Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Did you know?
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}
	v; t; e;

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:37, 29 September 2024

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

There are currently 2 filled queues. Admin assistance in moving preps is requested.

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 22:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 24 hours

Last updated: 22 hours ago(

)

Shortcut

WT:DYK

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203

• 2011 reform proposals
• 2020 RFC LT Solutions
• All RfCs
• Removed hooks: 2023–24

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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

Special occasion request for September 11 Digital Archive, September 11

I realise that it is too late for the the same anniversary day of the September 11 Attacks, but it would be nice if September 11 Digital Archive could be featured in the next few days. ―Panamitsu (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 10 September 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Request for review of anniversary-themed hook

Moved to Template:Did you know nominations/Lake Erie Walleye Trail fishing tournament cheating scandal

Queue 5

Pioneer Fire

This fails WP:DYKTAG. RoySmith (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to post about that. The tag is an "update" tag, which is reasonable because seeing on 22 September a page about a current wildfire that is correct as of 25 August is a bit weird. Pinging @SounderBruce: can you fix this in the next couple of hours or do we need to pull this? It seems to me that there was some rain that stopped the fire from expanding and so nothing much has happened, but that would need to be made explicit in the article. —Kusma (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to Prep 4. BorgQueen (talk) 17:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce ping. BorgQueen (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No response after 3 days. I've pulled it. RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was away on an extended trip over the weekend, so I was not able to see this earlier. The tag is not exactly warranted, as there has been no significant developments since August. Sounder Bruce 18:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was placed 10 days ago, you had plenty of time to respond to it. Also, you're saying it's an ongoing fire, yet you adjusted the {{as of}} date forward a few weeks but the number of acres burned hasn't changed? That seems, um, unlikely to be correct. And you're citing a source published on July 18 to back up The fire is expected to be fully contained by the end of October. That seems dubious. RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is only so much more information that we can glean from small-town newspapers without going off the reliability cliff. InciWeb has not updated the acreage burned due to the fire's stalled growth and the transfer of responsibility, which means that operations are winding down; the fire may take weeks (if not months) to fully extinguish, but coverage will not remain consistent through that time. Sounder Bruce 03:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Eternauta: segunda parte (nom)

... that while writing El Eternauta: segunda parte, Héctor Germán Oesterheld was murdered by the Argentine junta?

Sources do not exactly support "murdered", but I can see why we would want to treat deaths during Dirty War disappearances as murders (just like deaths during the Holocaust are often described as murders independent of how exactly people died). —Kusma (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Cambalachero, @BeanieFan11, @Buidhe for comments. Probably "was disappeared" or better sourcing would be best to save us a trip to WP:ERRORS. —Kusma (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This again? Check the nomination. My original hook was "... that comic writer Héctor Germán Oesterheld was victim of an enforced disappearance while writing El Eternauta: segunda parte?" A random user proposed an alternate hook that used "murdered" instead. I voiced my concerns over the new ALT, nobody replied anything, and the nomination was approved. If nobody has any problems with the original hook (and none were mentioned in the nomination) that's the one that should make it to the home page. Besides, "the Argentine Junta" is ambiguous. There's also the Primera Junta, the Junta Grande, and perhaps others. Cambalachero (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: The cited source for the DYK nomination uses the verb "asesinar" in the top line and later in the body for Oesterheld and his daughters. Do other sources dispute this? I would also be fine with Cambalachero's original hook. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the word "murder" is that it is imprecise. It is an unlawful and premeditated killing, and under those broad conditions we can include a huge range of motivations and methods. "victim of an enforced disappearance" does not deny it being a murder, it's simply more precise on how he died. Cambalachero (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero, changed to

... that during the writing of El Eternauta: segunda parte, Héctor Germán Oesterheld became victim of an enforced disappearance?

Hope that is fine. —Kusma (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine. Cambalachero (talk) 17:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

Axis Rule in Occupied Europe

@Buidhe: I've reworded the hook to match the exact phrase used in the article. Let me know if you have objections. BorgQueen (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Carlini

@Sohom Datta: This Wired article you've provided does not mention Carlini. Am I missing something? BorgQueen (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BorgQueen The paper being discussed in the article where they say “The actual attack is kind of silly,” the researchers wrote in a blog post announcing their findings. lists Nicholas Carlini as one of it's first authors. Sohom (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sohom Datta Why don't you link the paper directly then? BorgQueen (talk) 00:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the blog is [1] and the associated paper is [2]. I did not want to link it since both are technically primary sources. Sohom (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Reese

Do we have a problem with WP:DYKELECT? RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DimensionalFusion, Bsoyka, and Launchballer: RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. 2024 US election is in 41 days and this will go live in a day, which is above the 30 day limit. Unless you count early voting, which began a couple of days ago DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Brit and so am not au fait with the intricacies of the US voting system, but if early voting is what I think it is, then polls are open and this should be pulled. Also noting that Bsoyka hasn't edited in over a month.--Laun chba ller 14:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith I've moved it to Prep 2 for now. BorgQueen (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it to a lower down queue only worsens the impact by making it show on the main page closer to the election. Perhaps it should be de-promoted instead? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled the hook back into approved until the election date has passed DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Approaching 12-hour backlog mode?

DYK is currently at 143 approved nominations (manually counted) and 6/7 full prep areas. WP:DYKROTATE says that If we are at one set per day and immediately after the midnight (UTC) update finishes there are more than 120 approved nominations while at least ten prep/queue sets are filled, we rotate to two sets per day..

