Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Alt1 is the best. --evrik ^(talk) 20:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... after I explained why not, and made ALT3 which differs in one word, and the one word is more precise ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like ALT3. Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This is now in Queue 5, so ping an admin whatever it needs to be. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maile, since the nominator is in agreement on ALT3, please use that. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Maile (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Ovsiankina

• ... that psychologist Maria Ovsiankina studied a variation of the Zeigarnik effect, a study which states that people remember unfinished tasks more than completed tasks, known as the Ovsiankina effect?

SL93, I was confused until I read both the target article and the Zeigarnik effect. How would you feel about:

• ALT1 ... that Maria Ovsiankina studied the Zeigarnik effect, which shows people remember unfinished tasks more than completed tasks, and described the Ovsiankina effect, which shows they're likely to resume those tasks? —valereee (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine. SL93 (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 is 210 characters. It will need to be trimmed, but I can't see a way to do so offhand. valereee? SL93? BlueMoonset (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, ugh, how did I miscount that? Hm...

ALT1a ... that Maria Ovsiankina studied the Zeigarnik effect, showing people remember unfinished tasks more than finished, and described the Ovsiankina effect, showing they're likely to resume those tasks? —valereee (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A try:

... that Maria Ovsiankina studied the Zeigarnik effect of how people remember unfinished tasks more than completed ones, and described the Ovsiankina effect of how likely they are to resume those tasks? Yoninah (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer Yoninah's hook. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same problem with forming a hook based on the 200 characters when I nominated the article. I seriously appreciate the help to form a better hook. SL93 (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee Would that hook work to replace in the queue? SL93 (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, totally! I'll got make the change! —valereee (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the jewelry collections recovered by the Philippine government from the Marcos family in 1986 have been appraised at ₱1 billion?

Does anyone know how to add a US dollar equivalent to this figure? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited for the billion figure (8 and 9), as far as I can tell, give the valuations in millions of American dollars and UK pounds, at least as of February 2016 when the billion figure was mentioned; the "billion pesos" seems to be from source 7, which needs to cited with that text if the number is to be used (unless the Telegraph source, which I can't access beyond the lede, also gives the billion figure). The hook should perhaps specify the 2016 appraisal, as it's very different from the 1986 date given in the hook. Also, if this nom isn't to be pulled, the bare URL source 2 needs to be filled out per DYK rules. I also have a big question: were the jewels ever auctioned? Why doesn't the article give the current status on the jewels? It's been over four years since the valuation, and over three years since the Philippine Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan decision confiscating the jewels. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the ₱1 billion is adequately sourced and you want a conversion to US$, it is about $20.5 million at the present 2020 exchange rate, per google finance which is linked from Philippine peso#Current exchange rate. MB 23:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,

WP:DYKN. Yoninah (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I think out of an abundance of caution that it might be best not to run a Marcos family hook on Ninoy Aquino Day. CMD (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've just addressed the bare references, as well as some issues in the auctions section. After this message, I will add a paragraph that states that the jewels had not been auctioned as of April 2017, with a reference to support it. But none of the references I've looked for actually say 'why' they haven't been auctioned, so I won't mention that. The conversion thing is still making my head spin, to be honest, so I'll try to address that when I'm in a better headspace. Anyway, if this isn't ready by August 21, I'm okay with it not being up on that specific date. Lemme see what I can do to further improve the page. - Chieharumachi (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Wikipedia policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the subject's birthday be considered a valid reason for a special occasion request?

