Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Error reports Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you. |
DYK queue status
Current time: 17:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 17 hours ago() |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.
Halloween set
[edit]I think it could be nice to have a Halloween-themed DYK set this year, like last year. Would anyone else be interested in working on this? User:Premeditated Chaos said that she has a page ready, so that's already one. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
- A few years ago, I did Feetloaf. Not sure I've got anything better than that in the wings. The scariest I've got in my dusty drafts collection is User:RoySmith/drafts/Token Sucking. That's been incubating for six years and I still haven't managed to get it done. Maybe it's worth putting some effort into for this year. RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've put the nomination up for mine now: Template:Did you know nominations/What A Merry-Go-Round. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
- There is another approved nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret C. Waites. TSventon (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- The reviewer of my hook Template:Did you know nominations/Brian David Gilbert suggested that I post it here. The hook mentions Stranger Things (scary), Halloween monsters (spooky), and the American health insurance system (AAAHHHHH!!!).
- — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Just saw a review in the Guardian for a programme called "Killer Cakes" if that's of any use.--Launchballer 08:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Haunted (Laura Les song) is nominated for GAN. This might be a potential option for this set. Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Just saw a review in the Guardian for a programme called "Killer Cakes" if that's of any use.--Launchballer 08:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Roswell incident just passed GA on October 2, so a nomination today would get under the newness wire. I'll try to get that done. RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/Roswell incident RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think it ran on the front page for the anniversary of the broadcast. Not sure where to look for OTD archives. Rjjiii (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, I see that now.
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on 12 dates. [show] July 8, 2005, July 8, 2006, July 8, 2007, July 8, 2009, July 8, 2010, July 8, 2014, July 8, 2015, July 8, 2017, July 8, 2019, July 8, 2021, July 8, 2022, and July 8, 2024
. I'll withdraw the nomination. RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)- Aww, shame, that would've been a great one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, I see that now.
- I think it ran on the front page for the anniversary of the broadcast. Not sure where to look for OTD archives. Rjjiii (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/Roswell incident RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can work up articles/expansions for a deathcamas and a "ghost of Gondwana" spider species--Kevmin § 18:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/Anticlea elegans Mountain deathcamas nominated--Kevmin § 02:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/Progradungula barringtonensis Aussie spider and "Gondwanan ghost" nominated--Kevmin § 16:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Obligatory Glaucomflecken video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_53GO77RNiM RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have nominated Slime (fantasy creature) to go with this set. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/Vincent Darré. Just have to fix up the cites! Thriley (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have also asked that Template:Did you know nominations/Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites (song) be included in the set. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Ethnocentricity?
[edit]I know we've done Halloween sets before, but I wonder if this is excessively ethnocentric? This is historically a Christian event (although it's been co-opted by people outside the Christian faith) and Geography of Halloween says The celebrations and observances of this day occur primarily in regions of the Western world
. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't explicitly endorsing Halloween, it's just a fun project to get spooky/thematically appropriate hooks on October 31st. I really don't think this is an issue. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Halloween is celebrated everywhere where there is a strong American influence, which is quite a large part of the world, especially the English speaking one. We should try to celebrate some Indian holidays too, but there isn't anything wrong with a Halloween theme. —Kusma (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- If someone is willing to build a set for a non-Christian, non-Western special occasion, I would be fully supportive and find articles to help. Z1720 (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fairly certain we had several Indonesia-heavy sets for that country's independence day, back when I was more productive. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, there were four nationalist-themed DYKs on 17 August 2012 and five Indonesian DYKs for 17 August 2011. It's just a matter of having people active in the field; if people aren't writing about a subject, it's hard to pull together a special set. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Halloween's also a bit easier to work with since there's a really broad range of hooks that will fit. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, there were four nationalist-themed DYKs on 17 August 2012 and five Indonesian DYKs for 17 August 2011. It's just a matter of having people active in the field; if people aren't writing about a subject, it's hard to pull together a special set. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
- If someone is willing to build a set for a non-Christian, non-Western special occasion, I would be fully supportive and find articles to help. Z1720 (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Hallowe'en hooks
[edit]Listing the proposed Hallowe'en hooks below, their topic, and their progress. These are not listed in any particular order:
- Template:Did you know nominations/What A Merry-Go-Round - Fashion - Approved
- Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret C. Waites - Education - Approved
- Template:Did you know nominations/Brian David Gilbert - Media - Approved
- Template:Did you know nominations/Anticlea elegans - Biology - Approved
- Template:Did you know nominations/Slime (fantasy creature) - Fiction - Approved
- Template:Did you know nominations/Vincent Darré - Art - Approved
- Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Doorway (Wisconsin) - Geology - Approved
- Template:Did you know nominations/Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites (song) - Music - Review in progress
- Template:Did you know nominations/Progradungula barringtonensis - Biology -
Needing reviewreviewed - Template:Did you know nominations/Trunk-or-treating - Halloween -
Needing reviewreviewed - Template:Did you know nominations/Haunted (Laura Les song) - Music -
Needing reviewApproved
If other hooks are proposed, please add them to the list above. Z1720 (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I would definitely go with Slime (monster) for the lead hook because it's got a great image. RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's wonderfully goopy and a nice Halloweeny green color. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/Devil's Doorway (Wisconsin) is currently in Prep 5. It would be a good hook for completing the set if needed. Thriley (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 RoySmith (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Lightburst you ok with that? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping AirshipJungleman29. Seems like a good idea. Lightburst (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I remember Last year's set which I worked on Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2023/November#1 November 2023. I love to see themed sets! Lightburst (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping AirshipJungleman29. Seems like a good idea. Lightburst (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Lightburst you ok with that? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 RoySmith (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Since some of the hooks are shorter, would editors be OK with 10 hooks? OTD can add hooks if it gets too long for Main Page balance. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- The original plan, as I remember it, was if we had 9 short hooks, we'd go with 9. If we had longer ones, we'd go back to 8. That plan seems to have lasted about 5 minutes :-) RoySmith (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I love the caption for the prep set, but we might get yelled at in ERRORS. @AirshipJungleman29: who selected this caption: are we OK with the caption as it currently stands, or should we look for something more encyclopedic? If we keep the caption, I suggest that someone monitor ERRORS or pre-emptively put a note there saying that consensus was to have this caption and it shouldn't be changed. Z1720 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't even see the caption while reviewing. I love it. We tend to let loose a bit on April Fools... Halloween isn't Fish Day, but I do think it makes sense to have a bit of a fun caption to go with a fun set. I'm down for a spooky slime. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm perfectly willing to get yelled at by a bunch of bores who don't know the meaning of fun. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- For those about to spook, we salute you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- omg I love the caption haha Di (they-them) (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Launchballer, thanks for the ping about the edit to these hooks. As for the Waites hook, I would trim Cabot House—that was added in by a second reviewer but I think the name of an undergraduate dorm doesn’t mean much for most people. If that leaves room to put the books back in, I think that’s more interesting than the name of the dorm, but I’m also fine if you want to leave both out to make it punchier, so just, she’s said to haunt an undergraduate suite at Harvard College? Innisfree987 (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's actually a moot point because @AirshipJungleman29: reverted the edit.--Launchballer 16:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Just noting here that Haunted (Laura Les song) was nominated. If someone reviews it, I will promote it.--Launchballer 16:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer Reviewed and passed. CMD (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Promoted. I did suggest Killer Cakes above.--Launchballer 13:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I was wondering if Template:Did you know nominations/Get the Hell Out could make the cut? Was about to promote it for another set until I realized it's a zombie movie hook. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: Good idea. Assuming it checks out, ALT0/2 would work best if we're doing that. That set is currently being held up by #Progradungula barringtonensis - if you could give that a third review, I can assess this.--Launchballer 17:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please consider ALT1, which I just copy edited and trumps the other hooks IMO Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Eleven hooks?
[edit]I notice Prep 2 has eleven hooks in it. Is this a good thing? RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- I believe there was consensus above, in the discussion of Halloween, to have more than the standard amount if the hooks were short. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Several of the hooks are not short, though. —Kusma (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- I did trim some of them, but @AirshipJungleman29: reverted me. Also, I just pulled one.--Launchballer 09:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- That was when we had ten hooks. That Brian Gilbert hook stands out as being quite long and not that Halloween-y. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- I take that back now it has an excellent image. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- That was when we had ten hooks. That Brian Gilbert hook stands out as being quite long and not that Halloween-y. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- I did trim some of them, but @AirshipJungleman29: reverted me. Also, I just pulled one.--Launchballer 09:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Phase 2 of DYK namespace change
[edit]Given the arguments pointed out for phase 1 about how newbies never really touch the queues and promotions, I present Phase 2 of the DYK namespace change (it's technically phase 1 since the original phase 1 got postponed but phase 2 to prevent confusion). If accepted by the community, the proposals will be implemented ten days from that date.
- Template talk:Did you know will be moved to Wikipedia:Did you know nominations
- Template talk:Did you know will eventually then redirect to Wikipedia talk:Did you know, which makes more sense from a name point of view
- Template talk:Did you know/Approved will be moved to Wikipedia:Did you know nominations/Approved
- The nomination wizard, MediaWiki:DYK-nomination-wizard.js, will be changed (Only interface administrators and interface editors can edit it) on lines 28 and 29, which specify template pages. This will ensure new nominations are created in the new namespaces.
- All active nomination pages (those that have not yet been added to a prep area) will be moved from Template:Did you know nominations/xyz to Wikipedia:Did you know nominations/xyz
- DYK-helper will be updated to add pages to the correct namespace
- Nominations in Wikipedia:Did you know nominations and Wikipedia:Did you know nominations/Approved will have WP: added to the start of the template
- User:WugBot is updated to move nominations from the new pending nominations page to the new approved nominations page
- User:DYKHousekeepingBot is updated to locate the new pages correctly
- User:DYKUpdateBot is updated to locate the new pages correctly
- User:DYKToolsBot is updated to locate the new pages correctly
- Template:DYKmake is updated to link to the new nom page namespace
Smaller things
|
---|
|
If you think I've left anything out, let me know!!! If you have any feedback, also reply below. Thanks! DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like a great idea. I would suggest a subpage structure, e.g. Wikipedia:Did you know/nominations to keep everything under the parent page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- So nominations would be Wikipedia:Did you know/nominations/xyz instead of Template:Did you know nominations/xyz? Sounds interesting DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Maybe with a capital "N" to match other subpages like Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics, Wikipedia:Did you know/Monthly wrap, etc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps Approved doesn't need to be a subpage of nominations. Could use Wikipedia:Did you know/Approved for this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would suggest to keep nominations separate from the rest of DYK so you can more easily find all DYK related pages other than the nominations. I can see no advantage of putting everything under one subpage tree. —Kusma (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
- On that aspect, yes. That would create one of those links at the top of the page that tells you to go back to the main DYK page, which wouldn't be needed DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
- So nominations would be Wikipedia:Did you know/nominations/xyz instead of Template:Did you know nominations/xyz? Sounds interesting DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Let's ensure Wikipedia talk:Did you know nominations and Wikipedia talk:Did you know nominations/Approved redirect here, to prevent new pages springing up where fewer people will be watching. This seems doable if timed to occur shortly after a new set goes live. We will need to check for new nominations appearing in the template space for a bit, perhaps someone knows if the way we catch current malformed nominations will work for this. CMD (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, remote talk pages don't tend to get attention so it's better to redirect to somewhere it will be read DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
- Given people don't seem to be opposed to it, Wikipedia:Silence and consensus says to assume that there is consensus for this:
- On 15 November 2024, the following will happen:
- A regular user will:
- Add WP: to the start of all templates in Template talk:Did you know and Template talk:Did you know/Approved
- Update Template:DYKmake to link to the new nomination page namespace
- Update Template:NewDYKnomination on line 6 and line 334 to navigate to new nom pages
- An administrator will:
- Move Template talk:Did you know to Wikipedia:Did you know nominations
- Move Template talk:Did you know/Approved to Wikipedia:Did you know nominations/Approved
- Move all active nomination pages to Wikipedia:Did you know nominations/
- Nominations in Wikipedia:Did you know nominations and Wikipedia:Did you know nominations/Approved will have WP: added to the start of the template
- An interface administrator or interface editor will:
- Edit MediaWiki:DYK-nomination-wizard.js on lines 28 and 29.
- User:SD0001 will:
- Update User:SD0001/DYK-helper to create pages in the new namespace
- User:Wugapodes will:
- Update User:WugBot to move nominations from the new pending nominations page to the new approved nominations page
- Update User:WugBot to add nominations to the approved page (Template talk:Did you know/Approved) with the correct syntax, adding WP: before the template.
- User:Shubinator will:
- Update User:DYKHousekeepingBot to locate the new pages correctly
- Update User:DYKUpdateBot to locate the new pages correctly
- User:RoySmith will:
- Update User:DYKToolsBot to locate the new pages correctly when classifying pages
- But again, if anyone wants to add anything onto this please let me know. Thanks! DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Given that this is a major change, I would disagree here that "silence means consensus". On the contrary, one could argue that there simply isn't much interest in doing this. There have been some who have agreed, but with not all DYK regulars giving their say and all the technical stuff involved, it is arguably debatable if there is truly consensus in favor of doing so, at least right now. The fact that the driving force behind this is an editor who started participating in DYK less than a month ago and indeed started working on this almost from the start of their DYK career is not necessarily an issue, but it can give pause given the speed in how this has happened.
