This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Queue 7: Akshata Murty (nom) needs some attention. The hook says she is richer than King Charles III but the cited source only goes as far as likely ... to be richer than their monarch—but only if King Charles III’s personal wealth is defined in very specific ways. We're saying more than the hook supports. -- RoySmith(talk) 03:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
how about saying something like "Murty reportedly has more personal wealth than"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I just noticed this on the main page at the last minute before the change at midnight. This should not have been run because:
The King and the PM's wife are major figures who should be taken more seriously
The supposed valuation was dated in October of last year but that's three months ago and such valuations are quite volatile
The valuation did not clarify the extent to which her wealth is personal or should be attributed to the couple or whatever their family arrangements are
The valuation excluded the Crown estate which is the subject of a complex arrangement per the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 which gives the monarch a substantial income. This income stream is a form of wealth worth billions.
Valuations are generally problematic as they are often paper values and you can't really be sure what something is worth until you actually sell it. Titles such as "richest man in the world" are frequently bandied about and so seem attractive for hooks but are best avoided for such reasons.
In the past I was told by an admin that for DYK each paragraph needs a source at the end and an other admin demanded from me to source an opening phrase of a paragraph. I try to apply it when nominating as well as in reviewing. Today an article is on the main page without a source at the end of three paragraphs, a whole paragraph and researchers were also unsourced when the article was approved. The beginning of the history paragraph is also unsourced. This was the state of the article until yesterday. Today it is on the main page with three paragraphs without a source at their end and the begin of the history paragraph also unsourced. Has something changed in the DYK process? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@Paradise Chronicle That is really bad. It shouldn't have passed in the first place, and I should have caught it as well. (It was one of the first articles I promoted, and I was so focused on questions about the image and the hook, that I didn't check the rest of the article (as I think I took it rather literally at first that I didn't need to re-review the whole article itself).) I can try to add some citations to the article now, but I imagine it needs to be pulled. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
psst, BorgQueen! You can ping multiple people with one template, like this: {{yo|Cielquiparle|MB}} :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Aha, ok. Thanks! BorgQueen (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd definitely misspell someone's username. The only way I'm positive I've got them all right is to use the reply tool. Valereee (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I noticed this myself while copyediting the article, but when I checked D2, it only says that one footnote per paragraph is a "rule of thumb", so I didn't raise it as an error. If this is actually a hard rule, I think that should be made clear. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@
WP:DISPUTETAGs, including {{citation needed}}. I'd rather have a firmer D2 than require that reviews put cn tags anywhere they want a source. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs
) (she/her) 09:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I've now fixed the article, mostly. In one case, the footnote was in the wrong place, but there were a couple of sentences that appeared to have OR, so I have removed those for now. I have left one phrase without a citation (exact location of tree in relation to a government building), which I think *might* be "obvious" from the photographs across various sources, if you know Geneva buildings. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: I think footnote 3 ([1]) might verify that ("juste en face du siège des autorités" = just opposite the headquarters of the authorities?), but I don't speak French so I can't say for certain. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Have now cited this source instead, which calls out "Tour Baudet de l'Hôtel de Ville". Cielquiparle (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I suspect the one footnote per paragraph rule of thumb language is a holdover from earlier periods of en.wiki, and doesn't reflect current practice at all. It's actually quite woeful advice; the number of sources needed isn't dependent on how the text is divided into paragraphs (although obviously at least one source would be needed for each paragraph as that is how text-source integrity is determined). DYK articles should be fully compliant with
I can following your reasoning and thank you very much for beginning to promote hooks cielquiparle, but the fixes still don't source the beginning of the history paragraph which begins with "Between 1807 and 1817, Marc-Louis Rigaud..." and for me also the rule of thumb of one source per paragraph is a bit questionable. This can apparently be taken literally as Sojourner in the earth has shown and apparently also the reviewer wasn't aware of the rule of thumb of one source per paragraph. I'd approve an update of the requirements in order to prevent uncertainties in the future.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I believe it is stated in the full article, of which the webpage cited is just the summary/abstract. (I just tried to provide a direct link to the full article, but that results in automated download, so in this case linking to the summary is correct.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Just a note for those who may have missed leekycauldron's update, D2 now says "Every statement in an article should either be cited or exempted from citation". Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Could we also maybe have a rule requiring at least two secondary sources? Cielquiparle (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron It doesn't specify secondary sources though. Personally it would make me happy if the word "secondary" were inserted. It wouldn't fix the problem necessarily, but it might spark a few discussions now and then about whether the sourcing in a DYK submission is adequate for the main page or not (beyond whether or not there are verifiable facts with citations, etc.). Cielquiparle (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment - not assigning blame here, but looking at lessons for the future, For a reviewer, promoter and promoting admin to all miss a DYK fail as obvious as this one suggests to me that the procedures aren't being followed. Everyone in the process, but particularly the promoter and the admin (we can cut reviewers a bit of slack as they're often nominators themselves and not always as experienced in DYK), need to be familiar with the DYK criteria and need to explicitly check that every hook meets the basic specifications, including proper referencing in the article. Promotion isn't simply copying a hook from a nom page to a prep, and admin queue building isn't just copying from prep to queue, there's a checking component to both. And quality is more important than quantity - if you don't have time to do two sets, just work on one at a time. (I just looked at the queue thinking I might promote a set and found all seven queues full, that means other admins are doing a lot of checking of hooks right now!) Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@Amakuru: If the queues are full, you're welcome to use a prep. I think Prep 6 could use some help, although Prep 7 is supposed to be more or less empty. BorgQueen (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Btw this admin instruction does not say anything about checking components you're talking about. Just copying and pasting. Perhaps it needs to be rewritten then. BorgQueen (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Ok nevermind. I found it. :-D BorgQueen (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Dear @DYK admins: , I would like to add that with all my comments and suggestions, large parts of the DYK article stayed unsourced all day. What should an editor do if they found, were pinged, adverted of the mistake? Marc Louis Rigaud wasn't sourced and doesn't show up in four of the sources I double checked. Other phrases probably are similarly sourced, or not sourced. This is not what I was taught at DYK by several editors to which I am grateful for their advice. I must say I am disappointed and feel a bit discriminated as I was demanded much more in the past. To TLC my gratitude for the D2 adaptions, lets hope they'll be noticed.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Thats an interesting way to source phrases and should be noted. I do not believe I would have come through with such an article. But I can try... which of course I won't because it would be the worst sourced article I'd have nominated for DYK. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@
WP:ERRORS and asking that the hook be pulled from the main page. That's usually where quickest results can be had. Also pinging @DYK admins: might be useful too. Again, apologies for not dealing with this myself. Cheers — Amakuru (talk
) 08:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Well I am not aware of its pulling. But that was also not the goal of the reporting. I assumed good faith, and thought it would be fixed within a few minutes, as it was done when I once also made a mistake on DYK. But it seems that there was too much good faith and the ones involved thought someone else fixed it. I guess it's better to report to errors, as TLC initially suggested and now again Amakuru. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@Paradise Chronicle: I appreciated your faith, but unfortunately it's not really realistic for live issues to be fixed on the spot. For one thing, the editors in question may not be online, and even if they are, finding referencing for lots of uncited text isn't something that can generally be done quickly. If it's one or two statements then sure, and someone other than the nominator might be the one to do that. But otherwise, our typical response is to pull the hook. It's regrettable, and the process we follow is supposed to ensure it doesn't get to that point, but sometimes things slip through. Certainly kudos to you for spotting it, and please do notify ERRORS (and even ping me directly if you like) when you spot similar things in the future. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
On the subject of faulty processes, and since the Errors thread has been swept into the memory hole, I think it's worth noting that SS Sir William Siemens hit the Main Page yesterday with an orange-level maintenance tag, three unsourced paragraphs, and a hook fact that was not stated in the article. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi everyone, as the creator of Geneva official chestnut tree, and the person who proposed the hook, I'd like to thank you for improving the article. But I would also like to say that I'm surprised (and, frankly, disappointed) that no one notified me (or, alternatively, used the talk page of the article, which I obviously watch). But thanks to Cielquiparle, who notified me after the discussion took place. I know that I could have sourced about everything in the article if asked, but there is no way I can guess that this discussion is taking place.
With regards to the process, I'm with Sojourner in the earth: I read the rules several times (it was my first DYK hook), and the "one footnote per paragraph" seemed reasonable to me (especially for an article that, by definition, is new and hasn't had time to mature too much). And after nomination and promotion, I did not want to change the article too much, for fear of making it worse at the time of publication (little did I know how wrong I was).
Now, in addition to my own frustration, I'm sorry for you all, since you wasted quite a bit of time on that — I can see you discussing above about unsourced stuff that was indeed sourced, as well as back and forths in the history of the article, removing content just to readd it later. Since I had planned to continue improving the article after publication of the hook, and the history is now quite messy, I would be grateful if you could comment on the talk page of the article, indicating what you have removed or what you had noted as being in urgent need of improving. Schutz (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Just so you know...
I'm the one who have been filling the queues around the clock for the past few days, but from now on I'll be more focusing on writing articles, so if @RoySmith: or another admin could take over, it'd be great. Thanks. BorgQueen (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering when you would run out of steam :-) No problem, I'll keep an eye on it. Not that I wouldn't mind somebody else also keeping additional eyes on it. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines. Some of these were quite substantial but the edit summaries were quite inadequate such as "so, umm, i did a thing"
for a huge 14K change. These changes seem to have been made without specific discussion or consensus and change long-standing wordings.
This seems mistaken because the page says "These rules are meant (as said in G4 below) to describe consensus that has been reached among the DYK community through previous discussions of issues that have come up repeatedly." At least that's what it says currently. But if the page is just a free-for-all in which rules can be amended willy-nilly then who knows what it will say tomorrow.
Now I've been doing DYKs for some time -- my first was in 2009, I reckon. I haven't noticed the guidelines changing much in this time and so I'm used to them being fairly settled with wordings that are familiar from memory. Now, everything seems to be in flux and I oppose such radical change being done in a uncontrolled and undiscussed way. This is not the way things are supposed to be done.
The entirety of sections A, B, F, G, and J, as well as C1 through C10, D4 through D13, E1, E2, E4, and E5, were added unilaterally. If there was any discussion, it was minimal and did not represent any kind of formal consensus.
You also reverted my changes of the <span> tags, which were cluttering and a little redundant, to smoother {{Visible anchor}} tags. There was never any discussion to add the span tags in the first place, so I'm not sure what kind of consensus you think needs to exist to modify them.
The "huge 14K change" you're referring to is not a rule at all, it's me adding references to each of the standing rules – because there were no discussions for so many of the rules, I thought it was important to document who added them and when, so that people know the history when starting discussions to change them.
It's not a "free-for-all in which rules can be amended willy-nilly". Changes to the supplementary guidelines should be what they've always been: documenting what the community is doing, where its values lie, in a non-controversial way that doesn't need to be voted on. If you think I'm wrong, if you think something I've added doesn't reflect DYK's unwritten policy or should be overturned, you're free to challenge it at
WP:DYKSG#C6
, and an RfC upheld the rule, and that's how it goes.
The only thing that's worse than written creep is unwritten creep, and if it weren't for the fact that DYK has so much unwritten creep, we would never have had the SGs in the first place. That's why they were written, and they were originally drafted by Art LaPella in his userspace with no formal discussion before implementation. It's been nearly a decade since the guidelines have been given a thorough update to reflect DYK's latest practices, and it's a testament to his foresight and judgement that I didn't find much that needed change. But DYK has changed somewhat, and the supplementary guidelines have a long history. I thought they deserved to be written down. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
As for the quote, you're interpreting
G4 to mean the opposite of what it actually means; it says that "These supplementary guidelines are intended to describe the consensus, not to prescribe it." It means that these guidelines can reflect the sum of a user's observations of small, informal discussions (issues that arise at DYK noms, for example.) – if it were only based on formal discussion, that would be a prescription of consensus. G4 was added by Art LaPella in 2008, before there were any kinds of RfCs about that page – to concoct the notion that G4 somehow means "these rules are locked down and can only be changed via the consensus of a single capital-D Discussion" would contravene the reason it was actually written. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs
) (she/her) 00:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
150% support what leeky has done, and is doing. Make that 500%. 1000%. EEng 04:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not seeing anything in the version as tlc revised it that surprises me or looks incorrect. Was there something in particular you were objecting to, Andrew? In general I do feel experienced workers here should feel free to make even large changes to instructions when they see something that needs updating because it isn't actually correct. Valereee (talk) 14:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Grumpy
I just spent 1.5 hours getting Queue 2 in shape for the front page. Had to un-promote 2 hooks for various reasons. By the time stuff gets to be the next prep ready for the queue, it really should be in better shape than this. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, I'm not surprised that not many admins want to get involved in the DYK process. :-D BorgQueen (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
When I submitted an alt hook for Beezer Brothers, it looks like I should have reviewed the article as well. I didn't want to step on the toes of the actual reviewer. SL93 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Maybe, but I often make drive-by hook suggestions, and don't usually do a full review in those cases. I expect the initial reviewer will do that, and whoever promotes to prep will do it again. But one way other another, Beezer really slipped through with only a cursory examination. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Btw @SL93: thanks for building preps; please don't forget prep 5 and 7 currently need one hook each. BorgQueen (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I wonder how that happened? BTW, that's another reason these last-minute fixes are a pain. It's not just the time I wasted pulling the hooks and finding replacements, I also made more work for somebody to fill in the gaps I left. Everybody loses. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
They seem to be offline... nevermind, I'll fill them up. BorgQueen (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I was eating. It was also always open for anyone to do. SL93 (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I just didn't want to step on your toes! :-D I tend to be cautious when someone else is actively building preps. BorgQueen (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry. I misread. SL93 (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
And here I thought that it was all going well. :) Bruxton (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Is there a case to be made for tightening up on the quality of reviews? If all the checks specified in the guidelines have been made then nothing that has been passed should be coming back from the preps or queues. Perhaps the loss of the QPQ for any that is rejected? Though this may be hard to administer as I suspect most QPQs are used almost immediately - Dumelow (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I also noticed some slipshod reviews as of late. Bruxton (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, in my experience of dealing with problematic hooks at
WP:ERRORS, in 90% of cases the issues should have been picked up in review. Black Kite (talk)
18:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
It seems there are many new contributors to DYK, and there will be a learning curve for reviews. Flibirigit (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like we've hit a point where we have quite a few newer people at all levels of the process - reviewing, promoting and adminning. That's great, obviously, and I hope these discussions aren't discouraging those people from participating... it's just that it seems to be leading to a few articles that aren't ready at all making it all the way through. FWIW I've been doing admin checks for several years now, and on average I always find issues with 1–2 hooks, so probably it's somewhat par-for-the-course... although I'm a bit of a stickler so sometimes the things I spot are more minor issues than having large swathes of uncited material or orange tags. — Amakuru (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your hard work and that even includes when you're being a bit of a stickler. I appreciate your help. SL93 (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I just wanted to acknowledge that I saw this and I apologize since I put together the Prep 2 that was moved into Queue 2. One of the hooks that was pulled was switched into it after I built it, but I saw the comments about pulling Template:Did you know nominations/Beezer Brothers which I apologize for; I saw the Earwig match but skimming through mostly just saw the names and dates matching and didn't look deeper but I obviously should have. I will keep things like this in mind moving forward. - Aoidh (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I have been deeply uncomfortable with this hook from the start, because IMO, DYK is not a place to showcase corporate advertising campaigns, unless we have something interesting to say about them (that is more specific than "they paid to use this song"). (In fact, when you go to YouTube, all the comments say, "Oh I just love this song from X commercial!" It's the least non-obvious fact about the song you could point to.) I tried to intercept with ALT hooks when it was at Approved, but it got promoted to Prep before I could, and I had meant to voice my objection again, but it's now been promoted to Queue. As at least two admins have now approved it with no objections, I am willing to back down, but I know I am not the only one (@Theleekycauldron), and I would fully expect that we will receive a bunch of complaints when it hits the main page. It's also a shame because there are so many other angles to the "Sheesh!" story that are interesting – TikTok roots/samples, "hooky grandeur and speedy-smooth lines", etc., etc. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok I'll look into it. BorgQueen (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Actually, @Cielquiparle: please do suggest your ALT hooks. BorgQueen (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah, yes, this one slipped my mind when I was involved in this – kept meaning to bring it up, but it kept slipping my mind. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
The above hook does not read as promotional to me. It makes no claims about the quality of any product, just says that a particular song has been used to advertise a couple of companies, how is that promotional? Gatoclass (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
(I don't necessarily object to featuring commercials, as long as there is something interesting to say about the commercials themselves. In this case it's kind of "blah" to say SONG was used in COMMERCIALS for A and B. Was the point of the original hook that you were supposed to wonder if "Sheesh!" was referring to the song or the original meme itself? If so, I think it's too subtle.)