The criteria at

• Comment on this RFC, can we also include whether subject's death date is a valid reason for a special occasion request. There have been a number of requests for articles to run on day someone died, and it seems sufficiently similar to the subject's birth date. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I come from TFA where we try to establish some day connection, not only round anniversaries. I'd say why not suggest, but someone who doesn't approve can just ignore it. Someone created an article with a 23 September birthday (probably without even thinking of this day), I nominated it for the day, why not? Why not run it that day rather than two before or one after, once we are this close, as a little token of memorial? If it causes you, prep builder, trouble, just let someone else promote that hook. We ran
  Monteverdi on his birthday for TFA, although it was no round birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Gerda: Trouble? Are you aware of how many times you post at WT:DYK asking for an emergency review so it can run on the subject's birthday? This requires that someone reshuffle the finished preps or queues to accommodate the birthday request. Yoninah (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think I did it recently, - and if I do, you could just avoid looking or acting, I hope. - I see the problem that preps tend to be full well in advance. Also, knowing it bothers you, I'll be more careful. However, the recent example is quite typical: unplanned and cute, and thank you for placing it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: if there's time and the preps/queues haven't yet been set for that day I don't think there's any harm? If the hook is approved late and it would be disruptive to rejig the preps/queues to accommodate it then don't bother, the onus is on the nominator to prepare the article suitably in advance for it to feature on the proposed day - Dumelow (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes and No: Include death anniversary in the decision here. It is unfair to other nominators whose approved hooks have to wait in line for weeks, to have another nominator go straight to head of the line, because they wrote an article about a subject who coincidentally has a birthday - or death anniversary - in the near future. Especially if a prolific nominator does this semi-often. Allow birthday requests - or death anniversary - only if the subject has had an international impact on world culture or history. Birthday requests - or death anniversary - have become one way, whether we admit it or not, of moving one's nomination to the head of the line, so it will not linger in the "Approved" backlog for long periods. On the other hand - and this has happened, if I recall - that after the nomination is made, or after it is approved, the nominator realizes the subject has a birthday in the near future, so they request we promote it for that date. Or any combination thereof. An example of parsing this would be that Paul McCartney would be eligible of such a request, but his various children have not affected world culture, so any article on them would not get special promotion dates. — Maile (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No: I don't think a birthday or a death date is a special occasion. Everyone has a birthday and everyone dies. Actually, it seems messed up to have someone's death be considered a special occasion. SL93 (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What started this was a request for the birthday of a fictional character. In the event that birthdays are considered special enough, it's important to make clear that fictional character birthdays are not. (I'm highly dubious about the birthday of an actor who played a character when they aren't even mentioned in the hook.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  This sounds correct to me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes: The subject's birthday in a biography should be considered a special occasion request as long as the nomination was submitted at least two to three weeks in advance. However, the birthdate of an actor which plays a role is not a special occasion for the role itself. Flibirigit (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes: I'm saying yes because this looks a little like
  WP:RULECREEP here. We never had any conditions for holding for special occasions aside of AFD, so why are we suddenly needing some now? If the nominator thinks its appropriate, unless consensus decides otherwise, we should be willing to facilitate such a request. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Yes: Yes, to special date requests ...made with sufficient notice. --evrik ^(talk) 20:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - Limiting special occasion requests to only the most "special" occasions would be very unfair to editors who created or expanded an article with a specific date in mind, and while I can understand declining silly requests like "please have the hook on (Date) because it's my birthday", not allowing an actual date with some significance to the subject (such as for example birth and death dates, anniversaries, related holidays, etc.) feels very much like
  csdnew 23:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Yes – as long as it follows the "at least one week prior … not more than six weeks in advance" rule and DR1–3, then birthdays should be permitted. I'd lean no for birthdays of fictional characters and (of course) editors. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Perhaps a useful change would be shifting the expected timeline submissions back, to eight weeks in advance and at least two weeks prior. One week is too fast to expect both a timely review and putting the hook into the right prep and queue. Some hooks go a month or more without review. As for eight weeks, I'm not familiar with why there is a six week limit, but more space given to nominators on that side would hopefully lead to more potential lead time for prep queues. CMD (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't have a strong opinion about whether or not birthdays (of real people) are special enough occasions, although I did find the request for a fictional character's birthday rather ridiculous. As others have mentioned above, I think the bigger problem is with editors making special occasion requests without sufficient notice, and I think we are sometimes too kind in accommodating these last-minute requests. 97198 (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes - I think a birthdate or similar can be used to justify a special occasion hook request, but whether it is accepted or not depends on the circumstances. I doubt we need a rule on the subject because I do not think anyone is abusing the system. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My purpose in opening this RFC is also to clarify the language in
    WP:DYK#Date requests
    . Right now we have a long-winded paragraph that does not give a clear idea of what a special occasion is, and leaves wiggle room for nominators to push their hooks through on their schedule, not ours:

Articles intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation, start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful.