- I have to note that I am not personally opposed to this change but rather ambivalent, I just frankly find things to have gone too fast for a change that has been proposed multiple times over the years but never happened over technical issues. If it can be done properly and without issues, cool. But I'm worried that the speed in how this is done, combined with a seeming lack of checks to make sure that everything works properly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I also disagree with "silence means consensus" here. I had previously stated an objection to this and don't like being repetitive so I stayed out of this latest round. But if you're going to interpret that as my liking this idea, I do feel the need to speak up again.
- I don't think this is a terrible idea, but it seems like the effort and risk outweigh the benefits. I'd also be more amenable to this if it had come from somebody who had been around DYK a long time and understood the fine points of all the processes and scripts. RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I honestly have to agree. I respect that DF is trying to help out DYK, but the fact that she was proposing this so soon after joining DYK never really sat well with me. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's an incredibly discouraging thing to say, Narutolovehinata5. I don't know what your experience was, but when people talked to me that way when I was new at DYK, I was really hurt. Oppose the idea if you think it's bad, sure, but there's no sign on this talk page that says "you must have this many promotions to ride". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- +1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I was just being honest with my thoughts. I'm not totally opposed to the idea myself, it's just that it felt weird, almost pushy, that someone who was very new to the project was trying to implement such a large and effortful change. I can't remember who brought it up before (if it was Roy or another editor), but there was an editor who made an analogy regarding management that probably applied here. If people were hurt by my comment, I did not mean to hurt any feelings, I just wanted to speak out my mind and be honest. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's an incredibly discouraging thing to say, Narutolovehinata5. I don't know what your experience was, but when people talked to me that way when I was new at DYK, I was really hurt. Oppose the idea if you think it's bad, sure, but there's no sign on this talk page that says "you must have this many promotions to ride". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I get what you're saying, but I can't really do too much about the fact that I'm new to DYK. Given the timespan that the status quo has been in place, obviously nobody else has stepped up. If someone who has been around DYK a long time and understood the fine points of all the processes and scripts wanted to take over I'd back that, 110% (btw do let me know if this is you)!
- Someone with the technical experience would be able to do it much better than I would, but as of right now it doesn't seem like that seems to be happening, so I'm trying to be BOLD.
- Again, if anyone else wants to pick this up please please let me know DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 18:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Roy, I think sometimes it is easier for someone outside the process to see what needs to be done. It is all too easy just to carry on as normal, without giving too much thought to alternative ways of working. Personally I commend DimensionalFusion for taking this on - it is long overdue. Simply put, these are not templates and should never have been in the template namespace. The only concern is that the transition is done without causing disruption, and the plan above looks like everything has been well considered — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- What are the possible downsides of the shift? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- The same as rolling out any software change, i.e. that there's some dependency or complication that wasn't foreseen, you end up breaking a lot of stuff, and it turns out to not be easy to fix, and worse, difficult to back out. Risk is hard to quantify, but it's real.
- I also notice that I was volunteered for "Update User:DYKToolsBot to locate the new pages correctly when classifying pages". That's not work I want to do, and certainly not something I signed up for. RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Will there be any changes that can't be fixed by pressing a few undo buttons? I think it's worth a try if there aren't. Given that the pushback, an RfC is probably needed at this point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's not the things I know about that scare me. It's the things I don't know about. Google for "unk-unk". RoySmith (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm reminded of this classic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's not the things I know about that scare me. It's the things I don't know about. Google for "unk-unk". RoySmith (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- You're the only one that can update DYKToolsBot though. Literally nobody else can update it DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- It does indeed bother me that there's a bus number of 1. If there was somebody with the right skills (i.e. Python and running a bot in Toolforge), who wanted to help, I'd be more than happy to add them as a maintainer. RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Will there be any changes that can't be fixed by pressing a few undo buttons? I think it's worth a try if there aren't. Given that the pushback, an RfC is probably needed at this point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I feel abit odd that DYK uses the template namespace, but I am living with it. I would love to see which nominations i contributed to easily using the 'what links here' feature and that sort of stuff. Therefore, i am fine keeping it as it is (status quo). I'm quite new with DYK (joined DYK March this year) JuniperChill (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- To add: silence means consensus only really means if it has never talked about any opposition. For example, a page that has a PROD tag on it will be deleted if no one objects. With very few exceptions, once the tag is removed, it cannot be PRODDED again. That process cannot also be used if its been talked about before at AfD or has been deleted before. Making a bold edit, only for someone to revert is another example of this. As others said, I would support the idea, but the complications to this makes me oppose this idea and isn't worth it to say the least. JuniperChill (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- What are the possible downsides of the shift? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I honestly have to agree. I respect that DF is trying to help out DYK, but the fact that she was proposing this so soon after joining DYK never really sat well with me. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- My main hangup on this is target page of the nominations themselves. Maybe it should be Wikipedia:Did you know/Pending nominations and Wikipedia:Did you know/Approved nominations, with nominations as subpages as Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations (which itself would redirect either to pending or SIA-point to both?). Or Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations and Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations/Approved or something else. Either way, I've always thought Template:Did you know nominations is a pretty silly workaround. And I think we should move all of the old nomination pages. (We would, of course, leave redirects behind.)
- Also, we should prepare all necessary text updates before any buttons are pushed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agree completely. Exactly what I suggested above! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's interesting. I did think it was a bit weird we had "approved" nominations and then just... nominations. Wikipedia:Did you know/Pending nominations and Wikipedia:Did you know/Approved nominations sound like good alternatives, but at the same time - DYK got to be so complex because of the redirects everywhere. Template:Did you know nominations is a redirect.
- There may also be some technical complexity to having list pages in the same place where we keep the actual nomination templates - if Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations/Approved is a list page, and nominations are kept at Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations/xyz, what happens if a bot detects /Approved as a nomination? Or if for whatever reason, the disambig page Approved is nominated for DYK? Just things to think about DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- We should take care to make sure the commonly used shortcuts, such as WP:DYKN and WP:DYKNA still make sense. I prefer Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations and Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations/Approved, with Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations/XYZ being the format for the actual nominations themselves. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would like us to separate the individual nominations from the rest of the subpages. Rationale: Slightly easier to find all non-nomination subpages of DYK via Special:Allpages if they are not mixed with the nominations themselves. So I suggest Wikipedia:Did you know noniations/XYZ with everything else under Wikipedia:Did you know/. I can't see any practical advantages of putting everything into one single subpage hierarchy. —Kusma (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Another good point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Having the pages at Wikipedia:Did you know/nominations/ can still work with the special page. See this Signpost search. Gonnym (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Kusma thinks it would help when trying to find DYK pages which are not nominations. Is there a search of Wikipedia:Did you know/ which will exclude Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- You can use logical negation to exclude a portion of a subpage tree. Compare these two searches:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=User%3A+subpageof%3ARoySmith%2Fsandbox%2Ftest&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns2=1
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=User%3A+subpageof%3ARoySmith%2Fsandbox%2Ftest+-subpageof%3ARoySmith%2Fsandbox%2Ftest%2Ffoo&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns2=1
- RoySmith (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Brilliant, we can make a link like this for Kusma — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux however tells me it may be better to rephrase this using Special:PrefixIndex. I'll admit to being on the ragged edge of my search-fu here. RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Brilliant, we can make a link like this for Kusma — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- You can use logical negation to exclude a portion of a subpage tree. Compare these two searches:
- Kusma thinks it would help when trying to find DYK pages which are not nominations. Is there a search of Wikipedia:Did you know/ which will exclude Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- If all goes well the double redirects should fix themselves. CMD (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would like us to separate the individual nominations from the rest of the subpages. Rationale: Slightly easier to find all non-nomination subpages of DYK via Special:Allpages if they are not mixed with the nominations themselves. So I suggest Wikipedia:Did you know noniations/XYZ with everything else under Wikipedia:Did you know/. I can't see any practical advantages of putting everything into one single subpage hierarchy. —Kusma (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- As maintainer of DYK-wizard and DYK-helper, I am happy to make the changes required for the namespace migration. In fact, during the earlier planning 3 years ago – which I'll note is more comprehensive than the one above which skips templates altogether – I implemented most of the changes so that only a single line needs to be changed now for the scripts to start creating DYK nominations in project namespace. – SD0001 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I support this change. DYK pages should have been moved long ago to the project page as those pages aren't templates. This change is a net improvement (and it also removes the need to hack other parts of the project to ignore these pages). Any disruption it might cause, will be long forgotten after a week, as history has shown from other mass-scale changes. Gonnym (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Assuming the text updates are made, we should also ensure that the update begins shortly after a queue update, and that say a week before a notification of the upcoming change is added to WP:AN. CMD (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that the changes ultimately will take place unless I can find someone willing to make the changes, so ykyk DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy to help. Just tell me the date and time — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that the changes ultimately will take place unless I can find someone willing to make the changes, so ykyk DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Large number of insufficient QPQ reviews
[edit]I'm coming here rather than posting to the person's talk page because this involves so many other people missing things – myself included, as noted below. I've been reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Hammond's Hard Lines, nominated by Slgrandson. There was some back and forth, but I was ready to approve, until I checked the QPQ. They originally submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Takara's Treasure, at which they merely commented to concur with another reviewer who wasn't even seeking a second opinion. Launchballer asked them to submit a full QPQ, and they submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Teniky, where they left a bare-bones comment about source access. Again, I asked them for a full DYK review, linking them to WP:QPQ. They submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Lesser sign of the cross. Their comment there indicates they checked Earwig, which is great, but addresses no other aspects required at a DYK review, and in fact they did not notice that the hook there doesn't quite match up with the article text.
I decided to check their other DYKs and found similar issues with bare-bones comments being used as QPQs. Problematically, many of these were accepted as reviews, and the articles they commented at were promoted. On the other hand, the QPQs were clearly not checked by people reviewing their articles, as their own articles were reviewed and promoted with zero pushback on the poor QPQs. This issue goes back as far as Template:Did you know nominations/Two Hundred Rabbits, submitted last year; frankly someone should have caught it there by actually checking the work, since it was clear from their comments there that they weren't certain what a QPQ was.
Here are some examples. Their article first, then the "QPQ". This doesn't constitute all of their DYKs, just the first bunch I grabbed from the toolforge list.
- Closed nominations
- Template:Did you know nominations/The Sign (Bluey) // Template:Did you know nominations/Horvat ’Eqed. A bare-bones comment approving an alt, with zero reviewing actually done.
- Approved by @evrik, promoters were @PrimalMustelid and @AirshipJungleman29, respectively
- Template:Did you know nominations/The Right and the Wrong: Template:Did you know nominations/The Book of Longings. It's not clear what was "simply verified".
- Approved by @BeanieFan11, promoters were AirshipJungleman29 & @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy
- Template:Did you know nominations/The Book of Virtues: Template:Did you know nominations/Trust Issues. I actually should have caught this one, as I commented there on the hook, but again, simply pointing to the article as being a GA promotion does not constitute a review.
- Template:Did you know nominations/Kimboo: Template:Did you know nominations/L'Aube rouge (novel). Again, not a review, just a comment on the subject matter.
- Open nominations
- Template:Did you know nominations/The Children's Book of Virtues: Template:Did you know nominations/E-Defense. The comment there is a discursion about the Guinness World Records and contains no review of the nominated article whatsoever.
- Template:Did you know nominations/Ready Set Learn!: Template:Did you know nominations/Virginia Beach Police Department. This is better than their other comments in that it has some review content, but it still neglects to address 90% of what is required to actually review a DYK.
- Template:Did you know nominations/ZIZ: Template:Did you know nominations/Typhoon Virginia (1957). Again, no review provided there, just a comment concurring with NLH about the interestingness. The Typhoon Virginia DYK has closed for other reasons.
