Wikipedia talk: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}}

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

Shootings of Sydney Land and Nehemiah Kauffman (nom)

I think we'll need some extra eyes on this one to get it unstuck. At issue is this cited source from the Toronto Sun, and whether it's reliable. Thoughts appreciated :) (cc StonyBrook) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh wow @Theleekycauldron:. I just read the names now and I can say that I know of this case through Sydney Land's mother (Connie Hagler Land). I do not know CHL personally but I come across her messages because she has been campaigning for justice. I am not sure I have time but will see if I can make time to look at the article and nomination concerns; of course others with more time available are also welcome to check. Bruxton (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I have a lot of issues with this. The first one is Doug Poppa and the Baltimore Post-Examiner. Have a look at this article which is used here. It starts off normally, but look where it goes half-way through as Poppa veers off into a personal-opinion rant about the police department ("Shame on you Metro Police / Wow, what the hell is going on in this case / This is a disgrace"). This reporter, whose articles are used many times, does this is pretty much all of his stuff (i.e. here ("That is extremely disturbing to me. I believe that there is much more to Tobiasson and her daughter Sarah’s involvement in the homicide case." - I mean, wow). A look at Poppa's recent output shows that it mostly seems to be about UFO sightings.

Also, timelines. In the lead paragraph we have "as of January 2023 no arrests had been made in the killings of Land and Kauffman." - that's a year ago. As regards Valentine, we have " As of August 2019, he remained incarcerated at Warm Springs Correctional Center on the firearms charges." - that's four years ago. And as I said at ERRORS, I also have issues with "committed suicide" in the hook; given the quote from the deceased ("If I wind up dead, remember I wasn't suicidal.") we do not use that phrase in the article, saying instead that her death was "ruled a suicide". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Kite (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Thanks for the message. Do you think that editing can overcome these issues? I noticed that the article needs to be tightened up - I edited a bit of the lead just now. Bruxton (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, almost certainly, but I think it'd take a bit of work. Getting the timeline into shape, removing anything that's solely sourced to BPE (the tabloidy stuff really needs trimming anyway) and making sure everything is up to date. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this Black Kite. Back on November 8, I proposed the following ALT to address your concerns: ... that six years after Sydney Land and her boyfriend were shot to death, both her mother and a judge friend who took an interest in the investigation were found dead of gunshot wounds? As far as the timeline goes, those were the absolute latest dates I could find in the sources available to me (there is more updated info on the person of interest in this source, as well as verification of the judge's quote, but honestly I was hesitant to use it due to WP:NYPOST). In regards to Poppa, I'm not familiar with the UFO stuff, but his credentials as an investigative reporter seem solid. I was very careful to steer clear of any speculative language he used, dealing only with the hard facts and using attribution where needed. StonyBrook _babble 05:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Striking the ALT per latest improvements to the article. See nom for ALT2 (modified) or ALT1. StonyBrook _babble 13:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

NZ MP mass nomination: thank you

Well, this has been a massive undertaking. The New Zealand MP mass nomination from 17 October is going to close soon and thanks are in order. Firstly, DrThneed as my co-nominator; it's been most enjoyable to work alongside you once more on a big project. The various bios have been worked on by many editors, and apart from DrThneed and me, we have Adabow, Chocmilk03, HenryCrun15, Idiosyncritic, Kiwichris, Lcmortensen, MerrilyPutrid, Moondragon21, MW691, Nurg, Pakoire, Paora, Vaticidalprophet, and Villian Factman to thank. Various DYK volunteers have commented on the overall process and helped out in various ways, including BlueMoonset, Chipmunkdavis, Fritzmann2002, Kiwichris, Narutolovehinata5, Urve, and Vaticidalprophet. Thank you also to the reviewers, which were 97198, AirshipJungleman29, Bremps, Chocmilk03, Hameltion, Knightoftheswords281, Miraclepine, Queen of Hearts, Sammi Brie, and Shivashree. Lastly, we had a couple of good souls chip in with some QPQs: Lightburst and theleekycauldron. I hope that this list is complete and I do apologise if I've missed anyone. This is just those contributors listed on the nomination page; I acknowledge that there have been a number of discussion at WT:DYK – thank you to those contributors, too.

To me, this collaborative working is what makes Wikipedia such an enjoyable place. Thanks, everyone – you are all awesome! And greetings of the season; hope you are all enjoying some well-deserved IRL holidays. Schwede66 03:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that's been a while. Thank you, Thneed, et al. for your contributions to Wikipedia. And what can I say except you're welcome for the review? Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 03:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It took quite a while but I'm happy this is finally about to cross the finish line. I do think the compromise we were able to work out, with there being a mass nom but some of the best possibilities being spun off into their own individual hooks, worked out in the end. Especially when how the main multi-article hook took a long time to be completed while the individual hooks were able to already be featured on the Main Page quickly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for looking after this @Schwede66 - sorry I have been MIA the last few days, very unreliable Wifi our AirBNB has put paid to Christmas editing for me so far! A huge thankyou from me to everyone that chipped in with getting the original articles up to DYK standard, contributing QPQs, reviewing and polishing etc. It's lovely to be part of such a big effort! @Narutolovehinata5 I find it amusing that the experience I had with this multihook this time around is quite different to last election three years ago. I'm pretty sure it all happened very fast last time, with people leaping in to review really fast (not going to strain my Wifi trying to check though). DrThneed (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Great job, everybody. It's nice to contribute to part of a larger group effort. Bremps... 15:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

As a bystander, I have always been fascinated my these multi-nom hooks. Great example of collaboration. Happy holidays! Ktin (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Nice job team! — Knightoftheswords 22:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Schwede66 has said People will return to normal from 8 January onwards January 8 is about the time to run this which puts the hook in Prep 7. I am not sure I will have the time to go through all of the articles prior to promotion but I can try. Maybe another editor can assist with final checks? Also three hooks are in prep 7 now, how many hooks will we run in the set with the mega-hook? Bruxton (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Schwede66, @DrThneed & others: thanks for all the hard work! Looking forward to seeing this up on the main page. :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

BTW, I've dropped the mass nomination into my sandbox to simulate the main page. With 6 hooks, the main page is about balanced. (there's currently one hook empty; you've got to add it manually to my sandbox to check the impact) Schwede66 02:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66: I added the sixth hook to your sandbox. It appears we could fit another hook. Bruxton (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Looking good! Schwede66 21:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Requesting guidance

I am requesting guidance on a series of hooks by the same editor currently in the nominations pile and the approved pile. User:Owais Al Qarni has produced a series of articles on books, which to me generally seem to be written in non-encyclopedic tones, often encompassing MOS:PUFFERY and MOS:WEASEL. I would like some of the regulars here to provide clarity on whether I am seeing things, and if I am not, whether the articles all need to be worked on to meet WP:DYKCOMPLETE. The articles and nominations are:

• Islamic Revival in British India (nom); approved by reviewer Pbritti
  • (This was the first article I noticed, and I tagged it for issues. The nominator has subsequently removed some of the more overt puffery)
• The Ulama in Contemporary Islam (nom); commented on by Viriditas and RoySmith
• Al-Wafa bi Asma al-Nisa (nom); approved by reviewer Queen of Hearts
• Perfecting Women (nom)
• History of Darul Uloom Deoband (nom)
• Al-Raid (nom)
• Islam, Youth, and Modernity in The Gambia (nom)
• Resisting Regimes (nom)
• Da'watul Haq (nom); commented on by Narutolovehinata5 and TheAafi/AafiOnMobile.