• • If I ever rejected a special occasion hook, I don't think I'd hear the end of it. Yoninah (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes- as long as raised sufficiently far in advance (1-6 weeks is the guideline at the moment). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This hook just went live on the main page and one of the creators received a DYK credit on their talk page, but the second one (me) didn't. Yoninah (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added one to your talk page. It looks like just an oversight that your DYKMake credit, which was present on the nomination template, didn't make it up to Queue. — Maile (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does DYK calculate "before an election", by the first date a voter casts a ballot? If our policy is designed to be neutral and not give Main Page space to candidates, then we need to take into consideration that voting is no longer a process where everybody shows up on the same day and votes at the polls. I contend that the American presidential election actually begins in September - when voters begin casting ballots in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming - and ends on the official "election day" of November 3. Please see below. — Maile (talk)

Early voting by state

The earliest dates for election voting I see here are 46 days ahead of Nov 3, and 45 days ahead of Nov 3. That would mean in effect that their Presidential elections start around September 17 - 29.

• Alabama - none listed
• Alaska - 15 days before the election
• Arizona - 27 days before the election
• Arkansas - 15 days before the election
• California - 29 days before the election
• Colorado - N/A
• Connecticut - N/A
• Delaware - N/A
• District of Columbia - N/A
• Florida - At least 10 days before the election. Varies by county.
• Georgia - October 5 - the fourth Monday before the election.
• Hawaii - all mail-in voting starting 2020.
• Idaho - On or before the third Monday before the election
• Illinois - 40 days before the election.
• Indiana - 28 days before the election.
• Iowa - 29 days before the election (in-person absentee voting).
• Kansas - Up to 20 days before the election.
• Kentucky- N/A
• Louisiana - 14 days before the election.
• Maine - 30 days before the election
• Maryland - The second Thursday before the election.
• Massachusetts - 11 days before the election
• Michigan - 45 days before the election
• Minnesota - 46 days before the election
• Mississippi- N/A
• Missouri- N/A
• Montana - 30 days before the election (in-person absentee voting).
• Nebraska - 30 days before the election.
• Nevada - 17 days before the election.
• New Hampshire- N/A
• New Jersey - 45 days before the election
• New Mexico - 28 days before the election
• New York - 10 days before the election
• North Carolina - 19 days before the election
• North Dakota - At least 15 days before the election. Varies by county
• Ohio - 28 days before the election
• Oklahoma - 5 days before the election
• Oregon- N/A
• Pennsylvania - Varies by county. Counties may make mail ballots available to voters in person up to 50 days before Election Day.
• Rhode Island - N/A
• South Carolina - N/A
• South Dakota - 46 days before the election
• Tennessee - 20 days before the election
• Texas - 22 days before the election.
• Utah - 14 days before the election
• Vermont - 45 days before the election
• Virginia - 45 days before the election
• Washington - 18 days before the election.
• West Virginia - 13 days before the election
• Wisconsin - At least 14 days before the election
• Wyoming - 45 days before the election

I understand what you are getting at, but I would still do 30 days before November 3 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of an abundance of caution and knowing the current US political environment, I would suggest simply not running any 2020 U.S. election hooks, especially if they name a candidate, until after November 3 (and potentially even until January).