Sorry to do this here, but we really need to be checking that QPQ reviews were actually done properly, both when we do reviews and when we promote a reviewed article. It's not good that this many bad QPQs have been missed by this many people. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- This appears to be a competence issue as well given what happened in the Hammond's Hard Lines nomination. Despite instructions on how to do full reviews, none were done. I hate to say it, but given the circumstances as well as precedent from TheNuggeteer's case, a topic ban from DYK may not be out of the question. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- The second comment in a discussion, before the editor in question has had a chance to respond, is too soon to jump to a ban discussion. CMD (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I did not suggest that a topic ban happen now, merely that it is a possibility in the future if this continues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- The second comment in a discussion, before the editor in question has had a chance to respond, is too soon to jump to a ban discussion. CMD (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me if this is a matter of a reviewing style that eschews the checklist template but is otherwise satisfactory, or reviews that consistently miss errors. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- From what I understand, it's reviewing without checking all the criteria, only some of them. Granted, it's not uncommon for reviewers to condense review stuff into one sentence (for example, sometimes I'd say "Meets all the DYK article criteria"), but in such cases it's implied that all the criteria were checked. In this case there are no such suggestions. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Much of the time, no criteria appear to be checked. Commenting about the Guinness World Records for example is not an attempt at checking anything. Much of the time they say something anodyne like "I'll leave it up to another reviewer" - here, and here for example. My best guess is that they think a DYK review involves verifying the hook, which they sometimes attempt to do, but even that isn't consistent. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- From what I understand, it's reviewing without checking all the criteria, only some of them. Granted, it's not uncommon for reviewers to condense review stuff into one sentence (for example, sometimes I'd say "Meets all the DYK article criteria"), but in such cases it's implied that all the criteria were checked. In this case there are no such suggestions. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that these are insufficient QPQ reviews as they do not make it clear whether Slgrandson has performed any of the required checks. But I think this is just an example for an overall quality problem with QPQ reviews. In other words, we need to improve review culture in general more than focus on one user. —Kusma (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've seen errors made at all stages of DYK, we're only human. However, normally when someone points out that someone else has done an inadequate review, the person fixes it and provides a full review. I have never seen a single reviewer with this much of a problem doing proper QPQs despite multiple comments directing them to do a full review. It's a general quality problem in the sense that so many people (again, myself included) have let it slip, but as far as I can tell, doing it this much is an issue specific to this one user. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, and it is excellent that you noticed this user and properly researched the issue and called them out here. I just don't want people to think all is fine once we get rid of one bad apple. —Kusma (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've seen errors made at all stages of DYK, we're only human. However, normally when someone points out that someone else has done an inadequate review, the person fixes it and provides a full review. I have never seen a single reviewer with this much of a problem doing proper QPQs despite multiple comments directing them to do a full review. It's a general quality problem in the sense that so many people (again, myself included) have let it slip, but as far as I can tell, doing it this much is an issue specific to this one user. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am not sure if this is because there is a requirement to provide a QPQ at the time of nomination, especially since some people are doing a quick review. If I see an inappropriate/inadequate QPQ, then I would normally give at least 5 days to address that. I may ask them to expand their review if that nom is still open or if closed, provide a new review/QPQ. JuniperChill (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe it would help if Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination automatically included a checklist template. RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith and Viriditas: We already have Template:DYK checklist. Perhaps we should consider an RfC to complete all of its fields for a valid QPQ? Flibirigit (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be opposed to making the checklist mandatory. For one, it can be bulky and time-consuming to fill in all the parameters, when you can leave a text comment that can give the same information. The checklist is useful and I can get behind the idea of recommending it, but I don't think it should be required. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith and Viriditas: We already have Template:DYK checklist. Perhaps we should consider an RfC to complete all of its fields for a valid QPQ? Flibirigit (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe it would help if Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination automatically included a checklist template. RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
If the main concern is ensuring editors do thorough reviews, perhaps this is best addressed while promoting and before the QPQ check. I come across loads of approved hooks with unresolved issues and drop questions/comments, regardless of whether I plan to promote them.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] This seems to be the case for other promoters as well. Even when promoting, I often add a note or pose a question first. In the linked example that I promoted up there,[22] in the edit before promotion it's clear that I did double-check the article/hook.
Going forward, I can look for approvals that do not mention DYK criteria. In those cases, I could either [a] ping reviewers with some standard message about doing a more thorough review or [b] put the article back up for review.
If the concern is ensuring that the QPQ review is adequate, what is the standard? These reviews stick out for looking spare or odd, and I'm cautious about imposing an aesthetic requirement. What if a review is formatted well but not adequate in some other way? I'll give an example with courtesy pings for those involved, but it's not about any of these people. One of the first times I brought up major issues in a DYK was at Talk:Fire basket. Unfamiliar with WT:DYK or WP:ERRORS, I made extensive notes on the talk page, referenced these notes on the DYK template, and discussed them in the transcluded DYK nomination with the nominator (Evrik). All of the article's citations translated from de-wiki (most of them) are bogus, and they do not in any way verify the article's content. The hook fact (which did run on the main page) is plagiarized. Two editors (Lightburst & Launchballer) offered reviews that were later counted for QPQ. Is either review acceptable for QPQ? I would have accepted either one. Template:Did you know nominations/The Book of Longings looks unusual, but "NYT verification conducted through WP:Library ProQuest
" does imply that they verified the cited hook fact from the NYT. I'm hesitant to impose norms that will make it harder for new contributors, but wouldn't affect experienced editors who slipped up. WP:DYKRR says a "full review
" is required but doesn't define a full review. How much is a reviewer expected to write in a nomination that passes?
Regarding loading a default template as mentioned by RoySmith: I suggested something similar for GA reviews at Wikipedia:Good Article proposal drive 2023/Feedback as newer editor. I helped draft and implement this, and I think GA tried it out for about 6 months (the first six months of 2023). There were three main complaints. Many experienced editors complained that they already had a preferred system for reviewing that worked for them, and they did not want to either use a template or have to delete a template for every review. Also, many new reviewers were reported to WT:GAN for filling out all the checkboxes and passing an article without offering much additional commentary. Finally, several new reviewers commented that template was complicated and created another barrier to contributing. I'm not saying don't try it here, but hopefully if it is implemented seeing things that were issues there before will help.
Finally, regarding "sorry to do this here
": if there is any concern about this bothering pinged editors, I will say that I don't feel bothered. Thanks for bringing it up, Premeditated Chaos. Conversations like this are important to keep standards high, Rjjiii (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
How much is a reviewer expected to write in a nomination that passes?
I would expect a full review to actively confirm that the article meets the DYK criteria. I don't generally write vast paragraphs, but at the very least I make it clear that I've checked the article for newness, length, other issues, and checked the hook for truth and interestingness, and I would expect any definition of a "full review" to expect at least that, whether written or in template checkbox format. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)- @Premeditated Chaos Would either of these fall short to you? [23][24] Rjjiii (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- The template is filled out fully, which to me hits the standard of "actively confirms that the article meets the DYK criteria". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos Would either of these fall short to you? [23][24] Rjjiii (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Rejecting a duplicate nomination
[edit]- I don't want to open up a new thread, and since this is already under discussion, can another user take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Talli Osborne, and let me know if the nominator's procedural rejection of a duplicate hook qualifies as a QPQ based on the full review guidelines? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas I see your point, but I've always considered the QPQ requirement to be "Completely processed a nomination". This isn't dykcoin; QPQ is a measure of how much value you've added, not how much work you've done. If the complete processing consists of quick-failing a nomination because it is clearly deficient in some fundamental criteria, I think that counts. RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. The reason I was concerned was because the same hook was already reviewed by another reviewer, so it didn't meet the full review criterion, IMO. I will accept your input and make note of it. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Viriditas and RoySmith: I don't think this question belongs in this section. Using quickfails as QPQs was discussed last year at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 191#Minimal QPQ and I thought that the conclusion then was that it was discouraged. TSventon (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's not completely accurate. The discussion more-or-less said that quickfails should generally not be used as QPQs (i.e. nominations that are immediately failed without checking for all criteria), but reviews that failed the nomination but still checked everything count. It's the checking of the criteria that counts, not making the review itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5:, this question is about Template:Did you know nominations/Dilaw (song), which was rejected as a duplicate of Template:Did you know nominations/Dilaw (Maki song). I don't see any signs of all criteria being checked for the duplicate. TSventon (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- My response was meant as a general comment and wasn't talking about a specific nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- And, to clarify, doing a full review on an article before quickfailing it for being 3 months old at time of nomination doesn't count either. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a little concerned about not giving people their credit for a failure. If I review a nom and decide to fail it, knowing that doing so will forfeit my QPQ is an incentive to approve it anyway. RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's also probably unfair since it penalizes reviewers. Failings should still count as valid QPQs since the failure wasn't the reviewer's fault but the nominator's. While an argument could be made against straight quickfails, if the reviewer still checked everything regardless, why should it matter that the result was still a rejection? There's a difference between a review that goes "sorry, this nomination is ineligible for being late or not being long enough", and one that goes "the article is long, properly sourced, free from close paraphrasing, and does not require a QPQ, but was nominated way beyond the seven-day requirement." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Typically the first thing I do when reviewing a submission is to click the "DYK Check" link. If that says the article is too short, there's no added value to investing additional time to check other things. So why should wasting my time doing pointless work earn me a QPQ? RoySmith (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, but that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about turning what could be a quickfail into a full review to game the QPQ system. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Better to allow quickfails as QPQs without question then. A valid quickfail is more helpful for DYK than lazily accepting a nom without proper checking. —Kusma (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am also unconcerned about the theoretical risks of accepting fails, including quickfails, as QPQs, especially compared to the alternative of incentivising poor passes. CMD (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Better to allow quickfails as QPQs without question then. A valid quickfail is more helpful for DYK than lazily accepting a nom without proper checking. —Kusma (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's also probably unfair since it penalizes reviewers. Failings should still count as valid QPQs since the failure wasn't the reviewer's fault but the nominator's. While an argument could be made against straight quickfails, if the reviewer still checked everything regardless, why should it matter that the result was still a rejection? There's a difference between a review that goes "sorry, this nomination is ineligible for being late or not being long enough", and one that goes "the article is long, properly sourced, free from close paraphrasing, and does not require a QPQ, but was nominated way beyond the seven-day requirement." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a little concerned about not giving people their credit for a failure. If I review a nom and decide to fail it, knowing that doing so will forfeit my QPQ is an incentive to approve it anyway. RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5:, this question is about Template:Did you know nominations/Dilaw (song), which was rejected as a duplicate of Template:Did you know nominations/Dilaw (Maki song). I don't see any signs of all criteria being checked for the duplicate. TSventon (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's not completely accurate. The discussion more-or-less said that quickfails should generally not be used as QPQs (i.e. nominations that are immediately failed without checking for all criteria), but reviews that failed the nomination but still checked everything count. It's the checking of the criteria that counts, not making the review itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Viriditas and RoySmith: I don't think this question belongs in this section. Using quickfails as QPQs was discussed last year at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 191#Minimal QPQ and I thought that the conclusion then was that it was discouraged. TSventon (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. The reason I was concerned was because the same hook was already reviewed by another reviewer, so it didn't meet the full review criterion, IMO. I will accept your input and make note of it. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Viriditas I see your point, but I've always considered the QPQ requirement to be "Completely processed a nomination". This isn't dykcoin; QPQ is a measure of how much value you've added, not how much work you've done. If the complete processing consists of quick-failing a nomination because it is clearly deficient in some fundamental criteria, I think that counts. RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
@Polyamorph, TompaDompa, and Silver seren: I see two problems here. First, this probably violates WP:DYKFICTION. Second, it's sourced to a blog. A blog by a professor at a major university, but I'm still not sure it counts as a WP:RS. RoySmith (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- The article is explicitly about depictions in fiction and the hook explicitly notes that the subject is something in fiction. Does that really fall under what WP:DYKFICTION was meant to be covering when it comes to hooks? Like, the subject matter of the article is about how something is shown in fiction. Everything in the article is going to be about the subject matter in fiction. As for the source, it's very clearly an EXPERTSPS, and not even self-published, since it's done as a part of the university and by someone who has actual academic journal publications on the subject matter of not only neutron stars, but also such bodies in fiction. SilverserenC 00:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'd agree with @Silver seren Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- WP:DYKFICTION states that the hook needs to be based on a real-world fact. The hook is a real-world fact about works of fiction, so DYKFICTION doesn't apply. The source is OK, but in any case the hook is supported by Bloom (2016) cited in the Neutron_stars_in_fiction#Life section. Polyamorph (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's fine. There can be real world facts about fiction. And EXPERTSPS in a context where it is fine to use it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- In addition to the points made above, which I agree with, I would note that the hook is (to my eye) qualitatively quite similar to previous ones deemed acceptable, such as:
... that fictional depictions of Jupiter have portrayed human habitation on the planet and its moons both by altering the environment to suit humans and altering humans to be suited to the environment?
(Jupiter in fiction)... that in early depictions of Uranus in fiction, the planet was portrayed as solid?
(Uranus in fiction)... that fictional life on Pluto has included mist creatures and crystals?
(Pluto in fiction)... that in fiction, supernovae are induced to serve as weapons, power sources for time travel, and advertisements?
(Supernovae in fiction)
- TompaDompa (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- If true, then there's a double standard and a major disconnect. As a reviewer, I've had major issues pointed out by the community about art hooks, particularly art hooks that feature fictional aspects of the work, which have been informally rejected as violating DYKFICTION. I will provide Template:Did you know nominations/Gulshan-i 'Ishq as an example of whose original hook was rejected. In other words, if this was about a work of art instead of a fictional work, those hooks would not have been accepted. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's an apt comparison, but an apples-to-oranges one. The article under discussion, and the ones I brought up, are about subjects/topics in fiction rather than works of fiction. The one you brought up is about a work, rather than a subject. It's the difference between describing the characteristics/contents of a single work and overarching trends in multiple (more-or-less). TompaDompa (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think I see your point conceptually in that one hook is a work about a painting and another is a subject in fiction, but it still relies on fictional works, and that's a distinction without a difference when it comes to the hook content. I don't see a qualitative difference between a hook about an art work that describes a fictional king and hooks about fictional mist creatures and crystals living on Pluto or exotic lifeforms around neutron stars. But, that's just me. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how Gulshan-i 'Ishq is an artwork—it seems to just be a poem? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for my loose wording. It's a poem which famously includes watercolor illustrations depicting the content. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) A better comparison might be something like
... that cycles of the Life of Christ in medieval art usually show relatively few of his miracles?