I do not know whether this is the standard for book-related articles, and so I bring this here, instead of spreading it across a dozen DYK and talk pages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

My general impression, clicking around a few of these, is that the articles sit in the uncanny valley w/r/t looking like Wikipedia articles, but they seem to be basically encyclopedically written (if a little too deferential too the author, I imagine that was picked up from the academic sources). "This looks funny" is the reason a DYK nom is challenged a not-insignificant percentage of the time, so I won't begrudge you if that's what it is, but it'd be a shame if all of these ended in failure despite them being mostly on-target in the important ways. Are there any quotes that stick out to you? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they should end in failure—just that the puffery should be rewritten theleekycauldron. Al-Wafa bi Asma al-Nisa has been approved; it contains sentences like

• "Beyond its scholarly weight, this opus reshapes the landscape of hadith scholarship",
• "It serves as a catalyst for contemplation, delving into nuanced inquiries",
• "the initial volume immerses readers in an exploration of the intricate world",
• "Enhancing this narrative are captivating visual aids",
• "facsimiles of pertinent certificates offer a tangible glimpse into their scholarly pursuits",
• "The biographical journey commences with an in-depth focus"
• "volumes 11-13 shed illuminating insights ... Subsequent volumes [present] a mosaic"

etc. Additionally—and I've just noticed this—the "Content" and "Methodology" section verges upon WP:CLOP from this source.

There is also a problem with excessive elegant variation. Look at all the times scholars are mentioned in Islamic Revival in British India: "According to Francis Robinson", "Amedeo Maiello observes", "Yohanan Friedmann identifies", "Yohanan Friedmann urges", "Christopher Shackle highlights", "Gowher Rizvi underscores", "William R. Roff sees it", "Christopher Shackle positions it", " Yohanan Friedmann acknowledges", "Francis Robinson commends", "Amedeo Maiello praises", "Gopal Krishna opines", "The Daily Star rates it", "Annemarie Schimmel criticizes". No two verbs are the same! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good argument for cutting down on the puffery a bit. I would support efforts to trim and replace. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the biggest policy problem here is value judgements in wikivoice – those are a policy problem per WP:VOICE, these statements and works should be treated more neutrally. The ELEVAR and academese are irksome, but not the top priority here, imo. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I've looked a bit further at potential CLOP issues, after noticing it above, and it's not that great. Just comparing the last sentences of the "Theme" section from Islamic Revival in British India with the cited source: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Article

Source

"The author adeptly demonstrates that Sufism played a pivotal role in the school's spiritual life, often intertwining with roles like Mufti and Shaykh. Deobandis, in their role as shaykhs, challenged the spiritual leadership of Sufis associated with medieval saints' tombs. While opposing perceived deviant Sufi customs, they endorsed practices like contemplating the shaykh's image for spiritual concentration, distributed amulets, and were credited with kurämät. A significant portion of Deoband's fatawa also delved into matters related to Sufi practices."

"The author has shown that Sufism was an important element in the spiritual life of the school and that the roles of mufti and shaykh were frequently performed by one and the same person. The Deobandis provided, in their role as shaykhs, a spiritual leadership which challenged that of the Sufis associated with tombs of medieval saints. While opposing Sufi customs which they considered deviant, they encouraged practices such as tasawwur-i shaykh (conceiving of the shaykh's image as an incentive for spiritual concentration), distributed amulets, and were credited with karamat. A considerable part of the fatdaw issued at Deoband also dealt with matters related to Sufi practices."

That's way too close to the original source and needs to be completely rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I could see how The Ulama in Contemporary Islam might appear that way, perhaps even promotional, but looks might be deceiving. I can't say for sure just yet whether there is a problem. The issue is that this is a niche subject that requires a bit of academic expertise, so I think we would need an expert on religion to take a closer look. I will say that it is well written, almost professional in tone. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I've recently taken a couple stabs at writing about modern religious-interest academic books (one has run on DYK, another is waiting). The nom that I reviewed did seem a bit on the praising side, but I felt it was sufficiently comprehensive and neutral. This is a hard balance, as academic reviews on niche subjects tend to be very polarized. I say continue tagging sections/articles when you feel something is up, but I wouldn't say there's enough here to broadly reject these noms. A valid concern, though, to be sure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• This is an issue separate from the guidance being asked here, but the nominator now has over five nominations, meaning they now need to provide a QPQ. However, they have not provided a QPQ for their newer nominations. I'm not sure which nomination is the one where they need to start providing QPQs, but given that over a week has passed since the most recent ones, they need to provide a QPQ for them to pass regardless of the concerns raised above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

  Yes exactly. It becomes very difficult for a reviewer to understand which nomination would be having a requirement of a QPQ. These articles in my opinions should go to the GOCE for extensive copyediting and this is as @Narutolovehinata5 says, separate from the guidance being asked here. Mere copyediting should not be a reason of getting these nominations rejected. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've had a look and the above list of DYK nominations is complete. The order of nominations was slightly out and I've adjusted that. You get five free nominations; from nomination 6 onwards, you need to provide a QPQ. After being prompted for one, you have a week to provide the QPQ; after that, the nomination can and should be rejected if nothing's forthcoming. Schwede66 20:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

• I've left the nominator a final message on whether or not they will be able to provide QPQs. If we don't receive a response, or if the response is negative, we may have to close the nominations starting from Al-Raid (the first five nominations would not be affected by this as a QPQ is not needed for them). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  I’d be more hardnosed than that. If someone refuses to provide QPQs from nomination 6 onwards, I’d regard that as GAMING. That’s not on, and I’d thus reject the prior nominations as well. Schwede66 19:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  And since it’s a requirement to issue a warning to a user when GAMING is suspected, here’s a ping to serve as one: Owais Al Qarni. Schwede66 19:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Narutolovehinata5 and Schwede66: Hello, everyone. Please be kind. Although I've been on Wikipedia for over three years, I recently started contributing to DYK. I wasn't familiar with QPQs before, which led me to ask Narutolovehinata5 if retracting four out of nine nominations is feasible. Could you kindly provide guidance on the withdrawal process? Currently, I aim to keep five and close four. I've gained some techniques on crafting perfect DYK hooks, and I'm committed to providing QPQs for each of my DYK contributions soon.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  There is no need to withdraw Owais Al Qarni, you just need to review some other DYK nominations and review a few of your articles for close paraphrasing (see above table for an example). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  I have a lot of QPQ I can donate so we can avoid having to reject anything. Can I donate some of my reviews to allow this to go forward, or is that against the rules? Ping me to let me know if I can help save this. Viriditas (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Viriditas: If possible, please consider donating 4 QPQs to me. Now, I want to address my 9 DYK nominations before I start reviewing other nominations.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  I would love to, but I don't think it is allowed. If you can get the okay, you can have them. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  I definitely would think it would not be allowed. It would be highly unfair to other editors to allow Owais to have as many as nine freebie nominations without being required to do even a single QPQ review when other editors only get five at most. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