We're currently at the point that if 2 prep areas were promoted to queues (AND THEN filled with approved nominations) we'd have 10 full queues/prep areas and still have 126 approved nominations. Are we approaching 12 hour backlog mode? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder that, but the problem is the prep to queue bottleneck.--Laun chba ller 22:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah definitely. Based on what I've seen from the template, ideally there are 4 or more queues at any one time DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 12:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's a lot of work and not enough admins to do it. It takes me a minimum of 20 minutes to process a set. That's for the rare set where I don't find any problems. Every issue I find adds to that, so 30 minutes is probably a better average. And when I write up a problem, I'm signing up to some additional commitment of time over the next few days to track the resolution. What we need is more admins working at DYK, and there just aren't enough admins to go around. I'd love to see some of our more experienced DYK regulars show up at WP:RfA. RoySmith (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly. Nobody can fault the admins for volunteering their time by processing sets, and at the same time there's a record low number of admins. And I can't say that there's any kind of quick fix for this other than getting more admins lol DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 13:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or reduce the number of hooks per queue. Levivich (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich per your request to be pinged. RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The automated DYK counter updated to show 121 approved nominations, and I just brought it down to 120 by promoting another one. This could be solved by admins promoting more preps to queues, rather than going to backlog mode. SL93 (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to not be counting the most recent days. I still vote on updating queues more often and closing older nominations that aren't going anywhere. SL93 (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly. If admins only ever update 1 queue per day then we're permanently stuck on 2 queues and 6 prep areas, and if that's the case then we never meet the threshold for 12-hour mode DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 06:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this seems crass, but perhaps I could note here that I've not yet understood that both "there is an overabundance of approved DYK nominations" and "we cannot raise the editorial standards for DYK because we wouldn't have enough engagement" are held to be true simultaneously. Remsense ‥ 论 06:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen the second argument be based on engagement, it's more a matter of debate over subjective standards of quality and nominators feeling hard done by. CMD (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the case of nominators getting very upset when their nominations are challenged, making reviewers more reluctant to reject nominations outright. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1. And some of the worst offenders are our biggest contributors who really should know better. RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really, we should be willing to reject nominations more forcefully. The issue is that, sometimes, nominators have far more energy than reviewers, leading to reviewers yielding rather than holding their ground. The asking for a second reviewer, while usually done in good faith, sometimes just makes things worse and prolongs the agony. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should formalise a role for experienced and trusted DYK reviewers/promoters who are allowed to reject nominations at their editorial discretion? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am skeptical that such a thing would work. Even when editorial discretion is already baked into the rules, it's not uncommon for nominators to oppose reviews or decisions. I don't think making certain editors "trusted" would solve the problem when the elephant in the room is simply that some nominators are stubborn regarding their nominations and/or hooks. The way I see it, the solution to the problem would be a cultural change, for example being willing to accept rejections, or discouraging things like forum shopping or asking for second opinions over disagreements regarding hook interest (unless of course absolutely necessary or warranted). Of course, that is much easier said than done. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if we could avoid breaching the template transclusion limits. I am not currently able to offer much help with p2q promotions, so I can't in good conscience suggest to go to 12-hour rotations. The other way to reduce the backlog would be to tighten the timeout rules. —Kusma (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does someone techy know if PEIS is affected by the use of Template:DYK checklist. If it is, would there be harm in a bot substituting it for direct code on approved nominations? CMD (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We now have 125 approved nominations and 9 full queues, plus the last queue which we have to leave 4 hooks empty for. Is it time DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on this is what it always is: 12 hour turnover is a disaster. It burns people out and increases our error rate. It's never a good idea. I certainly have no plans to participate. RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's your opinion then maybe we should think about modifying the policy. Perhaps there are ways of decreasing the backlog without sacrificing quality DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to see us drop it entirely. And, yes, the way to decrease the backlog is to not be afraid of declining substandard submissions. RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the switchover should take place when there would be 120 approved hooks if all of the preps and queues were full. DYK has not reached that threshold yet. Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a useful safety valve. One of the reasons there's a minimum requirement to switch to twice-a-day of ten completely filled queues and preps after the midnight promotion along with 120 or more approved noms awaiting promotion is that it's such a high bar, and that by definition you have a backlog that allows running at twice a day for a little while. It's a quick way to reduce the effective backlog by dozens of hooks. We can certainly modify the point at which we switch back if continuing would cause too much stress, though what we have now—reverting back to one a day at any point when after midnight there are fewer than six full queues and preps—would seem to keep us from kneecapping ourselves if prep sets aren't being built with enough frequency. There's a GAN backlog drive starting up next Tuesday, so even though as I write this we're finally not in PEIS-land any more. (Note to CMD: DYK checklist is causing a lot of our PEIS problems; it's a lot of text being expanded, and more and more people have been using it. However, unless the text generated at subst time is less than that generated by the template itself, doing the subst shouldn't help reduce the total character count. Writing out a review in one's own words, making sure to cover what you've looked at, is more efficient when it comes to page size.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My admittedly not full understanding of PEIS is that any nested template multiplies its impact (somehow), so even with the same characters it would make a difference. CMD (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that when we went from 8 to 9 hooks, we effectively slowed the rate at which the backlog grew by between half and two thirds. I propose that the gap between 60 and 120 also shrinks accordingly, to maybe 75 and 100. 12-hour sets is a quick and very dirty way of running lots of noms and I suggest that one way to make it less painful would be to do them for shorter periods.--Laun chba ller 01:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the aim is a short period and the requirement is "ten completely filled queues and preps", why not have it activate for literally just five days? That would make it a safety valve, would rely on the review quality achieved during normal backlog rates, and provide a simple and clear end date without needing to recalculate the minimum. CMD (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, require seven filled queues (and no specific prep quota) before you start, and go for a fixed three days. That at least guarantees that no matter what happens in the way of promotions (or lack thereof), you know you've got enough material to make it through the sprint. If that turns out not to be enough, you can run another sprint after you've refilled the queues. The important thing is putting the material in the bank ahead of time instead of a frantic scramble to keep up while the clock is running. RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. CMD (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could start at any midnight if the seventh queue has just been promoted and there are six filled queues left, and go for three days. Having the post-midnight changeover is best; it will typically give us more time to move special occasion hooks around as needed within the queues or into the queues, though only admins will be able to take care of that particular task; fortunately, anyone can move things around within the already waiting preps. Question: if at the next midnight, the queues were filled again leaving six after promotion, do we automatically extend by a day (restart the three-day countdown), or is it a set three-day thing that must run down (and switch back for at least day?) before starting up again. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to have the sprint be a fixed 3 days, if for no other reason than it will lend stability to SOHA scheduling. RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it may not be necessary just yet as there are still preps that haven't been moved to Queue. I really don't like these two-sets-a-day thing as it's grossly unfair to most nominators, but if it has to be done it really should be a last resort and not a first one. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that 12 hours on the main page is "grossly unfair" seems bizarre to me; of course, I came up in the day when 12 hours was a long time, and 8 hours was more common. Sometimes, sacrifices are needed for the greater good, and half a day isn't unreasonable in my view, just like an extra QPQ isn't unreasonable from old DYK hands when we get a problematic surplus of unreviewed nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember coming back to DYK and wondering when it moved from six hours to 24. Anyway, any change shouldn't be seen as changing the use case for the 12-hour backlog mode, it will remain a last resort. However, this change may be a way to make that last resort more predictable and palatable. Whenever the option of a 12 hour backlog run has been raised since the last one ended in April, it has received a lot of (quite valid) pushback due to the current implementation. CMD (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like we're pretty close to consensus to change WP:DYKROTATE to read:

DYK runs a certain number of sets per day, depending on the backlog size. Currently, we update DYK once every ((some template magic goes here)). If we are at one set per day and immediately after the midnight (UTC) update finishes there are more than 120 approved nominations with six filled queues sets, we rotate to two sets per day, and rotate back to one set per day immediately after the midnight (UTC) update three days later. The approved nominations page has a maximum size limit, so it will sometimes not display or count the latest nominations.

Regarding @BlueMoonset's question ("if at the next midnight, the queues were filled again leaving six after promotion, do we automatically extend by a day"), the algorithm described above does have some strange behavior if at the end of three days we've still got six filled queues and 120 approved hooks. As written, we'd go back to one per day and then immediately go back to two per day, but I think that situation is incredibly unlikely to happen so I'd say we keep the rule simple and rely on intelligent human beings to figure out how to handle exceptional situations when they occur. RoySmith (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a change of WP:DYKROTATE to read as above DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 13:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify the mechanics, the wording seems to suggest the default seems to shift to two sets a day once the criteria are met. I am not opposed given the criteria being met should be definition make that painless, but we should ensure that is an intentional outcome, and perhaps figure out some note about special holding area hooks that need shifting. CMD (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we want to keep humans in the loop when deciding to switch. But, the current wording also suggests an automatic cutover and yet we still end up haggling over it each time, so I'm not too worried that the humans will get disenfranchised. Somebody still has to make a manual edit to (um, I forget exactly where) so I imagine the way this would work is some admin would post here, "Hey guys, we've met the WP:DYKROTATE requirements, so if there's no objection, I'm going to switch over right after midnight".