(Life of Christ in art) or... that medieval depictions of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary often show her dropping her belt to Thomas the Apostle as she rises?
(Assumption of Mary in art). Both of those are articles where the subject of the article is a particular subject in art, as opposed to a work of art, and the hooks are about trends in those depictions. TompaDompa (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how Gulshan-i 'Ishq is an artwork—it seems to just be a poem? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think I see your point conceptually in that one hook is a work about a painting and another is a subject in fiction, but it still relies on fictional works, and that's a distinction without a difference when it comes to the hook content. I don't see a qualitative difference between a hook about an art work that describes a fictional king and hooks about fictional mist creatures and crystals living on Pluto or exotic lifeforms around neutron stars. But, that's just me. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's an apt comparison, but an apples-to-oranges one. The article under discussion, and the ones I brought up, are about subjects/topics in fiction rather than works of fiction. The one you brought up is about a work, rather than a subject. It's the difference between describing the characteristics/contents of a single work and overarching trends in multiple (more-or-less). TompaDompa (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not worried about the sourcing, but I'm not seeing how this passes DYKFICTION either. The real-world connection offered mostly seems to be an acknowledgement that this happens in fiction? If we had a hook saying "...that in X book, neutron stars harbour exotic life on their surface?", it would fail the fictional requirement. I'm not sure how saying "....that in fiction, neutron stars harbour exotic life on their surface?" would be substantially different. If the hook made it clear that it was referring to a trend, or some technique, or was contrasting it with the fact that such a depiction would be impossible- then yes, that would be a real world connection. But simply acknowledging that these depictions occur in fiction? I think it would be better to find a new hook/rework this one a bit.
- And as for the counterexample hooks, I think the one about Jupiter manages to (tenuously) connect the fictional elements to a literary technique, and the Uranus one connects the fictional elements to a real-life trend. I'm not sure the other two should have been approved- but there is clearly some wiggle room when it comes to interpreting the DYK fiction rule. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- For convenience, here's the hook under discussion:
... that in fiction, neutron stars harbour exotic lifeforms in their vicinity, on their surface, and even in their interior?
. I personally think "exotic" and "even" make the point that this is rather unlikely clear enough. I also think the hook providing three different locations as examples is enough to make it clear that this is referring to a trend, though I suppose we could add "variously" or something like that to make it even clearer—but I also think the Pluto in fiction and Supernovae in fiction hooks are clear enough in that regard, and I don't think those hooks would have been better if they had said e.g.... that life on fictional life on Pluto, a common motif, has included mist creatures and crystals?
or... that inducing supernovae in fiction is a recurring motif, and these variously serve as weapons, power sources for time travel, and advertisements?
. TompaDompa (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)- Agree with GreenLipstickLesbian that the Uranus hook is a good one, the others are more tenuous. I disagree with the topic vs individual subject argument raised above, there can be statements made about a single aspect of an individual work that could teach something. DYKFICTION may be too broad in some respects, but a hook saying fiction authors have imagined life in neutron stars seems like exactly the type of hook it is trying to prevent. Where haven't they imagined life? CMD (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I rather thought the point was to prevent
... that in [work of fiction], [plot description]?
. There's some recent-ish (very brief) discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Guidelines#DYKFICTION_2, where the suggestion was made that "Did you know that aliens in fiction are often depicted with green skin?" would be acceptable but "Did you know that Orions have green skin?" would not be, for basically the same reasons I've been pointing to. There's also less recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Guidelines#Recent hook and DYKFICTION involving a previous hook of mine for comets in fiction (which I would have liked to have been pinged about instead of discovering it now), where basically the same points were raised as well. TompaDompa (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)- If so, that doesn't exactly come through. "Works of fiction are bounded only by human creativity, making possible all manner of hooks that would be interesting if they were real – but if everything is special, nothing is." This reads as trying to create a brightline around WP:DYKINT, by preventing things "that would be interesting if they were real". This would as written apply to both "Anonymous Sciecefictionwriter imagined exotic lifeforms in and around neutron stars" and "Many science fiction writers have imagined exotic lifeforms in and around neutron stars" in the same way. CMD (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I read DYKFICT the same way that Tompa does (in fact I'm the one who wrote the post with the "aliens with green skin" example). I think that there's a clear difference between a DYK that simply says "this happened in a story" and a DYK that says "X happening in various stories is a trend". One is simply repeating the fiction. The other is a real-world analysis of the fiction, and I think acceptable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's a clear difference in theory, but "... that in fiction, neutron stars harbour exotic lifeforms in their vicinity, on their surface, and even in their interior?" does not provide analysis, it simply says X has happened in at least one story. CMD (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. There is no analysis in that hook. Who knows if the "in fiction" refers to one work, five, or a thousand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing an issue here. Is there a problem if there's no analysis? There is a connection to a real-world fact here even if may seem implicit at first. I get the point of DYKFICTION, but in this case people here seem to be interpreting it far more broadly than intended. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I can't agree that it does not provide analysis—it identifies a pattern/trend. Do we really need to spell it out in the hook that this is a recurring thing? Methinks that would mostly just make it clunkier—as noted above, we could say something along the lines of "... that in fiction, neutron stars variously harbour exotic lifeforms in their vicinity, on their surface, and even in their interior?" to make it more explicit, but is that an improvement? TompaDompa (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- That more than one science fiction writer has explored the possibility of life in a certain place does not seem much of a trend. Is there somewhere in space that hasn't had the possibility of life existing explored? I do find the exploration of life on the surface of the neutron star interesting, although unfortunately there is only one example. (This is an example of where I find DYKFICTION a bit difficult.) The Flux example of life inside the neutron star seems a bit more speculative from the source. (The source does not for one case of life around a neutron star that "the neutron star itself isn’t key to the story", which seems applicable to the other vicinity cases too, so I find those less specifically compelling.) There does seem a trend in exploring the gravitational effects of neutron stars, although I am not sure to what extent it might be differentiated from other bodies with gravitational fields. CMD (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, the cited source treats these works collectively as a set based on the presence of life. TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's accurate. The works grouped together in the article are drawn from two separate sets (of the total seven) in the source, one for life in/on the neutron star, and one about the neighbourhood. CMD (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose you could look at it like that, but then the source does also draw a connection between the two. TompaDompa (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's all part of neutron stars I suppose. I've had a thought. The source covers how both Starquake and Flux engage with life needing to deal with Neutron star#Glitches and starquakes, which includes also trying to explain what said glitches are. A short addition each to the article Background and Life sections, and I think we could have a hook which passes the technical DYKFICTION requirement of at least two instances, while also directly linking with the real world exploration of an unknown phenomenon? CMD (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's one possible option, though I think it's a clearly inferior one as I find it way less interesting. I have at any rate added a brief mention.On the original hook: even if we consider life on/in neutron stars and life around neutron stars to be two separate sets (or whatever term is most apt), that basically just means that the hook covers two facts rather than one: (1) depictions of life in/on neutron stars is a recurring feature in fiction writing, and (2) depictions of life around neutron stars is a recurring feature in fiction writing. Either way, it shouldn't be a problem. TompaDompa (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you find it less interesting that science fiction writers have looked at specific aspects of life living on neutron stars than the general fact that science fiction writers have looked at life on neutron stars? CMD (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- In this specific case, it's because I reckon that for most people, starquakes and glitches in the the context of neutron stars does not mean anything to them. Too far removed from things they are familiar with, so to speak. TompaDompa (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Why do you find it less interesting that science fiction writers have looked at specific aspects of life living on neutron stars than the general fact that science fiction writers have looked at life on neutron stars? CMD (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's one possible option, though I think it's a clearly inferior one as I find it way less interesting. I have at any rate added a brief mention.On the original hook: even if we consider life on/in neutron stars and life around neutron stars to be two separate sets (or whatever term is most apt), that basically just means that the hook covers two facts rather than one: (1) depictions of life in/on neutron stars is a recurring feature in fiction writing, and (2) depictions of life around neutron stars is a recurring feature in fiction writing. Either way, it shouldn't be a problem. TompaDompa (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's all part of neutron stars I suppose. I've had a thought. The source covers how both Starquake and Flux engage with life needing to deal with Neutron star#Glitches and starquakes, which includes also trying to explain what said glitches are. A short addition each to the article Background and Life sections, and I think we could have a hook which passes the technical DYKFICTION requirement of at least two instances, while also directly linking with the real world exploration of an unknown phenomenon? CMD (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I suppose you could look at it like that, but then the source does also draw a connection between the two. TompaDompa (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think that's accurate. The works grouped together in the article are drawn from two separate sets (of the total seven) in the source, one for life in/on the neutron star, and one about the neighbourhood. CMD (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, the cited source treats these works collectively as a set based on the presence of life. TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- That more than one science fiction writer has explored the possibility of life in a certain place does not seem much of a trend. Is there somewhere in space that hasn't had the possibility of life existing explored? I do find the exploration of life on the surface of the neutron star interesting, although unfortunately there is only one example. (This is an example of where I find DYKFICTION a bit difficult.) The Flux example of life inside the neutron star seems a bit more speculative from the source. (The source does not for one case of life around a neutron star that "the neutron star itself isn’t key to the story", which seems applicable to the other vicinity cases too, so I find those less specifically compelling.) There does seem a trend in exploring the gravitational effects of neutron stars, although I am not sure to what extent it might be differentiated from other bodies with gravitational fields. CMD (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. There is no analysis in that hook. Who knows if the "in fiction" refers to one work, five, or a thousand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I mean... does the hook say that it's a/ reoccurring theme? There's clearly some room for debate on that matter, but it appears that one "side" are all reading this hook as merely a list of things that can happen when neutron stars are discussed in science fiction. Conversely, the other "side" sees it as describing a trend. We're not disagreeing as to the merits of DYKFICTION- we just aren't agreeing if it applies in this particular style of hook.
- @Premeditated Chaos I hope you don't mind if I ask you something, seeing as you wrote the alien examples. In those hooks I see two major differences. Firstly, that one focuses on a specific piece of media/literature. That's something we all agree does not pass DYKFICTION in its present form. However, the second difference between the two hooks is that the second one says "often". "aliens in fiction are often depicted with green skin". That "often" to me is what implies a trend/analysis is present in the hook/article. A hook merely stating "did you know that aliens in fiction can be depicted with green, brown, or metallic skin" could mean anything - am I about to click on an article, only to learn that somebody managed source an indiscriminate list of all the different skin colours authors have imagined aliens to have? Or am I going to learn the reason why green and grey aliens were so common during the 1960s? "Often" implies the second, just stating a list of possibilities implies the former. But, of course, that's just my reading. You made the examples, and you chose the wording for specifically and I'm in a unique position where I get to ask you why. What were you trying to illustrate? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- @GreenLipstickLesbian, I was trying to illustrate the difference between a hook that has a real-world connection and one that doesn't, with the first examples that came to mind. I was hoping that others might come in and make suggestions or changes, but it didn't really go anywhere - my bad for putting it at a low-traffic talk page rather than this one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- There's a clear difference in theory, but "... that in fiction, neutron stars harbour exotic lifeforms in their vicinity, on their surface, and even in their interior?" does not provide analysis, it simply says X has happened in at least one story. CMD (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I read DYKFICT the same way that Tompa does (in fact I'm the one who wrote the post with the "aliens with green skin" example). I think that there's a clear difference between a DYK that simply says "this happened in a story" and a DYK that says "X happening in various stories is a trend". One is simply repeating the fiction. The other is a real-world analysis of the fiction, and I think acceptable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- If so, that doesn't exactly come through. "Works of fiction are bounded only by human creativity, making possible all manner of hooks that would be interesting if they were real – but if everything is special, nothing is." This reads as trying to create a brightline around WP:DYKINT, by preventing things "that would be interesting if they were real". This would as written apply to both "Anonymous Sciecefictionwriter imagined exotic lifeforms in and around neutron stars" and "Many science fiction writers have imagined exotic lifeforms in and around neutron stars" in the same way. CMD (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I rather thought the point was to prevent
- Agree with GreenLipstickLesbian that the Uranus hook is a good one, the others are more tenuous. I disagree with the topic vs individual subject argument raised above, there can be statements made about a single aspect of an individual work that could teach something. DYKFICTION may be too broad in some respects, but a hook saying fiction authors have imagined life in neutron stars seems like exactly the type of hook it is trying to prevent. Where haven't they imagined life? CMD (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- For convenience, here's the hook under discussion:
- If true, then there's a double standard and a major disconnect. As a reviewer, I've had major issues pointed out by the community about art hooks, particularly art hooks that feature fictional aspects of the work, which have been informally rejected as violating DYKFICTION. I will provide Template:Did you know nominations/Gulshan-i 'Ishq as an example of whose original hook was rejected. In other words, if this was about a work of art instead of a fictional work, those hooks would not have been accepted. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, Di (they-them), and Yue: The article and the source say "killed more than 1450 feral cats" but doesn't say anything about trapping them, so the hook shouldn't either. RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
@Hilst, Rollinginhisgrave, and Mariamnei: The hook says "army of ants" in quotes, but that phrase doesn't appear anywhere in the article. RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
- Added to article. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 01:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, Piotrus, Oliwiasocz, and Chipmunkdavis: This is a "first" hook which requires exceptional sourcing. In this case, it's a vague "is considered" (by whom?), and it's sourced to something not in English, which I can't get to anyway because Internet Archive is still down. So, not strictly disallowed, but let's not tempt fate on this one. Is there a better hook that could be used? RoySmith (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, Internet Archive has been back up for a couple of days now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wayback Machine, at least, is, which is all we need for this. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm, when I tried the IA link earlier, it timed out, but I've got it now. The next problem is that I can't read Polish. I copy-pasted all the text into Google Translate, but I can't find anything that looks like it verifies the hook fact. Perhaps somebody who can read Polish could assist? RoySmith (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps Piotrus could help out here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith @RoySmith Sure (it is my article, after all). The claim of first is sourced to two sources. One does not require IA ([25]), and, side note, instead of copypaste into GT, Chrome has a right-click translate page option (perhaps it needs enabling in setting?) Anyway, from that source:
. The second source, pdf, statesPoles are not geese and they have their own card games. Only, there aren't many of them [...] Only about "Veta", published since 2004, can I say with full conviction that it is an indigenous production
. Here is a source from 2009 that calls it the only Polish CGG (although that is not correct, as 2005, a year after veto, saw [26]). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)There has always been a lack of a domestic game that would be interesting, solidly made, and above all playable. Fortunately, Veto filled this gap.