  Right, I understand. I don’t see it as an issue of fairness, but I get that others do. Forward and onward… Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

• I have now marked the four most recent nominations for closure due to a lack of a QPQ, although they may continue if Owais is able to provide QPQs for each of them. The other five nominations are not affected as the QPQ requirement only kicked in starting with Al-Raid, though the other issues raised above remain to be addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• @AirshipJungleman29: What is your current evaluation of "Al-Wafa bi Asma al-Nisa"?–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I have trimmed further, and it is now acceptable to my eye. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• @Owais Al Qarni: This is just to make things clear: will you be able to provide QPQs for the four nominations that require them? Meaning, will you be able to review four nominations by other editors and provide links to them in your four relevant nominations? If you need help with reviewing editors here are willing to help. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Asking four additional QPQs is seriously unfair. It appears Owais is not enough interested in reviewing four other nominations (I was willing to donate one QPQ subject to his willingness of reviewing other three nominations. Doesn't appear to be so. As such, I'd be glad to take over all the four nominations, provide QPQs and help address any DYK questions in the nominations. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  Considering QPQs are expected of every DYK nominator, I think they're perfectly fair TheAafi. Still, there is no guideline that says you cannot provide QPQs for other editors (it was recently done for the NZ MPs hook), so please provide them for the three remaining nominations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29 What I mean is that asking someone to donate a single QPQ to help understand the process is fair, but more than one, and four, doesn't seem fine. Given your suggestion, I'll overtake the nominations that I'm interested in. ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  TheAafi, QPQs are not intended so that the user understands the process, they're intended to make the process function. Knowing Wikipedia users in general, they would be more than happy to nominate and leave others to do the grunt work of actually reviewing nominations. A massive backlog would build up, and DYK would stop functioning. Thanks for taking on the responsibility for the other nominations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  TheAafi, please provide the QPQs, or the nominations will be closed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC) I see there was a conversation on your talk page. Apologies for the ping. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29, I had earlier though to takeover three of the four nominations, but given what @Narutolovehinata5 said on my talk page and here, makes more sense, I've decided to only work on one of the four nominations. Best regards, ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 17:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  I do not consider the proposal to require four QPQs unfair. If anything, allowing Owais to have nine freebie nominations instead of the usual five is highly unfair to other newcomers to DYK. Other editors, once they have made five nominations, are required to provide QPQs. One of the reasons the QPQ requirement exists is so that DYK regulars have the skills to both nominate and review articles, it's not meant to be a one-way street. Requiring other newcomers to do QPQs after only five nominations, but giving Owais a pass with nine nominations, could lead to concerns about special treatment and the like. Remember that DYK is supposed to not give special treatment to any editor: regulars, newcomers, and those in between are meant to be treated the same.

  I would be open to The Aafi becoming a co-nominator and assisting with the nominations. In fact, I would even encourage it. However, the QPQ thing is something that feels unfair. At most, I think we could allow one QPQ donation as a compromise, but allowing Owais to have multiple freebies, out of an apparent lack of interest in reviewing nominations, when other editors are not given the same treatment, not only could raise concerns about double standards, but could even encourage future editors to do something similar (as in, make multiple nominations but decline to provide additional QPQs over a lack of interest or skills). At the very least, I would like to see Owais review, with assistance if needed, some nominations, at least to give them experience in the reviewing side of DYK.

  As for the NZ MPs hook, that's a completely different circumstance. For one thing, DrThneed has already contributed to DYK before and has already provided multiple QPQs. Indeed, some of the hooks, including four that were originally part of the hook but were since nominated individually, had QPQs by her. In such a case, donations are just fine (and indeed, in this case, was needed for practicality purposes) given that DrThneed already did her part and contributed QPQs. By contrast, Owais has not provided a single QPQ nor has started one, so their cases are not identical. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

  Seconding the concerns about avoiding even the appearance of a double standard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Triassosculda

@AirshipJungleman29 @Abdullah raji @PrimalMustelid The article doesn't say anything about April. Also, missing an end-of-sentence citation. RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the source again it seems to have been published on the last day of March rather than April. Also which sentence needs the extra citation? Olmagon (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The article has to say that Triassosculda was discovered in March 2023, and that sentence needs a citation to the source which supports that statement. And once that happens, then the hook needs to be changed to also say March. RoySmith (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Stephanie of Courtenay

@AirshipJungleman29, Surtsicna, and Johnson524: the hook says "divorced", the article says "annulled". Those are not the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You learn something every day. Perhaps "... that when her niece's marriage to the king of Jerusalem was annulled ..."? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the hook in the queue. I'm not entirely happy with the wording, but at least it matches what the article says now. If somebody has better wording, go for it. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the more I look at this, the less I'm happy with the hook at all. Surely we can find something to say about the subject herself, rather than her niece? RoySmith (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

An alternative hook was proposed. Surtsicna (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The Chequers, Potters Bar

@AirshipJungleman29, JacobTheRox, and Whispyhistory: CANR/whatpub does not strike me as a WP:RS. And the "only" claim is similar to the "first", "biggest", etc kinds of claims in that it's almost impossible to verify. And certainly not from a bloggy sitle like whatpub. This hook seems problematic. RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• The CAMRA site is the blog of the local branch, and whatpub is WP:UGC (there's even a "submit updates" button). The hook may well be true, but it's not well sourced. Actually, I'm not even sure the subject is notable, but that's a separate discussion. Black Kite (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith, @Black Kite: thank you for your concerns. I understand the problem with the hook being a first/biggest/only, but I disagree with the idea that the sources are not WP:RS. Reference:

Middlewood, Les (2019). "A pint at the local #13 The Chequers, Potters Bar". CAMRA. Archived from the original on 23 May 2022. Retrieved 4 November 2023.

(reference 5 on the page) is a publication in the form of a news report by CAMRA. It is a reliable, independent, published source, as as necessitated at WP:RS.

Reference 7 on the page ("Chequers, Potters Bar". whatpub.com. Retrieved 2023-10-25.) is by WhatPub, the reliability of which was discussed at this RFC. The conclusion was that it was not WP:UGC, because "updates" that users could enter are simply suggestions to a team of reviewers. The source was considered appropriate for use on the page, and is used in many other places on Wikipedia. As User:Banks Irk said, CAMRA has a number of other publications, including books and periodicals, published over decades.