But, that does remind me that we don't seem to have the actual procedure documented anywhere. We should add that to Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions and DYKROTATE should link to that. RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given you were the last person to make a change, if you've forgotten we do need the documentation! If you are happy the wording keeps humans in the loop, I am happy. CMD (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reminder :-) I've updated the instructions. How about for the policy statement:

DYK runs a certain number of sets per day, depending on the backlog size. Currently, we update DYK once every ((some template magic goes here)). If we are at one set per day and immediately after the midnight (UTC) update finishes there are more than 120 approved nominations with six filled queues, we rotate to two sets per day, and rotate back to one set per day immediately after the midnight (UTC) update three days later. The approved nominations page has a maximum size limit, so it will sometimes not display or count the latest nominations.

Instructions for effecting the switch are at WP:DYKAI#Switching update interval. Admins planning to make a switch should alert the DYK community by posting their intentions to WT:DYK in advance. RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get creative indeed. I think this policy change keeps the spirit of the idea while making it easier to implement, I haven't thought of a strong point of caution yet. If there are no objections, let's go ahead. CMD (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's try this. I hope the automatic "revert to 1/day" will make us admins a bit less averse to filling the queues out of fear of the 2/day stress. —Kusma (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adopted

I haven't seen any opposition so I've gone ahead and updated the WP:DYKROTATE policy statement. We're currently at 263 approved hooks, so it'll probably take us 2 or 3 sprints to get back below the 200 hook threshold. Hopefully this new process will be easier on everybody since we'll be attacking it in manageable chunks. RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DYK admins: pinging to alert admins who haven't been following this long thread. RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Worth giving a chance, I guess. It'll be interesting to see how fast we get right back to the same place, though. I can remember when we were in two-a-days with too little admin help for months at a time. I'm not going to risk burning out again, it was too unpleasant. Valereee (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Future Audiences call – inspiration from DYK to create videos

Hey everyone, there's a team called Future Audiences at the Wikimedia Foundation, focused on experiments to see how we can reach new audiences in the changing technical landscape. We have a community call 15:00 UTC Thursday September 26 about short videos where we've been relying on your work, in case anyone is interested: m:Talk:Future Audiences#The next monthly Future Audiences video call: September 26, 15:00 UTC. Johan (WMF) (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A little bit more context: Future Audiences does small, experimental projects to try to make sure we remain relevant and reach new audiences. In particular, we're exploring how AI tools can be used to make Wikimedia content available in new formats (like a browser extension to vet claims on other websites) to make sure more people find their way to our work. We don't build products – we try to do comparatively quick, cheap experiments, learn from them, and if something is very promising, we can make recommendations to the rest of the Wikimedia movement.

One thing we're trying to address is that a significant number of younger internet users get knowledge from the short video format, e.g. through edutainers who read Wikipedia articles, summarize what they've learned as short videos but never disclose how they depend on Wikipedia for their creations. To make sure people understand where the information is coming from, can track it back to our work here and potentially become editors in the future, we're experimenting with using AI production tools to make Wikipedia articles into short videos, to reach people we might otherwise not reach and see if this is a viable route. We've relied on your work here, pulling from the historical list of popular English Wikipedia DYKs to create short "fun facts from Wikipedia" videos.

If you're interested in taking an early look at these videos and giving us some feedback, there's a Future Audiences call on Thursday, 15:00 UTC. You're welcome to attend, or follow along with this or other experiments on the Future Audiences pages on Meta. Johan (WMF) (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The short video format is addictive; I'm embarrassed to admit how much time I spend doom-scrolling through YouTube shorts :-) While I'm certainly all for giving DYK greater visibility, DYK articles span the gamut in quality. I wonder if a better source of material might be the lead sections of FAs. The most recent version of MOS:LEADLENGTH says The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words. A quick google search tells me that typical audiobook speaking pace is about 150 wpm, so about 1.5 to 2.5 minutes. That's about typical run time for most short video platforms. RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the "focus on FAs" argument, but most FA leads tend to be really dry. A better line of thinking would be looking at FAs or maybe GAs that have been through DYK, and building the "short" around the hook fact chosen. That way you guarantee both interestingness and information quality. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agreed; i would say pick articles of GA/FA quality at the top of the stats tables, stuff that has already tested well with audiences. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great suggestion, AirshipJungleman29 – thank you.

To explain why we went with DIY – just so you understand the through process which led us there – the hook is a central part of it. Short video platforms can be pretty brutal in how short an attention span a lot of users have, and the hook is a way to try to make them not immediately move on. Also, DYK can cover pretty obscure or unexpected topics, which can make people interested, the same way as when one clicks the "Random article" button and ends up reading about something one had no idea even existed. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I despise TikTok and YouTube shorts, as well as reliance on AI, this sounds like an interesting way of creating engagement with new (younger) audiences. What quality standards are you looking at? The main kickback against DYK has always been a perceived lack of quality, so things like a foul-mouthed presidential parrot may be interesting but not show the quality that an FA or GA would. Have you considered browsing Wikipedia:Unusual articles? (I'll be at the office at 15:00 UTC, so the call is a no-go for me.) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, despite the addictive aspect of YTS, the robo-voices that are often used are infuriating. I'm assuming these readings would be done by real humans? On the other hand, maybe that's what sells these days. This is not your father's wikipedia! RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with the logic Johan (WMF). I think a compromise focus between obscure/unexpected, immediately attention-grabbing, and quality (you'll especially want to avoid any possibility of spreading misinformation) would be best, and the lack of guaranteed quality is where DYK gets most censure. I'd also remember that many of our 6,500+ FAs haven't gone through DYK but likely do still contain unexpected attention-grabbing facts, so I would really advise starting there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special occasion request for Nov. 5 (Election day)

Has anyone suggested doing a special DYK for election day? I think it'd be neat to have facts, articles, etc. related to the history of past elections!

There's two potential issues I can see, which I think we should take steps to address ahead of time:

As per WP:DYKELECT, none of the facts should be about this particular election. Ideally, facts should be about elections far enough in the past that they're no longer very controversial. (The more recent the fact, the stricter we should be about it not being controversial.)
We want to avoid any potential bias towards the US, so there's two potential steps we could take here. The first would be to plan out similar DYK occasions for other countries (which I think would be great—I'd love to see Canadian facts next Canada day!). The second would be to make the facts non-specific and have to do with elections, voting, or democracy in every country, not just the US.

– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have had Canada Day sets before if I recall. I don't think there would be an issue with US electoral hooks being allocated for that day, so long as they steer clear of the current election (very broadly defined). CMD (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could be the one website that doesn't drop everything else because there is an election in the USA. Canada Day is more interesting, I would not notice it happening at all without Wikipedia. —Kusma (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could just be me, but I don't find most special sets very interesting. I would imagine ITN and OTD will also be doing election day coverage, and that's really more in their remit anyway, so we should let them take the lead on that. RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture hooks

32 out of the 136 hooks currently in the queue are hooks that contain (pictured), equivalent to 23%. Using the power of mathematics, this means that in order to to promote all the pictured hooks at the current rate of non-picture hooks, we'd need to include 2 pictures per set.