Some ALT hooks to start; ALT4 would require edits to the original article. I'm sure others are possible.
ALT0a: ... that the song "Sheesh!", sampling a TikTok meme, has been used in advertising campaigns by both Toyota and Pizza Hut?
ALT4: ... that "Sheesh!" was said to have “struck gold” by combining the TikTok tone with the “hooky grandeur and speedy-smooth lines” of singer Tai Verdes? Source: Austin Chronicle
Thanks. I like ALT4 better. BorgQueen (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen and Cielquiparle:, the word "ad" is both a colloquialism and a contraction. Please use either "advertisement" or "commercial". Flibirigit (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Y So fixed. BorgQueen (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi @BorgQueen Sorry to bother you again, but would it possible to now delete the word "have" from the hook? My fault for getting a bit too pendantic about verb tense in previous rev of hook. So it would end up reading:
... that both Toyota and Pizza Hut had commercials saying "Sheesh!"?
(Just "had", simple past tense, is ok and reads better.) Thanks! Cielquiparle (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Yup. I'll do it. BorgQueen (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
That was a bad idea. "They had commercials" carries a slight connotation that they (Today and PH) don't exist anymore. That's not pedantry. EEng 22:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
On the flip side, "they have commercials" would have a slight connotation that the commercials are still shown. "Have had" seems fine. I agree with EEng. SL93 (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Y Omg. Undone. BorgQueen (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
But have you accounted for the fact that they may continue running this ad in the future? Also, is it truly verifiable that they're running that ad right now? what channel is it on? why is this information missing from the hook? what are you hiding from us in your temporal language, BorgQueen?theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
is identifying the specific corporations necessary for the effectiveness of the hook? if not, perhaps the advertising concern can be properly addressed by simply rewording the hook to not explicitly name the brands.
alt0b: ... that the song "
mos:quotetitle. alternatively, i like Cielquiparle's alt4, but, as previously mentioned, the relevant information would have to be added to the article if the hook is used. dying (talk
) 23:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
i'm not sure I love those hooks – the recognizability of the Toyota and Pizza Hut brands is good for what interestingness the hook might have. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
that's fair. admittedly, i hadn't found the current hook, or even either of the ones i proposed, that interesting, so i wasn't sure if the recognizability of the brands was key, or if the hook could be similarly effective without mentioning the names. dying (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
... that when baker Ruby Tandoh (pictured) publicly came out, she mocked critics who suggested that she had romanced a male contest judge?
Is it really the most intersting thing about this person that she mocked her critics? Srnec (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's that she mocked her critics, I think it's the irony of people saying something that turned out to be definitely dumb. "You only got ahead because you flirted with the judge, Paul Hollywood!" "nope, I'm a lesbian..."
we may want to clarify that she came out as gay, and didn't identify as bi until three years later. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, not about the hook - but the entire "Twitter conflicts" section in and of itself is a sizeable hunk that goes against our
WP:DYKRULES #4.a "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." That section is about as negative as it gets, " ...JOKE'S ON YOU, YOU MASSIVE SHITTING MISOGYNISTS" - etc. etc. etc. Guess it doesn't disqualify the nomination, but that large section is over the top with its negativity. — Maile (talk
) 02:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
If I had to guess, I don't think that Tandoh regrets that quote or believes that it reflects negatively on her. There may be other issues, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
The Wikipedia guideline is not what the subject might think, but whether or not the content is negative. I think most every country has its infamous talking heads, etc., who sling mud with stuff like, ""the nattering nabobs of negativism. They have formed their own 4-H Club—the 'Hopeless, Hysterical, Hypochondriacs of History'." (Spiro Agnew). The issue is whether or not DYK disqualifies it, or looks the other way. — Maile (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
@Maile66: It doesn't mean "negative" as a general hand-wave, it's negative aspects of living individuals. I see no reason to believe that the quote reflects negatively on her – it is confident, it is witty, and it is (in my humble opinion) a deserved smack in the face to the misogynists who can't bear to see women succeed. If some people like her less because of that, that's on them, and it's not on DYK to protect their sensibilities. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
As for the targets of the quote, they're not named or even vaguely defined – they're not eligible for those gen4a and BLP protections. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Should it be pulled from the main page? SL93 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I was under the impression that we don't pull hooks for interestingness while they're on the Main Page, SL93. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Imagine a world where somebody's sexual orientation fails the DYK "interesting" test. I want to live in that world. -- RoySmith(talk) 02:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I read the discussion wrong. I was thinking that the comment said it was an error, but I was also dealing with shitty Walmart customer service at the same time. SL93 (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
As Leeky writes: this is not negative about Tandoh, she takes pride in her cutting remarks, somewhat like Dorothy Parker did. It's certainly negative about unnamed critics but we have plenty of those, including on this very DYK, "that abused Overseas Filipino Workers accused the former chargé d'affaires of the Philippine embassy in Damascus of neglecting them while he was regularly partying with handsome Syrians?" - abuse and neglect are both clearly negative, right? It isn't a broad-as-possible interpretation. GRuban (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Commercial advertisement
Hello, I'm very surprise to see today's did you know which basically make an advertisement for a software. The fact is has been created during the Covid pandemy doesn't mean it should end in front page. This isn't the only tool having been crated in covid not is it particularly noticeable.
Indeed it has been release in March 2020 which was in the first months of the covid pandemy (in East Asia).
"... that the software Obsidian was created by just two developers during the COVID-19 pandemic?... that the software Obsidian was created by just two developers during the COVID-19 pandemic?" 77.204.197.180 (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes: How is this unusual or intriguing? Not to mention the smell of promotionalism. EEng 09:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks like this is one that got gutted of all meaningful information after the description "note-taking software" was reduced to just "software", at some point after it was promoted. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Y I restored note-taking. BorgQueen (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I have my doubts that the restoration addressed EEng's question, but the hook has completed its run on the Main Page now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Saved by the bell.... BorgQueen (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
That hook performed incredibly well for what it was! Maybe the vagueness helped, even if it could be read as commercial and lame. (Possibly a lot of people who clicked were like, "So??? I created software with my friend during COVID too!!! What is this???") Cielquiparle (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it's exactly what I meant. I don't see what is special about that note-taking software. They did it during, covid so what? What's special? Let's be clear I'm not against "promoting" software, for example software developed during the covid to fight the covid or help people (like all the tracing apps) won't be a problem for me. 77.204.147.132 (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
PSHAW tool
Are other people also having trouble accessing the PSHAW tool today? Noticed there have been no new hook promotions over the past several hours, but it's not for lack of trying... Cielquiparle (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Could you do it manually? BorgQueen (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
We did it manually before PSHAW, but omigosh does that tool help take the fiddly bits out, and I think Cielquiparle probably hasn't had to do a promotion without that tool. tlc probably won't be around for at least a few hours to make any fixes. Valereee (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
My last couple promotions were manual. I left a message on leeky's talk page. SL93 (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle, BorgQueen, Valereee, SL93, Bruxton, and RoySmith: Darn, sorry, y'all! Must be the new message I added to notify promoters when they're accessing the bottom prep – I'll try to make fixes sometime today, but it looks like y'all will have to contend with stone-age promotion for a few hours. Barbaric :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Oops, you are here, lol! :D Do you ever sleep? Valereee (talk) 18:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Too much, not enough, seldom intermittently, and often at all of the wrong times. Truly, the most fun :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
At the risk of getting all software engineer on you, test.wikipedia.org is your friend. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind – in the meantime, PSHAW should be good to go for now :) if anyone knows of a good way to decrease nesting in a Morebits script, that would be very helpful. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
What language are you speaking? Bruxton (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
On the main page now - Killing of Sara-Nicole Morales
@
ITN, not DYK. I'm not asking this to be pulled, just not repeated in the future. Because of BLP issues, the shooter Andrew Derr cannot be named in the article, so all you have is the victim's name. Overall intent seems to be for the victim to have not died in vain, and to show one facet of a Stand-your-ground law. In DYK this seems more tabloid than it would at ITN. Feedback? — Maile (talk
) 21:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
This is definitely not an ITN story. I'd go further to say I don't know that it passes
WP:NEVENT due to lesser coverage or more limited scope. Where's the greater impact? – Muboshgu (talk
) 21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, given that it happened over a year ago, and I only created it in November (with the hope of running it on the anniversary date), discussing whether it was better for ITN is absurd on its face.
I was motivated by it still getting widely discussed online—you still see screenshots of someone's tweet with Morales's picture expressing outrage that the shooter "got away with murder" leaving out the fact that she was waving a gun at him. Plus it's sort of man bites dog that someone shooting someone else dead on the dead person's property is not even charged after the prosecutor decides it's justifiable self-defense.
I mean, it would be sort of like if someone killed a cop, was tried for murder, and acquitted on self-defense grounds. That we'd have an article about.
BTW, if we can't mention the shooter's name in the article, what makes you think you're OK mentioning it here? You really should redact it. Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
It would never have passed the ITN criteria. Too domestic. BorgQueen (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I expressed my opinion about this article during the original review. I don't really much anything else to say about it. -- RoySmith(talk) 21:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
You were asked to follow up on what you said but never did. A month later I said that it was clear you didn't care anymore, and we moved on. Daniel Case (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I only promoted it because of the consensus that was there before it ever hit the main page. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
IMO there are enough objections that it should be pulled. Andrew Davidson had some legitimate concerns regarding our guidelines at errors. Bruxton (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with it being pulled, but it won't mean much with a little over 2 hours remaining. SL93 (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I see it has been reworded since the errors discussion, I will defer to others here. I read that Roy S had concerns during the review process. Bruxton (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Looks like a valid DYK nom with a bad title – I can fix it up, if you'd like. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Closing past threads on DYKs that have already run
Is it OK to close past threads on DYKs that have already run, so we can visually skip them and they possibly get archived more quickly? I am happy to help with this if it's simple enough to do. (If it's an important post-mortem discussion, then maybe leave it for an extra week?) Cielquiparle (talk) 07:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Just a quick query about this... the hook says that the 1987 game was Eastern Michigan's only prior bowl-game win; however, the article doesn't make quite such a strong statement. It says that it was their last bowl win, but the text doesn't say there were none before that. Assuming the hook fact is true, this should be fairly easy to fix hopefully! Pinging @PCN02WPS, BeanieFan11, and Bruxton: Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Very sorry but I broke Prep Area 1 by trying to promote an image that was too large. Is it possible to unpromote it (i.e., is this something I can do myself)? Cielquiparle (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
In what way is the image too large? {{main page image/DYK}} should scale it to the required size. -- RoySmith(talk) 21:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I believe the problem Cielquiparle is referring to is that the image is so tall as to breach the border of the next section. Using the main page previewer, though, I'm not seeing that problem persist (given that the narrower main page box makes it taller). We should be all good :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks all! It looked really strange and everything was freezing up...but I was finally able to add other hooks to the set in the end, and am relieved to hear that {{main page image/DYK}} takes care of it all. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Reverting convert template in a prep
I think this blunt revert by Philafrenzy (talk·contribs) is inappropriate, especially when the user is involved in the reviewing discussion themselves. Also, does the convert template really harm the hook? How?
Discussion is welcome. BorgQueen (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
As the re-approver, I think the issue is not with the convert template, but with the insertion of the word "about" when we went to great lengths to make sure we literally stuck with a single source (The Times) rather than going with one of the other "estimates". We even decided against going with kilometres as that could be seen as OR or something. "Just about 20 miles" doesn't sound nice. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
That, I'll agree with, but still, it should have been brought up here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:CALC says: Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible.BorgQueen (talk
) 12:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes. My question is: Is it possible then to just say "just 32 kilometres from its destination?" And not state the 20 miles? Or does the hook always have to have both measurements? Cielquiparle (talk) 12:31, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
As leeky earlier said, conversion templates are established practice for global accessibility. Especially on Main Page, I'd say. Why shouldn't we have both units? If anything, it improves the hook's accessibility to readers from different countries. And, no, converting units isn't OR. BorgQueen (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
{{Convert}} templates are established practice for global accessibility, and Philafrenzy proposed the hook currently in prep. Writers are expected to abstain from directly interfering with their hooks in prep. Discussion here is more appropriate. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Apologies for reverting but to be honest, as a DYK submitter, it is hard to find/re-find this particular Talk page for some reason, and then when you do find it, it feels like random queries don't get answered very quickly, plus there is an awful lot of chatter. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The user in question is not a newbie. BorgQueen (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I have quickly learned that content creators with hundreds of thousands of edits "see" Wikipedia differently than I do, for better or for worse. While I understand that there shouldn't be "special treatment" for editors based on that, I also think some empathy is in order if they're not on top of monitoring every ping and notification – some of them monitor tens of thousands or more articles on a regular basis and have many other commitments besides – and many of them I'm sure are taking the "long view" as processes evolve over time. (Anyway I left a note on the editor's Talk page.) Cielquiparle (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
First you said it is "hard to find/re-find this particular Talk page", implying their lack of discussion on this page before reverting might have been a mistake, (i.e. perhaps they couldn't find this page). That's why I pointed out they're not a newbie. Now you're saying they might have "many other commitments"? What are you trying to say here, @Cielquiparle:...? I'm honestly puzzled. BorgQueen (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
No, not a mistake, but possibly an expression of frustration. For many DYK submitters who love their hooks (which admittedly is not everyone all the time), our worst nightmare is having a hook modified at the last minute (or before) without our knowledge, in a way we never would have agreed to during workshopping. Often the person doing the last-minute modification has good or even well-justified intentions, but doesn't understand how the seemingly tiny change they have made has changed the meaning or aesthetic of the whole. I picked up on this pretty early on, so I learned to try to pay attention to how my hooks were progressing through Prep and Queue. Then I realized that some DYK submitters who are old-timers don't necessarily do that, and in fact, they don't even necessarily keep up with pings. So that can result in frustration and misunderstandings. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: It is indeed super frustrating. Do you watch the nomination page after your hook is promoted? GalliumBot logs any changes made, while your hook is in prep, on the talk page of the nomination. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Wait, hang on, y'all had several conflicting estimates and decided to go with one arbitrarily? That seems more like OR to me then converting to km (the latter being covered under
No, we went with the most reliable source instead of random blog. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I only added "about" because the article says "about 20 miles" and I said as much in my edit summary. If "about" is wrong, then remove it from the article. SL93 (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
OK. It's the combination of "just" and "about" which is a big problem to me. One or the other, not both. I actually have some possible solutions in mind but am finding it is cutting awfully close to 200 characters, so will try to work out the puzzle and propose various permutations shortly. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Philafrenzy's issue is as a long-time editor. They reverted everything other than just removing "just". I was confused because your original first sentence pointed out "about". SL93 (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The word "just" was something that I forgot to remove from the original hook and then I went to bed shortly after. I then woke up to this discussion. SL93 (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I changed it to about 20 miles per the article. The revert was out of process and something should not hit the main page that doesn't match the article. Don't have it in the article if it doesn't sound nice.SL93 (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@SL93: You keep on doing you, SL93. You have been absolutely amazing. I have learned so much every single day from watching you work, and taking in your comments. I suspect BorgQueen would say the same. We needed someone to be showing us by example, and you have done that. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that Park Ji-hyun helped expose an online sex-crime ring and went on to became interim co-chair of the Democratic Party of Korea at age 26?
A couple of people have said to me that they aren't sure what "anti-sex crime activist" means, even if that is what several sources say (and it's hard to summarize in a short descriptor). Back when I wrote the original hook, I think I was trying to avoid mentioning the online sex-crime ring in question – I would still like to avoid linking or naming them (as you can find the wikilink easily enough if you click on her bio), if nothing else because that other Wikipedia article is in poor shape. But I think ALT1 is an accurate summary of what she did, and why her career is short but incredibly interesting. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I changed it. SL93 (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@Juxlos: I think the Works section needs citations. BorgQueen (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Someone added it in bulk. I think that these credits are typically provided in the game's credits, but to be safe I’ve removed it altogether. Juxlos (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Y Thanks. BorgQueen (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The use of "candidacy" is kind of weird here. You're a candidate until the election. Once you win, you're no longer a candidate. I'm not sure how to rephrase this to fix the problem. -- RoySmith(talk) 23:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Goncharov (meme): inspired a fandom. I don't think that's grammatically correct, unless "fandom" is a noun? Could probably use some copyediting.
Van den Berg–Kesten inequality: The hook is fine, but This inequality was one ingredient in the article is an odd use of the word "ingredient".
Livio Castiglioni: Is it necessary to point out that all three brothers were sons of the same father? That's implicit in them being brothers (as opposed to half-brothers, step-brothers, etc).