If there are any other issues with the article you would like to discuss, please don't hesitate as I want nothing more than to see the article on DYK! Kind regards, JacobTheRox (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

That RFC also says, "What they do in terms of actual editorial oversight of WhatPub is a mystery". I'd be inclined to accept it for non-controversial facts within their area of expertise, but a statement like "was the only pub in the UK with traffic lights in its car park" is controversial because we have experience with statements like this ending up to be wrong. Also, the distribution of traffic lights in car parks is probably not something the WhatPub staff are experts in. This has all the hallmarks of an urban legend; it sounds fun, and people keep repeating it, but there's no real proof. RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Whatpub is not a reliable source. Anyone who's on the committee of their local CAMRA branch can edit this information, and in my experience, it mostly comes from people's own research, at best with help from local historians (but most of the time from things they hear about pubs being opened, closed etc). Definitely WP:UGC. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Plus, most of the History section is almost word-for-word from the https://southherts.camra.org.uk/ source. Certainly WP:CLOP, possibly into WP:G12 territory. Given the sourcing problem above, I don't see how we can run with this. RoySmith (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree... article needs a whole rewrite. Whispyhistory (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

This disagrees with you - 16.7% is still pretty high I guess, but I'm working on ce the article now. Surely WP:G12 needs a lot higher percentage than that! JacobTheRox (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Don't just look at the big number at the top. Read the text and compare it to the source. For example, "The Chequers pub originally occupied the building across the road from the current site." is essentially the same sentence as "The original Chequers pub occupied a building opposite", but earwig doesn't pick it up because some of the words have been rearranged. It's like that for the rest of the section. That's WP:CLOP. RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I realize this was very last minute, but I just noticed that the problems raised here still hadn't been addressed, so I pulled the hook. RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Julia Figueredo

@AirshipJungleman29, Krisgabwoosh, and Mary Mark Ockerbloom: I'm concerned about the hook for two reasons. From a DYK nitpicky rules point of view, the hook fact is buried in a note; I'm not sure if that meets our requirements. But more importantly, Figueredo is notable for having been elected to national office, not for being a midwife. And the hook isn't even about her being a midwife, it's a commentary on the social status of midwives in Bolivian society. I don't see running that kind of hook. RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Of all my nominations, this one is admittedly the largest stretch between hook and article content – the original version didn't even include Figueredo's name. While interesting on its own, I think I can get behind your reasoning, and perhaps I can circle back to this hook when – I don't know – I write an article on midwives or something.

If I were to write a new hook more closely aligned with the article, how would I go about doing that. A re-nomination now probably exceeds the seven day rule, unless an exception can be made there. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hooks get rehashed at the last minute all the time. Just suggest some alternates here on this thread. Reading through the article, maybe:

ALT2: ... that Julia Figueredo was the first indigenous woman to be elected president of La Paz's parliamentary delegation?

RoySmith (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Krisgabwoosh and RoySmith: Confirming that ALT2 is stated and cited in the article. I would be tempted to add "In 2013" to the hook. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would prefer to leave the "in 2013" off. The goal of a hook is to entice somebody into clicking on the link to read the article. Adding the year into the hook isn't going to make it more enticing. RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

  I can get behind this hook – without "in 2013" – but linking "La Paz" to the article on La Paz Department (Bolivia) to avoid confusion with the city of La Paz. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  I've replaced the hook with ALT2, with the La Paz Department (Bolivia) link as suggested. RoySmith (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Poison: Iitai Koto mo Ienai Konna Yo no Naka wa

@AirshipJungleman29, IanTEB, and Lullabying: We're stating something in wiki voice based on a blog post. I know this is the quirky slot, but I'm not sure it gives us that much latitude. RoySmith (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

• The source attached to the hook sentence is indeed a blog, but there's a Mashable reference [1] near the end of the section which appears OK. Mashable is OK for pop culture content (see RSN discussion here). Perhaps the ref should be moved to the first paragraph of that section as well. Black Kite (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
• If this refers to Internet Watch: they are a part of Impress Watch, which was listed as reliable on WP:VGRS, so I figured it was OK to use. Even if internet Watch isn't reliable (there was no real discussion on the VG project and the author name isn't a fantastic sign), tons of replacements are available: the above mentioned Mashable article, Oricon, The TV (published by Kadokawa Corporation), brief mention in Billboard Japan, and probably a few more. IanTEB (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Today's DYK isn't actually something to 'know'?

Why is it notable that one random journalist, with no expertise in linguistics, made the exaggerated claim that 'Geordie Greep has an accent that has been described as "geographically unclassifiable"?' As a native Londoner, that's a load of rubbish. He is clearly speaking in MLE (Multicultural London English) with some sort of lisp/minor speech impediment. I guess you can say that MLE is by its definition geographically unclassifiable, but its also a very common and well established accent, and this DYK makes it seems like he sounds so unusual. I just do not understand how this off-handed comment that one journalist said casually is now front page of wikipedia? FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

His article itself even states 'raised in Walthamstow. He has considered his upbringing in the town beneficial, citing its cultural diversity as "brilliant for a young person" '. This almost confirms for sure that he is speaking MLE as 1. That accent/dialect is spoken widely in areas like Walthamstow and 2. He states explicitly how much the many different cultures in London influenced him and 'raised him', which is by definition where the MLE accent comes from. FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems like even less than trivia. Uninteresting and possibly insulting. Why wasn't an actual fact such as that he met his band mates at school or that his interest in playing guitar started with a video game used instead? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Prep 1

Die Kuranten

• @PrimalMustelid, Kazamzam, and Launchballer: This is another one of those problematic "first" hooks. How do we know for sure there weren't any previous Jewish newspapers? Has somebody done a comprehensive survey of all Jewish journalism for the past 5000 or so years? I see @Schwede66: brought this point up in the nom page but apparently was overruled. Skimming the nom, it looks like more attention was given to finding an interesting hook than to finding a verifiably accurate one. RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • RoySmith, see also above, where "oldest" was changed to "first" after promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

    There's no fundamental difference between "first" and "oldest". Both are claims that there were no Jewish newspapers before this one, which is difficult or impossible to verify. RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  I guess I said my piece already. Schwede66 02:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  @RoySmith: usually, we have to go through the original-research ringer on these because newspapers are too quick on the draw to declare something the first – but I think the academic sourcing is solid. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Does someone mind slightly altering the phrasing of this hook to be shorter. See my suggestion:

• Original: ... that in her 2021 The Origins of Early Christian Literature, Robyn Faith Walsh found that German Romanticists were in part responsible for modern scholarly assumptions about the gospels?
• Shortened: ... that in her 2021 The Origins of Early Christian Literature, Robyn Faith Walsh found German Romanticists partially responsible for modern scholarly assumptions about the gospels?

Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Dolly de Leon

@Pseud 14, MaranoFan, and Bruxton:

• ... that Dolly de Leon (pictured) was the first Filipino to be nominated for a Golden Globe or a BAFTA Award?