Obviously we can't include 2 pictures per set, but I'd like to raise this point that because of the amount of picture hooks, we are clearing them about twice as slowly as non-picture hooks. Is there anything we can do about this, like a message in the nominations saying "Hooks with pictures are likely to be slower to show up on the main page."

As a side issue, I've also noticed there are lots of hooks which don't contain (pictured) but do contain a picture included. Maybe this should also be specified on the nomination page or on WP:DYKIMG? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DimensionalFusion: there's some delay, but in general, promoters get past this by promoting some imaged nominations without the image. As for the pictures without (pictured), see the "media marker" section of WP:DYKMOS :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should promoters removing images be a semi-regular thing? My (perhaps wrong) impression was that promoters only did that in special circumstances dependent on the hook. At the moment, reviewers only check if an image is technically necessary (clear enough, licensed) without having to check whether the image is necessary in the first place.

As for the pictures without (pictured), the media marker is specified in WP:DYKMOS, but the images I'm talking about do not have a media marker at all - entirely absent despite having an image.

Thanks for your quick response! DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the technical requirements for an image are necessary, but not always sufficient, precisely because the competition is so high. Choosing an image (or not choosing one) is one of those areas that's pretty much entirely at promoter discretion – although if you disagree with another promoter's decision to not give the image slot to a particular hook, you can always try and sneak it into the top of another set :) so, yes, it is (and i would argue should be) pretty common for promoters to put imaged nominations below the top slot. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I would say this given the only one on Approved is mine, but videos tend to do quite well. See also Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 198#Date request.--Laun chba ller 10:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having more images than we have room to run is a good problem to have because it lets us pick and choose the best ones. RoySmith (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are two image hooks for every slot, it should happen around once every set. Not every hook needs an image and some are just worse than others—see e.g the images in Prep 4 or Prep 1, which are both rather indistinct and low-quality. While we're here, WP:DYKVAR recommends against having two consecutive images in sets. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out; I've uploaded a better version of the Andrea Navagero image for prep 1. As for the prep 4 image, I generally think we should balance image quality vs historical importance. This is a 17th century engraving so it's likely we'll be unable to find any better quality image.

I'm more concerned about the low-quality images we often get of modern subjects, which are low quality simply because they were taken by unskilled photographers. Some of these can be fixed. For example, the image in Template:Did you know nominations/Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip is terrible, but almost certainly could be substantially improved with some very simple exposure adjustments and perhaps a crop. RoySmith (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The OP says "Obviously we can't include 2 pictures per set" but this is far from obvious. The prejudice against pictures on Wikipedia is peculiar because a picture is worth a thousand words and so they are the most efficient use of space. Picture hooks usually get about double the views of pictureless hooks and so we should have more of them to give our articles more exposure. Isn't that our goal?

For example, in the current set, the article Vollpension has a striking picture (shown) which seems much more engaging than its ponderous and wordy hook. There doesn't seem to be any technical reason why this could not have been shown too and so we are not giving this topic its full potential.

Andrew🐉(talk) 17:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

Adam Berdichevsky (nom)

@Schwede66 and Paul2520: Looks good overall, few things to work out! Article cites 232Eshkol, which is a blog – could that be removed/replaced? Also, it looks like the description of Berdichevsky's experience of the Oct. 7 attack is sourced to Berdichevsky himself (through interviews), so that should probably be attributed inline. Also, Gurvis 2024 doesn't verify They hid in a safe room in their home. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've summoned the IP editor through a note on my talk page. Schwede 66 09:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron and Schwede66, I replaced the blog information with a different reference. I also sourced the safe room sentence. SL93 (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page types for DYK

Something I noticed, having just joined up to DYK is the weird disorganisation of the page structures. It's not particularly important given it works, but it's just something I've seen. The page structures seem to be made out of earwax glue and redirects. What I mean by this is the odd structures of pages in that it's a total guessing game whether a page is going to be a Wikipedia:, a Wikipedia talk:, or a Template:, or a Template talk:, or a sub-page of any of those. I get that the system has evolved over time with bits being added on as required but it doesn't seem to be a totally efficient method.

To illustrate my point, I'll give an example: Approved nominations are held on Template talk:Did you know/Approved – this isn't a template (the template page redirects back to the template talk page) and why is it a sub-page of the un-approved nominations in Template talk:Did you know? Why not Wikipedia talk:Did you know approved or even just Wikipedia:Approved DYK hooks. And Template talk:Did you know itself doesn't make sense because it's just the talk page of the main-page template. You click on the hook and this is a template. Fair enough, this is a template, but it makes it harder to edit because DiscussionTools doesn't work on template pages and so source mode has to be used, even though the reply buttons appear on the Template talk page.

Or for another example, take the queues. Template:Did you know/Queue is a template (despite not being used as a template) and a sub-page of the template displayed on the main page for whatever reason - Why not just Wikipedia:Did you know queue since nobody actually needs to edit the page, as it's basically all templates?

Not sure if this even needs fixing as it all works, but still it's just something I've noticed. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is something people have complained above for years and years. The difficulty is that there are so many templates and bots and links that rely on the current page structure that it's not really worth the time and effort to fix. It's the same reason the Main Page is technically in article space despite not being an article—too much effort to fix, and not enough reward. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would not be too hard, but nobody really understands the entire interdependence of all of the bots so some people are afraid to break something. I vote for any change that allows use of the "reply" function in DYK nominations. —Kusma (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. Reply FTW! RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shifting nominations to the Wikipedia space should allow that, and the relevant individuals future-proofed their bots/scripts for such a move a couple of years ago if I recall correctly. It may also be a change that can be made as an isolated step, without figuring out the Approved/Queue template spaces. CMD (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But how would this be actioned? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 17:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need a very small group of people with the relevant tech knowledge to assume full responsibility for implementation, then we'd need a community process to agree specifically to the implementation and to the moment of implementation, and then we'd likely need a minor period of chaos anyway. CMD (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I (very much) don't want to own the process, but I'd be happy to be part of a smallish group that re-engineered all the DYK duct-tape. Having multiple people who knew how all the moving parts worked would be a good thing. RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CMD, this was attempted a few years ago, see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 179#Namespace transition master plan. Generally, lots of people talk, but there's a lack of action, and a lack of followthrough. Shubinator (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking of! The lack of followthrough is why there needs to be a small group in control. It's not the sort of thing that works on a diffuse community level. CMD (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I see that its odd that DYK noms are using the template namespace, I can live with that. There are so many articles placed in userspace rather than articlespace, and same can be said for a draft representing an article. JuniperChill (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The namespace chaos is a barrier to entry for new recruits. The huge collection of rules makes DYK complicated enough. The namespace issue is just another layer of confusion on top of that. RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Count your blessings and be careful what you wish for. WP:ITN puts all its nominations onto the same page with an unusual top-posting convention. This then has to be archived and the archives are humongous. You can use the reply function but people then tend to use this to add !votes and this disrupts their indentation.