csdnew 23:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@Guerillero: 30 days before November 3, several states will have already voted, either wholly or partially (depending on the urgency deemed by the voters). So for those voters, we will be closing the barn door weeks after the horse got out. — Maile (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about this the other day as I created a Puerto Rico hook that is in the upcoming queue (no names and shouldn't be an issue). American election campaigns are unusual in their sheer length, so I would agree with extending the purdah here. Perhaps 3 September would be a simple to implement cut-off date. CMD (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case of a DYK guideline that simply hasn't kept up with the times. When it was set, there wasn't much in the way of early voting, and mail-in voting was only a major thing in a few states. By now, early voting has become much more prevalent, and mail-in voting is going to be a huge factor. Under these circumstances, 30 days before November 3 will not be sufficient, because we'll be having hooks on the main page during the election period. With people early voting in mid-September, we don't want someone to be affected by a hook just before heading out to cast their ballot. I think CMD's suggestion of September 3, or making it an even September 1 (nothing after the end of August), makes sense this year. We can always hold hooks until after the end of the election cycle. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that thirty days before the day of the election is a good guideline. --evrik ^(talk) 16:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BlueMoonset and Chipmunkdavis that we should move our cut-off date to possibly September 1 or 3. "Day of the election" is the first date an eligible voter casts a vote, which is mid-September. November 3 is now the last chance to vote date. — Maile (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested re-wording of the DYK guideline

Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before the first voting date in an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates.

@BlueMoonset, Yoninah, and Cwmhiraeth: or any other promoter interested in this. I've given a slight re-wording of the DYK guideline, by inserting "before the first voting date" to keep the change at a minimal. We need to fix the current gap in wording, not only for the current American election, but because in the global world, rapid communication changes are happening. We need to keep up with the times. Thoughts? — Maile (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I think we should stick with the election day, and not the start of voting. --evrik ^(talk) 18:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per evrik. We will drive ourselves crazy finding out where early voting takes place in every district every year, not just in the U.S. but everywhere. And for what? So someone in North Carolina won't be influenced by a DYK hook on the day they can vote? Thirty days before an election has always been our rule of thumb. Yoninah (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Yoninah --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. The 30 day before election rule is sensible, but there's no need to go crazy over this. The US election cycle seems to begin 2 years before the polling day so we're never going to fully inoculate against the outside chance of influencing voters, but if we keep it sensible then we've done our best.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is hard to look up the first day of voting for every election, and 30 days before elections works for a lot of countries. However, we can make individual extensions if agreed, not only to reduce the chance of influencing voters, but also I would suggest to reduce the chance editors here will have to spend a lot of time dealing with a heated issue. CMD (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You bring up a good point. The only reason we know about the above early voting states in this election, is because I posted them above. And they will surely change four years from now. Maybe it would be easier in this one circumstance, to agree to make Sept 1 (or close to that date) as the cut-off for this year's USA Presidential election, and deal with future elections as they evolve. — Maile (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A permalink to the original discussion can be found at the bottom of the Archive Box to the right on this page. There you will find this link: RFC LT Solutions 2020. — Maile (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are now at 55 approved nominations. I recall that below 60 approved nominations would trigger a revert to one set per day. Flibirigit (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a somewhat distorted position. At the moment six queues (48 hooks) are filled and seven prep sets (56 hooks). Add these to the 51 currently approved hooks and you get 155 hooks, all ready to go. The greatest need, in my opinion, is a reduction in the number of unapproved hooks, currently standing at 113. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed what Cwmhiraeth is saying. Let's try to finish up 50 to 60 more reviews, and then we can go to once a day. Yoninah (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, but this is not an optional or fungible number. Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah, while I understand and even sympathize with the arguments, the RfC set the number of approved and unpromoted nominations as the guidepost we use. We've dropped below 60 and it's been noticed, so we go back to one set daily effective midnight tonight (UTC), which means changing the time between sets after the midnight set is promoted. Since July 11, when we switched over to two a day, the number of unapproved nominations has dropped from 219 to 113, which is pretty good progress; we've also cut the number of total nominations by more than half, from 339 to 168. I'm sure the admin promoters will welcome a respite from two promotions a day until we build back to 100 120 approved. I'll take a look and see what special occasion hooks need to be swapped between sets for the one-a-day schedule. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support change the RFC was clear: when up to 120, go to 2 sets per day, and when down to 60, go to 1 set per day. We've applied the 2 sets per day rule without exception, so should apply the 1 set per day rule likewise. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait – given that there are now 66 approved noms and all prep areas are filled. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Out of curiosity, does anyone have the RfC link? When I first noticed there being two hooks per day, it occurred to me that one fairly radical way of putting the reader first would be to keep the hooks at one per day but just reject the less interesting ones. I doubt that'll ever happen since editor-over-reader bias and status quo bias are both potent forces, and there would be valid concerns over editors getting mad enough at their rejected DYK that it damages editor retention. But I do think we need to do something to address the number of just plain uninteresting DYK hooks that get through, and this would be one way to do it. (Remember that readers don't know DYKs are drawn from a very limited set of pages, so when they see uninteresting ones, their reaction is "out of all the possible fun facts on Wikipedia, this is the one you chose?!") {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  What's interesting to some, may be not interesting to others, and the wider the variety, the better you serve a wide range of readers. I'm afraid the first hooks rejected would be niche articles, - so exactly those which have some rarity value. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Gerda Arendt, that could be a concern. To get a little more concrete about the problem I see, take for example the second hook live right now, ... that Helen Ballard was a hellebore horticulturist?. That's literally just stating her occupation, with nothing else hooky about it. Perhaps there's something more interesting in the article itself or perhaps not, but either way, we have a problem on our hands when hooks like that are passing on a regular basis. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure if boring hooks regularly get through, but that hook really is incredibly boring. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey ... different strokes for different folks. As an editor totally uninvolved with the Helen Ballard hook ... I thought it was really cute. Border line alliteration was how I perceived the intent of the wording of that hook. Bet you can't say it ten times real fast. — Maile (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  More alliteration would certainly liven up DYK. Anyway, in my mind DYK is still six hooks four times a day. The current situation in comparison gives each hook a much longer life. CMD (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The best way to counter "boring" hooks would be to go and review. I have been criticized for opera singers' hooks that are not interesting. Look at today's (which would have been yesterday's with 12 hour sets, but yes, in principle I prefer all day) about Bernard Ładysz, who recently died, mentioning Krzysztof Penderecki, same, - people who have never heard those names may find it boring, for others it's a memorial. Today's featured list is also about opera, DYK? That one is a tribute to Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Admin changes needed