Both the article and the source say that de Leon was the first Filipino nominated for Best Supporting Actress (BAFTA) and Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in Any Motion Picture (GG). This hook needs to reflect that distinction. Z1720 (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720, MaranoFan, and Bruxton: IMO the hook is fine as it is. De Leon is recognized for being the first Filipino to have been nominated for either awards in any category as mentioned in article. These sources also suggest that De Leon made history as the first Filipino talent to be nominated for a Golden Globe award and the first Filipina to be nominated for a BAFTA, without distinction to a role/category. The hook appears to be succinct as promoted/edited by the DYK promoter(s). Pseud 14 (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: The source used in the article made the distinction. I don't want to run a hook with two sources in disagreement. Are there other sources that can clarify? I'm not looking for anonymity; if the majority of sources say de Leon was the first Filipino nominated in any category, then it can run. Z1720 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: I've replaced that source with the two sources listed above. Ref 56 and 57. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: Replacing the sources in the article doesn't satisfy my concerns, because I know there is a source that contradicts this hook. Since this is an extraordinary claim, there must have been other outlets that discussed her achievement with these nominations. Are there other sources that specify that she is the first Filipino ever to be nominated for these two awards, and not just for these specific categories? Z1720 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: then we can just modify the hook to say for a Golden Globe and BAFTA for Best Supporting Actress. Every source Ive looked at mentions she is the first Filipino nominated in the category. To avoid ambiguity we can add the category if that is satisfies your concerns. I won’t have time to weed out every source that mention the same achievement, whether international or local publications. Please modify as you find fit. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bruxton: modified hook : Alt1 ... that Dolly de Leon (pictured) was the first Filipino to be nominated for a Golden Globe or a BAFTA Award for Best Supporting Actress? Pseud 14 (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I have used the above ALT in the queue. Admin are welcome to make further changes without consulting me, including reverting if sources state that she is the first Filipino ever to be nominated. Z1720 (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Unless the previous source says that other Filipinos had previously been nominated for other category awards, that source does not contradict the original hook, it just provides further specificity to what she was nominated for. Just saying. Kingsif (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I considered that too, but then I thought "Saying that it was the first Filipino ever would be a better statement than first Filipino in the category, so why add the qualifier?" Statements about being the first to something have been criticised on DYK, so I want to be extra careful in this instance. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Robert Ballagh

@SeoR, Pbritti, and AirshipJungleman29: There are numerous unreferenced passages (marked with cn tags) and 4 cite errors in the references. These will need to be resolved before this appears on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I restored the version as the article appeared before the substantial edit warring and as it stood on the nom's approval. If the editors involved can't agree to keep the page stable and maintain references, I would like to lodge my withdrawal of approval for the nom and would encourage a DYK clerk to swap it for another hook. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I have also removed some material that appears to have been improperly cited and moved one citation in order to demonstrate that it verifies content that was otherwise without reference. I have some suspicion that a great deal of the citation-less material may have been verifiable, but given the edit warring and that this a BLP, I have removed it until it is demonstrated as appropriately referenced. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello all. I am sorry this is giving extra work. It *was* thoroughly reviewed - thanks to the two fellow editors involved - and approved in a stable form, as the record shows (13 Nov - 29 Dec, 99% unchanged). Last week, another editor noted some concerns about aspects of it being a bit detailed, and made some substantial edits - and to avoid edit warring, I made a few modest further edits and stepped back, keeping hands off it for some days now (so it stabilised again, aside from a couple of IP edits). I did suggest that the best bet might be to leave major editing until after DYK, to avoid complications, and maybe we could just agree that - we have had a good conversation about our writing approaches. @Hesperian Nguyen:, would you agree to wait until say 7 Jan, and then edit away? Between now and then, the only edits being to close any referencing gaps, for example? SeoR (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there was warring and I didn't know of the date for the DYK. (I still can't seem to see where this is listed? How to find out about this?). I think the page is not in great shape yet and needs work for reasons already discussed on its Talk. I can wait on more editing if it helps make the page better in the long run. Regards, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hesperian Nguyen: Unfortunately, there's no automatic way that you'll be notified that the page will run at DYK (unless there's a tool/script I haven't seen before). However, a quick way to check if something is up to run at DYK soon is, if you see there is a DYK nom that's transcluded on the article talk page, seeing if the discussion has been closed (usually, it'll be all purple) but there is not notice at the top of the talk page that notes the day it ran at DYK. Generally, that'll mean it is in a prep or queue to run within two weeks. As for holding off on edits, I can't tell you not to edit an article–this is a collaborative project. However, page instability may preclude this article from running at DYK if issues are introduced. I'm glad that discussion seems to be proceeding civilly and effectively. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all, and I agree, this proceeds in a good way. Then I propose that I go ahead and fix the referencing issues noted by fellow editors, leaving all other editing for other hands after DYK. I'm just back to work but given how soon Main Page appearance is, I will prioritise doing that tonight. SeoR (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720:, I am happy to report that after a good efficient discussion above, the article is in compliant state, with references supplied for all of the noted items, except one, which I think is unnecessary to put back (it was about a family member rather than the subject). I re-sourced, as my notes from the leading source were unavailable (cloud storage!). I still hope to secure one artistic image, but that will only add. I will do one last ref. check. SeoR (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I checked the article again and the citation and referencing concerns seem to have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

We need to be more willing to reject nominations if they are stuck or are unsuitable for DYK

One of the recurring issues with DYK, and one that helps contribute to DYK's large backlog, is that nominations often sit around for ages with little-to-no progress being made. In some cases, it's for reasons beyond anyone's control, such as reviewers being unwilling to review them. However, in cases where a review is ongoing but progress on addressing the nomination is slow, we need to be more proactive or at least willing to reject them. These stuck nominations often turn into time sinks when efforts and energy could instead be diverted to more urgent matters or nominations that need the attention. This of course does not mean we should automatically reject "stuck" nominations; sometimes they're stuck for understandable reasons. However, we do need to be more willing to reject them if they cannot be brought to standard within a reasonable standard.

Similarly, we also need to be more willing to reject nominations if the hook proposed, or the hooks proposed, are not suitable. For example, they either don't meet the interestingness criterion, or they are all unsuitable due to being inaccurate, unclear, or lacking proper sourcing. If an article simply does not have enough suitable material to base a hook, we should be more willing to reject these nominations, instead of trying to squeeze out hooks that in the end may not actually be that good of a hook and were only proposed just for the sake of there being a hook and the article passing.

I understand that in both cases, nominators' feelings may be hurt. This is understandable and we probably have all felt the feeling of disappointment or frustration if things don't go our way on DYK. But we have to work for the good of the encyclopedia, and especially on DYK, the interests of our readership should be above all, even if it may come at the expense of hurt feelings. Disappointment is understandable, but editors need to learn to move on from such cases and perhaps find another outlet for their efforts. Perhaps the article just wasn't right for DYK but it can mean more energy and effort to contribute more suitable material. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Couldn’t agree more. Schwede66 14:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Same here. But I'll add that I'm a lot more willing to put in effort to teach a new submitter how this works than to argue with an old hand who's just insisting on getting their way. RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Poll: is this hook interesting?

Did you know ...

• ... that coloratura soprano Anna Nekhames performed first in the Bolshoi Theatre's children's chorus, and in 2023 at the Oper Frankfurt as both Venus and Chief of the Gepopo in Ligeti's Le Grand Macabre?