ITN, DYK and other noticeboards and projects all have their own idiosyncrasies. In a few decades, perhaps the WMF will have standardised on a common forum format. Or perhaps everything will be done by AI bots...

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The robots are coming! But votes aren't used for DYK, as there's only a single reviewer. DYK already has archives (I think) so this could stay as-is. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you make it easier to reply then guess what you're going to get -- more replies! This will tend to generate more hubbub and you may then find that this gets in the way of getting things done. This is ITN's big problem and so they only post a single new blurb every two days or so. DYK currently posts 9+ every day and so we should measure the effect of this change on DYK's productivity. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's speculation. There's nothing stopping people from doing that now, other than a slightly different UI. Plus, I think that making something more accessible couldn't possibly be worse for the project.

It would be incredibly difficult to make any measurements about productivity changes as a result and I'm not sure it would be warranted. Perhaps it's because ITN posts less often the posts generate more activity, which wouldn't be the case for DYK DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 18:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a few decades, perhaps the WMF will have standardised on a common forum format. They already have. See WP:FLOW. It was not well received on enwiki. RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2

@DimensionalFusion, while you were promoting you've replaced an existing credit. I had noticed a few credits were missing in previous Preps, which I've fixed since. BorgQueen (talk) 10:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's weird. I wonder if PSHAW's acting up DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron ping. BorgQueen (talk) 10:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DimensionalFusion In addition, the Egyptian Labour Corps hook currently lacks a bolded link. BorgQueen (talk) 10:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BorgQueen: yep, and that's what caused the glitch :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nom credit and bold link have been manually added in DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, you had replaced a credit in this edit too. I've fixed it but this keeps happening for some reason. BorgQueen (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron ping. BorgQueen (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Credit

I was looking through SDSS J0849+1114, and I saw that it had successfully been nominated for DYK, and was one of today's DYKs. The issue however is that zero credit was given to the main contributor to the article (83.5% was written by Galaxybeing), and the nominator incorrectly stated that they had created the page, and when looking at the page history this is false. I'm not really sure what to do. See Template:Did you know nominations/SDSS J0849+1114. :) Sir MemeGod  14:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir MemeGod Feel free to give the due credit yourself. BorgQueen (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be most likely an inexperienced nominator not filling the script fields correctly. There is no harm done, and I don't think there is cause to consider it a deliberately false act. Thanks for giving the credit. CMD (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. WP:AGF applies here. BorgQueen (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5

Margrit Waltz

This is mine, so somebody else will need to review it. RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: I would argue that the phrase "almost 1,000" violates WP:DYKDEFINITE. If she's still flying, then she's probably going to break 1,000 at some point. And I think that phrase would need an end-of-sentence citation in any event.--Laun chba ller 00:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could go with:

... that Margrit Waltz has ferried planes to points on five continents?

which is cited to has delivered over 300 Daher TBM aircraft from their manufacturing plant in Tarbes, France, to customers in North America. She has also made deliveries to Africa, Asia, and Australia RoySmith (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed hook is fine, however the ref for that covers "Africa, Asia, and Australia". "France" and "North America" would still need a repeatcite. (I'm calling SKYISBLUE on France being in Europe.)--Laun chba ller 01:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I'm not an admin, so I'll leave it to you to amend the hook accordingly.--Laun chba ller 01:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've taken care of that. Thank you for the review. RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian literature

@DimensionalFusion, Munfarid1, and BorgQueen: This needs an end-of-sentence citation. RoySmith (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added the al-jazeera article at end of sentence DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereign State of the Bektashi Order

@DimensionalFusion, TheUnabashedUkrainian, LunaEclipse, and Di (they-them): WP:CLOP with https://shqiptarja.com/lajm/exclusive-interview-with-the-head-father-of-the-bektashi-order-a-new-sovereign-state-for-peace-and-tolerance-english-version (earwig report). RoySmith (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had no role in significantly expanding the article. I just added a couple citations. For some reason though, I was cited as a creator on the DYK nom. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ ^{【=◈︿◈=】} 20:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEclipse you were an early editor who made what seem to be substantial enough contributions that the nominator thought worth including. (Don't overlook the value of citations!) That said, if you do not wish to receive credit, please let us know and it can be removed. CMD (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Earwig report. Most of the matches are the title of the order, which is its proper name. The others just seem to be conventional phrases such as "administration of the state" and "promoting peace, tolerance, and dialogue". Earwig's conclusion is "violation unlikely" and I agree. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7

Ajah Pritchard-Lolo

@DimensionalFusion, BeanieFan11, and Launchballer: The hook says "first Olympic weightlifter". I would call anybody who performs the olympic lifts at any level an "Olympic weightlifter", and I'm sure there have been plenty of those. What the hook should say is something like "The first person to represent Vanuatu in weightlifting at the Olympic games". RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "that Ajah Pritchard-Lolo is Vanuatu's first weightlifter at the Olympics?" BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If an athlete gets a universality place, do they 'qualify' for the Olympics? Relatedly, a possible alternative hook from the ABC report: ... that weightlifter Ajah Pritchard-Lolo was planning to qualify for the 2028 Olympics before obtaining a universality place in the 2024 Olympics? CMD (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think they're considered 'qualified' (after all, they do get to compete) – maybe your proposed alt could be modified to something like: '... that weightlifter Ajah Pritchard-Lolo was planning to qualify for the 2028 Olympics before being selected for the 2024 Olympics?' (just sounds better to me) BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think talking about how both she and her mother are competitive weightlifters would be interesting. The only problem is I can't find any WP:RS that actually says her mother lifts. She runs a weightlifting club, and is a coach, and is president of the Vanuatu Weightlifting Federation, but none of those is quite the same as being a competitive lifter herself. But if we could find a RS, it would make a great hook. Also, at the risk of being politically incorrect, I think a woman who lifts weights is more interesting than a man who lifts weights, so we should find a way to mention her gender in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Hi, I've been working on Abdul Ahad Azad since 22 September and expanded the article from 927 characters in this diff to latest version of 7087 characters. However, DYK check keeps saying that article has not been expanded 5X in past ten days and classifies the article as stub when it's not. Can I still nominate it, since it's been expanded 5X. Ratekreel (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratekreel: I suspect DYKcheck's picking up this edit, which was above 1469 characters. Per WP:5X, the "calculation is made from the last version of the article before the expansion began", so this is fine. You're going to want to rectify that {{cn}} tag first though. As for the stub tag, it was because it was classified as a stub on the talk page.--Laun chba ller 21:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Launchballer, thank you for answering. This was annoying. I am planning to add a separate section for his works and remove the works listed from the section where you've added {{cn}} tag. Ratekreel (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Manhood

Template:Did you know nominations/Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs

Per nominator: Noting that with Missouri's polls opening October 23 and in accordance with WP:DYKELECT: if approved, this will have to appear no later than September 23 or be held until after the 2024 United States Senate election in Missouri, to November 6.