The following special occasion hooks and their credits will need to be moved:

• Queue 4: "The Delectable Negro" hook needs to move to Queue 2 (August 21)
• Prep 1: "Ludwig Hoelscher" hook needs to move to Queue 4 (August 23)—it could go in the spot vacated by "The Delectable Negro")
• Since we need to displace a hook in Queue 2, it could be put in the spot vacated in Prep 1, making this a three-way shift

So far as I could see, these are the only two special occasion hooks currently promoted. If anyone notices another that wasn't tagged with a "special" comment in a queue or prep, it will also need shifting.

After the midnight promotion of Queue 1 to the main page (and not before!): please change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400 (this sets the promotion interval to daily from twice a day)

Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to make these changes in about 11 hours time unless anyone else has done them first. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Wugapodes, and thanks to Cwmhiraeth for offering. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Karthyayani Amma scored 98 out of 100 on her literacy exam at the age of 96?

@Mujinga:@Maury Markowitz:@Amkgp:

Sorry, I can't figure out what's hooky about this. You would think a 96-year-old woman would be literate. Perhaps the hook needs to say that she was illiterate beforehand. Or else a different hook fact should be used. Yoninah (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Karthyayani Amma became a national celebrity after passing a literacy examination with top marks at the age of 96? --evrik ^(talk) 13:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a good one. But to Yoninah - "You would think a 96-year-old woman would be literate" - not in very large sections of the planet. Going back to become literate has become something of a hot topic, there's even a full-length movie about a similar story. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hazard a guess that those large sections of the planet are less likely to be readers of Wikipedia's front page. I think a clarification that she was previously illiterate, on top of evrik's improvements, would be both informative and add hookiness. CMD (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The hook I supplied was "... that Karthyayani Amma scored 98 out of 100 on her exam at the age of 96?", so someone must have added "literary" after approval and I don't think it helps, the (hoped for) humour was in the idea of a 96 year-old getting a high mark in an unspecified exam, which would then induce people to click through to find out more. There's also two other approved ALTs to choose from. Personally I prefer ALT0. Mujinga (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who added "literacy" to exam because I had no idea what the hook was talking about. Ambiguity doesn't always work. Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your preference for ALT0, Mujinga, especially for the quirky slot. I was actually going to promote that one before another editor built the set. So I'll switch it now in prep. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the web series The Siege Within meticulously details the planning for India's retaliatory military strike following the 2016 Uri terrorist attacks? (nom)