Let's make a scale from 0 to 3, 0 = not interesting at all, 1 = partly interesting, 2 = interesting, 3 very interesting. I'd be interested if you said so without looking at the nomination (to avoid bias) which can easily be found on the article talk page if wanted. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

1.5? I'm not so excited about the first half of the hook. I assume many (if not most) performers make their debut in some kind of children's event, so nothing there to pique my interest. Reading over the article I found "She appeared as both Venus and Gepopo" to be the most interesting thing, and I see that's the second half of what you proposed, so my recommendation is to emphasize that. RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

0. Combining two unrelated facts in a hook is normally to be avoided anyway, a singer starting in a children's chorus is very meh, and "she appeared as both Venus and Gepopo" is only interesting if you don't know that this is nearly mandatory, i.e. the composer has specifically indicated that the roles should be played by the same person, as was done by Sarah Aristidou (Needcompany), Barbara Hannigan, Hila Baggio in Dresden, Sara Hershkowitz, Susanna Andersson, ... By the way, the claim in the article that she performed in the German premiere of the opera is wrong, as shown by the Dresden link. The actual German premiere seems to have been in Hannover. So, a hook combining one uninteresting part with one which only looks interesting if you don't know that this is the custom, to combine these two roles. Fram (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I still think the bit about playing both parts is interesting. My knowledge of music is limited, and of opera even more so. But I expect that's true of most of our readers. People usually complain that Gerda's hooks are only interesting if you know the musical backstory, so I can't get upset about a hook which is only interesting if you don't know the backstory. I do think this point should be mentioned in the article however. A good hook is a tease, but at least let the reader in on the joke when you get them to click. Le Grand Macabre says Gepopo, chief of espionage, sung by the same soprano who performed Venus; it might be good to clarify in that article that this is by design and noted in the score, as opposed to an oddity of one particular performance. @Grimes2: who looks like they've been the most recent maintainer of that article. RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

We could clarify that by saying: ... that coloratura soprano Anna Nekhames performed first in the Bolshoi Theatre's children's chorus, and in 2023 at the Oper Frankfurt the double role of Venus and Chief of the Gepopo in Ligeti's Le Grand Macabre? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

0.75, with a potential of 1.75; the only interesting part is the bit about playing both Venus and a chief of espionage. Everything before is filler fluff and should be trimmed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

0 Why does it matter that they played this role? It's like saying that a soldier participated in a battle, or an actor was a lead in a movie: their occupation is that they would be participating in an activity like this, so why is this important? What makes this event, or their participation in the event, special? A reader who is unfamiliar with this topic should realise why this is special from reading the hook. Z1720 (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Gepopo is one of the great coloratura roles in opera, so why not something like "performed as Gepopo an high, wailing aria, that consists of "code language"". (citation from the wiki article of the opera) Grimes2 (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

as written, 0 – doesn't really make me want to know more. If we just focused on the second half, I'd say 0.8. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd call it maybe a 0.5 ("very limited interest but only to non-experts, who probably won't be interested because they're non-experts"). Something like ... that Anna Nekhames played the dual roles of the goddess Venus and a chief spy in Le Grand Macabre with coloratura acrobatics that "seem[ed] to go beyond the vocal limits" would be minimally interesting, I think (maybe 1.25): I'm not a huge fan of "a reviewer said this" hooks but they're better than "a person did their job" ones. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd be a fan of that. Kingsif (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Support Grimes2 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Calling it a 1. But the interestingness isn't the problem for me, we have so many 1-level hooks now that I think upholding a higher standard isn't going to be practical. No, the issue is that this hook is a run-on sentence. I'd just cut the Bolshoi Theatre part to fix that (to make it "...Nekhames performed at the Oper..." - haven't seen the nom to know if this has been mentioned. Kingsif (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• For me, because I have a specific interest in opera—it's a 1.
• For a general audience, which DYKs should be targeting—it's unfortunately a flat 0, as far as I can tell. Remsense留 23:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Step 2 learning

From some responses above I gather that a shorter hook would be more welcome, so - cutting out where she came from, and her early activity on the stage of one of the top houses known in the world, where she had the chance to hear the top performers of that house:

• ALT1 ... that the Russian coloratura soprano Anna Nekhames performed the double role of Venus and Chief of the Gepopo in Ligeti's Le Grand Macabre in the 2023 production at the Oper Frankfurt?

Reflecting the wish to mention the kind of performance (which was not yet in the article when I wrote the first hook):

• ALT2 ... that the Russian soprano Anna Nekhames performed "coloratura acrobatic" in the double role of Venus and Chief of the Gepopo in Ligeti's Le Grand Macabre at the Oper Frankfurt?

Questions from me regarding the comments above:

1. Isn't the title "Le Grand Macabre" making curious, regardless of it being an opera?
2. Isn't Ligeti's centenary (in 2023 when I wrote the hook and the production of one of the key operas of the 20th century was staged - another one in Vienna) - the composer from whose music that of 2001: A Space Odyssey was drawn - reason enough to mention his name on Did you know at least this one time?
3. "highlight the variety of information" is one of five goals of DYK - is there a good reason to reject varied information? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Identifying something specific: there's a lot of proper nouns in the hook—and most people will not be immediately comfortable putting all of them in context. Many people will get halfway through and their eyes will glaze over because they don't really know what it's talking about.

Here's a thought: ideally a hook will have one or two unfamiliar names, one of them probably being the topic itself. Here's my try:

• ALTØ ... that in a 2023 production of Le Grand Macabre, soprano Anna Nekhames had to be "acrobatic" in her dual role as both Venus and the Chief of the Gepopo?

Remsense留 08:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a pretty good proposal actually. If others are fine with the proposal we can use that instead for the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I do wonder if a slightly-modified version, something like ALTØ1 ... that soprano Anna Nekhames had to be "acrobatic" in her dual role as both Venus and the Chief of the Gepopo in a 2023 production of Le Grand Macabre? would be better since it would mention Nekhames first and thus encourage readers to click on it first instead of clicking on the article for Le Grand Macabre. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, I think that's an improvement on mine, certainly! And of course, I'm happy if my suggestion is in any way helpful. Remsense留 08:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking, but we need some way to say that it's vocal acrobatic, not real acrobatic, and believe the term "coloratura acrobatic" does a god job. I also believe that "Ligeti" (6 characters) should not be omitted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• I disagree, I don't think the distinction is necessary. It's a hook, not a complete thought. If anything, this is a case where some ambiguity might intrigue the reader. The word being in quotes reinforces this—if it were straightforward, the quotes would not be required, it would just read ... that soprano Anna Nekhames had to be acrobatic in her ...
• It's not about character count per se—though with a limit of 200 that always matters—like I've said above, it's about avoiding information overload. While I personally love him very much, most people reading don't know who Ligeti is, and i think [unfamiliar surname]'s [unfamiliar work] is a formation that is particularly likely to make an otherwise uninvested reader stop reading. The topic is about making a hook interesting, not making it shorter.

Remsense留 08:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

ps: you can save chars by avoiding the redundancy of saying "double" and "both". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"Coloraturo acrobatic" is a very poor translation, "acrobatic coloraturo" would be better. And she didn't "have to be" acrobatic (which makes it sound like she she had to perform while making somersaults or jumping on a trampoline), her vocal performance was described as acrobatic. Oh, and the article now claims that this was "the German premiere of the revised version" of the opera, without any evidence for this claim; the use of "premiere" in one source just indicates the first date that this particular staging was shown in Frankfurt, nothing more. Is there are any reason why so much effort is spent on so many of Gerda Arendts hooks, while most other prolific DYK contributors don't seem to be such a drain? Just reject it and move on to the next. Fram (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree that in several cases, simply outright rejecting her nominations for lack of an interesting hook would be the ideal option (this is mainly for articles without suitable hooks, articles that have something usable do not apply and should be passed if they meet the guidelines). It would save DYK a lot of time and effort. However, she is rarely willing to let her nominations be closed or rejected. She has also, in the past, expressed frustration if her requests are not granted: for example if her special occasion requests are missed, or if a hook other than her preferred wording or fact is promoted and featured.