Should this be left in the current queue, rejected, or put somewhere else? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, we usually put hooks that fall under DYKELECT into the special occasion section in an "after X date" header so they won't be promoted while the election is ongoing. In this case, an "After November 7" header makes the most sense, since polls will still be open on November 6 for the first few hours UTC. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's already an approved hook at Approved for Allison Reese which mentions Kamala. It should probably go in with that.--Laun chba ller 01:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These later election hooks will probably need a lot of scrutiny due to political polarization. This one has a clause that frames Josh Hawley as treasonous. The NYT source there says his publisher dropped him for support of attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, and specifically hedges on the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Criticism of the book is frequently very negative, mocking Hawley for initially supporting the mob before "running for his life" like a "bitch", so any hook will have a hard time balancing WP:NPOV and WP:DYKBLP. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: nominations do not move to the special occasion section until they have been approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

@AirshipJungleman29, you've replaced an existing credit, again, while promoting. BorgQueen (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron This keeps happening. Why is that? BorgQueen (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, there are three different reasons this happened three different times! I've fixed the one that came up here – that one was actually my fault. The bit of code that detects hooks in prep had a bug that prevented detection of hooks with an apostrophe in the piped text. The previous two were the result of the nomination being formatted badly; in one, the hook didn't have a boldlink (how did that get past a reviewer and promoter?) and in the other, the article was moved and the credit wasn't updated to match. Both of these interfere with the script's ability to match hooks to credits, and it currently removes unmatched credits in order to keep the prep tidy (should probably figure out something better to do with them). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you it wasn't on purpose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it wasn't. WP:AGF. BorgQueen (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

because it was my purpose. hehehehe... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thesneakycauldron Valereee (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving namespace to Wikipedia: (v3)

In response to my previous discussion regarding this, I will be carrying out a plan to move namespaces from the disorganised state of the page structures to a more structured approach. The rationale for the plan can be found here but to be brief, the current structure can be very confusing to newcomers. Planned moving of namespaces has taken place before twice, the other two having been in 2021. Second discussion, first discussion, previous plan.

Pages to be moved + destination (feedback welcome!)

Template talk:Did you know → Wikipedia:Did you know nominations
Template talk:Did you know/Approved → Wikipedia:Did you know approved nominations or Wikipedia:Did you know nominations/Approved
Template:Did you know/Queue → Wikipedia:Did you know queue
- Template:Did you know/Queue/1 → Wikipedia:Did you know queue/1 and other queues
- Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 → Wikipedia:Did you know preparation area/1 and other preps

All active nomination templates moved to Wikipedia from Template
All new nomination templates created in Wikipedia, instead of Template

Criteria for success

Pages should be moved instead of created new to preserve edit histories
Disruption should be minimal, if any at all. DYK should continue to function throughout the namespace moves
New pages should follow a logical structure

Detailed changes for bots, etc. Copied from 2021 plan

Most of these bots will have to be updated by a volunteer (possible myself, depending) to make pull requests, or asking the maintainer to do it on-wiki.

ω Awaiting -> Message sent to bot maintainer, awaiting response
Critical

DYKUpdateBot ω Awaiting
DYKHousekeepingBot ω Awaiting
WugBot ω Awaiting
Move active DYK nom pages to WP space (see definition of "active" above).
- Needs to be done by an admin or bot (moves by others are subject to rate-limiting).
Template:T:TDYK/inputbox - line 9. Change ns prefix. This is the inputbox for creating new nom subpages.
User:SD0001/DYK-helper.js - line 24. Change ns prefix.
Module:NewDYKnomination - in function params.REVIEWED, add support for both naming schemes.
Module:DYK nompage links - Support both naming schemes.
Template:DYKsubpage - Simplest fix would be to make it ns-agnostic (use PAGENAME instead of FULLPAGENAME).

*Template:DYK conditions - simple - add case for wikipedia namespace as well. *Template:DYK tools

Template:DYK top - the code is HORRIBLE. I think easiest fix would be to change {{NAMESPACE}} == Template logic to {{NAMESPACENUMBER}} mod 2 == 0 logic, so that even numbered namespaces are supported.
Template:DYK talk - add support for both prefixes.
Template:DYKNom - line 24. Change ns prefix.
Template:UpdatedDYK - change ns prefix in line 15.
Template:DYKmake - change ns prefix in line 1.
Transclude Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Did you know nominations at Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Did you know nominations using {{Editnotices/Group/Template:Did you know nominations}} to keep edit notices the same.

Non-critical

Update help pages about making new nominations
Template:DYK nomination header - fix search box to search both prefixes (use intitle keyword).
Template:DYK item - not sure where this is used. Add support for both prefixes. Done See diff
Template:DYK prose - change ns prefix.
Template:DYKproblem - change ns prefix.
MusikBot - line 62 (hidden comment) @MusikAnimal
Notify other bot operators (see #Bots_active_at_DYK): JL-bot, AAlertBot, EnterpriseyBot, MajavahBot, FACBot
Template:Did you know/Clear - used to clear prep areas after an admin moves them to the DYK queue. Seems only a ns prefix change is needed.
User:DannyS712/DYK claim.js - line 21. @DannyS712

Really minor

Template:DYKReviewNote - change ns prefix. Not that anyone uses this template.
Template:DYKnom link - looks unused
Template:DYK icon link - just 3 transclusions
Template:DYK user - largely a duplicate of {{DYK talk}} used on just 1 userspace page. Same fix applies.
Template:DYK nominee - no one uses this. But just change ns prefix.

Please do let me know if you have any feedback. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

maybe a more consistent approach?

Template talk:Did you know → Wikipedia:Did you know/Pending nominations or Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations/Pending
Template talk:Did you know/Approved → Wikipedia:Did you know/Approved nominations or Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations/Approved
Template:Did you know/Queue(/x) → no change or Wikipedia:Did you know/Queue(/x)
Template:Did you know/Preparation area x → Template:Did you know/Prep/x or Wikipedia:Did you know/Prep/x
Move all subpages of Template:Did you know nominations for consistency, whether closed or not

Outside the box, I would argue that Template talk:Did you know and Template talk:Did you know/Approved should both be retired in favor of a single page with no transclusions that simply lists all the nominations and their statuses. Much, much easier to keep track of, much fewer moving parts, much more easily organized. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the box

::I think that Wikipedia:Did you know/Pending nominations and Wikipedia:Did you know/Approved nominations would work, should it be decided that separate pages are required. Perhaps a single page would be easier to maintain, but it might make promotions take just a little longer if promoters have to check whether a nomination has been passed, and then doing all the other promotion checks