- PS. That said, if we want to be fully correct (I've expanded the article a bit with some sources), we may want to consider a revised hook:
- ... that Veto, inspired by the history of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, is considered the first collectible card game developed in Poland without reliance on foreign intellectual property?
- or
- ... that Veto, inspired by the history of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, is considered the first Polish-themed collectible card game?
- This is because it is not the first Polish-language CCG, nor the first CCG developed by a Polish company (that would be [27]; I did not know about it until today, it is very obscure...). Veto is one of the first Polish CGGs (second developed by Polish designers, although the year 2004 also saw non-commercial, fandom-based production FanDooM [28]), but the first one that is Polish-themed. Sorry for the confusion, this stuff is pretty obscure, and some sources cited, despite being reliable-ish, make mistakes too because, well, obscure stuff. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Noting here that as a reviewer, my interest in the hook was related to the theming of a CCG on Commonwealth history, rather than it being the first or later to do so. CMD (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- PS. That said, if we want to be fully correct (I've expanded the article a bit with some sources), we may want to consider a revised hook:
- @RoySmith @RoySmith Sure (it is my article, after all). The claim of first is sourced to two sources. One does not require IA ([25]), and, side note, instead of copypaste into GT, Chrome has a right-click translate page option (perhaps it needs enabling in setting?) Anyway, from that source:
- Perhaps Piotrus could help out here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hmmm, when I tried the IA link earlier, it timed out, but I've got it now. The next problem is that I can't read Polish. I copy-pasted all the text into Google Translate, but I can't find anything that looks like it verifies the hook fact. Perhaps somebody who can read Polish could assist? RoySmith (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wayback Machine, at least, is, which is all we need for this. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
@Dumelow, Hilst, and BeanieFan11: this probably fails WP:DYKDEFINITE ("a definite fact that is unlikely to change"). It'll be false the moment the case gets solved. RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe it can rewritten to add the age of the case? Something like "... a man's body [...] has been unidentified since 1971?" If not, maybe we can use a different fact (only one I thought was interesting was the E-FIT one, but maybe the article's writer can come up with something better). – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 01:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure I see the issue here? The case has been open for 53 years, it's not going to be solved before this appears on the main page tomorrow - Dumelow (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I thought the interpretation of WP:DYKDEFINITE is that the hook's truthfulness or accuracy is unlikely to change in the future, rather than just simply at the time of its appearance on the main page. At least, that's how it seemed to have been interpreted from experience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see why that would be important. DYK hooks appear on the main page for less than 24 hours and then are essentially invisible except to a vanishingly small percentage of readers who know where to look and who won't be surprised that the fact stated in the archives reflected the position at a stated moment in time and not a statement for the ages. The wording of WP:DYKDEFINITE was added last year by User:Theleekycauldron, I had a quick look at the archives to try to find a discussion that laid out the reasons for it but had no luck, perhaps they could assist? If consensus is there that it should be an immutable fact then fair enough it just seems to work against interesting hooks and promote unnatural wording. Would we really go with "... the Battle of Towton is the bloodiest battle fought in England as of 2024" over "... the Battle of Towton is the bloodiest battle ever fought in England"?
- It's already not definite that the Battle of Towton was the bloodiest as there have been other bloody battles and the numbers for any of them aren't certain. See the Battle of Hastings, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see why that would be important. DYK hooks appear on the main page for less than 24 hours and then are essentially invisible except to a vanishingly small percentage of readers who know where to look and who won't be surprised that the fact stated in the archives reflected the position at a stated moment in time and not a statement for the ages. The wording of WP:DYKDEFINITE was added last year by User:Theleekycauldron, I had a quick look at the archives to try to find a discussion that laid out the reasons for it but had no luck, perhaps they could assist? If consensus is there that it should be an immutable fact then fair enough it just seems to work against interesting hooks and promote unnatural wording. Would we really go with "... the Battle of Towton is the bloodiest battle fought in England as of 2024" over "... the Battle of Towton is the bloodiest battle ever fought in England"?
- I thought the interpretation of WP:DYKDEFINITE is that the hook's truthfulness or accuracy is unlikely to change in the future, rather than just simply at the time of its appearance on the main page. At least, that's how it seemed to have been interpreted from experience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure I see the issue here? The case has been open for 53 years, it's not going to be solved before this appears on the main page tomorrow - Dumelow (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- If this fails WP:DYKDEFINITE, then we should change WP:DYKDEFINITE. It would be trivial to make it definite by adding "as of 2024", but it would not be an improvement. —Kusma (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- +1 – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 01:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- ... that a man's body, found wearing only a woman's wedding ring and a pair of socks in 1971, is the oldest unsolved missing persons case in Staffordshire, England?
- This is not a missing person; it's an unidentified body
- Other, older remains have been found in Staffordshire – see Search for ancient skeleton for some examples. At some point, this stops being a police matter and becomes archaeology but that's not definite.
- ... that Wuhan trolleybus route 1 (pictured) has been described as "a specialty of Wuhan"?
I find this a bit bland. The source has “当年1路电车也算是武汉的一个特产,外地来的人,必须得来坐一趟,才能领会到这座城市独有的味道。”, which I read as something like "at the time, trolleybus number one was one of Wuhan's specialities (literally: special products), and people coming from elsewhere had to come and take a ride and only then could grasp this city's unique feeling/flavour"; the nom uses a longer quote but perhaps there is some compromise to be found? —Kusma (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ping nom @S5A-0043, reviewer @Epicgenius, promoter @Polyamorph. —Kusma (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I thought the originally proposed ALT1 sounded most interesting, but it wasn't an approved hook. Maybe a variation of that would work? Polyamorph (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Polyamorph and @Kusma, I can also approve ALT1. Almost everything checked out to me, except that the hook gave the impression that the trolleybus literally circled nonstop around a statue of Sun Yat-sen for nearly 65 years. However, if @S5A-0043 revised ALT1 slightly, it can work. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Something like
- ... that for nearly 65 years, Wuhan trolleybus route 1 (pictured) included a loop around a statue of Sun Yat-sen?
- could probably work based on the sources we have. We even have a picture of the trolleybus with statue, e.g. File:2022-电1路经过三民路铜人像.jpg. —Kusma (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Kusma, That ALT could work. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Swapped in. —Kusma (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Works for me. S5A-0043Talk 00:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Swapped in. —Kusma (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Kusma, That ALT could work. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Something like
- @Polyamorph and @Kusma, I can also approve ALT1. Almost everything checked out to me, except that the hook gave the impression that the trolleybus literally circled nonstop around a statue of Sun Yat-sen for nearly 65 years. However, if @S5A-0043 revised ALT1 slightly, it can work. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I thought the originally proposed ALT1 sounded most interesting, but it wasn't an approved hook. Maybe a variation of that would work? Polyamorph (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Baguia Fort (nom)
[edit]I can't see the source mentioning that it was turned into a hotel, only into some form of tourist accommodation? —Kusma (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- Ping nom @Chipmunkdavis, reviewer @Lajmmoore, promoter @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy. —Kusma (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- What is the distinction being made here? I have no issue with replacing "hotel" with "tourist accommodation" if that solves the issue. CMD (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- From what I can see online elsewhere (and on ptwiki/dewiki) it seems to be more a sort of hostel than a hotel. "Tourist accommodation" would provide better source to text integrity (and should also be changed in the article). We could also go for ALT2. —Kusma (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am doubtful this is a pertinent distinction in the (non-Dili) East Timorese tourism industry, but I have no issue with a shift to hostel or other wording, or a hook switch. CMD (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Kusma - what about ALT1? I think its quite fun? Otherwise it seems the switch in wording to tourist accommodation has been made in the article by @Chipmunkdavis and the same could happen in the hook. I too didn't see a huge distinction, but I take your point on integrity. Lajmmoore (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- (Apologies, I was unexpectedly busy IRL). I went for the simpler "tourist accommodation" but ALT1 isn't too bad either. —Kusma (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hello @Kusma - what about ALT1? I think its quite fun? Otherwise it seems the switch in wording to tourist accommodation has been made in the article by @Chipmunkdavis and the same could happen in the hook. I too didn't see a huge distinction, but I take your point on integrity. Lajmmoore (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am doubtful this is a pertinent distinction in the (non-Dili) East Timorese tourism industry, but I have no issue with a shift to hostel or other wording, or a hook switch. CMD (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- From what I can see online elsewhere (and on ptwiki/dewiki) it seems to be more a sort of hostel than a hotel. "Tourist accommodation" would provide better source to text integrity (and should also be changed in the article). We could also go for ALT2. —Kusma (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- What is the distinction being made here? I have no issue with replacing "hotel" with "tourist accommodation" if that solves the issue. CMD (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- ... that the beauty of Princess Pabhāvatī was said to light up seven chambers, making lamps unnecessary?
I read this as violating WP:DYKFICTION (I think the source is a quote from an original text inside a scholarly article. The article is in Burmese, so all I can do is point Google Lens at it and hope for the best). Ping nom Hteiktinhein, reviewer Chipmunkdavis, promoter Nineteen Ninety-Four guy to see if this can be salvaged. —Kusma (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- proposing ALT1: ... that a Burmese transliteration of the Sanskrit name Pabhāvatī is a common designation or metaphor for a beautiful woman in Myanmar? Source: "Kutha Zatdaw" (PDF). Myanmar Alin (in Burmese). 16 June 2005. p. 10. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- ALT0 (rewrite): ... that according to legend, the beauty of Princess Pabhāvatī was said to light up seven chambers, making lamps unnecessary?
- ALT0-a: ... that according to the Buddhist epic Kusa Jātaka, the beauty of Princess Pabhāvatī was said to light up seven chambers, making lamps unnecessary? Source: Lhuiṅʻ, Ūʺ Sanʻʺ (1975). စစ်ကြိုခေတ် အနုပညာရှင်များ (in Burmese). Sūrassatī Cā pe tiukʻ.
သာဂလခေါ် တိုင်းပြည်ကြီးက ပပဝတီရယ် ချောလှတဲ့ ဘုံကြိုးပြတ်တဲ့ မိုးနတ်နွယ် ပုံနှယ် ခုနစ်ဆောင် တိုက်ခန်းလယ် မီးမထွန်းဘဲ လင်းရပြန်ပေတယ်", translation: "In the great kingdom known as Madda, The beautiful maiden, Pabawaddy, Like a celestial who fell from the heavens, In the seven chambers, she shines without light.