Several editors here have experienced being on the receiving end of her frustration when either they review her nominations and state that the hook is uninteresting, or they propose a hook that has wordings or facts different from what she wishes. Given previous experiences, it could be the case that at least some editors here may not be necessarily be willing anymore to engage with, review, or reject her nominations considering how they would often turn into time sinks if things do not go according to her wishes.

Having said that, in the case of this specific nomination, I would be open to Remsense's suggestion if there is consensus to run it and she agrees to it, because otherwise I can't see the nomination running given the consensus has largely been against her originally proposed hook. I can sympathize with Gerda. Her goal is to make classical musicians and opera performers more known, either via DYK or via ITN. As someone whose DYK specialization is on a similarly-niche topic (anime voice actors and musicians), I share that goal of wanting more people to learn about the subjects I write about. It's just that there's probably a better way to do it since, as statistics have shown, her hook wordings have generally scared away readers more than attracted them, with her classical music hooks consistently being among the least-viewed hooks on DYK. This is just my opinion, but I believe that hooky facts about opera singers, for example highlighting unusual or fascinating aspects about them, even if they're not necessarily about their musical careers, would do more to promote these people and encourage to learn more about them than the status quo of hooks that may appeal to Gerda and other classical music fans, but not necessarily the general public. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

It does seem, reading through previous conversation, that the user does not seem interested in what the average reader may or may not get out of a hook. Moreover, she doesn't even seem interested in what reviewers—who constitute a class far more actively engaged than the average reader—may or may not get out of a hook.

I am not sure what the point of polling for advice on the subject is if her criteria for "general interest" ultimately remains coterminous with "her interest", other than to eventually obtain permission through sheer attrition. Frankly, I would meditate on the fact that neither the the topic nor even the hook are "hers". Remsense留 10:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Didn't we have a HUGE discussion about this a year or two ago? I thought that the project had reiterated that "singer sings songs" (or other "guy does something bog standard for his job" type hooks) weren't going to be allowed going forward. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

In October 2022 we did have an RfC that modified the interestingness criterion, requiring that hooks be perceived as intriguing or unusual to non-specialist audiences (a less vague and more explicit wording than the previous "interesting to a broad audience" wording). In practice, it hasn't always been applied, and there have been several cases of hooks by multiple editors that have slipped through the cracks, as RoySmith can attest to with recent examples like Teratoscincus roborowskii.

As for the "people doing their jobs" hooks, while they're generally discouraged, they're not outright banned and there hasn't been an actual discussion to my recollection about restricting them. At most, there's some consensus to discourage hooks that are basically saying that a person played a particular role in a media without additional context, although in practice some hooks with that format have still been approved as that consensus does not appear to be widely known or enforced. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we did. What we didn't have was a discussion about Gerda's consistent WP:FORUMSHOPping all over the place (on this page, on user talk pages, and, on one memorable occasion, demanding a change at WP:ERRORS) in increasingly frantic attempts to grind everyone down and force her preferred versions onto the main page against consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

If we aren't going to make sure that the hooks are actually interesting, then why go through the process at all? Just post whatever the proposer wants with no oversight. Or just post a list of recently created or updated articles with no blurbs, just the bare links. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

There's of course, the other more sensible solution: be more willing to reject nominations that are unsuitable, either because they have taken too long to get up to standard, or because the hooks are not interesting enough. It's true that views on what may be interesting differ from editor to editor, but we do need to be more willing to bring up to the nominator if a hook isn't interesting, and be more willing to close nominations if there isn't a suitable hook that could be found or agreed upon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That was all implied in "make sure that the hooks are actually interesting". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• At the nom, Gerda Arendt, you say "Here this very young singer performed one of the hardest roles". That's something a hook could be built around, IMO, if there's a source for that? Certainly I think that's the kind of thing that should be in the article, and if it's the case, someone out there must have mentioned it somewhere.

ALT83a.2: ...that at not yet 30, Anna Nekhames performed one of opera's most demanding coloratura parts, that of the dual role of Venus and Gepopo in Ligeti's Le Grand Macabre?

Valereee (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

How to move forward with this nomination

Based on the above discussion, there does not appear to be consensus to run the original hook that features both Bolshoi and the roles. Two proposals were made here for alternative hooks, one by Tamzin and the other by Remsense, as possible alternatives, but neither have gotten much discussion on whether or not they are suitable: there were some comments suggesting that Tamzin's proposal may be marginally suitable, while there were also a couple of comments suggesting that Remsense's hook or my rework would also be a possible option. However, it doesn't seem that either hook has reached the level of consensus. With this in mind, should the nomination still move forward, or should it be closed as unsuccessful? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Back in 2012, I asked: "who decides what readers read?", and it's still the same question. Who decides that readers might be interested in a little Latin motet but not in a key work of the 20th century, with an interesting title even? trailer --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Without Gerda budging, close as unsuccessful. Overwhelming consensus is that her hooks are uninteresting for a general audience, and she is unwilling to make any changes. It's really as simple as that. Feel free to copy and paste this over as my vote in the future when this precise series of events happens again.

Moreover, regardless of her motivations, it cannot be said that she operates in anything but total bad faith with every other person involved in the process until someone approves her hook. Frankly, I cannot see why she should be permitted to participate in DYK if this pattern of behavior, already years-long, continues. Remsense留 07:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hook duration dynamics

For a while we have used a 12/24 hook duration system, which seems to work O.K., but seems unfair to some subjects which gives us either a once a day or twice a day rotation. It goes back and forth between a 365 sets per year and 730 sets per year rate. We generally fall between those two rates so this works. Once I mentioned it would be fairer to switch between 16/18 which is between 486.6 and 547.5 sets per year, which might be a bit tight of a range to work. However, what about switching to a 16/24 system, which would make sure all hooks get more fairly exposed worldwide. The 16 hour periods would entail 2-day periods where 3 sets run for 16 hours each. It would take longer to reduce high hook inventories, but it would be fairer to all hooks.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

How many hooks do we get through per year? I've suggested increasing the number of hooks on the main page before now.--Launchballer 15:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I meant 'per set'...--Launchballer 16:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The possibility of 18-hour sets (not 16) has been discussed before, but the calls were rejected for both technical and practicality reasons. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

16 hour sets sound sensible to me, though I'm sure I've suggested this before... Yes the times will vary for sets (so not always at 12 o'clock UTC), but it will stop the frequent 12/24 hour hook shenanigans. And 16 hours works better than 18 in my opinion, as it cycles better (3 sets every 2 days, whereas 18 hours is 6 sets every 4.5 days, and so a 9 day cycle until it's back to 12 o'clock change time). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