I was debating whether or not to change the queue, given that it probably would make sense for it to be a sub-page, perhaps requires further thought. Prep areas would probably work as just Prep/x or Prep x given that nobody actually calls them "Preparation areas". DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the single page would just be a table with "Nomination page", "Date of expansion", "Nominator", "Status" (one of the Symbols), "Last nominator comment" (timestamp), "Last non-nominator comment" (timestamp), and "Notes" (for date requests and the like) as the headings. Might mockup an example... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So long as I can still Ctrl+F my username and still be able to toggle between nominations that specifically require my attention.--Laun chba ller 11:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: well, no, but you can always search incategory:"Pending DYK nominations" "Launchballer", if that's any help? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this can be added as a custom search-bar at the top DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

or we can still maintain a transclusion of all the nominations and have a separate list page for at-a-glance stuff. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Search results aren't then in order. The transclusion pages should be kept.--Laun chba ller 11:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be a good idea to have all nominations in one page. There's a reason they were split in the first place: there were just too many nominations that it was causing loading problems. Similar to the current issues the pages have when there are too many transclusions, though I imagine now it would be on a greater scale. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But on this page nominations wouldn't be transcluded, they'd just be linked DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a clicking-hellscape for promoters: most of those parameters don't really seem useful at all. At the very least I'd like bio/non-bio, US/non-US, image/non-image marked. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we not have this "outside the box" discussion at this point? It seems completely independent of the namespace question. Let us concentrate on one task and not get sidetracked. —Kusma (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now begun making inquires with the bot maintainers about possible ways to implement a namespace changeover DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna be honest. I get that there's demand for this change, and it would be for the best, but I really don't know if we're ready for it yet. I get that you're new to DYK and want to make a difference already, and that's admirable, but there's a reason why this change has been attempted multiple times before and it stalled each time. The actual work to be done is non-trivial and given everything that's involved there's a really good chance that something will break. If we are going to do this migration it should not be rushed and should take time. It should only happen when we're really sure nothing is going to break. Sometimes status quos suck, but they still exist for a reason. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: What do you mean "should take time"? Ideally, we should be spending time preparing, agreeing on a plan, and then rolling over the entire system with as few button presses as possible. Only moving one or two parts at a time is a recipe for disaster. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean we shouldn't rush things when it comes to the technical aspects. What you said about having a plan in place is actually a good idea, but we have to make sure it will work properly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'm considering whether to do it in phases and have seperate plans for each, or to do it all at once in a larger plan. Both ideas have positives and negatives DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 13:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the prep/queue system and the nomination/approval system are fairly independent and from each other. Moving the nomination/approved system to Wikipedia space is probably the harder part. —Kusma (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case then obviously the prep/queue should be the first to move.

Template:Did you know/Queue is basically just a template page and is not monitored by any bot, so that should be the easiest to move, and the only bot action is DYKUpdateBot, which purges the hooks when an update is made. So really, you'd just need to move the page, update DYKUpdateBot and PSHAW, and presto DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately moving the prep/queue part to the Wikipedia namespace also has fairly negligible benefits. —Kusma (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it does allow further changes to be made despite not having innate benefits DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the main reason the change hasn't gone through isn't the complexity, it is that people are too afraid of breaking things and do not know how all of the bots work. There is no need to be so afraid: we regularly have bots that stop or break and everything can be done manually. We just need people to be aware and watch out for issues. —Kusma (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DimensionalFusion If I may be bold, I'm concerned that you're moving too fast. You are fairly new to DYK. While it's awesome that we've got a new enthusiastic recruit, what you're proposing is a major change, and one which has been discussed many times in the past without managing to go anywhere. That should be a signal that it's a thornier problem than it appears. So when I read your statement that I will be carrying out a plan, that worried me. I encourage you to slow down. There's tons of things that need to get done here. There's piles of unreviewed nominations that need attending to. A particularly valuable service would be looking at the noms which have become contentious and help either shepherd them to a successful outcome or reject them as unsalvagable. Another great help would be to look over the preps and queues to see if you can spot any problems that should be fixed before they reach WP:ERRORS. RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it's never been carried through before is because a large number of people in the community have been responsible for enacting it, so there's no clear person as to whom is doing what. If a single person is carrying it out then responsibility is clearly placed with one person. That should be a signal that it's a thornier problem than it appears. At the end of the day, it's just moving a couple of pages and chaning a couple of lines of code. There's piles of unreviewed nominations that need attending to

This is true, but there are also more than enough approved nominations. I'm concerned that you're moving too fast. In my opinion, nothing wrong with getting things moving quickly. Obviously the actual moving would need to be fairly well-thought out, but why wait for getting started? If I came back to this in a month, nothing would have changed in regards to this DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 13:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I wouldn't be enacting the technical page moves myself as I am unable to move many of them, so it would have to be me and whoever would like to help out in moving. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've talked with Shub and he has said:

* I would prefer the namespace change is coordinated at least a week ahead of time so I can get the code changes ready → take DYKUpdateBot & DYKHousekeepingBot offline → namespace change implemented on-wiki → DYKUpdateBot & DYKHousekeepingBot back online with updated code.
Will historical nominations (was already on the Main Page) & in-flight nominations (closed but not yet on the Main Page) also be updated? Changing historical nominations can get pretty messy, as DYK credits link to the nomination page.

Zooming out, I would recommend making another pass on updating the "Bots at DYK" list, just in case new bots have cropped up since the last time this was discussed.

So the namespace change should be coordinated at least a week ahead of time. Historical nominations shouldn't be updated (in my view) to preserve nominations and avoid breaking anything. And if anyone can see any new bots in the list please do let me know, because I can't think of anything new other than PSHAW DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's just moving a couple of pages and chaning a couple of lines of code.

I'll be blunt. This is a frighteningly naive statement from somebody who is wearing a software project manager hat. In theory, yes. In practice, we're working with a complex system of software written by many different people. There's no single person who understands it all, and certainly no single person who understands all the interactions. We may get lucky and it may all work the first time. Or something critical may break and we'll all be in a panic because we neither know how to fix it nor have a coherent plan for how to back out the change.

DYKToolsBot will certainly break. I just looked at the code. It's not a huge job to parameterize things to accommodate the change but to have somebody barge into the room, declare that they're in charge, and start shouting orders is just too close to what I've experienced in real life as a software engineer for me to want to be anywhere near this. RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about the shockingly naive statement. DimensionalFusion, have you ever done software project management or written or updated software of any complexity? This is something that needs to be approached with care and knowledge, and I'm not seeing that here. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset Yes. I started as a software developer about 7 years ago and it's been my job since a year ago DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith I don't know what you want me to say here. All I'd like is for a team of people from across the community to create a detailled plan for the rollout of namespace changes and bot code changes simultaneously. This would be impossible to do without a detailled plan involving logistics, estimated downtime (which should be minimised, if any), and fallbacks. What's the problem here? I'm not declaring myself in charge, I'd much rather it be done with a small team with technical expertise DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to have a career in software development, you will undoubtedly be involved in some flavor of task planning. You start with a pile of things you want to do and assign them some kind of score for how much value you will get out of completing each task, how much effort you think each one will take, and how much risk each one introduces. All of these are typically difficult to know, so you take your best guess. My take on this is it's got a medium amount of risk, will probably take a small amount of effort, and yield a small amount of benefit. So when it comes to assigning valuable and limited resources to working on it, it's unlikely to find itself on the top of the pile.

You will also discover that inevitably there will be management changes. Some new person will show up and announce that they're now managing the team you're on. This is an all-volunteer group, so the term "management" doesn't really apply, but since you're apparently trying to act as a manager, I'll go with that analogy. I've seen two kinds of people fill this "new manager" role. One kind gets everybody together, introduces themselves and says, "I may be in charge, but I'm new here. You guys have been doing this for a long time so you're the experts. I'm going to work hard to learn as much from you as I can about what you do before I start doing any managing". The other kind storms into the situation and starts shouting orders. Guess which ones are successful and which ones aren't? RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that your analogies are accurate based on my (somewhat limited) experience of it, which is why I'm trying to make it more community-built.