@DiplomatTesterMan, Maury Markowitz, and Amkgp: The hook currently uses the subtitle "The Siege Within" to refer to the series, which isn't reflected in the article or in reliable sources. Would it be too much to change the bolded link to the full "Avrodh: The Siege Within" instead? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 13:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

If there are no other disagreements, I think that we can proceed with this – could an admin kindly help make the change in Queue 6? Thanks. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Statistics has a discussion (look for Calculate) about an article that garnered 69k+ views but will not make the stats because of our formula. Can we make an exception in a rather unusual case of external interest? Please discuss there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that formula is flawed because it assumes that one day's views will be the same as any other day, especially when a subject may be in the news the day before the DYK runs which might lead to spikes. I'd say there is nothing wrong with that being added to stats. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should hold the discussion over there, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Niacin has been approved by the reviewer, but is still in the to-be-reviewed list. Is this because the reviewer left a red X at the Adequately sourced line? David notMD (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @David notMD: it gets moved to the approved queue, and then eventually a promoter will add the a prep list. --evrik ^(talk) 14:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the Khalili Collection of Swedish Textiles (item pictured) is the only extensive collection of local flatweaves outside of Sweden?

@MartinPoulter:@Chipmunkdavis:@Vincent60030:

A lot of good hooks were suggested during the review, but this one has to be the most uninspiring lead hook IMO. "Flatweaves" isn't even linked. If this is really the choice, I would move it out of the image slot. The Squirrel Conspiracy's ALT1 and ALT2 were far better for a lead image:

ALT1 ... that many of the works in the Khalili Collection of Swedish Textiles (example pictured) were created by women, who wove in symbolic decorations to demonstrate their skills ahead of marriage?

ALT2 ... that Nasser Khalili assembled the Khalili Collection of Swedish Textiles (example pictured) because he felt art historians undervalued works by anonymous creators?

Yoninah (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah: Ah I may have been unfamiliar with the promotion process as I do not know that we may opt for another hook instead of what the reviewer suggested. This is definitely a difficult pick between 1 and 2. Let's go with ALT2. Thank you for bringing this up. :D Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 17:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, usually the promoter does promote the approved hook, but if he feels it's not hooky enough he should reopen the discussion. In other cases, as this one, the hook is posted and then other editors comment on its hookiness here at WT:DYK. Let's not rush to change it; let's wait for the nominator to weigh in. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer that it remains in the image slot because I like to encourage GLAM/WIR efforts, but as I proposed the alternate hooks, I don't want to get further "involved". The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AGFing on offline sources, all of the hooks suggested within the discussion seemed accurate to the article. I noted ALT4 as the nominator preference, and don't see it as significantly less hooky than the various other ALTs suggested (except ALT0), but I also have no issues with the others. I believe it should stay in the image slot though, being an attractive and high-quality image. CMD (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should stay in the image slot. I'm going ahead and substituting ALT2, which is AGF and cited inline. Yoninah (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need someone to add Template:Did you know nominations/Rachael Heyhoe-Flint Trophy as a special occasion hook for August 29 to this set. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recently wrote a page for a nineteenth-century college president,

The rules at WP:Did you know#Content currently state Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided, which I assumed was safe to ignore because he's been dead for about 65 years. However, concerns have been raised during the review that the hooks are too negative, giving me the impression that the de facto rules here are to avoid negative hooks, period, even for non-living people whose biographies are mostly negative.