WP:DYKHOOK
"The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change" unless it gets "as of" or some such time-limiting qualifier.
WP:RS
. In any case, we're citing a book review, it should be attributed to the reviewer, not stated in wiki voice.
None of these seem serious enough to pull hooks, but need to be attended to before hitting the main page.
But I amended the hook anyway. BorgQueen (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I consider the book review a reliable source. Only because the website is associated with the Association for Industrial Archaeology, which has a peer-reviewed journal. SL93 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
... that Called Up Sent Down: The Bevin Boys' War describes the experiences of young men who were conscripted to work as coal miners in Britain during the Second World War? I just don't think that the quoted material is needed and the article can be clicked on for context. SL93 (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
So fixed. BorgQueen (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
... that the soup Talabaw(pictured), mainly consisting of fermented bamboo shoots, is the national dish of the Karen people in Myanmar, where it is used as a rice complement?
I clicked to the article to figure out what "where it is used as a rice complement" meant (thinking maybe there was a better way to state something), and after reading the article and the source, I'm not actually sure that's correct. From the machine translation of the source, it looks to me like it's the exact opposite: that the soup is being used to supplement or extend a less-available ingredient, rice. Which seems counterintuitive -- usually it's the other way around, rice is used in most cuisines as a cheap source of calories. Big bowl of rice, small amount of meat with veggies in a sauce. The rice supplements the meat, the meat-and-veggie-sauce complement the rice. But in this case, if I'm understanding the source correctly, these are forest-dwellers who don't traditionally grow much not grow rice, so rice was an item that had to be purchased and was therefore more expensive than the rest of the ingredients in this soup, which could be foraged. So it's a big dish of soup, a little bit of rice. The rice complements the soup, the soup supplements the rice. Am I reading it right? We could fix this simply by removing the final phrase.
I'm also a little concerned about the use of the term "national dish". It's not actually worded that way in the article, and the Karen aren't a nation. In the article we call it the "essential dish of Karen cuisine", which does seem to be supported by the source.
So happy to see a soup in the image slot! Valereee (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Might be me being sleepy when reviewing, but maybe "rice supplement" would be sufficient. No issue with removal though.
Also, replacing "national dish" with "easential cuisine" works out. In summary:
ALT1: ... that the soup
bamboo shoots, is an essential dish of the Karen people
It is actually quite interesting that in this particular cuisine, we're supplementing rice rather than the other way around.
ALT2: ... that the soup Talabaw(pictured), mainly consisting of fermented bamboo shoots, is the essential dish of Myanamar's Karen people, who use it to supplement rice? Valereee (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Y So fixed. BorgQueen (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
|:: Hi, machine translation in Burmese is terrible. During the monarchy, however, Karen was a vassal state. It was used by Karen to supplement rice because rice is scarce and expensive at that time. Sorry, but I'm unable to translate some information into a better way to state something. For further clarification, my senior Hybernator can assist. ALT2: is very good for me. Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
@Taung Tan, thank you so much for creating this article, I'm so happy we have it! I hope you create dozens of articles on foods of Myanmar! Foods and dishes of regions outside of North America, Europe, Australia, and Japan are a real challenge for Wikipedia. If ALT2 works for you, I will do a few edits at the article also, but please whatever edits I make, feel free to revert if I get something wrong. As you say, machine translations are very tricky. Valereee (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Yup, I'm actually from South Korea and I've noticed many Korean dishes aren't very well covered. BorgQueen (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen, I am completely committed to creating articles for notable dishes from places that don't have the kind of journalistic and academic coverage of food that is common in NA/Eur/Au/Ja. One of the main issues is transliteration, especially when a food has multiple names. which makes it extremely difficult for me to find RS. If you can find me the sources, I will draft the articles. Get me three instances of sigcov in RS (or some other plausible claim to notability such as a food or drink being strongly associated with a ceremony or ritual or festival) and we'll make it happen. Valereee (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Sure thing. Let me think... hmm. BorgQueen (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
No hurry, whenever you come across them, just post at my talk. :)
In the meantime I must go to an Asian grocery and buy fresh (or possibly lactofermented) bamboo shoots. We are having this soup one night soon. Valereee (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
This article appears to fail DYK criterion 4a due to
ABOUTSELF
-by-proxy, the article is primarily based on them (BLPSPS #5); they may also be considered "unduly self-serving" (BLPSPS #1), as each profile is selling a product (the operas she appears in).
Additionally, the nomination fails criterion 3b, using a non-reliable self-published source for the claim in the hook—although this issue could be fixed pretty easily. 4a is the greater concern; as long as this article has only one citation to a non-selfpub source, this should not run.
Courtesy ping to the nominator and article creator @Gerda Arendt:. I see other references which can be used especially in books. Bruxton (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The notion that an opera company reporting on who played what roles at their theater would not be considered a reliable source is a new one to me. And having just reread WP:SELFPUB, I don't see where it said that "business websites are almost always considered self-published." Rlendog (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The issue may lie more with notability and
WP:PRIMARY - anyone who does theatre even at the most basic amateur level will be mentioned by the various theatres' websites as appearing; they're obviously not notable, and how we separate them from those who are is by asking for secondary or tertiary sources, i.e. if the info has been picked up by an independent reliable source, it is considered notable. Some people think that using the 'official' sources is better than using, say, a review, but typically not. Kingsif (talk
) 01:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Understood Kingsif I see that the person has coverage in secondary sources. I do hope Gerda comes back to add them and satisfy the concern. Bruxton (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The article's notability is borderline, but
WP:BLPSPS says Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. Does the opera company, as the employer of the subject, fall under this? I'm guessing not... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs
) (she/her) 01:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
theleekycauldron Thanks for detailing the geuideline. Musicians are especially interesting cases because there is often an abundance of trade publications and performance announcements. They are known for their work. Bruxton (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
There's been some recent discussion at
WP:PROMO issue as well: An official profile on a performer, published by the producers of a performance they are in, is an advertisement for all intents and purposes. It is written with the goal of attracting an audience, not presenting a set of facts that a disinterested party would find important. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed
] (she|they|xe) 01:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
It is a primary source, but I have never heard of company websites being considered as self-published sources. SL93 (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
It is an enumerated example in
WP:SELFPUB. Articles based on company websites are routinely rejected at AfC and NPP. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed
] (she|they|xe) 01:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I read it. It doesn't mention companies. Of course they are rejected there, but per notability issues. SL93 (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@SL93: Take a look at ref 9: Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, the material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns...theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Very weird rule. I don't understand how it would suddenly be acceptable if she was deceased. SL93 (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
It wouldn't be. For any article to be based on self-published sources is a violation of
WP:BLP just emphasizes this in the case of living people, and DYKCRIT in turn emphasizes compliance with WP:BLP. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed
] (she|they|xe) 02:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
There is a key difference though. WP:BLP doesn't allow any such self-published sources, not just about it being based on. Dead or alive, it shouldn't matter. SL93 (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I guess I will just use company websites for dead people. I guess they can't defend themselves. SL93 (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
If you want to extend that prohibition beyond BLP, you're welcome to propose it somewhere. A major point of BLP, however, has always been to apply stricter rules there than in other cases. So where, under V and RS, we would allow an amount of discretion as to whether to remove such sources, tag them with {{
WT:BLP and I didn't bring this up to start a policy discussion. There is already consensus that BLPs cannot be based on self-published sources. There is already consensus that DYK does not run articles with BLP violations. I brought this up so that we can enforce those consensuses. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed
] (she|they|xe) 02:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not trying to get consensus or change anything. It's just a side comment. If my opinion about respecting the dead bugs you, so be it. SL93 (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
No one in this discussion has to respond to me. Only because I'm done with DYK. It's too stressful - and I'm not referring to this discussion.SL93 (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: SL93 has earned a retirement and then some, honestly. The burnout definitely gets to you after a while. If he's truly out of DYK, it's a loss, but I hope he gets to focus on less stressful things. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron yeah, well, I'd know, wouldn't I? Hee hee. That's why I left 12 years ago... DYK is certainly one of the tough spots on Wikipedia. But fun and suspenseful too! 😀 BorgQueen (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@SL93 Understood, but know that you'll be missed. — Maile (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Owing to article issues I have pulled the hook from prep. Discussion can continue on the talk page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Sunday morning, and another wall of text. This is the first time in 13 years of writing about opera singers that I hear that what the Bolshoi Theatre and the Oper Frankfurt write about their productions, including the people performing in them is not regarded as reliable. The theatres publish, the theatres are responsible for the content. Of course they have to rely on information from the singers for early life, which is normally not covered by the press. The theatres have their own editing team to write these things, and different focus, - just compare, and then please remove the tag. My interest in having her (or anything else) appear on DYK is zero, but I mind the tag discrediting the information. When I have free time I can try to please the demand for other sources which must be out there, but now I'm on vacation and have three recent death articles waiting (Carl Hahn also, tagged, any help wanted). Happy new year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt You have much to be proud of Gerda. You have 2,274 DYK credits. Your first hook appeared on March 19, 2010. You have been a ray of light for me and I smile when I see your positive messages; of which there are 20 on my talk page. I hope you continue to be the same positive editor who always thinks of others and spreads love. We need more of it! I think we can work on this article, so lets see what we can do to make it better and get your 2,275th DYK credit. @Storye book: I hope to help you get the nomination on track, with some bold edits. Bruxton (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Bruxton, We are all doing our best here - I look forward to seeing Gerda's new sources on the article, then we can get going. Although I believe that there is actually nothing wrong with the existing sources, I guess it will keep the peace to get the sources that people are asking for. Storye book (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Storye book I love the cooperation! I started to add references and I have added a commons image. I will go through and try to organize a few things, and I appreciate anyone else who can help. TSventon linked to the Russian Wikipedia on the talk page in case there is anything we can use. Looks like some other prep builders are working as well. This section of the project is not always fun, but it has some of the most cooperative editors and admins. I appreciate all of you! I think the maintenance tag can be removed now, but I am not going to edit war it, since it has been on-off and now on again. Bruxton (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I feel like Storye book was canvassed in to review this nom, and I don't think this should be happening. No one should be requesting a review from someone they know to be sympathetic to their subject area/philosophy. Valereee (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee: Ah, so, Storye book was canvassed in to nominate this – the reviewer was independent. Gerda has definitely done this in the past, but it's not there this time. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't actually care whether the review was done by someone clearly canvassed in. If there's clear canvassing, I can suspend AGF on whether or not canvassing is a factor. Valereee (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee: I'm unsure of what you mean? I was trying to say that here, Storye book is a proxy nominator, not a proxy reviewer. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Got it. It's just...it's not ideal. Valereee (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I have never requested Story book to review. I have requested to help with frequent misunderstandings. That has at least in one case resulted in an approval, which I didn't want. Too tired for more, but can't go to sleep without clarifying. I haven't requested to nominate Manistina, just said that when I wrote the article I had planned to nominate, but can't anymore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
The comments were perhaps not directly intended to be a request for approval, but in at least one prior occasion it has indeed happened where Storye book approved a nomination against the objections of one or more editors, usually after she had been asked to comment on the nomination. In addition, Storye book has often been asked to comment on nominations where the reviewer or reviewers have raised concerns about the suitability of hooks, one example being the Talia Or nomination where she commented on the nomination after Gerda pinged her "calling for help". This particular case may not necessarily have been canvassing since SB was simply asked to nominate an article, which is not inherently wrong (it is not uncommon for nominators to not be the main contributor to the article). However, given that concerns have been raised about canvassing above, I'd probably suggest that Gerda be careful when asking for Storye book's input moving forward, as it may give other editors the impression of canvassing even when it was not intended. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I wonder why you repeat what I just said above: that in one case it lead to an approval and I didn't want that. Thank you for noticing that I only asked. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's not true. I haven't requested to nominate Manistina is at direct odds with your prior statement, which reads I don't want to do it - on strike - but on the other hand, I feel a bit guilty for a living person to suffer from me not being up to DYK. If you could imagine to nominate her, I could add a bit (10 chars missing, but she's good for more), or even you could? Let me know. It's too early for IWD.... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I am sorry, but my English seems (again) to be too different: I asked if Storey book would be willing, - that is not the same as request, or is it? As above: I am on vacation, and in the little time I have besides hike and relax, I have first of all to take care of recent death articles, because they soon become not recent anymore. Thanks to all who helped source the article. I stand by thinking that the Bolshoi Theatre and Oper Frankfurt are not "self-publishers" (as some universities are, that simply let professors post as on a personal website) but have independent staff publishing about pieces and performers. I am a frequent visitor in Frankfurt, and enjoy high-class program books and well-prepared free lectures before all performance. In the one for The Enchantress, Tchaikovsky's favourite opera (DYK?), the concert master was there to play main themes. The entry about Manistina is factual and concerns performances (which roles at which places when), which is what opera lovers want to know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
This is semantics. When Trump told Michael Cohen to pay off Stormy Daniels, he didn't outright say those exact words, knowing it was illegal. He used different wording which both of them knew actually meant "pay off Stormy Daniels". This is a similar case. You may not have used the exact words "nominate it for me" but both of you knew what your request really meant, or would reasonably have been interpreted as. Don't have other people proxy for you, Gerda. If you want to take a break from DYK, do so, but don't claim to do so and then de facto have another editor nominate your stuff for you. If you want to end your self-imposed exile, you're certainly welcome to do that as well. But this sort of thing shouldn't be happening - you can't have it both ways. Either you're "on strike" from DYK, or you're not. Right now, you're clearly not. Simply don't go to other editors' talk pages and ask them for involvement in your nominations and this will stop being a concern. Use the DYK talk page instead, so you're not asking anyone specifically. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
If I may circle back to the original issue; Tamzin is quite correct in flagging the article. Sources from an opera house describing their performers are not
WP:SPS, but neither are they independent, so they should not be used for material that is either contentious or potentially promoting the subject. Their use for uncontentious detail is okay, but we shouldn't be building the article entirely based on such sources. This is quite basic; I'm genuinely unsure why we're arguing about this. Vanamonde (Talk
) 03:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
My only issue is that it was brought up here and the article's talk page that those sources cannot be used at all in BLPs, even for uncontentious details. I know that articles shouldn't be based on such sources. SL93 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not addressing you specifically, SL93, but the whole room, so to speak. Since you mention it; yes, I believe the use of an Opera house profile for uncontroversial information is acceptable. Also: Tamzin, I see the tag you've applied is for self-published sources, which I would dispute. The issue here is non-independence: the tag I would use is {{Third-party}}. The author of a profile on the website of a large opera house (regardless of whether the author is the singer) isn't throwing it on a website with no oversight whatsoever. If we applied the same logic to other pages, we couldn't use scholar's profiles on their university websites, for instance, which we routinely do. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@
a policy section that covers "company websites" (footnote 9). (To reïterate, I'm open to the idea that these profiles are "ABOUTSELF-by-proxy"; but the remaining issue is the article's strong reliance on them. The same would be true of an article strongly relying on university profiles.) That said, {{Third-party}} would apply just as well. If you feel it's the more relevant tag, feel free to change it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed
] (she|they|xe) 04:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I would say to use no tags, unless those articles about scholars have third party tags on them. SL93 (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
It's also not a remaining issue after the many edits to the article. SL93 (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@Vanamonde, while I'm glad we agree overall, I do want to loop back here, having read this comment more clearly, and stress that yes, sources from companies' websites, including those of opera houses, are explicitly self-published as defined in the policy section you linked. Further examples of self-published sources include ... the material contained within company websites. There's really not much room for interpretation there. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Aren't almost all websites company websites by definition, including reliable sources? There are obviously some exceptions to certain BLP articles so why wouldn't a singer's article count? SL93 (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@SL93: Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works#The problem with self-published sources also says that One characteristic of self-published material is lack of reviewers who are independent of the author (those who are not hired and fired by the author, and whose employment does not depend upon agreeing with the author). Newspapers, then, are exempt, as they have editorial staff independent of the company brass. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I can quote stuff too. "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" See also: Wikipedia:Libel Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:". It doesn't say anything about uncontentious material. Nice contradiction. SL93 (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@SL93: I'm going to level with you, because I feel like we're talking in circles here: I have no clue what you are talking about. What, exactly, is your position in this discussion? What is the problem that you think needs to be fixed? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
It seemed that you said such sources cannot be used in BLPs, even for uncontentious details and even if it isn't primarly based on them. Or at least I hope that is what you're saying, because theleekycauldron has been arguing with me by saying that they cannot be used at all in BLPs no matter what it is sourcing. SL93 (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@SL93: I have said that, if the sources aren't considered to be "about self", then they can't be used, but have acknowledged that, in the case of an official profile, that may well be considered an extension of an "about self" statement. The bulk of my concern (and I think leek's too) has been about the article being primarily based on such sources. I hope this clarifies my position (and I think hers). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLPREMOVE directly contradict each other on the same policy page, with the latter being based only on contentious material. SL93 (talk
) 05:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Then I'll say again what I said before: Take this to
WT:BLP. It is beyond the scope of this noticeboard to amend policy, and a waste of volunteer time to continue arguing over it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed
Maybe you should, because they contradict each other and on the same page. Both are current policy. It's not about amending it. SL93 (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@SL93: I do not see any contradiction in WP:BLP. If you do, then, for the third and final time, take it to WT:BLP. Please leave me alone. I came here to report a BLP violation in a hook, and that's been addressed. I have nothing further to say. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 05:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I will leave you alone, but no one leaves me alone when they disagree on Wikipedia and in real life even if I'm being civil. I admit that is part of it, plus feeling unappreciated in general at DYK and Wikipedia at large, unless I specifically mention it in passing which is when people post on my talk page about how great I'm doing. There have been some recent positive comments, but I didn't receive much of anything when I was pretty much the only prep builder after no one knew what happened to another prolific editor. I don't have the know-how of someone like BlueMoonset or even the technical capabilities of someone like theleekycauldron. If you don't care about this comment, that's fine. Just chalk it up to me being weird. SL93 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yep, what Tamzin said. Basically, there have been three discussed possibilities as to what these company listings are:
They are peer-reviewed, reliable, and objective sources that are somehow so quality that we forget they aren't independent of the subject and use them with impunity. (It's not this one.)
