For what it's worth, I didn't receive your ping on November 12. Looks like it was because the original ping was malformed. I don't think it'd be unreasonable for the nomination to be reopened, but that's up to Launchballer :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the apology; I accept it. However, this situation has harmed my hard work, and I spent many weeks trying to promote these nominations, even during times when I had no internet access. In the end, my hopes were destroyed. I still want to report Launchballer at ANI for closing the case without proper research, as I believe his actions exceed his position. His actions were very rude, and he didn’t provide any explanation. It seems like he just wanted to show who’s the boss on DYK channel. Hteiktinhein (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, @Launchballer should have pinged you with something like, “@Theleekycauldron, do you have any questions on this DYK? I need to close it because it’s now two months old; this is marked for closure per WP:DYKTIMEOUT.” But he did nothing. The nomination had already been marked as a pass by @User:Crisco 1492. Then, you came and asked questions about the sources, and I responded, but you didn’t see my answer because my ping was malformed. That’s not my fault, and I feel that I’ve been treated unjustly. Hteiktinhein (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "DYK review team". If your nominations are interesting or worthwhile of being on DYK, they will get reviewed by other editors. This has been explained to you previously. If, on the other hand,
  • the nominations repeatedly show errors, or
  • if the nominator is frequently combative, demanding, condescending or obstructive, or
  • if they threaten to report failures of non-existent responsibility to non-existent forums without reflecting that three consecutive nominations have been timed out because of their problems,
then other editors (who, to repeat, are not part of any "DYK review team") will generally be less willing to review them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there’s no official "DYK review team," but I can see that you and a few related editors have a strong influence or dominate on the DYK forum, mostly because there are only a few volunteers on the DYK project. Yes...you are the boss. Please do whatever you want. Hteiktinhein (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, after I nominated Chrystal (musician), I took one look at the pile of untranscluded noms at the bottom of T:TDYK and literally skimmed off all of the noms that qualified. If I reopen this, I will do so at Approved.--Launchballer 11:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, my noms have either been reviewed within a week or after more than a month. My view is that noms shouldn't be closed if no one has reviewed it within two months time. Only if the nom has unresolved issues by that time (provided at at least a week notice was given), then a closure would be appropriate. I notice that the DYKTIMEOUT was only added quite recently so not all are aware of it. Take a look at WP:GAN. You'll notice articles at GAN for over four months. I've probably reviewed/promoted more DYK articles than I nominated at this stage. JuniperChill (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, one of the reasons the time out was implemented was because it was argued that uninteresting hooks were being passed over, so if they kept being passed over, they could be rejected on those grounds. It's also not mandatory and is under editor discretion, so just because a nomination is two months old does not necessarily mean it should be closed, especially if there's a good reason behind it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should have a system where first time nominators get some extra hand-holding. DYK has a crazy pile of rules, not all of which are written down. Offering some kind of mentorship to newbies might help them be more successful. I could imagine something in the nomination form which recognizes that this is your first submission and and adds Category:DYK first time nominations to it. Then people who are interested in helping could just watch that category. RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a fair point. Thanks for it. This is my first time, and all the articles are very interesting. Most of my nominations were already approved and then pulled down in the Preparation area, which is heartbreaking. If there were errors or problems with the articles, they should have been addressed during the review process, and the nominations shouldn’t have been approved so easily. There should also be a rule to penalize reviewers if articles they’ve reviewed are pulled down after being approved. I’m very frustrated that all my nominations were rejected after being approved and delayed by reviewers. Hteiktinhein (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not explicit, but we already have the QPQ counter at the bottom of nominations saying if a nominator has less than five nominations or not. It could already work as an (unofficial?) way to tell which nominators are new or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Penalizing a first-time nominator because no one decided to review their articles for a month and a half – when they were then receptive and tried to fix the issues – strikes me as very unfair, especially since DYKTIMEOUT is not a requirement – it is a small bit on the guidelines page that "at the discretion of reviewers" they can be timed out (not required to be). When progress is being made, IMO I don't think they should be closed solely because a few editors want to keep strict compliance with a guideline that does not require it. I think these should be re-opened. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The DYK link has disappeared from my tools list in article space pages. The link for DYK check in the nomination subpage DYK toolbox leads to User:Shubinator/DYKcheck rather than resulting in a check. Is there a new method to check DYKs?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed this as well. I have to go to the article I want to check, then choose Tools > DYK check from the menu. Wonder how long it's been like that? I'm assuming it only works for me because I have Shubinator's script installed? Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Viriditas, I had a script installed (i guess). However, now at tools, there is no DYK check like there use to be. Where do I find the script to reinstall this feature?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger, I don't know whether you had the script previously, but you can follow the instructions at User:Shubinator/DYKcheck#Using DYKcheck. TSventon (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding DYKNEW and undeletion

[edit]

Is a page's undeletion at WP:REFUND considered to be creation under WP:DYKNEW, or must it be expanded fivefold to be eligible for DYK? Apologies if this is the wrong talk page. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any rule that speaks to this exact point, but I'd be inclined to say not eligible. If you had a specific example in mind, that would help. RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ctrl+Fing WP:REFUND implies that @Dudhhr: is probably talking about Marie-Thérèse Eyquem, which was 619 characters and is now 1956. Judging by the size of the French article, getting this up to 3095 shouldn't be difficult, at which point this will become eligible.--Launchballer 17:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the article I was talking about. :) – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 18:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @BD2412 as the undeleting admin. This was a page that had been deleted under WP:G5. I haven't kept up with the fine points of WP:REFUND, but I'm surprised REFUND applies to G5. Looking through the talk page archives, I see it's allowed, but somewhat controversial. I'm particularly concerned because it was a WP:CBAN, and now we're talking about showcasing this on the main page. I don't have a lot of enthusiasm for putting this on DYK with the G5 material intact.
I know we'd be into WP:IAR territory, but perhaps the best way forward would be to WP:REVDEL the original material and go with a clean rewrite. Treat it much the same as we might copyrighted material under WP:5X. There wasn't much there to begin with, so this shouldn't be too onerous. RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I have rewritten the lede to remove the last of the prose created by the banned sock; their infobox remains. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 19:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G5 is not a suicide pact. Material can be deleted under G5 as a shortcut if its introduction by a sockpuppet reasonably indicates that it is unreliable, COI, a copyvio, or the like, but we never permanently exclude reliably sourced material from the encyclopedia on these grounds. BD2412 T 20:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but after years in the SPI trenches, I'm more of a believer in WP:BMB. RoySmith (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a common view among admins, and people seeking G5 undeletions have historically had a hard time of it. They still happen, and there's nothing written to prevent them, AFAIK. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:G5 is not a firm rule. BD2412 T 20:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the original blocks were for creating poorly sourced dictionary entries, and poor copying within Wikipedia practices. That's not the worst ban issue, and may not need to be revdelled, and the article can be considered at x5 with the history intact. That said, looking at the original poorly written paragraph that was restored, and now has been completely replaced, it's an odd choice to undelete it instead of just writing the replacement text as a new article. That is not even considering the French article exists, with many edits seemingly translating that. Creating the new article would be less administrative work, and avoid the need for a DYK exception request. CMD (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1257637242"