So I'd like to receive some clarification: should we modify that line to include negative hooks about non-living people, bringing it in line with what seems like de facto practice, or is this more a case of misinterpretation of rules that are fine as they are? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

is this more a case of misinterpretation of rules that are fine as they are? It would be nice if you familiarized yourself with

WP:AGF. Perhaps you don't realize how snide your remarks come across here and on the review. Yoninah (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Yoninah, I do not doubt your good faith at all. You gave a good faith review, and I tried to engage constructively with you during it, but you and I seem to have different interpretations of how to apply the DYK rules, which is why I'm coming here to seek clarification. My question above is a genuine question, not some sort of veiled attack on your good faith. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I just went and read Template:Did you know nominations/Franklin La Du Ferguson. I am reminded of the phrase, "do not speak ill of the dead." --evrik ^(talk) 20:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, Sdkb is correct, the rule clearly states "living individuals" (presumably to comply with BLP). We are talking about events that happened over a century ago. And the reviewer said the article was neutrally written.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, what I've seen in similar cases in the past is it depends on just how "negative" the hook is and whether or not the negativity is part of what would make the hook "hooky". With regards to BDPs, slightly negative hooks or hooks that highlighted negative aspects and events have been allowed in the past, but other times when the hook makes the person seem very bad then objections were raised, even when the person is deceased.

csdnew 00:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:Did you know nominations/Gorkha Bridge should not have been approved or promoted. The article still has issues with copyediting and source fidelity. @Evrik, Spinningspark, and SL93:@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: CMD (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Source fidelity? --evrik ^(talk) 04:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text is not supported by its inline citations. There was the example I mentioned and fixed, and I just went to check the current article and the first thing I looked at was the claim of a 50 year lifespan, which is not in the source cited. CMD (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fifty year fact is from here: "Cantilever bridge built in upper Gorkha". The Kathmandu Post. Archived from the original on 25 July 2020. Retrieved 24 July 2020.

The two paragraphs in the body of this work have seven sources. I think this article is okay. --evrik ^(talk) 04:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I promoted it because I was going to complete a copy edit afterwords, which is now completed. I will let others discuss the sources. SL93 (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed the sourcing issues. Everything is in the provided sources, but some of them were put in incorrectly. SL93 (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know the fact exists, the problem is it wasn't in the source cited. The simple existence of sources doesn't qualify as good inline citation. CMD (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Driveby comment: I personally do not find the hook that interesting but am unsure if that is a major concern at this stage. :/ I mean restoring a popular trail is normal but reconnecting seven villages may be notable I suppose. However, I find that being built by Swiss engineers and local residents and by drilling into a cliff is more interesting. Vincent^LUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chipmunkdavis Ignoring the interesting issue which I don't think is actually an issue, is the sourcing issue considered to be taken care of now? SL93 (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The previous list was archived earlier today with only two entries remaining, so here is an updated list. Reviewers have been active, so there are only 17 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through the latest date in that section, August 13. We currently have a total of 185 nominations, of which 86 have been approved, a gap of 99. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and those in the Current nominations section as well.

Over one month old:

• July 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Hamilton McWhorter III
• July 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Alonso Martínez de Espinar (ALT hooks need checking)

Other old nominations:

• July 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Das Wandern ist des Müllers Lust (would benefit from a German speaker to address source concerns)
• August 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of York (867)
• August 8: Template:Did you know nominations/James R. Shepley
• August 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Hainer Hill
• August 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Liberty Tower (Manhattan)
• August 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Singt dem Herrn ein neues Lied (Kempf)
• August 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Farooq Khan (two articles)
• August 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Johnny Doughboy
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Bartosz Staszewski
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Surface tone
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/2channel
• August 12: Template:Did you know nominations/20 Exchange Place
• August 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Fletcher (East India Company officer) (two articles)
• August 12: Template:Did you know nominations/William Fraser (architect) (hook need checking)
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Einer ist unser Leben

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) 13:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some context given the QPQ RfC above: at the moment 3 of these entries lack QPQs (although it has not been a week since they were nominated), and only two use QPQs that are months/years old. CMD (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]