They are non-independent sources that take enough input from the subject that they can be considered an ABOUTSELF, in which case
WP:BLPSELFPUB
still applies (meaning that the article can't be primarily based on such sources).
They are non-independent sources that can't be considered ABOUTSELF for one reason or another, in which case
WP:BLPSPS
applies and these can't be used at all.
The sources are too opaque for me to judge whether it's 2 or 3. I'd see a decent case for 2, which is why I'm not advocating that all of them be removed, but it is a possibility. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Any time you see a bio published by an affiliated source -- an organization the person works for, their publisher, a conference where they spoke -- you can assume it's at minimum written from a source provided by the subject. Organizations don't have researchers who go do a few hours investigation and write a bio based on that research. For one thing that's reinventing the wheel when they can just ask the person, and for another they don't want to risk getting something wrong or including something the person wouldn't want included. Generally it's fine to use such bios for anything we'd accept a self-source for. Valereee (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The website of a company is always going to treat that company and its employees non-neutrally, so no, not reliable for any information that isn't pretty cut-and-dried fact. Valereee (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLP was partially written per Wikipedia:Libel. I don't think there are any issues with uncontentious details. SL93 (talk
) 05:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I came back intending to respond to Tamzin's comment above, but I did not expect to see a dozen more comments and considerable evident frustration. So I'm going to drop my quibbles with policy interpretation, because they're unnecessary. I believe we can all agree the article should not use the opera houses as sources for anything that is contentious or promotional, and that the article shouldn't be based heavily on those sources. Can we then recognize that everyone here is a valued DYK contributor, and move on? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Vanamonde93. i believe that is what SL93 has been trying to say both here and on Leeky's talk page. Bruxton (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
... that the song "Out of This Club" was pulled off its album Doll Domination because of sexual assault allegations from R. Kelly, one of the song's creators?
It wasn't sexual assault allegations from R. Kelly. It's about him. And I'm a wee bit concerned about a BLP issue. Isn't this too negative for the MP? Pull hook? Valereee (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Pulled hook, swapped into P3. Valereee (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I kind of think that takes it to 'not interesting'. Songs get pulled from albums all the time. Valereee (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't know because I rarely listen to albums or pay attention to them. I suggest pulling the hook because a large part of the article is related to the allegations. SL93 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Hm...doesn't look like creator has edited in almost a month. Maybe we just fail it? Valereee (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I was thinking about that, but the nominator Onegreatjoke is still active. Then again, they haven't responded to the ping. SL93 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
There are now three biography hooks in a row in queue 3. SL93 (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, SL93, I've shuffled a bit. There are still two bios in a row and two non-bios in a row, probably sufficient? We'd need to swap the quirky for a bio quirky to fix it. Valereee (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Would we need a quirky US quirky bio or a non-US quirky bio? I can look. SL93 (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
We'd need to swap in a quirky bio and swap out one of the current bios for a non-bio non-quirky. Valereee (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Would the hook at the end of prep 5 work? SL93 (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I guess it's quirky enough? I dunno, that seems like a dead boring hook to me. It's basically "... that two athletes with the same initials and last name played on the same team?" Wow, that is fascinating. :D
But really I'm just not sure it's worth the extra work to make sure no bio is next to another bio etc. I have to focus on the target article in order to ensure I'm building a prep correctly because sometimes the nontarget article seems to draw my attention. How many readers are going to be doing that, and even if they do, are they going to care? It's kind of a goal to set it up that way, but in the grand scheme, is it worth extra work when a swapout messes up the placement? Valereee (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I honestly don't care. I brought it up as it seems that many people in the project do care. SL93 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it is ok so long as the prep isn't entirely bio hooks. Such sets did hit the Main Page many years ago. BorgQueen (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I've marked as a fail and pulled from the prep, but I'm not actually sure whether that tells a bot to remove it from the approved page? Valereee (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee: Are you sure you don't want to reopen the nom for further work? If not, what you'll wanna do is reopen it by reversion and close it as unsuccessful with PSHAW – closed nominations are what get removed from the approved page, so it's already gone. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
God help me. Valereee (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
OMG, I think I did it! tlc is a genius. Valereee (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
... that París Galán, who introduced the style of drag queen performance in Bolivia, became the first-ever transgender individual to win elective office in the country?
I'm having a hard time finding 'introduced the style of drag queen performance in Bolivia" here. It feels dubious to me. There were no drag queens in Bolivia before 2001? Or is this referring to a certain style, transformismo? I'm having a hard time sourcing that, too, as the first mention is apparently unreliable? If that's what we mean, can we get a RS saying Galan introduced tranformismo? Valereee (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Transformismo simply refers to any type of drag or cross-dressing performance. There had been feminine drag performers (transformismo femenino) since at least the 1980s. Parra is credited with introducing a style of transformismo that is more explicitly drag queen adjacent (transformismo drag queen). Think of it as the distinction between dressing to look like a woman vs dressing to look like a drag queen. I chose to just say "performance" rather than transformismo so that it would be more easily understandable to a broad audience. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@Krisgabwoosh, what is our source for crediting introducing 'transformismo that is more explicitly drag queen adjacent'? Valereee (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
See the first paragraph under "La Familia Galán and transformismo drag queen: 2001–2005". Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
El Precio/Diversidad?[1] My various scripts are marking that as of dubious reliablity. It appears to be a blog. Valereee (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
The source here is actually Aruquipa 2016, p. 454 and Vasquez Toral 2021, p. 183. As for the blog source, I wouldn't ordinarily use it, but it's just an interview and it's cited in another peer-reviewed source. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
So Aruquipa p454 and Vasquez Toral p183 credit Galan for introducing a certain style of drag performance? I'm happy to AGF on sources, but we'll have to tweak. We could possibly go with:
ALT0b: that París Galán, who introduced a style of drag queen performance in Bolivia, became the first-ever transgender individual to win elective office in the country? Valereee (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
With a source, we could maybe go with:
ALT0a ... that París Galán, who introduced transformismo drag queen performance in Bolivia, became the first-ever transgender individual to win elective office in the country?
I get that we're concerned about a category we don't have an article for so that we can link to it to let people understand, but we can't just say drag queen performance, it's inaccurate. Can we maybe add a section to drag queen? Valereee (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how it's inaccurate? Could you explain? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
He didn't introduce "the style of drag queen performance". He may have introduced a style, transformismo drag queen. (Still need that source.) Valereee (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Think of transformismo as just meaning "drag performance". Transformismo drag queen, then, just means "drag queen drag performance". It gets a bit confusing, because you're basically saying that he introduced a style of drag queen drag performance called drag queen drag performance, as though one thing is just a style of itself. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
We need a RS saying he introduced it. If it's impossible to place in a hook because it needs explanation that is too complex, we can just leave it out:
ALT1: ... that that drag performer París Galán became the first-ever transgender individual to win elective office in Bolivia? Valereee (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
How about a compromise with ALT2: ... that
drag performance in Bolivia, became the first-ever transgender individual to win elective office in the country? While I'd still argue that transformismo drag queen is the style of drag queen performance in the country, it's also a style in the broader category of transformismo. Krisgabwoosh (talk
) 19:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
GMTA. Yes, we can go with the > a. Valereee (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Perfect, that works for me. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Park Ji-hyun (politician): see the Earwig report. I'm concerned about the amount of close-paraphrasing beyond what Earwig picked up. Trivial changes like "The result was devastating" -> "were a disappointment", "governor posts" -> "governors races". I'm not sure if a few tweaks here or there will fix the problem, or if it's widespread enough to require pulling the hook. Could somebody better versed in copyright policy please take a look?
Liz Shore: The Guardian says "disappointed when the incoming Conservative health minister..." and "disenchanted with serving successive Conservative ministers". This may be a fine point, but I'm not sure that being disappointed with several specific ministers is that same as being "Disenchanted with the Conservative government", as it says in the article. You can have a problem with particular people and still be OK with the government as a whole.
Aesculapian Club the sentence The Club dinners are held in the New Library of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh on the 2nd Friday of March and October each year supporting the hook fact needs a citation. As a minor point, it's not clear if they've kept to that schedule since 1773, or if that's a modern era thing; this should be clarified.
PS, I guess this also falls under
WP:DYKHOOK
("unlikely to change")
WP:DYKHOOK
("The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change").
Park Ji-hyun is the most serious issue. The others can probably all be fixed with some minor wording tweaks. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Pinging nominator Cielquiparle about Park Ji-hyun. SL93 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I have added several more sources to Park Ji-hyun now, paying special attention to the election paragraph that RoySmith had flagged. I do think it's much better now regardless (and I've also added many other updates throughout the article); it helps to layer in additional sources, and break down the important points, but there are only so many ways to phrase/rephrase/interpret election results, so I'm finding it's getting to the point where if I keep changing things around too much, it could actually inadvertently end up becoming more similar in some ways rather than less. (I have completely changed the particular wordings flagged by RoySmith though.) There is also a rather large quote from Korea Times which I would like to keep, but that is cited as a direct quote. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith Maybe "disappointed" or "frustrated" could be used instead of "disenchanted". A lead too short tag was added to the article, but I thought it was long enough for the article size. Maybe 97198 can work on expanding it. SL93 (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith @SL93 I've doubled the lede and removed the tag. I've changed the phrase to "Disillusioned with the Conservatives" for now, replacing "Disenchanted with the Conservative government" which was a paraphrase of "Disenchanted with serving successive Conservative ministers" in the original. The thing to keep in mind is that this is still in the realm of "polite" British understatement. The American version might say something more like "Frustrated with Thatcher and other Conservative ministers..." It could still be improved further but it's a little better than before. (This is one that I wish had at least a couple more sources and content, but it meets the minimum DYK requirement.) Cielquiparle (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Pinging Markstrachan for the club article, only because print sources were used. SL93 (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to @Markstrachan for adding a ref to the sentence flagged by RoySmith. The current wording of that sentence implies that the twice-a-year timing of the dinners is referring to the "present", but I would point out, the source cited says it only goes up to 1971...so might be worth clarifying somehow in the future. (I did notice in the 1888 club minutes that the dinners used to be more frequent, and that the timings (in terms of exact month) did change over time.) Cielquiparle (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks very much @Cielquiparle. Yes you are right the timing of the dinners has changed over time. I mention that in the history of the Club section. The reference listing on the RCPE Library website is actually incorrect - they have minutes going up to 2003 (I have read them in the Library)....and I am going to be lodging more recent minutes with them. Markstrachan (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Markstrachan. Could I just ask that you then add "2003" to the source in the footnote, so that it has a year and the reader isn't left guessing? (Whatever format works for you.) (Tried to do it for you but I'm a #visualeditor and hence prone to break things.) Cielquiparle (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle @Markstrachan @SL93 OK, so it really seems like we need to update the hook in the queue; "still meets twice a year" implies that it's always met twice a year and it's still doing so now. What it should really be saying is that the club still exists, and of recently has adopted a twice-a-year schedule for meetings. -- RoySmith(talk) 05:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it's one of those hooks that could be read either way, so you click to find out more. If you read the article all the way until the end, it is very clearly explained about the dinner frequency and timings changing over time, and the fact that the only breaks were for two World Wars and a pandemic. It sounds like the actual source is very much a primary source though, "Minutes of the Aesculapian Club" (2022), which hasn't been lodged with the RCPE Library yet. (If they had a website, we would cite that instead.) @Markstrachan @RoySmith @SL93 I would like to buy us a bit more time to bulletproof this DYK submission beyond improving the hook. Possibly one of the authors is a little too close to the subject matter, and perhaps the sourcing of the article could be improved? And we might still be able to brainstorm additional hooks. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle If you're suggesting we pull the hook, well, I supposed that's possible, but I'd prefer not to. We've still got 2-1/2 days before it hits the front page; that should be plenty for any possible tweaks to the wording. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
OK. Personally I struggle with the primary source-based articles so would really appreciate someone else stepping in to help. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith ... that the Aesculapian Club, founded in Edinburgh in 1773, still meets? I'm not sure if it matters how often they meet. SL93 (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The more I look at it, the more I'm OK with the way it is now. I have no objection, however, if somebody else wants to change it. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Markstrachan@RoySmith@SL93 At the risk of driving everyone up the wall, the other thought I had was inserting the dinner part:
... that the Aesculapian Club, founded in Edinburgh in 1773, still meets for dinner twice a year?
(It would be so great if they ate escalope for dinner twice a year, but no such luck. I have one tangential comment on this topic addressed to Markstrachan, which is neither here nor there: What will you do when the Harvard Aesculapian Club wakes up and decides they want their own Wikipedia article? Obviously Andrew Duncan was ahead by ~129 years, so there's a pretty good argument that Edinburgh has dibs on the article title "Aesculapian Club"...but given that it's not the only Aesculapian Club on the planet, someday this could end up as a disambiguation page.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Cielquiparle. Yes you are right about Harvard! However, I would argue that because we chose the name first, they would have to qualify their's as the 'Aesculapian Club of Harvard' :) I think the wording now in the opening paragraph is accurate as someone has very reasonably removed the word 'still'. Markstrachan (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks again @Cielquiparle. I shall ask the RCPE Library to amend their information on their website, so it is clear they have minutes beyond 1971. Markstrachan (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Maybe the last hook has more than a rewording issue. Valereee said earlier that it isn't an interesting hook. SL93 (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
You mean the fact that one team has two players with the same name? I'm not even into football these days, but I find it interesting. Wasn't it also the LA Rams who had the two Youngblood brothers on the team at the same time? I remember they had their full names spelled out on the back of their uniform jerseys and it was so long it didn't fit. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I thought I should mention it because I never have followed football. SL93 (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
About the Carters, considering their contract (both are on "futures" deals), I don't think they can be released until May, so I think the hook is fine. And if one of them does somehow leave the team the hook could always be changed to something like, "... that T. J. Carter and T. J. Carter both played for the Los Angeles Rams at the same time?" or "... that the Los Angeles Rams roster once featured T. J. Carter and T. J. Carter?" Also, where was the interestingness questioned (I think it is most certainly interesting – I believe this is the only time anything like this has ever happened in the NFL)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Wow, nice set. I can't find a single thing to complain about. Good job, everybody! -- RoySmith(talk) 15:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Congratulations! BorgQueen (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Great to see. Congratulations! I wondered whether the ship hook should have the words "a U-boat" wikilinked to SM UB-64. Schwede66 18:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd say no, Schwede66 – it doesn't seem like the identity of the U-boat is integral to understanding the hook. It'd only serve as a diversion from the article we want readers to click on. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
... that Nobel laureate Thomas Mann ensured that his Reflections of a Nonpolitical Man were not to be translated into English during his lifetime due to its chauvinistic content?
@WatkynBassett, Cielquiparle, and BorgQueen: the hook states the fact and causation in wikivoice, but the article has inline attribution to the source. Are we willing to put Mann's intentions in wikivoice? What evidence do we have for that? If not on the former, the hook should be reworded. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
There's a further issue, looking at it fresh, which is that the word "ensured" is almost never good. For legal reasons. Could it just be:
ALT1a: ... that Nobel laureate Thomas Mann did not want his Reflections of a Nonpolitical Man to be translated into English during his lifetime due to its chauvinistic content?
ALT1b: ... that Nobel laureate Thomas Mann reportedly did not want his Reflections of a Nonpolitical Man to be translated into English during his lifetime due to its chauvinistic content?