Hteiktinhein (talk) 07:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)- Actually, she is not a fictional character; she originates from Buddhist legends and is considered a mythological figure. If she were a fictional character, then the Buddha would also be considered fictional. I am re-proposing the hook with a reference to a historical book that highlights this claim in the source. Thank you. Hteiktinhein (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Kusma and Hteiktinhein: I've tagged the Legend section for tone issues, as its content reads like a story. Should this nom be pulled for the time being? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can't understand why there is a tone issue. This article is about a mythical or folklore figure, not a historical one, so I wrote it in an in-universe style. This article is already summarized as a stub in a formal tone. The original story is 17 pages long and can be expanded fivefold if I choose to (you can read full story in English here [29]). If the tone is problematic for you, why wasn't it addressed or raised during the review process? As the only Burmese mythology editor, I've had no issues with any articles I've created. This article has already passed the DYK review process, and I'm welcome to ask questions about errors in the hook, but the current tone is fine with me. Hteiktinhein (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is part of the DYK review process Hteiktinhein; just because one editor has placed a tick does not mean the article must be completely fine. In this case, I agree that the tone is excessively narrative-like (the dramatic quotes don't help). The structuring is also a bit odd—why not discuss the first life ... first? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a Good Article nomination. This is about a legend, so I wrote like a story. Are you referring to 'past lives'? I can clarify this: the Jataka legends were retold by the Buddha in a sermon style during his lifetime. At the end of each legend, the Buddha revealed the past lives of the main figures without explicitly mentioning their names. Therefore, I don’t think it’s appropriate to feature their past lives first in the Wikipedia article. If the 'past life' is discussed first, it may confuse readers by stating something like, 'Pabawaddy is the reincarnation of the young man's sister-in-law,' as it doesn't make sense. Hteiktinhein (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have rewritten the article in a formal tone. Hteiktinhein (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm really not happy with the changes. @Kusma: This nom is just 12 hours away from hitting the Main Page, so I would like to ask whether you're happy with the changes put forth by Hteiktinhein? What about you, AirshipJungleman29? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have copyedited the story further, I think it's improved Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, but not sure how much. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think either a
{{tone}}
or a{{Religious text primary}}
is still appropriate. I will push this back into prep 4 to buy some time. Apologies this took so long. Ping @Hteiktinhein, @AirshipJungleman29, @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy for awareness. —Kusma (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC) - Thank you so much for copyediting this, @AirshipJungleman29:. I believe {{Religious text primary}} is not appropriate. I have already informed the reviewer during the nomination that the English version reference is only a backup. The article is supported by a scholarly article and significant coverage from the Myanma Alin newspaper, which features an explanation of the epic and highlights this was a popular opera from the National Performing Arts Competition. However, since it is in print, you can use Google Lens for translation. I know it’s not easy to find in the PDF file, so I’ve separated this coverage from the newspaper for you to see here. Hteiktinhein (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think either a
- I have copyedited the story further, I think it's improved Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, but not sure how much. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm really not happy with the changes. @Kusma: This nom is just 12 hours away from hitting the Main Page, so I would like to ask whether you're happy with the changes put forth by Hteiktinhein? What about you, AirshipJungleman29? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have rewritten the article in a formal tone. Hteiktinhein (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a Good Article nomination. This is about a legend, so I wrote like a story. Are you referring to 'past lives'? I can clarify this: the Jataka legends were retold by the Buddha in a sermon style during his lifetime. At the end of each legend, the Buddha revealed the past lives of the main figures without explicitly mentioning their names. Therefore, I don’t think it’s appropriate to feature their past lives first in the Wikipedia article. If the 'past life' is discussed first, it may confuse readers by stating something like, 'Pabawaddy is the reincarnation of the young man's sister-in-law,' as it doesn't make sense. Hteiktinhein (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- This is part of the DYK review process Hteiktinhein; just because one editor has placed a tick does not mean the article must be completely fine. In this case, I agree that the tone is excessively narrative-like (the dramatic quotes don't help). The structuring is also a bit odd—why not discuss the first life ... first? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how ALT0 or ALT0a fix the WP:DYKFICTION issues, neither of those are focused on a "real life fact". ALT1 is better but I agree there are also MOS:WAF issues with how the story is currently presented; I'm also still unclear after reading the article how much of this is a real person vs how much of it is from a legend. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- The article text itself aside (which should do more than just summarize the legend, such as mention, for example, what purpose academics say the legend serves in the community it circulates in, or what meaning it conveys within that religious tradition), the legend exists in real life and is apparently a big part of why the topic is a subject of interest. The existence of folklore, legends, and tall tales about topics can be part of why a topic gets real-world attention and is of note or interest, regardless of the reality of such stories. This is a case where I think either WP:DYKFICTION, whether by application or actuality, is overzealous and results in favoring rather boring hooks that are about ancillary elements of a topic. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think you make a good point -- DYKFIC is written specifically as a guideline WP:DYKINT, but in some cases actually ends up working against finding interesting hooks. In this case I'm not sure I agree that the more interesting hooks are the ones possibly in violation of DYKFIC; they basically amount to a description of a character (though to your point I think there are interesting parts of this story that could potentially make good hooks). 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- The article text itself aside (which should do more than just summarize the legend, such as mention, for example, what purpose academics say the legend serves in the community it circulates in, or what meaning it conveys within that religious tradition), the legend exists in real life and is apparently a big part of why the topic is a subject of interest. The existence of folklore, legends, and tall tales about topics can be part of why a topic gets real-world attention and is of note or interest, regardless of the reality of such stories. This is a case where I think either WP:DYKFICTION, whether by application or actuality, is overzealous and results in favoring rather boring hooks that are about ancillary elements of a topic. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can't understand why there is a tone issue. This article is about a mythical or folklore figure, not a historical one, so I wrote it in an in-universe style. This article is already summarized as a stub in a formal tone. The original story is 17 pages long and can be expanded fivefold if I choose to (you can read full story in English here [29]). If the tone is problematic for you, why wasn't it addressed or raised during the review process? As the only Burmese mythology editor, I've had no issues with any articles I've created. This article has already passed the DYK review process, and I'm welcome to ask questions about errors in the hook, but the current tone is fine with me. Hteiktinhein (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Kusma and Hteiktinhein: I've tagged the Legend section for tone issues, as its content reads like a story. Should this nom be pulled for the time being? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- If the Buddhist and Hindu epics are often regarded as fictional in the Western world, I have no intention of disputing that perspective. However, the stories in Buddhist epics are believed to have actually taken place in ancient India, with the Ramayana being an example. If some choose to view the Buddha as a fictional figure, so be it. But why isn't the same skepticism applied to figures like Jesus? However, ALT1 also looks fine. Hteiktinhein (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, she is not a fictional character; she originates from Buddhist legends and is considered a mythological figure. If she were a fictional character, then the Buddha would also be considered fictional. I am re-proposing the hook with a reference to a historical book that highlights this claim in the source. Thank you. Hteiktinhein (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- proposing ALT2: ...that the renowned Mahāgīta songwriter Yan Naing Sein composed a tribute to the incomparable beauty of Pabhāvatī in his legacy song "A-long-daw Kutha"? Source: Muiʺ (Candayāʺ.), Lha (1967). မြန်မာဂီတစစ်တမ်း ဗဟုသုတရတနာ [Research of Myanmar old music: Knowledge treasure] (in Burmese). Ūʺ Thvanʻʺ Rī , Mruiʹ toʻ Cā pe.
The chosen hook (ALT0) fails WP:DYKFICTION and was also not preferred by the reviewer. Swapped to ALT1. Ping nom wasianpower, reviewer JuniperChill, promoter Nineteen Ninety-Four guy for awareness. —Kusma (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- I thought that I also mentioned about WP:DYKFICTION but at least i pointed out another reason (not interesting) why ALT0 is non-compliant. Link to nom for convenience JuniperChill (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- No objection here, ALT1 was provided precisely for DYKFIC reasons. Appreciate the ping! 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- The thing is, one could argue that ALT0 does not in fact fail DYKFICTION, at least from what other editors have argued here. Arguably, ALT0 is not talking about plot but rather game mechanics, and while personally I think the lines between plot and game mechanics can sometimes be blurry, other editors have said that game mechanics still pass DYKFICTION. I started a discussion about this a while back but it didn't gain much traction, so I wonder if there's interest on an RfC clarifying if game mechanics fall under DYKFICTION or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5 That ambiguity is something I ran into when nominating -- I'd definitely be interested in participating in an RFC if one was opened! 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, with the spate of apparently noncompliant hooks, I can't help but think our WP:DYKFICTION guideline is either overzealously applied or itself written in an unhelpful way. We can agree that we want to avoid a hook like 'Vulcan culture emphasizes stoicism', but the ALT0 in this case is describing how a real-life player would experience the game. I remember another hook that was something like 'this eighteenth-century English novel written has XYZ overt sexual themes' and it got pulled on WP:DYKFICTION grounds and replaced with a very bland quote about the novel when, frankly, what was so interesting about the novel was that during a time when Anglophone culture was publicly very sexually restrained its content was so sexually overt. Sometimes fictional elements aren't interesting as hooks because they lack intrigue beyond being fictional, but there are cases when fictional elements, because of their real-world context, are interesting as hooks. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Admittedly, this is literally the first time I've had to defy a reviewer's expectations. I disagree that the hook fails WP:DYKFICTION, as it's simply describing a fact about the game in real-world context. We can't reject this one while not batting an eye on, say, another videogame hook currently in the Halloween prep set: ... that you can prepare monkey brain dishes in a Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures minigame? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- That's a good point. @Vacant0, Panamitsu, and NightWolf1223:, what makes that hook compliant?--Launchballer 13:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies, I did not consider DYKFICTION. I agree that it may not be compliant wrt that guideline. However, I think it might still work because it is describing events in a game from the fram of the real world.
NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 13:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)- And if not, I'll propose some alt blurbs here. If allowed of course. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've reopened the nom.--Launchballer 09:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've reopened the nom.--Launchballer 09:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- And if not, I'll propose some alt blurbs here. If allowed of course. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- My apologies, I did not consider DYKFICTION. I agree that it may not be compliant wrt that guideline. However, I think it might still work because it is describing events in a game from the fram of the real world.
WP:WAWARDS are back
[edit]Letting any watcher or regulars of DYK that the W Awards are back up and running since it's long sleep of 10 years. It'd be helpful if you'd like to become a reviewer or nominate people who you think fit the criteria in any of the awards (Bronze, Silver, Golden, Platinum) and give any suggestions on awards or changes that you think should happen in the talk page! Thanks, W Award Coordinator Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Preps 4 and 5
[edit]Just a quick note, since we're down to two queues: I prepared preps four and five, and thus will not be able to promote them. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Doing.--Launchballer 12:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a bit tired from prep 4, so I probably won't do prep 5 now. Anyone else is free to chip in before I do.--Launchballer 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Right, I'm going to start on prep 5.--Launchballer 15:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm a bit tired from prep 4, so I probably won't do prep 5 now. Anyone else is free to chip in before I do.--Launchballer 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
@Mrfoogles, Lajmmoore, and Crisco 1492: The article does not spell out that the stations were set up for that exact purpose, only that he set it up and that that migrants' deaths are a problem, and there seems to be some close paraphrasing in the article.--Launchballer 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Oof, "he attended schools in South Texas, including Sam Houston Elementary School in Corpus Christi. Canales was bilingual and learned to read" is definitely reworkable. Good catch. I did spell out the hook fact, which is readily supported by the sources. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- The hook fact is that they were installed specifically to save lives, and technically "undocumented immigrants" isn't quite the same as "immigrants taking routes that avoided a checkpoint along U.S. Route 281".--Launchballer 13:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think the connection there is reasonably clear — all sources I can find, apparently deliberately, refer to them as “migrants” instead of “illegal immigrants”, though. The Wash post article includes a quote from him saying “It just goes to the language, to the words, and words mean a lot: ‘All these were illegals.’ Even in death, they wound up not getting the proper respect.” if that helps. It seems unlikely that they’d be making the dangerous journey and avoiding the checkpoint if they had legal permission to enter the country. Worst case, I guess it could say migrants instead of undocumented immigrants, but I don’t think that’s necessary. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Just to say, thank you for tagging me, but I just commented on the nomination, and don't have anything further to add on its review. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I think the connection there is reasonably clear — all sources I can find, apparently deliberately, refer to them as “migrants” instead of “illegal immigrants”, though. The Wash post article includes a quote from him saying “It just goes to the language, to the words, and words mean a lot: ‘All these were illegals.’ Even in death, they wound up not getting the proper respect.” if that helps. It seems unlikely that they’d be making the dangerous journey and avoiding the checkpoint if they had legal permission to enter the country. Worst case, I guess it could say migrants instead of undocumented immigrants, but I don’t think that’s necessary. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- The hook fact is that they were installed specifically to save lives, and technically "undocumented immigrants" isn't quite the same as "immigrants taking routes that avoided a checkpoint along U.S. Route 281".--Launchballer 13:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
@Kevmin and Reconrabbit: Aside from needing a copyedit, the article says "a red light would be placed in an upstairs bay window to signal the US rum-runners should not retrieve the liquor in town" and the hook says "told rumrunners of revenue men in town". These are not the same thing. Also, what makes Randrianasolo's sportive lemur a full QPQ?--Launchballer 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Article says, "On occasions when revenue agents were staying in the Ansorge, a red light would be placed in an upstairs bay window to signal the US rum-runners should not retrieve the liquor in town." I thought that that was sufficiently clear, as the Ansorge was "in town". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Don't know how I missed that.--Launchballer 13:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Chris is correct, the Ansorge is in the Center of Curlew, and the back room windows directly overlook the bend of the Kettle River where liquor barrels would normally get pulled out. So when the revenue men stayed in the hotel, the owner placed a red light in the corner widow to signal rumrunners.--Kevmin § 15:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Don't know how I missed that.--Launchballer 13:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like a full QPQ to me—it doesn't need to be successful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- It probably ought to be more than just length, but if you're happy with it then I'll take it.--Launchballer 13:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- This has been discussed a couple of times in the past month on this page. A full review is considered any review action that closes out a nomination, either as passing or as failing. Thats how it always has been, and the recent trend to only treat a passing review as a "full" is rules creep far away from the actual rule.--Kevmin § 15:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes—if you start saying you have to provide the full checklist review for even ten-second quickfails, you a) go against WP:NOTBURO and b) incentivise quick-passes over providing actual reviews. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- This has been discussed a couple of times in the past month on this page. A full review is considered any review action that closes out a nomination, either as passing or as failing. Thats how it always has been, and the recent trend to only treat a passing review as a "full" is rules creep far away from the actual rule.--Kevmin § 15:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- It probably ought to be more than just length, but if you're happy with it then I'll take it.--Launchballer 13:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