I understand that my proposed changes involve complex systems, and could lead to breakages, especially with bots that help manage DYK nominations. Careful planning is important, so therefore understanding the underlying technical aspects is also important. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{DYK conditions}} from the list above has been replaced with {{DYK tools}} which doesn't have the same issue. It has some links that will still function with redirects. Some of the other things can likely be done well in advance like the suggestion for {{DYK top}}.[3] I don't see a clear sets of steps yet. You'll need some admins to help. If you get consensus for this and need a template editor to push changes live, feel free to ping me. I don't plan on doing much/any of the work tbh, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for pointing that out! I'll switch it over. We don't have any sets of steps yet because there's no point in it going ahead until we're 100% certain that it will, and there's still opposition from some – so maybe it will be a moot point DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that directionality will work. Change will happen if the clear sets of steps are created first, to be presented to gain community consensus. CMD (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5

Pesto (penguin)

Pesto (penguin) now has an image, would it be possible to change his hook into an image hook? I know that Prep 5 already has an image hook, so if necessary, it's ok to move Pesto to later. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopened. Will explain myself at Template:Did you know nominations/Pesto (penguin).--Laun chba ller 15:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dezik and Tsygan

@Di (they-them): Hi, I just promoted this but made a bold edit of changing "earth" to the uppercase in this edit. I had to inform you here because I forgot I was supposed to ping nominators in the edit summary informing them of changes, however small, on their hooks. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Di (they-them) (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, thank you for notifying the nominator! It's really a helpful thing to do and prevents a ton of drama here on this talk. Valereee (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editing reviewer instructions to include DYK200

Would there be any objections to editing the Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions to mention WP:DYK200, perhaps "... that the hook is interesting." to "... that the hook is under 200 characters and interesting."? CMD (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

go right ahead :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great, done! CMD (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

200 characters applies differently to multinoms and I can see that being misinterpreted, so I've changed it to short enough.--Laun chba ller 10:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7

Europapa

@DimensionalFusion, Sekundenlang, Nascar9919, and Onceinawhile: The source says a "contestant" was disqualified. The hook says "song". Are those the same thing? RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Sekundenlang (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes them such @Sekundenlang:, given that October Rain had been de facto banned earlier in the year?--Laun chba ller 08:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For October Rain, only the song was banned/disqualified, for Europapa, both the song and the artist were. --Sekundenlang (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Botched discussion archival at Template:Did you know nominations/Asik-Asik Falls

Somebody please help me close this nom page, which PSHAW didn't seem to archive properly upon my promotion of its image hook to Preo 6. Thanks, Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Pinging @Theleekycauldron:.--Laun chba ller 20:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Launchballer. I was wondering what happened back there? I did use PSHAW properly. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

looks like someone inserted whitespace into the top of the page. I guess i'll include something for that... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was added in this edit by you.--Laun chba ller 07:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it deemed OK to be misleading in DYK hooks?

On the Giorgina Reid DYK nomination, it was approved with "The hook is intended to be misleading/provoking, but I think it's appropriate given that she wrote a book titled How To Hold Up a Bank."

DYK is not buzzfeed or some form of internet tabloid, it's supposed to have interesting hooks that are accurate. 2A0E:CB01:72:B200:189:FFA8:B07A:BB0D (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The last slot in each set is traditionally given greater latitude. See WP:QUIRKY. RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can have a humorous or wacky hook that isn't a lie. 2A0E:CB01:72:B200:189:FFA8:B07A:BB0D (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:ERRORS

... that Giorgina Reid patented a technique for holding up banks?

Not according to the article she didn't. Reid originally developed the reed-trench terracing technique to fortify her ocean cottage in Rocky Point following a 1962 nor'easter storm. The system protected her house the following year and then her neighbors' afterwards. Reid patented the system in 1965, and wrote a book titled How To Hold Up a Bank Or are we using "holding up" here in the sense of "fortifying", because if so that's really misleading, even for a quirky. Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article wasn't clear enough - the name of the book is a play on words, as it's about shoreline protection, ie, "banks" meaning, for example, a sandbank.

I have edited the article to clarify the issue. The hook is actually quite clever IMO as it's both accurate and amusing. Gatoclass (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also find the hook fine, it's perhaps misleading in the sense that it plays with expectations, but it doesn't do that in a way that's inaccurate. CMD (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the hook is fine, but the article is a bit misleading because the section ends with "Twenty-six years ago she said it could be done. It's done" in 1996, but according to Montauk Point Light further work was needed in 2006 and $44 million was spent on renewing protection from 2021 to 2023. TSventon (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the hook, too. Valereee (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a really funny hook, I wish more were like that. If its misleading its in a harmless way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's misleading in the right way - because it's both 100% accurate, and misleading in the kind of way that will make people laugh when they realize how they've been fooled. And yes, hooks that good are always in short supply :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say more playfully ambiguous than misleading, but yeah this is the sort of thing that brings people joy Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a play on words. It's a joke. It got me to click on the article earlier, and I had a great laugh and a more pleasant morning. DYK is a trivia-about-recently-created-or-updated-articles section that exists for the fun of readers and editors. A reader who checks DYK on the regular has an expectation that it'll be silly every now and then, not that it'll be constantly dour and humorless. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hydrangeans: right on. Every time this comes up, I feel like I'm in a conversation that goes like this:

"Hey, it says 'gullible' on the ceiling."

looks up: "No, it says 'gullible on the ceiling' on the ceiling."

"Aha, gotcha! Hahahaha! See, because it says 'gullible' on the ceiling... get it?"

"It doesn't say 'gullible' on the ceiling."

"Right, it's a play on words! And that you're gullible."

"But it's not funny. It doesn't just say 'gullible', it says something entirely different. Why did you lie to me?"

"That's the joke."

"The joke is that you're lying?"

"It's not lying, I'm just trying to have fun! Besides, it really does say 'gullible'."

"I trust you to tell the truth. I don't see why you're lying. You can be funny without lying."

"Okay, jeez, guess you're not into jokes."

Tabloids and clickbait have a bad reputation because they promise a good read with lies and then give you boringness or slop or more lies. That's not what's happening here. We're promising a good read and then the conclusion – despite it not being what you expected, which is not the same as it being untrue – is still satisfying! Because wordplay is fun! And if you think it isn't fun, well, you don't have to have fun if you don't want to. But I'm going to keep being fun. Great hook, Legoktm, keep 'em coming :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 503: / Line 503: @@
 :{{space|5}} "Hey, it says 'gullible' on the ceiling."
 :{{space|25}} ''looks up'': "No, it says 'gullible on the ceiling' on the ceiling."
-:{{space|5}} "Aha, gotcha! Hahahaha!"
+:{{space|5}} "Aha, gotcha! Hahahaha! See, because it says 'gullible' on the ceiling... get it?"
 :{{space|25}} "It doesn't say 'gullible' on the ceiling."
-:{{space|5}} "Right, the joke is that <em>you're</em> gullible."
+:{{space|5}} "Right, it's a play on words! And that <em>you're</em> gullible."
 :{{space|25}} "But it's not funny. It doesn't just say 'gullible', it says something entirely different. Why did you lie to me?"
 :{{space|5}} "That's the joke."