The more I think about it, the more I am liking ALT1b, as I think it's more precise than the other versions. Good flag @TheleekycauldronCielquiparle (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the intervention, theleekycauldron! I can support ALT1b. I continue to think that the academic reference for the hook is of quite high value, but the injection of "reportedly" is still helpful. WatkynBassett (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Y So fixed. BorgQueen (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Dear Friends: Third time is the charm. I would like to propose the following hook:
ALT4: ... that British Imperial Airways manager Charles Wolley-Dod(pictured) and two crew members were killed in an unexplained plane crash in Germany in 1937?
This is closer to the original ALT1 hook proposed by @Whispyhistory and approved by @Jengod, but with some modifications. I know @Theleekycauldron initially objected to there not being enough information within the hook about what made this such a compelling mystery, but I think this version of the hook at least hints at it by stating his title. (I thought of including "unexplained mission" as well, but that is only stated indirectly in the sources, AFAIK.) I really wanted to go with one of the hooks by @Philafrenzy, but as @SL93 flagged, stating specific distances seemed to lead to more grief than it was worth (and would likely have continued down the line). Yes, the hook I've proposed above seems awfully simple in some ways, but I think we all got a bit too close to it and down in the weeds, and maybe it's not such a bad thing to zoom out and say it simply. Also copying @BorgQueen who is now an honorary fellow traveller in this history mystery. (Thanks for hanging in there, everyone! Nearly there for real this time. I think we can still win DYK!!!) Cielquiparle (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I like your ALT4. Nice work. BorgQueen (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I think "unexplained" is probably more encyclopedic than "mysterious", so I'd probably be cool with this as well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Approved to whatever extent my approval matters! I choose to believe that all the fuss is a demonstration of respect for the subject and the reader. Thank you all for volunteering for this work. jengod (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I have no real opinions on the hook, other than that it matches the article and sources. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for all this effort. ALT4 is good with me. Whispyhistory (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Whispyhistory. Request to have hook in Prep 5 changed accordingly by admin please. Thank you. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I boldly changed it. SL93 (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Mabel Freer: Not a DYK issue per-se, but in a biography it's conventional to include years of birth and death. Also not a DYK issue per-se but I'm concerned that this only has two sources. We generally like to have more than that.
It has more than two. See the references section. BorgQueen (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
The article says "Freer was born in 1911 in present-day Pakistan", but I'm assuming that it wasn't added to the lead because the year of death is unknown. SL93 (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:RS
for a "we're the biggest/best/most whatever" statement.
WP:SEAOFBLUE
so could use some copyediting. Maybe just unlink a lot of stuff?
YYes. Will be probably done before it hits MP. Done. BorgQueen (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Odysseus, Verbrecher: The article has Uwe Schütte ... says it is carried dramaturgically by the choir of ghosts, which corresponds to the modern concept of post-traumatic stress disorder. That's repeated in the hook as uncontested fact in wiki voice. It needs to be qualified with "according to..." or something like that.
's "Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact."
St Mary's Anglican Church, Busselton: The sentence ...depicting the dioceses which the church has belonged to: Canterbury, Calcutta, Sydney, Adelaide, Perth and Bunbury supporting the hook needs a reference at the end of the sentence.
Now taken care of. SL93 (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
So, there's a bit of work to be done here. -- RoySmith(talk) 02:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I thought it was from "By July 2000, the New York Times noted PeopleSound.com was the most popular music platform in Europe, and led European based Internet sites for downloadable music, still "in its infancy" in the article, but I guess "By July 2000" disqualifies that. Maybe use ALT2 or ALT3? Though that doesn't help with the reference. SL93 (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith I changed the source usage except for "PeopleSound was said to only reject 20 percent of the music offered to them, aiming to create a democratised music platform". Is that an acceptable use of the interview? SL93 (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding Andrew Leake yes the ten commands are listed in the article but they are not consolidated in a single reference. Bruxton (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Then I think we need a different hook. That's very far from meeting the
Hi, I've been pinged assumedly because I created the article although I didn't nom it. Anything I can help with? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
That is a hunky handsome hook (intentional alliteration). I am unable to read the accompanying reference but I like the hook. Bruxton (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
For Curran (material): I removed the bit about it being stronger than carbon since that's based on the inventors' claims @RoySmith, Sammi Brie, Bruxton, and BorgQueen:. That means it needs a new hook. How do these sound?:
Alt1:"... that a material made from carrots could be used to strengthen concrete?" (The source used on the page is a magazine article but it's reporting on research from Lancaster University[2])
BuySomeApples I think 1 and 3 are very good and can be confirmed in the article and by the citations. They are also in the article. The second one is a no. I archived the Telegraph article so that I could read it. Bruxton (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with 1 or 3. Possibly "carbon fibre" given the subject's topic is in the UK. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Good point! I edited the article to use UK spelling as well. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith can I ask you to check the two approved hooks above? I cannot change the hook in Queue 7. Bruxton (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I went with ALT3. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
We've got two physician biographies Robert Zollinger and Charles F. Barlow, which probably violates some unwritten rule about balance. Hmm, I see both by 97198. To be honest, both read like resumes and I'm not convinced either is notable, but that's another story.
I don't see any other specific issues with this hook set.
Zollinger–Ellison syndrome is named after Robert Zollinger, so I suppose he is notable. BorgQueen (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm, looking again, I see some more issues:
The Farmer (song): the article says, "... 283 were thought to have been sold, with the remainder probably...", but that's stated in the hook as an established fact in wiki voice. Also, the sentence in the article needs a citation; I'm guessing it's the same reference as for the next sentence, but it needs to be on the specific sentence that supports the hook.
Frye Fire: the hook says the population was "halved", but the article says it went from 252 to 35. That's a lot more than half. This needs to be addressed before it hits the main page.
As for halved, how about decimated? BorgQueen (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
That would be a good word, but before the hook gets edited, somebody needs to dive into the source(s) to verify that numbers. Only once the facts in the article are verified should the hook be brought into agreement with the article. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The literal definition of
decimated is one in ten, som not that. Bruxton (talk
) 19:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The article says: The word decimation in English is often used to refer to an extreme reduction in the number of a population or force[24] or an overall sense of destruction and ruin.BorgQueen (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@Roy Smith: I did check out these hooks when building the preps. There is a source for 283 sold, and a source for the population of the squirrels. And the two Doctors, we can move one if you like. BorgQueen Decimated has been misused and halved is more accurate. Bruxton (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
courtesy @Ritchie333: for offline source Bruxton (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
BorgQueen I think you are right. The etymology of the word decimated is not the same as modern usage. So it works. Bruxton (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, one way or another, the hook, the article, and the sources all need to agree. Right now, all I know is the hook and the article don't agree, so somebody needs to figure out what's going on. As a nit, I assume where the article says to the Frye Fire, it should be "due to the Frye Fire" -- RoySmith(talk) 19:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I have added the hook to the section. ALTOa ... that due to the 2017 Frye Fire the population of the already endangered Mount Graham red squirrel was decimated?
I hope that decimated is ok since it is not used in the given references. However as the BorgQueen has said the present definition of the word would match the reduction in population. I cannot change the hook so an admin will need to. Bruxton (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Y I just reworded halved to decimated. BorgQueen (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@Vami IV: Thanks. Btw I do find the subject interesting. Destructive, certainly, but it seems that we can learn a lot of things from such extreme situations. BorgQueen (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, leeky!
Wow, have some sweet and sour pork, leeky! (I took this picture at a Chinese restaurant.) BorgQueen (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
For those of you who haven't noticed the edit history of
WP:DYKSG recently, @Theleekycauldron has been quietly going about annotating all the rules with citations to the discussions when they were enacted. Thank you! -- RoySmith(talk)
21:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Leeky! Bruxton (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Great! As far as I'm concerned, Leek, this is very helpful. I've on occasion searched for a policy or guideline, and then wonder how we arrived at that particular position. A lot of what we base our process on, has been out there since before I even joined this outfit. We've evolved over the years, so one size does not necessarily fit all. It's good to know what the origins are. — Maile (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
My thumb is looking anemic next to yours Maile66Bruxton (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh no! Thumb competition has crept upon us — Maile (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Aw, shucks – thanks, y'all! I'm glad it's helpful. I do appreciate the pork, but as a Jewish pescatarian, I think I might have to pass :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh ok! Fish can be cooked in the same way! 😀 BorgQueen (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The best dish in a Chinese restaurant is whole crispy fish. Usually in sweet and sour sauce, but I've had it in ginger/scallion sauce too, which can be good. The problem is, it ranges from disgusting to magnificent, depending on the chef. And there's no way to predict which you'll get at a place you haven't been to before. -- RoySmith(talk) 03:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, I stopped writing food articles because they made me hungry... BorgQueen (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Queue 6 tweaks
In the fifth hook of
MOS:AMU). Also the actor who played [[Dustin Diamond|Screech]] would be better as [[Dustin Diamond|the actor]] who played Screech. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM
20:11, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Y Done. BorgQueen (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed the AfD template. It is currently in Q5 and I suppose it needs to be pulled. BorgQueen (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: That'd be about right, yeah – you can replace it with the Peter Boynsen Jensen hook in Prep 5. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Promote
@DYK admins: hoping for some prep to queue promotion so that we can continue prep building: There are currently 4 filled queues. Thanks! Bruxton (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I have promoted two queues. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I just promoted Prep 4 to Queue 4. Since I approved the hook for Messe in A (Tambling), I shouldn't be the one to verify it, so I'd appreciate it if somebody else did that.
Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX: the article doesn't actually say that the Sindelfingen to Cassis trip was made on a single charge (although the source does). The wording in the article needs to be adjusted.
I have adjusted the wording in the article to say "Full charge" per the reference which says: "The Vision EQXX concept car was designed from the ground up and can travel up to 620 miles on a full charge." Bruxton (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Obliskomzap. The hook says "First All-Belarusian Congress", but the article just says "All-Belorussian Congress" without specifying "first". That should be clarified.
Pinging nominator Soman and reviewer Aoidh on hook issue that needs to be resolved per comment above. Cielquiparle (talk)
The article is pretty clear that this was the first and only such congress. However, I've added 'First' in the sentence talking about Mukha's resignation. --Soman (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Siddeshwar Swami: There's not a ton of direct copy-paste, but we might be in "excessive close paraphrasing" territory. Some extra eyes on that would be good.
Pinging nominator Ktin. SL93 (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Milton C. Moreland: the citation for "Moreland wrote his honors thesis on the Nag Hammadi library" is a dead link. I'm taking it on AGF that it's correct, but it should be fixed.
Bag End: Not strictly a DYK issue, but I'm dubious about the non-free-use rationales on some of the images used in the article. Somebody who's up on NFU stuff should take a look.
GRuban can you check this out for us? Bruxton (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I took a look. Two caveats: First, though I'm reasonably experienced with freely licensed images, I'm much less so with fair use ones. Second, I am, like all right thinking people, a great fan of the Hobbit and LoTR! That said, I do know something about fair use images, and think these are OK per the criteria of
WP:GA after all, so a mere three should not be out of the question. --GRuban (talk
) 19:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd agree. I'm a little unconvinced that "The Hill" one is necessary in this article (let's remember the article is "Bag Hill", not "Maps of Hobbitville"), but the other two are fine. Black Kite (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@GRuban thank you for the detailed analysis. I must, however, take exception to the idea that "It passed GA so it must be fine". All it takes to pass GA is one reviewer, who may or may not have a clue about anything, rubber-stamping the submission. I see a lot of stuff come out of GA reviews that clearly should not have passed review. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Ha-ha! Believe me, I am no rubber stamper of GAs that get nominated for DYK. Please, take a look at my reviews of Template:Did you know nominations/Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle or, even more recently and more relevantly of Template:Did you know nominations/Gimli (Middle-earth), which is on the same subject and I believe by the same author. I think in the last one, User:MelanieN, a user of 16 years experience and an administrator, comments that it looks like I did a complete re-review of the GA nomination! (Which I don't agree with; a true full GA re-review I had done would have been more thorough... ) The point isn't that an article marked GA must be good, but that one person, who thought themselves a sufficiently experienced Wikipedia editor to do GA reviews, thought it was. It's one more voice, which is not nothing. That's all any of us are, after all, people thinking themselves sufficiently experienced; and that's the way these decisions are made, by joining together of all our voices. --GRuban (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
GRuban thank you so much for coming over here to help! Bruxton (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
For Milton C. Moreland, the part of the citation that says Archived goes to the reference. I will fix that. SL93 (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I do see that the sentence directly copies "Moreland wrote his honors thesis on the Nag Hammadi Library" in the reference. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
There might be no better way to say it. Just thought I would point it out just in case. SL93 (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Fixed (before I saw this report) Art LaPella (talk) 06:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
... that the Leedy Manufacturing Company of Indianapolis, Indiana, was at one point the largest manufacturer of percussion instruments in the world?
The sources say that Leedy was the largest drum manufacturer, not the largest manufacturer of percussion instruments. I've fixed this in the article. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@
WP:DYKNA, to also make sure that the DYK nominators and reviewers are aware, learn from their mistakes, and have a chance to respond earlier in the process. Somehow this part of the process seems less formalized, but any and all extra scrutiny further upstream is much appreciated. We also need to be kicking back articles that still have massive problems and/or haven't been thoroughly reviewed, much earlier. You can be bold and tag them as such too. Cielquiparle (talk
) 09:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll have a look at that page. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and delete it from Prep 3, but that wasn't me – it appears to have been a move by @97198. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
My mistake, sorry! 97198 (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with kicking it back. Can we just demote it and re-open discussion? (It's not a bad thing for nominators to know...if the reviewer says they're worried their hook might not fly...it really might not fly...although sometimes we are wrong too.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I've swapped it for now; it's in Prep 7 currently. BorgQueen (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Left note on his Talk page as well. Hopefully we can get a new hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen From your point of view, what is wrong with the hook? Cielquiparle (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen Would it be better if the corresponding article text was changed to say "According to the International Printing Museum..."? (The fact itself is not controversial. Ideally we could also say something like "printing historians consider Ramage as one of the most important", as long as multiple sources bear that out? But maybe the hook itself doesn't need to change?) Cielquiparle (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The ALT0a hook says Adam Ramage was "considered" to be one of the most important -- iow, it's not presented as an absolute statement of fact. Plenty of facts to support that idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers:Plenty of facts to support the idea...? So the sources do not specifically say he was important, do they? BorgQueen (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Does any of the online sources mention he was important? I couldn't find the word for some reason. BorgQueen (talk) 20:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I have more of an issue that the lead says he was "noted for being important" or something to that effect – that's a wikivoice statement. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
... and that claim isn't mentioned in the body? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I found it in the source. I'll add it in the article now with citation: Clymer and Ramage were the two important press makers in this period of American printing, and there can be no doubt that in the lives of the printers Ramage's work was far the more important. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Very well. Thank you. BorgQueen (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks to all for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Quirky slot
WP:DYKSG#J9
When I began promoting hooks to preps I had several of the innocuous hooks I promoted pulled from the last slot in preps with the comment: the hook was neither quirky nor goofy. Trying to follow
WP:DYKSG#J9 I sometimes spend as long as an hour to find a quirky slot hook to promote. I am wondering if the last slot is no longer used for that purpose because yesterday we ran what I consider to be a jarring and decidedly un-quirky hook in the quirky slot. Bruxton (talk
) 17:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, in general, good quirky hooks are hard to find. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Give me a day or two and I'll nominate something with a quirky hook. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Ignore me, sorry. Actual productive discussion below. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Tamzin, I was honestly wondering if @Bruxton was talking about the Fucking Trans Women hook. I felt that the hook was interesting in a quirky way, which is why I made it the last one. I suppose it's sort of subjective though, so I'm not surprised if some people will disagree. BorgQueen (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Heh, I'm assuming good faith that someone wouldn't request a hook be made less quirky, and then complain it wasn't quirky enough. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
BorgQueen yes I was talking about the Fucking Trans/erectile disfunction hook. I do not think the subject matter is quirky. Bruxton (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
You realize how absurd it is to get a hook changed because you (unlike Routledge) find it too sensational, and then come complain that the replacement hook wasn't sensational enough, right? For fuck's sake. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
I was trying to understand what you meant with your comment above. I did not get the hook changed I questioned whether we had so put so many penises in it. When I provided my opinion in the thread you mocked me with "think of the children". It is not easy to work in this collegial DYK environment when an administrator is aggressive or mocking with their responses - like saying, my question is absurd, or saying For fuck's sake. As I understand J9 and from past practice, the quirky slot is for a fun hook. I have not seen it used for the F word / trans people / and the disease of Erectile dysfunction. As a prep builder I am getting clarification on whether or not we still require quirky hooks in that slot. Bruxton (talk) 23:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Say what you want about the "penises" hook, it was undeniably quirky. You had it changed to something less quirky. You then waited for it to drop off the Main Page and then began to hand-wring about the implications of it having run, when you were the one who had it made less quirky. (FWIW I think it was still adequately quirky, but that's a separate matter.) There are some times where "for fuck's sake" is the response that best captures what is happening, and this is one. Fortunately, it's very easy to not get critized for playing both sides of an argument, and that's to not play both sides of an argument. (And I don't see what my being an admin has to do with anything. We are talking about a situation where my role is one of author and nominator. And in defense of "think of the children", you explicitly implored me to, well, think of the children.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I was not "hand-wringing". I was not monitoring the hook and I certainly did not change your hook or even have it changed. In that thread other people with DYK experience discussed it and changed it. It is not personal. In the discussion you also dismissed Leeky referring to the related supplementary rule. It is easy to be misunderstood in messages like this, but I never said "think of the children". Also I think we each have very different definitions of
Wacky. I saw a discussion this morning (above) mentioning the hook and I was surprised to see it ran in the quirky slot. Bruxton (talk
) 00:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I think in general if you go ask people to water down a hook, and then go complain that same hook wasn't quirky enough, it's going to look like you're trying to score points. Maybe that wasn't your intention, and if so I apologize for assuming otherwise, but I think it's something to be mindful of in the future, because I have to think I'm not the only person who would read things that way. (Or maybe I am. I am occasionally just plain old wrong.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. No ulterior motives here other than the good of the project. Bruxton (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Further thoughts on your talk. :)-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
And we wasted "... that Vice-Admiral Gerald Marescaux was reprimanded whilst captain of HMS Europa in 1909 for wearing pyjamas when meeting with members of his crew?" on a non-quirky slot (Prep 4)? -- RoySmith(talk) 15:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah, that's a good one. I'll make it the last one then. BorgQueen (talk) 15:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Hehehe. Check out this hook in the approved section from a GA article. I think it is my ideal quirky
... that Burlington Union Station is home to flying monkeys? I cannot promote it now because only the last prep set is available, but I checked it out and there are apparently four winged monkeys on the roof of the station. J9 material I think right? Bruxton (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
If promoters are having trouble identifying quirky hooks in a timely fashion, would it perhaps be a good idea to have some way for a reviewer (or anyone) to flag a hook for "quirky potential"? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
We should create {{DYKsmirk}}. Anybody can apply it to a hook, and then I'll be happy to have DYK-Tools-Bot look for those. Assuming DYK-Tools-Bot ever gets approved :-( -- RoySmith(talk) 20:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: We can have it populate the template category directly – no need for a bot.