@ThaesOfereode, Andrew Davidson, and Crisco 1492: Do we have a source that specifically says that Shaw was referring to Hilaire Belloc, given that the quote just says Belloc? Seems somewhat WP:SYNTHy otherwise.--Launchballer 18:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Both sources make explicit that Hillaire was one of Chesterton's close friends, and that Shaw invoked him in his efforts to pester Chesterton to write (both discuss the "Chesterbelloc" essay in depth). Given their extensive discussion of the relationship, neither invokes a different Belloc when discussing the letter. It's not explicit, but the implication is strong to the point where one would have difficulty assuming it was a different Belloc. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. The association is well established – see Chesterbelloc. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. To add, Chesterton is referring to Hilaire beyond any reasonable doubt; Shaw described Chesterton and Belloc, not as simply joined at the waist but as one eight-legged being. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- I guess. Just waiting on the last one now.--Launchballer 19:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
@Thriley, ForsythiaJo, and Chipmunkdavis: I see WP:CLOP with nytimes.com.--Launchballer 18:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Earwig is giving 16.0%. Looks to be mostly proper nouns that are matching. Thriley (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Launchballer, mostly the "Early life and education" section. Don't fixate on the Earwig percentage. RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can see similarities but I didn't consider it CLOP during the review. Maybe repeating "in Sarajevo" in the high school sentence is not needed. More details would be helpful. CMD (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- As time is of the essence, I've copyedited this myself. @RoySmith:, has your concern been resolved?--Launchballer 10:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's an improvement, yes. RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- There are a few others I couldn't think of alternative wordings for this morning. This should be fine now (though admittedly I thought that earlier...).--Launchballer 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- It occurs to me that LLMs are a good analogy for what most people do to "fix" paraphrasing problems. They both operate at the level of words (as does Earwig). As WP:CLOP says,
Close paraphrasing, or patchwriting, is the superficial modification of material from another source. Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words
. If you start with the text from the source and make a series of incremental changes, moving words around, substituting synonyms, etc, you're paraphrasing. What you really want to do (and what LLMs fail to do) is read the source material, understand what it is saying, and then formulate entirely novel text to express the same information. The bottom line is that what we've got now is OK, but only because we've moved from "close paraphrasing" to "more distant paraphrasing". I think that meets our requirement, so I'm not going to object to using it. But if you're still reading this far, it should be obvious that I'm not enthusiastic about it. RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)- Point taken. I've promoted the set by hand, although I notice that Queue 5 has one less line of whitespace than Queue 4 - have I made a mistake?--Launchballer 16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- A problem with extra whitespace in queues was reported here recently, I don't remember the exact thread, but it was in the past few days. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- It was Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 202#PSHAW and blank space by @Crisco 1492:, which went unanswered.--Launchballer 17:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yep. It doesn't break anything, from what I can tell, but it does throw off some of the simulations. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer@RoySmith I've rewritten the "Early life and education" section. I had intended to do so earlier this week, but did not get further than intending, Rjjiii (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yep. It doesn't break anything, from what I can tell, but it does throw off some of the simulations. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- It was Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 202#PSHAW and blank space by @Crisco 1492:, which went unanswered.--Launchballer 17:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- A problem with extra whitespace in queues was reported here recently, I don't remember the exact thread, but it was in the past few days. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Point taken. I've promoted the set by hand, although I notice that Queue 5 has one less line of whitespace than Queue 4 - have I made a mistake?--Launchballer 16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- It occurs to me that LLMs are a good analogy for what most people do to "fix" paraphrasing problems. They both operate at the level of words (as does Earwig). As WP:CLOP says,
- There are a few others I couldn't think of alternative wordings for this morning. This should be fine now (though admittedly I thought that earlier...).--Launchballer 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's an improvement, yes. RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- As time is of the essence, I've copyedited this myself. @RoySmith:, has your concern been resolved?--Launchballer 10:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- I can see similarities but I didn't consider it CLOP during the review. Maybe repeating "in Sarajevo" in the high school sentence is not needed. More details would be helpful. CMD (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Launchballer, mostly the "Early life and education" section. Don't fixate on the Earwig percentage. RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492, Richard Nevell, and Piotrus: I have concerns about whether this meets our WP:NPOV requirement. Also @Personisinsterest: who did the GA review. Frankly, when a reviewer writes The destruction of cultural heritage in Gaza is a really important part of what’s happening right now, and it’s kind of overlooked. I’m glad people are doing this
it leads me to wonder if they are applying NPOV as rigorously as they should be. RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I was just looking for stuff to say honestly. Personisinsterest (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think there's something inherently wrong with being happy about the existence of an article that one considers informative and educational, and I can't help but find it a little absurd to impugn the quality of a review on the grounds that a reviewer complimented the creator. I like libraries and 19th-century American history and want both to appear more on Wikipedia, and I don't think that renders me incapable of doing decent reviews of 19th-century librarian biographers (I use this personal example because I have done such a GA review). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy to discuss any concerns, but I should say that I've got a long train journey this evening and another tomorrow, and am busy between 9am and 5pm (UK time) so I can't guarantee a rapid reply.
- We do of course need to uphold NPOV and I appreciate that ARBPIA articles are contentious. Is the concern about the hook, the article, or the topic area and its generally contentious nature (or a combination)? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Some detailed comments
|
---|
|
- I understand how that could look bias. And it’s because I am. I am pro-Palestinian, as I have said before. And it was an overlooked part of the war. But I checked it. I checked to see if it was reliable and neutral. And when it explicitly stated the destruction was genocide, I toned it down. Personisinsterest (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- This topic is inherently subjective, since it talks about problematic behavior of a particular group (to keep it general). As such, there are always going to be some NPOV concerns lingering around. However, the article is stable, not NPOV tagged, and I did not notice any red flags in my reading. Unless we rule out any controversial topic as DYK-ineligible, I don't see what else we can do here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- The use of a holocaust analogy should be a significant red flag, there is a lot that can be done here. CMD (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's clear there is controversy here. I've swapped this out to Prep 3 so we've got time to work on it. RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds sensible to me as this probably isn't a discussion that would be helped by time pressure. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's clear there is controversy here. I've swapped this out to Prep 3 so we've got time to work on it. RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- The use of a holocaust analogy should be a significant red flag, there is a lot that can be done here. CMD (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492, Mrfoogles, and DimensionalFusion: There's substantial WP:CLOP of both caller.com and nytimes.com. I see this was mentioned here in the thread just above, but the changes made in response to that didn't fix the probem. Please read WP:CLOP. You can't fix CLOP by just changing a few words here or there. You need to write the text in your own words. RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492, Kevmin, and Reconrabbit: I have doubts that the Ferry County Historical Society is a WP:RS for what really sounds like an urban legend. I can't find anything else that talks about this, and was somewhat amused when Google Search Lab cited our DYK nomination template as the best source! RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would think that for a town that's never exceeded a three-digit population it's impressive that any historical record or society exists at all. What would disqualify the website from being considered a reliable source? I imagine additional information exists in this book on prohibition in Northeastern Washington but of course I don't own the title. This essay supports the claim that Kettle River was used as a route for rumrunning. Reconrabbit 14:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SOURCE talks about
sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy
. In what way has the FCHS established this reputation? In any case, I have written to the society to ask about the provenance of this statement. In the meantime, perhaps there's a different hook which could be used? RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)- ALT0 doesn't seem particularly interesting, ALT2 is more likely usable as it is corroborated by multiple sources but most don't specifically state "July 31". The year would also have to be changed to 1917 from 1911. Reconrabbit 15:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- If we are dismissing sources due to the rural nature they come from (by default most of rural western North America will not have a source level above a historical society), then Al2 can be adjusted to: "...that the Ansorge Hotel (pictured) may have hosted Henry Ford one night in July 1917?"--Kevmin § 15:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm also of the opinion that a community's historical society would likely be reliable for non-exceptional statements about said community. The rum-running claim, while interesting, reflects something that was found in many communities; heck, even my hometown claims that some runners drove across the Detroit River when it was frozen over (amazed we specifically have Rum-running in Windsor, Ontario). As such, I wouldn't consider this claim exceptional: high vantage point, small community, and a general disdain for Prohibition. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. Bootlegging alcohol during Prohibition happened throughout the United States. The history ALT1 describes boils down to 'people put a signal light in a window to warn bootleggers about the alcohol cops' which is an interesting fact about the building but not an exceptional, unbelievable, crazy happening that can only be conceived of as mere urban legend. ALT1 is fine. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm also of the opinion that a community's historical society would likely be reliable for non-exceptional statements about said community. The rum-running claim, while interesting, reflects something that was found in many communities; heck, even my hometown claims that some runners drove across the Detroit River when it was frozen over (amazed we specifically have Rum-running in Windsor, Ontario). As such, I wouldn't consider this claim exceptional: high vantage point, small community, and a general disdain for Prohibition. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- If we are dismissing sources due to the rural nature they come from (by default most of rural western North America will not have a source level above a historical society), then Al2 can be adjusted to: "...that the Ansorge Hotel (pictured) may have hosted Henry Ford one night in July 1917?"--Kevmin § 15:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- ALT0 doesn't seem particularly interesting, ALT2 is more likely usable as it is corroborated by multiple sources but most don't specifically state "July 31". The year would also have to be changed to 1917 from 1911. Reconrabbit 15:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- WP:SOURCE talks about
Per the talk page layout (WP:TPL), the DYK template is supposed to go above the banner shell. As we do it now, the DYK template is put below and must be manually corrected. Can someone fix this? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- That just looks wrong to me. A DYK template should not be more prominent than WikiProjects, which might be useful in the future as opposed to one fixed date in the past. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's part of the article history set which all get grouped together in one template. Like GA or FA. Looks more right to me in any case, but at that point we're getting subjective, so oh well PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- In the news notices are correctly placed by their bot, DYK should not be an exception. Flibirigit (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi hi! See User talk:Shubinator#Talk page order for the latest discussion on this. Shubinator (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Prep 5
[edit]Just a note, as we're down to one queue: I'm not able to touch Prep 5 as I was the one who prepared it. If someone is willing to do it, I can take a look at Prep 6 minus Filomena Fortes and Prep 7 minus Stuntman and Gao Qifeng. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Filomena Fortes and Gao Qifeng both seem fine. (You may be interested to know that "Zhang Kunyi was so distraught by Gao Qifeng's death that she mixed her tears with powder to paint plum blossoms, using her own blood for the sepals" leaps out as a potential hook, either here or if you decide to bring Kunyi to GA.) My problem with Stuntman is that it strikes me as requiring knowledge of Bruce Lee, which I don't have, although that may be because I really don't like films at the best of times.--Launchballer 11:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that note leapt out to Gao's GA reviewer as well. I'd have to see what I can find on her... she doesn't seem to have been very well covered, just based on my cursory review, and our article is mostly uncited. For Stuntman, I know I personally considered it alright because Lee is such a well-known martial artist... if it were Tony Jaa or someone else who only briefly had mainstream popularity, I would think otherwise. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
[edit]The previous list was archived about an hour ago, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 24. We have a total of 301 nominations, of which 121 have been approved, a gap of 180 nominations that has increased by 10 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
More than one month old
- September 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Gigi Perez (two articles)
- September 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Moses da Rieti
September 6: Template:Did you know nominations/1917 Łódź City Council election- September 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Falcón state (two articles)
- September 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Abraham Hamadeh
September 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Tore Skeie- September 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Jewish dairy restaurant
- September 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Alison Creagh
- September 11: Template:Did you know nominations/It's OK I'm OK
September 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Shin Iza Gawna- September 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Biasiny-Rivera
- September 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Cannonball (MILW train)
- September 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Benjamin Franklin Shumard
- September 12: Template:Did you know nominations/U Wasawa
- September 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Czarodziejski okręt
- September 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Nathania Ong
- September 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Krzyż i półksiężyc
- September 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Krwawy chleb
- September 18: Template:Did you know nominations/The United States of America (album)
- September 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Chauncey Archiquette
- September 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Deutscher Kurzwellensender Atlantik
- September 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Kesaria Abramidze
- September 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Gitmo playlist
- September 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Jeya Wilson
- September 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Barquq Castle
- September 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Korzeniacy, czyli Jesień wsamrazków
- September 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Muthkwey
- September 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Sonya Friedman
- September 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Pleasure Garden (painting)
- September 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Ye Gongchuo
- September 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Expandable card game
Note that this list is shorter than in the past: with this talk page archiving posts after five days rather than after seven, these lists are lasting for six days rather than eight, so fewer entries are being reviewed in the shortened time period.