...
As best I can tell, this doesn't require consensus to implement? Is there any reason I couldn't start putting this on actual noms? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
An IAR-Hammer. The law may say it's "obviously not a hammer" and "literally a katana" and "illegal to carry in public in New Jersey without good reason", but these rules prevent me from improving Wikipedia, so I ignore them. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Go for it. If anybody complains, send them to me and I'll whack them with
@RoySmith: Awesome. Any chance you could add a bit of code to DYK-Tools-Bot that tags any {{DYKsmirk}} instances in a closed nomination with |nocat=y? That way, the category doesn't persist in closed nominations. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I need to think on that. Recognizing that it's there is easy. Modifying things after the fact, well, I hesitate to get into that. We've already got a mish-mash of bots that are making all sorts of edits to noms. I'm not sure adding another thing into the mix is where I want to go. I certainly don't want to change anything right now while I'm waiting for the approval process to finish. -- RoySmith(talk) 01:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Sounds good to me. For what it's worth, it's basically the same as DYK-Tools-Bot plucking its own categories off of the page; the only difference is that here, we don't want to remove any of the actual text, so we're just removing the tracking category. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
It may happen at some point, but right now I'm in "Let's get this stable and out the door" mode, so don't want to be futzing with stuff that doesn't need futzing with to get it out the door. -- RoySmith(talk) 02:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I think I've now got it to suppress the category on any closed nomination. The required template coding was only slightly horrific. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I can't think of any good reason to suppress the quirky category when the nom is closed. It's useful to be able to look at historical hooks that somebody thought were quirky. If you want to find just the ones that are pending, you can intersect the set of quirky hooks with the set of pending hooks. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Well the purpose of the category is for pending DYKs that could be used in a set. Once the DYK isn't pending, it shouldn't be in that category; otherwise the benefit to promoters will dry up very quickly. We could make a separate category for closed DYKs, but Special:WhatLinksHere would work just as well with less maintenance overhead. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Ooh, thanks, Tamzin! I didn't know about {{if in page}}, definitely keeping that in the toolbox :)
Also, yeah, a simple search is an easy way to access historical quirky noms without needing to preserve categories. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
And the Kraken has reappeared! Bruxton (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
London Partnership Register
Can somebody who is better versed in policy than I am please take a look at
WP:DYKCRIT ("because the emphasis at DYK is on new and original content, text copied verbatim from public domain sources, or which closely paraphrases such sources, is excluded..."). -- RoySmith(talk)
21:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
It looks unreliable to me. The edit history of the wiki article on that website shows it as being created by Ross Burgess, who is also a Wikipedia editor. SL93 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I've rewritten/changed/removed all the language originating from the wiki and removed the PD content tag. The nominator did incorporate sources after copying some text over, which helped, but there was one major fact that might have technically been OR, which was the reference to couples typically bringing their own "celebrants", so I've deleted that as well. I also added a few more sources, deleted extraneous detail, and generally tried to edit for clarity. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Our general rule on content that is copy/pasted from other wikis is that it can't be more than 20% of the article – that way, we can just consider the rest of the article a 5x expansion on the copied content. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Can you please provide a brief recap? Doug Coldwell is already indef blocked, so why do we need to read though this ANI? — Maile (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:SPI. The expanded article suggests that it was heading towards DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 13:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I only lucked out on Coldwell, because I saw his numerous GAC candidates and went to review one. Dropped the idea by scrolling through his submissions. Didn't know about the socking, but the pattern reminds me of my first encounter with a serial sockmaster who kept returning no matter how many times they were caught. It was like a game to the socker. — Maile (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the Wikipedia obsession will probably be hard to break in this case, which is the main reason I really hope you all will read through the whole ANI so you can be on the lookout for similar. It's unclear to me whether this was socking or meatpuppeting, but if meat, it's a concern that other editors were willing to assist, and that all of the editors who engaged that article had similar COPYVIO/plagiarism/paraphrasing issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm. Please open an SPI on any additional suspected socks; since I'm currently sitting at the intersection of CU and DYK, please feel free to ping me in the report. I'll also note that
I have inquired of Izno whether a clerk can create Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doug Coldwell with a link to the ANI, should it be needed in the future. It is unlikely that I would notice socks in the future, but DYK regulars might. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Doug isn't exactly subtle, and has obvious areas of interest. He's not gonna suddenly do contemporary pop singers, for instance. I'm certain he will be back, but he won't be too difficult to spot. Just give a bit more scrutiny to new accounts doing DYKs on subjects he has often edited in the past. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Except in this case, they weren't new accounts! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
... that the Phoenixonian Institute, founded as the first African American high school in California, was closed once segregation was ended in the state?
For the "first" claim in the article, the following sources are given: [3][4][5]. The first two don't appear to mention the school at all; the third, while it is about the school, doesn't support any part of the sentence to which it is attached. As for the information about the school's closure, this is sourced to a church sermon hosted on a WordPress site. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I swapped it with a hook in prep 4. Pinging nominator PigeonChickenFish and reviewer Grnrchst. SL93 (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Are we needing additional sources? This one that was submitted for DYK should cover it (and it is also in the intro of the article).[6]PigeonChickenFish (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
That source (available on Open Library) doesn't give any information about the school's closure, but it does verify the "first" claim. However, it needs to be cited at the appropriate point in the article (immediately after the sentence containing the hook fact, per
WP:DYKCRIT). Also pinging Cielquiparle, who should have checked this before promoting.Looking further, I found a couple more instances of poor sourcing in the article. On August 29, 1861, the school was founded by Peter Williams Cassey: the first source cited does not mention the school, and the second only says that it commenced its fifteenth session on August 29, 1872, which does not verify the date of founding or the name of the founder. Enrollment in the school averaged around 22 students a year: this is sourced to p. 1037 of an 848-page book. I think the whole article should be checked for WP:V compliance before this DYK proceeds. Sojourner in the earth (talk
) 10:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks all for flagging. I will take some time to check the entire article tomorrow. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@PigeonChickenFish and BorgQueen: I have gone through the article line by line, source by source, and made edits throughout, so please have a look. The major correction is that segregation didn't actually end in California in the 1870s – in fact, Ward v. Flood upheld the notion of "separate but equal" – and that fight actually continues for a very long time afterwards. In other words, we have to change the hook. At this point I might suggest just going with "simple":
... that the Phoenixonian Institute was the first high school for African Americans in California?
(Yes, it would have been very, very bad if this hook had landed on the main page – thank goodness Sojourner in the earth questioned the hook and some of the other facts, as I found a few other mistakes which I've now corrected as well. I am very sorry for not scrutinizing this one more closely.) Cielquiparle (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok. I'll do that later tonight, as I'm shopping atm. Lol BorgQueen (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Y Done. BorgQueen (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
i am a little confused by the use of "de jure" in this hook. the article on the term states that it is used for "practices that are legally recognized, regardless of whether the practice exists in reality". in contrast, it adds that "de facto" is used for "situations that exist in reality, even if not legally recognized". as the hook asserts that there are "no documents verifying [the concession's] establishment", it would appear that the concession was not legally recognized, even though the article lead notes that it was acknowledged in fact by the united states, the qing dynasty, and some local governments. i think it makes more sense to use "de facto" for the hook here. the article on foreign concessions in tianjin also uses "de facto" to describe the concession.
Actually yes, I agree with you. BorgQueen (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, the use of "de jure" in the article and the hook is puzzling. Maybe MarsandCadmium can explain. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 02:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this was supposed to say de facto. Made a mistake, haha. If ya'll can fix it that'd be great. MarsandCadmium (talk) 04:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@MarsandCadmium: No problem. And btw if you're translating Chinese Wikipedia articles please add the {{translated page}} template on the article talk page. BorgQueen (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Y Done. BorgQueen (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, just a point of clarification - currently the wording at
WP:DYK
reads as follows:
An article is ineligible for DYK if it has previously appeared on the main page as bold link at DYK. It is also ineligible if it has, within the year prior to nomination, appeared as a boldlink In the news (ITN) or in the prose section of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries (OTD), or as Today's featured article. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of OTD are not disqualified, nor are names listed in "Recent deaths" section of ITN.
This covers bold blurbs and recent deaths, but seems to omit the third section of ITN, which is "Ongoing". Are items which appeared in Ongoing allowed, as per recent deaths, or are they disallowed as per bolded blurbs? Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
It's not currently mentioned, but presumably it would be treated just like RD where it would be eligible once it's off ITN. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment I prefer to have more DYK options but if this is just an accidental omission from the statement, I understand. Bruxton (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
My thought is that if it's still in the ITN "Ongoing" section, it shouldn't also appear at DYK (two sections at once), which is not explicitly covered by the rules. If it was in "Ongoing" but no longer is, then unless it also appeared at ITN as a bold link within the past year, I suppose it would be eligible, since Ongoing links are not bold, but perhaps they should be a special case. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
It's already allowed for articles that were on Recent Deaths to also be nominated for DYK; in fact, it's not uncommon for them to be nominated together. I suppose in cases where it's instead "Ongoing" + DYK, the nomination can still go through since the rules don't prohibit an article that appeared on Ongoing, although presumably such articles shouldn't appear on DYK until at the minimum after they've left the Ongoing space. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
As a matter of current rules, no, I think the "ongoing" section doesn't incur disqualification unless it's actually at the main page right then. As a matter of what the rules should be, I could see an argument for applying the one-year moratorium. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:47, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Image slots
Hello all, I have been filling preps but I have not been promoting images. This is primarily because I have several of my own noms with images and several reviews I have done include images. I of course cannot promote them myself. I noticed this morning a rather inferior image in Preparation area 1. I find it very difficult to interpret and IMO it does not render well in the small image. We have quite a few impressive images awaiting promotion and I wonder if we might find a better choice for that slot. Bruxton (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Sure, you can undo it. I could promote your painting later but not the reservoir (because I think I edited too much). Cielquiparle (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I cut one word from the caption for the Romanian propaganda poster. @Bruxton the wedding painting has some "citation needed" tags and also you might want to specify *who* said it was the daughter's wedding. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith Our reviewing guide says "clear" and "easily discernible at 100px". My issue is that this image is not at all clear even on my 27" screen. I imagine most readers are going to look at it on their tiny mobile phones. Bruxton (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm editing on a Samsung mobile and the image looks just fine to me. BorgQueen (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I forgot to add that my mobile is more like a mini-tablet though, having a foldable screen. So the screen is larger than most mobiles. BorgQueen (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll admit it looks pretty bad on my phone, but that's because it's tiny. But to be honest, so is everything else. I can read the hook text easily, but the text in the {{DYKbox}} is totally unreadable. If I zoom in enough that I can read the DYKbox text, then the image is fine. On my normal monitor, it renders at about 25mm x 45mm. At that size, it's clear that it's a cartoon drawing of a person holding up one arm, some sort of slogan above them, with the sun behind them, and a crowd of people in the foreground. Even without being able to make out any other detail, it's obvious this is some kind of political poster. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the image. It is probably because I pass up so many magnificent images in the approved queue that I mentioned it. I think I have only promoted one image in the past weeks and it was crystal clear featured image. I will not belabor the point. Bruxton (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Definitely noticed! For the super high quality images, you might consider submitting to POTD. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Speaking of images, I just updated the image for Queue 6: Forest Park Carousel (nom) with an adjusted version to correct the geometry and levels. Unfortunately, I'm not sure it's really any better than the original. Maybe we want to find something else to put in that slot, which hits the MP in about 6 hours? -- RoySmith(talk) 17:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I've switched it to another picture. Hopefully better now. BorgQueen (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Head first
Claims of being first are common at DYK but are often found to be erroneous as they are difficult to prove conclusively across all time and cultures. I reported a recent example at
WP:REDFLAG and so generate specific scrutiny. We could create yet another rule but perhaps this can be automated in some way? Paging @EEng: who has a special interest in head trauma. Andrew🐉(talk
) 17:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I just commented on the article talk page. And re the discussion below, I do think we need special rules for "firsts" (and perhaps to a lesser extent other superlatives, though firsts seem particularly problematic). For a recent example, see Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Atomitat#cold. (Sorry, Bruxton.) EEng 23:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Always a good reminder for hook and set promoters, but ideally I'd like to see the burden get shifted back to DYK nominators (and QPQ reviewers). Maybe a more specific requirement that if you include a "first" or similar claim in your hook, you need to provide a clear justification with citations. (I am getting ready to do that myself, having just submitted a hook with a "first" in it (sorry all but will document it very clearly).) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I am quite cautious about the firsts, worsts, etc. I have stepped in a few of those
Cow-pies before. The hook mentioned by the op, I was not involved with. Bruxton (talk
) 19:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I just took a look at
T:DYKQ. Yeah, the number of "firsts" is surprisingly large. I remember promoting a few of these. I was a little concerned about "that a yellow-spotted emerald (pictured) specimen was found for the first time..." (Queue 4) but decided it was unlikely to be wrong. That's next up for the MP, so if somebody has a problem with it, get your objection in soon. Also in Queue 4
was "that Ariana Orrego was the first Peruvian gymnast", but I wasn't worried about that because the set of peruvian gymnasts who have competed in the olympics is a finite and reasonably small set, so seemed unlikely that we've missed one.