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Template editor
[edit]During the recent RfA election, Pppery (talk) said that DYK recently reduced protection of queues to template editor
but I cannot find the discussion of this. Can anyone point me to it? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 202#Giving queues template instead of full protection?.--Launchballer 10:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that! Being able to help with the DYK queues was one of my reasons for nominating at the RfA election. I have been a template editor since 2015, for my work with templates, so it appears that as of a couple of weeks ago, I can promote the queues. There remains the question of whether it is ethical to do so if the RfA fails. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: recently withdrew an RfA and has since done prep-to-queue, having been given the right by @Kusma: shortly after I got mine through WP:PERM. I can tell you I warmed myself up by hoovering up some of Crisco's recusals (e.g. #MyRadar) and there's a couple more below, one of which (#Progradungula barringtonensis) I can't do as I promoted it. Why not do those before attempting a set?--Launchballer 02:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: Hahaha. I tried promoting Prep 1 to the Queue, but User:Theleekycauldron/DYK promoter (PSHAW) pops up an alert that says: "Might I suggest [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] first?" I guess the template editor bit is still insufficient. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is for PSHAW purposes, for now :) gonna have to do it manually! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to promote a single item to Prep 3 with PSHAW. It popped up a dialog with the current contents of the prep and a set of radio buttons. The new one was classed as u0, whatever that means. I selected it and pressed submit. Nothing happened. I then promoted the nomination manually. Can you send me some documentation on how to promote an item with PSHAW? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- It is for PSHAW purposes, for now :) gonna have to do it manually! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: Hahaha. I tried promoting Prep 1 to the Queue, but User:Theleekycauldron/DYK promoter (PSHAW) pops up an alert that says: "Might I suggest [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] first?" I guess the template editor bit is still insufficient. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: recently withdrew an RfA and has since done prep-to-queue, having been given the right by @Kusma: shortly after I got mine through WP:PERM. I can tell you I warmed myself up by hoovering up some of Crisco's recusals (e.g. #MyRadar) and there's a couple more below, one of which (#Progradungula barringtonensis) I can't do as I promoted it. Why not do those before attempting a set?--Launchballer 02:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that! Being able to help with the DYK queues was one of my reasons for nominating at the RfA election. I have been a template editor since 2015, for my work with templates, so it appears that as of a couple of weeks ago, I can promote the queues. There remains the question of whether it is ethical to do so if the RfA fails. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Can DYKcheck be modified so that an article appearing on RD, or as a non-blurb link on OTD, won't show red?
[edit]@Shubinator Right now, if an article has appeared on RD, or as nob-blurb link on OTD (i.e. either a birth or a death), it will give a red "Article has appeared on In The News before" or "Article has appeared on On This Day before" message, even though only bolded links in blurbs make an article ineligible. Can the DYKcheck tool be fixed so that the red message won't appear if, for example, the article was merely an RD entry rather than a full blurb?
While we're already here, given the change in DYK eligibility to allow re-runs after re-runs, perhaps the tool could also be changed to indicate if an article has appeared on DYK within the last five years, or has appeared on DYK over five years prior? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestions!
- In The News non-bolded links: it looks like this should already work as described above? Just checked Turkish Aerospace Industries and Ankara, which are currently non-bolded links, and these aren't tagged with the ITN template.
- On This Day births / deaths: it looks like On This Day is tagging the birth / death articles with the same talk page template (for example, see Talk:Johann Karl August Musäus which has a template saying "A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section"), so it's best to first ask those folks to adjust their tagging.
- DYK last 5 years: I'll look into this.
- Shubinator (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Shubinator: RDs are exempt from ITN disqualification, but they are usually tagged. It'd be nice if we could tag the ITN templates with |RD=y, but hey. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I did the review, and thus someone will have to look at this before I can promote to queue. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'd question the QPQ given #Large number of insufficient QPQ reviews.--Launchballer 09:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'm personally thinking that it makes sense to flag something you think prohibits continuation, then continue if that issue has been addressed. There's not much point continuing just to discard the work afterwards. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I guess. Alright, let's roll.--Launchballer 17:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'd question the QPQ given #Large number of insufficient QPQ reviews.--Launchballer 09:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- First instance of volunteers is flagged potentially unreliable, and cited a blog. Also, "army" isn't supported by the article; volunteers could just be three people sharing a case of beer. The source also says they did the second floor "themselves". Tagging Sdkb, Juxlos, and AirshipJungleman29. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for following up about this, @Crisco 1492. It's slightly confusing because the DYK fact refers to the two different times they built the floor, whereas in the article each instance is mentioned separately. Per the DYK nomination, the best overall source is this article from Baltimore Magazine, which includes this passage:
'We built the floor there [meaning the new location] ourselves, with volunteers,' Sullivan says, 'and a bunch of them were there dancing on the floor on that last night.' Now, some of the same volunteers who were there in the beginning have returned to help lay the sprung wood floor at Mobtown’s new home at North Avenue Market
. - There are several other sources that mention each of the floor constructions, and together those (combined with my off-wiki familiarity with the Baltimore Lindy Hop community) make me confident that the "self" being referred to in the BmoreArt interview you quote is the community, not the owners as individuals. The phrasing comes off oddly outside the context of the business's particular relationship with its patrons, but we're not making an error here.
- Regarding the Almonte source tagged in the article, that is not an underpinning source of the DYK hook, but rather one that supports some details in the article (e.g. 10,000 nails) that I found pertinent but could not find sourced elsewhere. It is admittedly clearly a blog, but I'd argue that the author could be considered a subject-matter expert within the (niche) realm of Lindy Hop, having been quoted as an expert in coverage like this. Additionally, there is nothing controversial or BLP-related about the material, so on balance, until a better source comes along, I made the judgement call that including it to would be a net positive. But since the source underpinning the DYK material is Baltimore Magazine, I added an instance of that to the mention of the first floor construction.
- Hope that helps clarify and resolve any concerns! Cheers, Sdkb talk 21:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Sdkb, that helps ameliorate my concerns about the referencing (the first occasion was only supported by the blog at the time I checked, which was my concern). The only other concern is "army", which isn't supported by the article. "A bunch" (to quote the BM source) is generally a smaller qualifier than "an army". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for following up about this, @Crisco 1492. It's slightly confusing because the DYK fact refers to the two different times they built the floor, whereas in the article each instance is mentioned separately. Per the DYK nomination, the best overall source is this article from Baltimore Magazine, which includes this passage:
- I'm not seeing that any attempts were ever made to venerate her, let alone progress along the process of canonization. The article has that the historian wrote a hagiography, but that doesn't necessarily contemplate sainthood; likewise, it specifically says that he knew he was writing for people who knew her, and thus would not contemplate her for sainthood. (As an aside, the article says she was "occasionally petulant", rather than "could be quite petulant"). Tagging Surtsicna, Silver seren, and AirshipJungleman29. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- The hook does not say or imply that she was ever venerated or in the process of canonization. "Occasionally petulant" or "could be quite petulant" makes 0 difference. Put whatever you like. Surtsicna (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Hook: "that an attempt to portray Abbess Hathumoda as a Christian saint after her death failed because everyone knew that she could be quite petulant?"
- Article: "Despite Agius's hagiographical portrayal, Hathumoda was never venerated, not even by her family. Because he wrote for an audience that knew Hathumoda in life, Agius could not afford to gloss over the flaws that made Hathumoda an unlikely candidate for sainthood: his characterization of the abbess reveals anxiety and even occasional petulance." (I note that veneration links to "the act of honoring a saint, a person who has been identified as having a high degree of sanctity or holiness." As Hathumoda is identified as Catholic, one must recall the religion's very strict processes for sainthood)
- Quite bluntly, the hook does not reflect the article. The article says he wrote a very favourable biography, but that she was not the sort of person that people who knew her would consider for sainthood. It doesn't say "he wanted to portray her as though she were a saint, but everyone and their mother knew she was too bratty." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- That is not correct. The article says that a monk wrote a "hagiographical portrayal" of Hathumoda. To write a hagiography means to portray someone as a saint. The hook says an attempt was made to portray Hathumod as a saint. There is no contradiction. Surtsicna (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Surtsicna: I think that the article and hook need more work. The article is referenced to a single source, Paxton 2009, so it fails WP:DYKCITE and there is a risk that it does not give a WP:NPOV. The hook oversimplifies a quote from Paxton p. 46 and on the preceding p. 45 Paxton says that politics was more important than Agius's description of her:
But just as in Liutbirga's case, Hathumoda's afterlife, and the afterlife of her community, were determined more by the politics of her family's tenth-century descendants than by the claims made by Agius in the VH and the Dialogue.
TSventon (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)- WP:DYKCITE does not say that single-source articles are not acceptable for DYK; quite the opposite, in fact, for such obscure topics. The cited source is the comprehensive study of the subject. If you know of another source that discusses the subject and disagrees with Paxton, we can discuss NPOV. The hook is not simplified to the point of being inaccurate, but neither is it or the article perfect. It is good enough to be on DYK, but if you can improve it further, please do. Surtsicna (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- A number of sources discuss Hathumoda, possibly because she is a fairly rare example of a female biography from the period. When I search for Hathumoda petulance in Google books I only find Paxton's books. There are different emphases
Julia M.H. Smith and Suzanne Wemple read the Vita as a demonstration of the close bonds between Hathumod and her Liudolfing kin,38 while Monika Rener and Carolyn Edwards accentuate the ways this biography separates Hathumod from her biological kin and resituates her among her monastic sisters.39 A more nuanced version of this latter reading is provided by the most recent interpreter of the Vita Hathumodae, Frederick Paxton
(Negotiating Community and Difference in Medieval Europe, ed Katherine Allen Smith, Scott Wells, 2009). TSventon (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- A number of sources discuss Hathumoda, possibly because she is a fairly rare example of a female biography from the period. When I search for Hathumoda petulance in Google books I only find Paxton's books. There are different emphases
- WP:DYKCITE does not say that single-source articles are not acceptable for DYK; quite the opposite, in fact, for such obscure topics. The cited source is the comprehensive study of the subject. If you know of another source that discusses the subject and disagrees with Paxton, we can discuss NPOV. The hook is not simplified to the point of being inaccurate, but neither is it or the article perfect. It is good enough to be on DYK, but if you can improve it further, please do. Surtsicna (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Given that you are using hagiography in its specific sense rather than the general sense of "a very admiring book about someone or a description of someone that represents the person as perfect or much better than they really are, or the activity of writing about someone in this way", it may be better to recast in a way that avoids ambiguity.Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- When referring to medieval works of this type, "hagiography" is the most unambiguous word possible. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Surtsicna: I think that the article and hook need more work. The article is referenced to a single source, Paxton 2009, so it fails WP:DYKCITE and there is a risk that it does not give a WP:NPOV. The hook oversimplifies a quote from Paxton p. 46 and on the preceding p. 45 Paxton says that politics was more important than Agius's description of her:
- That is not correct. The article says that a monk wrote a "hagiographical portrayal" of Hathumoda. To write a hagiography means to portray someone as a saint. The hook says an attempt was made to portray Hathumod as a saint. There is no contradiction. Surtsicna (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- The hook does not say or imply that she was ever venerated or in the process of canonization. "Occasionally petulant" or "could be quite petulant" makes 0 difference. Put whatever you like. Surtsicna (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
@Thriley: When I gave Prep 1 a final check, I found that the quote in the hook is in the source, but not the article. I considered pulling the hook and replacing it with one from Prep 3, but since I could not promote it anyway, I added the quote to the article. Hope this is okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you! Thriley (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29, Dan Leonard, Belbury, Cowlan, BootsED, and Tavantius: The hook reads ... that several major U.S. politicians have spread conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season?
. Considering that some of these politicians are running for election, perhaps this is another one we should invoke WP:DYKELECT on? RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Makes sense, just given the link to the election cycle. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- The two alternate hooks in the nomination make no mention of the election and may be more appropriate. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- ALT1 especially. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe ALT1 then. Tavantius (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I've pulled this. It's not just the hook that's a problem. The article itself devotes significant space and more than half the lead to talking about specific people running for office. It can wait until after the election is over. RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2 (Halloween)
[edit]- I reviewed this, and thus another person will have to look at it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Only thing holding this up. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- I moved this one to prep, so another person will have to look at it. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- I approved Barringtonensis above, but I'm not seeing any problems with this one.--Launchballer 12:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Given the concerns about hook and section length raised above, how do people feel about "... that Brian David Gilbert released a series of monster-themed ABBA covers under the name AAAH!BBA?" Should keep it short and on point. The other possibility could be moving the article to a different prep. Tagging Vigilantcosmicpenguin and Rjjiii — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492 and Vigilantcosmicpenguin: Both solutions are fine with me, so I'll defer to the nominator's preference. The hook above has a stray "
's
". Rjjiii (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)- Ooops. Fixed, thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492: I agree that it would be a good idea to shorten the hook. This proposed hook would be a better fit for the Halloween theme.
Alternatively, in case people think the Halloween set is still too big, I would be okay with moving the hook to a different day. If so, I will want to reopen the nom to make it an image hook, since the article has a fun image now. - — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, based on the consensus here I've abbreviated the hook. It'll need a new pair of eyes before promotion to queue. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Crisco 1492 and Vigilantcosmicpenguin: Both solutions are fine with me, so I'll defer to the nominator's preference. The hook above has a stray "
- Needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 12:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Done.— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 14:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- My concern has been resolved.--Launchballer 14:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Done.— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 14:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 12:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Remembrance Sunday (10 November) and Armistice Day (11 November)
[edit]I normally like to offer up some appropriate content for the above dates. This year I have nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Lichfield War Memorial and Template:Did you know nominations/Carlton Colville Scouts Memorial for your consideration. Thanks in advance - Dumelow (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- We probably shouldn't run both in the picture slot on consecutive days, so is there any image hook-day combination you would prefer Dumelow? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am not precious about the picture slot, if one can run the Lichfield one is probably better - Dumelow (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)