In Queue 1, again "that Sandra Dombrowski was the first female to referee an IIHF World Women's Championship gold-medal game", it's a smallish finite set of people who have refereed those games, and I assume there's an authoritative list of them somewhere. Likewise in Queue 2, "that the 2022 Gasparilla Bowl was the first edition of the game to feature two Power Five teams?" is a finite (and presumably well-documented) set, so easy to verify. On the other hand, in "Brihony Dawson debuted as the first non-binary host" I'm less confident that we authoritatively know the gender characteristics of every host. How can we be sure there wasn't a previous non-binary host who represented themselves as one gender or another in public? -- RoySmith(talk) 20:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith For Brihony Dawson, I can post the full table of what each source said, if needed. (This hook already got sent back from Errors once, so we spent quite a bit of time doublechecking and reworking it to be less broad and not weasel-y.) But the hook now specifically states "Australian Brihony Dawson debuted as the first non-binary host of The Challenge reality TV franchise", which is quite a narrow claim and is sourced to The Sydney Morning Herald (which also notes that they are the first non-male as well). Cielquiparle (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
(But in case you are curious, the two other (former) Australian TV hosts we researched were Ruby Rose, who identifies as a gender-fluid lesbian, and Andrew Guy, a transgender male. How they identify is irrelevant now to the current hook, but we did keep them in mind in evaluating other statements made in the article. Ruby Rose was an MTV VJ and Andrew Guy was a guest host for a single day.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
In verifying a "first" hook, I generally require that the sourcing be unquestionably reliable and shouldn't be a local paper. Should we be thinking about requiring counterexample searches from reviewers? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
While some "oppo research" OR is often a good idea, enshrining that in the rules would set a terrible precedent. The key is to evaluate the reliability of the source. Rule #1: Local, generalist sources are not in a position to declare nationwide or worldwide firsts (unless they're citing an authoritative source, of course -- in which case we should be using that source too). EEng 23:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
A "firsts" work around (sort of)
The Sandra Dombrowski article is almost entirely about her "first" achievements. So, putting her aside for a moment. Let me offer a scenario of how we could work a "first" hook, while showing why this person was otherwise notable. Here's a hypothetical hook about Vice President Kamala Harris:
" ... that when she was San Francisco's district attorney, first woman US Vice President Kamala Harris created California's environmental crimes unit?
It's not perfect, but you get the idea. We could mention someone is the first whatever, while indicating an achievement other than just being the "first" of anything. — Maile (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Actually, I don't get the idea. How are you addressing the problem that sources often toss off "first" claims without knowing what they're talking about? EEng 08:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I was unclear. What I was driving at, is that we've gotten into a monotonous pattern of creating hooks for an individual solely because they were hthe first of anything. Boring. People don't pop out of the box as the first of anything - their background accomplishments take them there. I'm just saying there are more interesting ways to present a hook on somebody who was the first of anything. — Maile (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
What would be the point? Just make the hook about this other fact in the first place. I suggest avoiding "first" hooks. If that's all you can find in an article then it may not be a good fit for DYK. And may not even really qualify for Wikipedia at all.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Speaking from my experience with the statistics pages, hooks about people being the "first" or the "only" are very hit-or-miss, depending on the specific nature of the accomplishment, but I think the takeaway would be that your superlative hook is probably not as interesting as you think it is. Whatever pageview output you're expecting, probably subtract 50 or 100 vph. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
SOS Technical expertise needed
@Tamzin, Theleekycauldron, and BlueMoonset: We've got a glitch that I think might be caused by one of our bots. On the talk page, up near the top in the "prep area notice" section, this (on my browsers, anyway) is slapped across the page with a gray background:
{{if|||{{ifeq|2|1|{{notice|This is curre
I cleared this up a week or so ago, but now can't remember how I did it. Seems to me that a bot either removed one extra character, or inserted an extra character. What ever is causing this error to repeat, we need to figure out what is causing it. Anyway, any help in resolving this would be good. — Maile (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Maile, that's not a glitch. that's the code i proposed. <syntaxhighlight> displays code with a gray background. sorry for the confusion! dying (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Farmer
Regarding The Farmer (song) hook, is anything more needed RoySmith. I am unsure if your questions about the hook were answered or if Ritchie333 provided clarity regarding the question you had about the hook. It is set to run next in Queue 4. Bruxton (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Nobody's fixed the problems, so it needs to be yanked. But I'm getting back into grumpy mode because I'm looking at the preps to find something to swap it with, and so far I haven't found anything that verifies. -- RoySmith(talk) 20:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Can you change it to match the language of the article and reference? Bruxton (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I've swapped it out with a prep. The problems can be worked on there. -- RoySmith(talk) 20:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I forgot that I had added three references to the talk page which could be used in the article. One of them, this biography of Thin Lizzy's Philip Lynott states 283. I just knew before promotion that I had confirmed the hook's claim of 283. This record collector's guide also states 283 (500-217=283). Since we have not been able to reach Ritchie after two pings to this page, I will add the references to the article. Bruxton (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Doh, I also just remembered why I did not add them. I am unfamiliar with the citation style. Bruxton (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I have on more than one occasion stated that enwiki should adopt one uniform reference style. I keep getting shouted down. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree. I sort of figured it out. "anyone can edit" means any style too I recon. DoneBruxton (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been having a life outside Wikipedia :-/ ... what's the status on this? I've seen the 283 copies in multiple sources; I note that Bruxton has added one, and I've got another one somewhere. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
This hook is now in Queue 6. I've verified that it is sourced to Thomson 2016, which supports the 283 statement. So we're good to go. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Prep 4
Pshaw is not working for prep four. Who broke it? Bruxton (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Also 82 verified hooks ATM. Bruxton (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
I did a manual promotion. Bruxton (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton and BorgQueen: the set is missing a blank credit slot where there's a blank hook. That's probably what's busting PSHAW's chops. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
When you shuffle hooks, do the credit slots need to be shuffled in the same order? Cielquiparle (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Depends – sometimes yes, sometimes no, not really keen to find out. Best practice is to keep the credits neat 'n' aligned. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Good to know. (Confession: I have shuffled hooks within sets and not shuffled the corresponding credits, and it didn't seem to break anything, but will try to follow best practice in future and/or leave the shuffling to others.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, when you shuffle, if you put the credit slots into the same order, it helps in the move-to-queue process. It's not a huge deal, but because the target article in the credits is often not the same as the bolded text in the hooks, I definitely appreciate it when they're in the same order as it makes my life easier. Valereee (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm trying a new process here. I'll make a sub-section for each hook that has problems, to make it easier to track when each one is resolved. Please strike out the sub-section head when you've fixed something.
Judith Krause was born in 1906 in Ilaniya in Israel. Her father, Eliyahu Krause (1876-1962), was an agronomist who was appointed director of the experimental agricultural colony there in 1901 by Baron Edmond James de Rothschild. In 1914 he became director of the Mikveh Israel agricultural school and the family moved.
Marquet-Krause’s father, Eliyahu Krause (1876–1962), an agronomist, was employed by Baron Edmond de Rothschild and appointed manager of the training farm in Sejera in 1901. In 1914 he was appointed director of the Mikveh Israel agricultural school, where his family moved together with him.
As you go through the article, it's much the same paragraph-by-paragraph, down to the section headings. I'll leave this for somebody else to look at, but I think this will take extensive rewriting to fix.
I would agree - suggest pulling this until it can be reworked. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria thanks for your help. I'll pull this and and see what I can find to replace it. Normally I would just swap it out with a prep, but this seems like a case where it needs to be unpromoted, so I'll do that. -- RoySmith(talk) 23:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The second sentence of the lead ("The fort was built on Kirkpatrick's Hill ...") makes no sense. I'm guessing it's supposed to be "The reservoir was built..."?
Fixed. Copying Bruxton as an FYI. The article was edited by a lot of people over time, so appreciate the re-read and flag. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Cielquiparle, they all look to be positive edits. Bruxton (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The hook fact matches a sentence in the article, but it needs an end-of-sentence citation. I assume it's one of the three later in the paragraph, but I can't verify because I don't have access.
I was able to see it in the next reference, but in a snippet view on Google Books. I fixed it. SL93 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The hook says the lake was was famous as a liminal place where the spectre of Guinevere's dead mother appeared to her and Gawain, but the article only talks about it being famous for it's carp. It's possible that all the bits and pieces needed to verify are there, but I can't find them all. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I would reword it to "... that the now-drained lake Tarn Wadling in Cumbria, England, was famous for its carp and pike and beetles, and is a liminal place where the spectre of Guinevere's dead mother appeared to her and Gawain in a poem?. The information is under the Arthurian literature subsection. I read the word "as" wrong. I added more to the hook to clarify that it is from a poem. SL93 (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I see the first half was removed. I guess, "... that the now-drained lake Tarn Wadling is known as a a liminal place where the spectre of Guinevere's dead mother appeared to her and Gawain in a poem?" SL93 (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Y So fixed. Kind of. 😀 BorgQueen (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Nice! I was waiting for a subsection system :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
So does my suggestion not work? SL93 (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what "when students began spreading mercury among themselves" means, and I can't get to the source for this. Valereee (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering about it too actually. Spreading mercury...? Like, spreading butter on your toast...? 😀 BorgQueen (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
From the nom, which mentions the source includes:
Two boys sitting in front weren't paying attention. One was a junior, the other a freshman. They had noticed a plastic bottle on the open shelf next to their desks. They removed the screw cap, looked inside, and swirled around a metallic liquid they did not recognize.
Curious, they poured some onto the floor to see what would happen. The boys liked how the liquid balled into tight beads. The freshman scooped it up from the floor and put it into an empty Gatorade bottle.
I'm thinking maybe we could go with something like:
... that a mercury spill occurred at Agua Fria High School when students discovered and started playing with an unsecured supply of the element?
This is reminding me of a thermometer I broke in my parents' kitchen probably in the early 1970s. Pretty sure we just threw the little bead of mercury into our kitchen garbage can, thereby contaminating the Dayton, Ohio, city dump. Valereee (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I like the new ALT as proposed. I only have access to excerpts with third party sites: Another excerpt of two paragraphs that follow those above are from that same AZ reference about the teacher, "Byers walked over to see what the boys were doing. Looking down, she thought the droplets on the floor were small BBs and swept them into her hand. She dropped the mercury into the trash and told the boys to get back to work. Byers did not realize the freshman still had both bottles of mercury, which he slipped into his backpack. After class, the boys each took a container and went their separate ways, unaware they were carrying a dangerous substance." I guess " spreading" is implied, or mentioned later in the story, but I am ok with the new proposed hook. Bruxton (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Y So fixed. Honestly spreading doesn't make sense as mercury isn't some virus. 😀 BorgQueen (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Maybe split up two paintings which will run consecutively?
Maybe not a big deal but Queue 2 and Queue 3 each have fabulous paintings as the lead: maybe we might want to split them up? We could move the queue 3 image down if anyone thinks it is an issue. Bruxton (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
WP:DYKROTATE we should now move back to 1 set per day. -- RoySmith(talk)
16:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Nice... less workload 😂 BorgQueen (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
PS, I should add that this sprint went very smoothly. I was dubious that we'd be able to keep up the pace, but lots of people stepped up to help so everything just worked. Good job. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be good to publish the monthly summary of hook promoters and set promoters/admins, so it's transparent (rather than relying on the "all-time stats" table). Cielquiparle (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Actually, it's fewer than 60 that's the trigger, not 60 on the nose. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Bruxton (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Whatever. Check back in 10 minutes. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron Cool beans. Is there a way we could advertise your DYK wrapped a bit more, so that the broader DYK community sees it? It is incredibly entertaining and informative...feels like a Wikipedia best-kept secret. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle and RoySmith: It's come up before – I'd be happy to do a ping list, if there were an interest in that, but I don't really want to grow the audience all that much? I do like being able to write "under wraps"; it allows me to publish things that are looser and more fun instead of tight summaries for a broad audience. I'm glad you like it, though :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron Maybe you were already doing this...but maybe just post something to this Talk page when you've posted a new monthly wrap and/or pin a notice to the top of this Talk page like "Check out the monthly wrap for January 2023!" which then disappears after a week...? Cielquiparle (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
The wraps are always published here :) I'd be happy to pin something to the top as well? And they're always available through the DYKbox. Accessible, but not flashily so. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Special occasion hook in Queue 2
To return to the potential change in frequency (we're currently back up to 68 approved), there is one special occasion hook, currently in Queue 2, that needs to run on 26 January starting at midnight that day: the third one, about the Capture of Wejh article. Since it's already the 25th, I'd like to suggest that we not change to one a day until after Queue 2 is promoted 20 hours from now, even if we do dip below 60 in the interim. Of course, if we're still coasting at 60 approved or above, we won't change to one daily until later. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
The source just says ...will perform "missing man" flyovers. We state it as fact that the flyovers were performed. We need a better source for that. For all we know, the weather was bad and the planned flyovers were cancelled.
It had two flyovers. The Dunwoody Rotary Club said so. I will add this reference. Bruxton (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton: thanks for adding that. This paper in the article also describes the helicopter flyover though it doesn't use the word "flyover" to describe it, which can be attached to the sentence as well if need be. - Aoidh (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Y Resolved. BorgQueen (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the active promoters have been skipping over this one? If there are objections (even those kinda vague not-based-on-criteria i-don't-like-it obejctions), I'd like to hear 'em, 'cause I can't promote this one... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
You mentioned special occasion so I thought it was to be promoted for some specific date. 😅 BorgQueen (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
ah, yeah, I forgot about that one. I thought it'd already passed – I'll move it to the right header. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
... except that the requested date is over six weeks away, so WT:DYK consensus is needed to approve it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I figured that the special occasion date would have been requested already by the nominator. SL93 (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
It's been sitting around long enough, and the special date is out of range (and was really out of range when approved a month ago). Just promote it now; there's nothing special or compelling in the hook to have it wait for a particular date. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of all 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 16. We have a total of 194 nominations, of which 61 have been approved, a gap of 133 nominations that has increased by 12 in the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other 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. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I nominated the above for a special occasion hook to run on the 17 February anniversary of its sinking (that's why I stated the full date in the hook). I see it's scheduled to run tomorrow. I appreciate perhaps not all special occasion hooks can be run but I thought this one quite pertinent. Any chance it can be held back? - Dumelow (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok I'll swap it. BorgQueen (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Moved it to Prep 7 for now. BorgQueen (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I've pulled it from Prep 7 and placed it in the special occasion section on the Approved page. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry Dumelow I missed that. Bruxton (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Y Resolved. BorgQueen (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
The article states that the single known specimen was "poorly fossilized", and "Do to the poor preservation of the fossils, it wasn't possible to tell...". That doesn't really support the hook statement, which implies that the poor fossilization is the cause of the classification.
Poor preservation (a lay term covering incomplete fossils, and low quality fossilization) of all the fossils is the reason they are placed within the paragenus Polystoechotites, and the authors rational for using a paragenus (detailing this) is explained in the paragraph I noted in the nomination. Almost species placed within PolystoechotitesPolystoechotites are there do to lack of important details on the fossils, due to various preservation issues. The one exception P. sp 1 is there due to one fossil being missing, and the other being incomplete. If they were better preserved, they would not be in Polystoechotites.--Kevmin§ 20:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Y Thank you. I suppose it's resolved. BorgQueen (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
A couple of nits here. First, the article says "Dexter seems to be complaining". That seems like an odd supposition to be made in wiki voice. Also, I think a hook based on the next sentence in the article, "Dexter published a second edition in 1805, this time containing pages full of punctuation in the appendix" would be much more interesting, perhaps in a quirky slot. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith Thanks for your suggestions, I'm relatively new and still getting used to the tone. I've since rewritten that sentence. As for the hook, here's some ideas:
ALT 1: ... that after Timothy Dexter received complaints about the lack of punctuation in his autobiography A Pickle for the Knowing Ones, he published a second edition containing pages full of punctuation in the appendix?
Is it only punctuation, or even mostly? my texts exhibit lots of punctuation, but I don't think i'd be called quirky for that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
It is a little bit quirky. Bruxton (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@MyCatIsAChonk: So fixed. I shortened it to pass the 200-characters hurdle. And no, those images don't look good at 100x100px. BorgQueen (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Y Resolved. BorgQueen (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I did a little more trimming -- RoySmith(talk) 19:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Is prep-set building getting harder?
I've noticed that we have significantly fewer filled prep sets now than we've had over the past few weeks. Not long ago, people were complaining there weren't enough empty slots to park hooks that needed to get shuffled around. Now we've got two full sets, two mostly-full sets, and 3 blank sets.
Is the problem that when we get down to the number of approved hooks we currently have, it's harder to find material to fill a set? I know from my own experiences when I was doing a lot of prep building, when we were down at this level, I would often go looking for a hook that met all my needs (say, non-US, non-biography, not another of whatever hot topic we're been running too many of lately, and something that I hadn't approved myself), there would often be nothing left. If that's the case, then maybe our "60 or less" threshold for switching is too low.
Or is it just prep builder burnout, which is totally understandable.
BTW, how is the "# Verified" total computed in the "Count of DYK Hooks" table? If a hook gets a tick, and subsequently gets un-approved because somebody raised a new query, does that get dropped out of the count? I suspect not. Looking at October 27, for example, the table claims we've got 1 verified hook. That would be Template:Did you know nominations/Nikke: Goddess of Victory, but as of right now, it's not actually good to go. If that's a significant issue, than maybe it's not that 60 is too low, but just that it needs to be computed more accurately. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
In the past, it has been harder for me to fill a set. I'm not sure how it is now, but my online classes started recently and I returned to work yesterday. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I think my burnout has been accelerated by learned experience. We always tell new promoters not to worry, you pick it up as you go along, so it's fine if you make mistakes. What we don't tell them is just how much you pick up over the length of your tenure. The number of obscure rules and procedures and precedents you keep in the back of your head makes promoting hooks really difficult – plus, if you spend hours poring over stats pages, you start to get reaaaal picky over hook choice. Finding hooks that are both solid criteria passes and things you want DYK to feature only gets harder as you develop your radar in both of those areas. I tried to do a run yesterday – after two hours and a 1:2 promotion:tag for further work ratio, I just gave up. in the end, i think it's reviewers who need to be more experienced and more aggressive, especially about hook sourcing and interestingness. But the diversity of reviewers makes it difficult to shepherd them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Leeky, and I see one that I and theleekycauldron stopped for issues but it was promoted anyway. I am questioning the promotor on their talk page. The hook was for the article Bot Sentinel. Bruxton (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
To answer RoySmith's question above, "# Verified" is calculated from scratch each time DYKHousekeepingBot runs (every half hour): it tallies the nominations in the dated sections of the regular Nominations page and the Approved page, and if the final icon within a nomination template is one of the two ticks, it adds that one to the # Verified total. It doesn't care which page the nomination is on, it just cares about that final icon. I'm puzzled about why you would have seen October 27 with a 1 in both columns. I'm looking at the Count of DYK Hooks table that was active when you posted, and it doesn't show anything in the # Verified column. As best I can determine, the last time it did on for October 27 was just after midnight UTC on 8 January, when there were 2 total, of which 1 was verified (the other nom was then promoted, leaving Nikke still unapproved). Nikke never has been approved so far as the bot has ever seen (the tick for ALT2 was superseded by the ? for ALT3 in the same edit way back on October 28). BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
No clue, but I'm pretty sure there was a "1" in that box when I looked at it earlier. I suppose I could be mistaken. I'll keep an eye on it closer and grab a screenshot the next time. BTW, what does the red background mean in the top part of the table (From Oct 27 to Jan 18)? -- RoySmith(talk) 02:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
The white background shows the "Current nominations"—those that are likely to grow since they're in the seven day "new" period for DYK nominations. The red means that they're "older" nominations, past the seven days. We've had occasions where someone has manually added a future date, and those show up as red: it's only the current date (UTC) and the previous seven days that are displayed in white. At the moment, that's 26 January back through 19 January. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
OK, good to know. I've been wondering about that for probably 3 or 4 years now :-) -- RoySmith(talk) 02:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
DYK retransclusion bot?
What would we think about GalliumBot automatically transcluding lost noms in the correct place (including automatically determining the earliest eligibility date before nomination), rather than having DYKHousekeepingBot nagging editors to get on it themselves? In addition to being a neat thing, this would make it much easier for me to implement a "pull hook" function in
I can’t think of any downside to this. And I was looking for that pull function recently; would be great to have that. Schwede66 17:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
What if the nominator is intentionally taking their time with the nomination? Shubinator (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Good point. Yeah, that would be a problem. -- RoySmith(talk) 04:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@Shubinator: I mean, I don't think that's a very big issue, if only because nearly all nominations are transcluded automatically. The only ones that aren't transcluded through DYK-helper are technical mishaps and unfinished pulls. Also, I'm not convinced that letting nominators pull their noms into limbo is such a good idea the first place. They can always ask reviewers to hold their horses, and I think it'd be more transparent if noms were placed where all could see them. As a side note, if a nomination does remain intentionally unlisted, it would be invalid if it were transcluded past the seven-day mark. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Actually, as long as it's nominated in time, we have treated it as valid even if the transclusion is done well after that. (It's the nomination page creation date, generated when the page is made and placed on the "Created by"/"5x expansion by"/"Improved to Good Article status by" line, that is typically used by reviewers.) I've been dealing with these "lost" nomination pages for some years now—getting a list of them every month or two—and some are closed, some are transcluded, and some are deleted depending on a number of factors. A fair number come from Wiki-Ed nominators who don't stick around anyway. That said, I don't think nominators should be allowed to deliberately game the system by hiding their nominations from reviewers, but it hasn't been a problem—untranscluded nominations seem to be from people who either can't be bothered to finish the process or mess up and don't seek help. It's those first, who also ignore the bot message on their talk page, whose untranscluded noms typically get removed or closed in the fullness of time. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Fair enough, but I was responding to Shubinator's point about people who intentionally don't list their noms. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Now time to switch to 1 set per day
The special occasion hook for 26 January is now on the main page and we are down to 56 approved nominations. Now would be a good time to switch from two sets per day to one set per day.
Pinging @DYK admins: please, one of you change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400 as soon as possible, preferably well before 12:00 UTC. That will accomplish the switchover. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thank you! I've checked the unpromoted special occasion hooks, and there's one for February 1 that will need to go directly into Queue 1 now that we've switched to one set per day: Death of David Glenn Lewis will need to displace a hook in the queue, which can be placed in one of the preps. Another admin-only task, when someone has the time to do all the usual checks for promoting a nom. Thanks to whoever takes this one on. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I have time and can do the checks and swap. Schwede66 04:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I've reviewed this and it's mostly fine. Some notes:
Just recording that I prefer the original hook, but slightly tweaked:
hit-and-run
looks better with hyphens than without (is that just me?)
I absolutely detest the term traffic accident, which is almost always inappropriate and certainly in this case, where there is a residual chance that it was deliberate
For that reason, it's best to add "apparent" to the hook as we cannot be entirely sure
Next thing is that the lead can be left unreferenced if the material is cited in the body. There are three words ("albeit behaving uncharacteristically") in that uncited paragraph that I'm not sure are contained in the body. Given that this is going live in a bit over 18 hours, I shall delete those words. Heads up to Daniel Case as nominator; see whether you want to do something about that.
Lastly, although I prepped Q1 the way I believe it should be prepped, PSHAW is refusing to let me specify Q1. When I click "load prep/queue", it jumps to the bottom prep set. Leeky, any hints why it's doing that?
I'm around later on so can promote then. If need be, I'll do it the good old-fashioned way. Schwede66 05:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do about those three words ... maybe be more specific.
I've gone with "incident", rather than "collision", which is sort of redundant when used with "hit and run", as I used it in ALT2 and as we seem to use in categorizing these events. It strikes me as broad enough to encompass all causes of death, and is closer in sound, anyway, to "accident", still the common term.
Anyway, thank you very much for recognizing that this hook had been left out of the set for the date requested and taking appropriate action. Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I've tried again and PSHAW is now working. I'm happy with your tweaks, Daniel Case. Schwede66 10:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
At least in some domains, the words "accident" and "incident" have clearly defined meanings, with accident being the more serious of the two, based the type of injuries and damage. So I think changing "accident" to "incident" is not appropriate here. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Nominator reverting edits to their own hook in a prep
Discussion is welcome. BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd say the trout score is 1-all. BorgQueen for not pinging the original author on a hook edit, and Onceinawhile for reverting without discussing. Now, let's all have a group hug and move on. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this was ever clarified, but I'd argue that GalliumBot's darn protocol would preclude the requirement to ping nominators these days, so that would put BorgQueen in the clear in that respect.
Imho, though, neither "allegedly" nor "probably" is the right adverb for a statement of importance, since one has the wrong connotations and the other puts the statement in wikivoice. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks all. When I noticed the change I looked here to see if there had been a discussion, but I couldn’t see one. I figured the revert would notify BorgQueen so a discussion would be opened if we disagreed.
As to the right adverb, "probably" is exactly the word used in a specialist source on Islamic shrines on the region. No higher quality source could credibly exist on the subject.
While the source uses the word probably, I thought saying it in wiki voice was a different matter. But of course, if the consensus supports that, I have no problem with that. BorgQueen (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
It would be a different matter – there are two different issues here. The first is how sure the source is of the importance – that's for the source to sort out. The second problem, which is more pertinent to us, is how comfortable we are repeating a claim about importance in wikivoice, and I'd argue that claims of importance are almost never made in wikivoice. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
The last sentence is incorrect. Just a few examples that come to mind: "second holiest":
@Onceinawhile, now I'm curious. Why does the source say probably though? It sounds uncertain and certainly not comparable to the examples you cited, as their importance has been well-established. BorgQueen (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
ditto BQ, and i'd argue there's a semantic difference between "holiest" and "most important" as far as scholars are concerned. As in, claims of importance to Islamic liturgy are more easily put in wikivoice, given enough scholarly consensus, than claims of importance to Islamic history and cultural impact. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi both, thanks for your interest. The source is Prof Petersen's "Muslim Shrines in Palestine", a review of the primary Islamic holy places in Israel-Palestine. It’s an easy statement because there are very few Shi’a in Palestine, and he shows a very small number of shrines of any particular significance to that population (only two relating to the whole Shi’a population). Two quotes to help illustrate:
Overview: "SHIA SHRINES: Given that most of the events concerned with the development of Shia Islam took place in Iraq, it is not surprising that there are no major Shia shrines in Palestine… Also, the fact that the majority of the Muslim population in Palestine have been followers of Sunni Islam, even during the short period of Fatimid domination in the tenth and eleventh centuries, has meant that there are only a handful of Shia Muslim shrines. Despite their limited number, the Shia shrines are of considerable historic and religious significance."
The only other shrine relevant to all Shi’a: "Nabi Yusha: Unlike the shrine of Husayn's head, which has considerable historical documentation but no surviving ancient structure, the shrine of Nabi Yusha has a large ancient structure but very little historical documentation."
@Onceinawhile: Very well... after reading the quotes I'm probably ok now with the word probably. 😀 Unless someone else has further objections, I'll go with it. BorgQueen (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Can we please add editnotices to the preps that heavily discourage nominators from editing their own hooks in prep? It's been discouraged by practice for years now, and they keep doing it... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Building on the above, I have noticed in recent months an increased frequency of DYK hooks being edited post approval. It is very hard to keep track of this as an editor, even when there is explicit discussion on this talk page (which is better than no discussion at all) because it is separated from the original discussion page. Sometime the same discussion will take place elsewhere, like on Main Page Errors. When trying to track back in hindsight why a hook ended up the way it did, it can be a very convoluted process, and often later discussions aren’t able to get the benefit of the prior threads. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, that is helpful. Ideally it would link to the actual discussion threads. Recently I had a hook discussed in one place, with no changes, then a similar question raised elsewhere, again with no changes. It felt quite inefficient. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Leeky, I just noticed your reference to the “darn” protocol precluding the need to ping. I have done 69 dyks, and I didn’t notice the existence of this bot until you mentioned it. When a hook of mine is approved I usually remove the closed discussion template from my watchlist and move on, and even in cases where I don’t remove it, I don’t see the bot edits because I have bot edits disabled on my watchlist. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Wow, I had no idea that was a thing. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I've also got bot edits hidden from my watchlist, which I guess explains why I never knew about this. -- RoySmith(talk) 02:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron I definitely noticed the GalliumBot thing from before! I like the Module:NewDYKnominaton notice... Could we maybe also advise them to follow ERRORS as well? I think the sooner you have DYK nominators following ERRORS, the faster they learn why reviewers and other editors can be so "difficult" in the lead-up to the Main page (and hopefully are more receptive to feedback when warranted). PLUS it helps short-circuit the disconnects when an issue gets flagged with a DYK hook, rightly or wrongly, without pinging the nominator. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: I think we'd have a hard time convincing nominators to follow ERRORS for their hook, it's a very active page. In general, we should be pinging people at ERRORS, instead of having them attempting to find it themselves. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Assuming my bot ever gets approved, one of the things I've got on my bucket list for the API is to add a summary of involved users. That'll make it easy for any tool to grab a pre-formatted hunk of text and slap it down in an edit summary or elsewhere to ping all the interested parties. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
PS, if we've got any SQLAlchemy wizards (alchemists?) out there in DYK-land, I've got some issues I'm scratching my head about and could use some help. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
International Women's Day March 8
I wonder if we can have a special holding area for a prep set which can appear on that day. We can hopefully have a varied list of articles to choose from. Or some other means for us to get ready to run a full slate of hooks for that day. Rather than our occasional last minute scramble? Bruxton (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok thanks Maile66, how can I or someone else put items in that section? Bruxton (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Items are moved over there after the review is completed and passed. Usually, it's the reviewer who moves it there. Prior to approval, all nominations remain in the regular nominations list, according to date nomination is created. — Maile (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
March 8 holding area I moved the two nominations to that March 8 area. Both are US based. I hope we can all identify and save hooks to that section, hopefully varied geographically and otherwise. 14:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Bruxton (talk)
Dr Salvus ticked the hook as "needs more work", despite nominally approving it. Both times, without comment. I'm not sure what's up there. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
This nomination would make a good addition to that set. There's no reviewer for it yet. Schwede66 22:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Refresh my memory on the QPQ procedure. I look at what is listed as a QPQ, and @Chocmilk03: did indeed do a lot of review on Jamie Beaton (entrepreneur). But they didn't give it a green or blue-gray tick at the end. Does this count as a review for QPQ? Don't know if she was reviewing, or commenting otherwise. Resolve that, and I'll complete the review of Pania Newton, which I agree is a good one for International Women's Day. — Maile (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
@Maile66: Yeah, that counts; a full review need not find approval immediately to count as a QPQ. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! It's a little late in the day where I am. But I'll do a review tomorrow. — Maile (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Pania Newton was reviewed and is now on the approved Special Holding for March 8 — Maile (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks! Schwede66 17:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Bot Sentinel
I know this may be taking a walk with Darth Vader, but in Prep Area 1 we have a hook for Bot Sentinel that mentions Prince and Princess Harry. If we added a pic of them to the article eg File:Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.jpg then the hook could be run in the picture slot, and attract many more page views. Hawkeye7(discuss) 18:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the pic would only be tangentially related and might not get the article more clicks. Bruxton (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Bruxton. That image is only marginally related to the topic of the article, and would basically be clickbait. We're not in the clickbait business. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Ditto what's been said here – running images of celebrities whenever we bring them up only diverts views from the bolded article, and cheapens the value of our image slot. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with all, but am surprised that a tangential pic is (rightfully) rejected, but tangential hooks seem what is wanted. See conversations with Amakuru and Ipigott. I discussed stats with Story book, - you'll find it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith and I plan to work on that bot after his current project clears – breath-holding is not advised. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
No breath-holding, just wondering whether I'd misremembered. Or dreamt it or something. :D Valereee (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Oise amber
Helloheart
23:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Helloheart I have added it back to the approved page, which I should have done when I unpromoted it. It is always a good idea for the nominator to keep an eye on their nominations, as they are most likely to notice when something goes wrong. TSventon (talk
) 23:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
DYK-Tools-Bot
DYK-Tools-Bot is now running in full-auto mode, scheduled to make a pass every 5 minutes. Please ping me if you see any problems. If it mis-categorizes a nomination, just delete the bad categorization template (or manually add one), and let me know so I can figure out what it did wrong. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Wow, that was an involved process. Thanks for seeing it through, Roy. And Leeky seems to have had a lot of input. Good on ya. Schwede66 18:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Can we do something about the "logged by a bot" message in nominations?
I know it was done with good intentions, and it's meant to make a recent change to our workflow more visible, but surely there's a better way to announce it? Personally I find the message very distracting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh, that. I wasn't sure if you were talking about something DYK-Tools-Bot did wrong. I'm going to blame that one on @Theleekycauldron. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, I'm going to blame that on...
um...
someone else.
In all seriousness, it's a change we need to advertise directly to nominators. A lot of 'em get frustrated with changes, and don't know that they're logged. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
My recollection is that the problem is you ping the authors, but because they've got the bot flag, they don't show up in many people's watchlists (i.e. those who hide bot edits in their preferences, like I do). Would it be possible (allowable?) to have your bot not use the bot flag for these edits?
The alternative (yeah, I know, more work) would be for the bot to drop a note directly on the user talk page of the nominator/author/whatever. -- RoySmith(talk) 01:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't ping the authors, but GalliumBot doesn't tag its edits individually (although it is in the user group). A ping or talk page message wouldn't be terribly difficult, but it sounds pretty intrusive. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes he does, never mind. Hmm, fine, maybe a ping isn't the worst idea in the world... I was planning some refactors that would make a ping difficult, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
So fixed. BorgQueen (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Leeky! Bruxton (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Great! As far as I'm concerned, Leek, this is very helpful. I've on occasion searched for a policy or guideline, and then wonder how we arrived at that particular position. A lot of what we base our process on, has been out there since before I even joined this outfit. We've evolved over the years, so one size does not necessarily fit all. It's good to know what the origins are. — Maile (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
That said, I do know something about fair use images, and think these are OK per the criteria of ) 19:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Done Bruxton (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
.png)
.png){kind=link}