16 hours gets you 3 sets every two days; 18 hours is 4 sets every 3 days. When I started at DYK, we had 3 sets per day, or 8 hours, so 12 hours or 24 hours both seem like extra time to me, and I don't see any need to change; 12 hours is a lot, and 24 is an extra bonus. But whether it's between 12 and 24, or 16 or 18 is picked, it won't be exact, and we will have to switch at some point. We've been in a recent lull, and WikiCup is beginning, which adds to the rate of nominations; similarly, there will be a GAN backlog drive in February or March which will also increase the number of DYK nominations. Something to think about. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I remember 6 hour time slots when I started. But that is the past. Of course no subject is entitled to exposure time. I am just saying since we have the system, it is more fair to have those that don't get 24-hour slots get 16-hour slots rather than 12-hour slots.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposals to vary from 12 or 24-hour timeframes have been repeatedly shot down due to special occasional requests wanting to be on a certain date. Flibirigit (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Flibirigit, 16-hour sets would not interfere with date requests any more than a 12-hour set would. In any two day cycle there would be three runs: a.) 0:00-16:00 day 1, b.) 16:00-8:00 day 1/day 2 and c.) 8:00-0:00 day 2. On the UTC clock/calendar, a day 1 date request could get the a slot and the day 2 request could get the c slot. Depending on the part of the world that the subject is of most interest to the b. slot may also be an option. If the UTC clock/calendar is not most relevant, the 12-hour set or 16-hour set would both be a matter of figuring out which slot is best for the hook.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Must admit, my morning coffee has not kicked in yet. Why 16 over 18? Ktin (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

16 feels a bit neater, because you crank through 3 sets in 2 days, then start the cycle again. With 18, it would be 4 sets over 3 days, which is a little more complex to think about. Personally I'm fine with this proposal, it would be good to get to a point where we rarely need to change the frequency. Obviously having the year by year stats would be useful for that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. I see. Typically one of the concerns I have thought through is daytime in certain geographies and night time in certain other geographies when the hooks run. 24 hours solves for that quite nicely. However, 12 hours does not solve for that. If we were going for something in between, I think of 18 which is right in between 12 and 24. Ktin (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Ktin, the point of varying from 24-hour sets is to reduce the backlog by presenting an above average number of hooks. 18-hour sets is a rate of 486.6 sets per year, but 16-hour sets is a rate of 547.5 sets per year. Last I heard we do somewhere in the low 500s. Someone can probably tell us what the exact number of sets we did in the last couple of years.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

497	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Total
2023	52	28	48	35	40	30	39	37	42	31	30	31	443
2022	62	38	42	41	38	44	45	39	44	51	41	31	516
2021	57	40	62	60	48	49	56	62	42	42	45	48	611
2020	61	47	31	42	62	53	52	53	54	33	41	43	572
2019	31	39	48	31	31	30	31	51	50	31	30	38	441
2018	54	28	29	41	45	30	31	31	30	31	30	54	434
2017	52	55	49	31	31	30	51	31	40	31	30	31	462
Total	369	275	309	281	295	266	305	304	302	250	247	276	3479

Might have got carried away, but if I can add up, we did 443 sets last year (or, at least, that's the number of times "ago) (utc+" appears), and I think the COVID spike's over. (September 2016 contained a day with three sets, so any earlier than 2017 isn't a fair comparison.)--Launchballer 16:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Launchballer. This measures the outflow and is an important number for sure. Do we have the ability to measure the inflow? I think that is the number we need to look at. If we want to be specific we should use Inflow multiplied by probability of acceptance. That will tell us how many entries will come through our prep queues.

My mind continues to remain fixated with the 18 hours number to ensure that each time zone gets a good shot at having hooks during their daytime. My thinking 24 hours = Each time zone gets the hooks during their daytime. 12 hours = half and half. 18 hours = somewhere in between. Ktin (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

If there is a way, I don't know it. For me, 18 hours is a non-starter because every third day would not have a set to itself, which would obstruct date requests on those days. I remain in favour of increasing the number of hooks per set; nine and ten hook sets would be equivalent to between 410.8978125 and 456.553125 eight-hook sets.--Launchballer 21:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Launchballer, these are the two alternatives to the 12-hour alternative:

1. 16-hour runs:
   1. a.) 0:00-16:00 day 1,
   2. b.) 16:00-8:00 day 1/day 2
   3. c.) 8:00-0:00 day 2

If a person wants either day 1 or day 2, there is a clear set preference for either day.

1. 18-hour runs:
   1. a.) 0:00-18:00 day 1,
   2. b.) 18:00-12:00 day 1/day 2
   3. c.) 12:00-6:00 day 2/day 3
   4. d.) 6:00-0:00 day 3.

I did not realize your point until considered a request for day 2.

Yes 16-hour (and 12-hour) alternative runs retain date preference availability on the UTC clock/calendar. 18-hour runs is a problem.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

P.S. Lunchballer, please clear up the math so I can see where 410.8978125 and 456.553125 come from.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

365.2425 divided by 8, and then multipied by 9 and 10. (.2425 is 97 leap years out of 400, and I like the number 365.2425 because it divides cleanly by 7, i.e. there are 52.1775 weeks in a year.)--Launchballer 22:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Launchballer, your precision with all the decimal places lost me for a second. Forgive my simplified math below. I do concur that the optimal solution would be to have 24-hour sets year round with 10 hook sets. That would put us very close to the annual run rate. As long as we don't have any COVID-like production bumps it would probably result in equity across all DYK hook subjects. The question is whether a longer DYK would still be acceptable. We would need to get ITN and/or OTD to expand to offset this change for desktop viewing balance.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Ktin, I didn't really realize normal production is that far below 500 sets/year. We could say that 2020-2022 are all COVID bump rates. Right now when we have a high inventory of approved articles we go to a 12-hour run. This is a pace of 730 (365*2) sets per year. Because this is an above average number, it helps us reduce the high inventory very quickly, but some subjects only get 12 hours of exposure. 730 reduces the inventory because it is far above our average production rate (see the year-end totals). 16-hour sets is a pace of 547.5 sets per year, which is a rate that over the long haul will reduce our inventory (except for the 2020-22 COVID lockdown production bump). 18-hour sets is only a pace of 486.6 sets per year, which may be a bit above average, but will may not reduce the inventory any where near as quickly. In fact if production fluctuates during the year, at a time when production of approved articles is high and inventory is high, we may not even be reducing the inventory, but it would probably keep inventory from ballooning too much until production goes back down. Let's say we believe we produce about 450 sets of approved content per year. We could predict number of days of the year (x) that we would be at 24-hours sets as follows:

1. 18-hour set alternative: x*(1) + (365-x)*4/3 =450-->x=110
2. 16-hour set alternative: x*(1) + (365-x)*3/2 =450-->x=195
3. 12-hour set alternative: x*(1) + (365-x)*2 = 450-->x=280 (current situation)

18-hour sets would not be that bad actually, it is just a question of whether it keeps inventory from continuing to balloon at times when inventory is high.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Number of hooks in each set

As an offshoot of the above discussion, I want to consider the number of hooks in each hook set.

DYK has not always had 8 hooks per set: January 2005 had a seemingly-random number, January 2007 had between 6-8/set, January 2010 had 8/set (with 4 sets running each day!), January 2012 and January 2014 had 7/set. Its back to 8/set in January 2016, which I think has remained that way up to today.

If DYK reduces the number of hooks per set, it will give more attention to each article in a set, especially those in the middle. For main page balance, fewer hooks mean that TFA can have longer blurbs; speaking as a WP:TFA blurb writer, it can be hard cutting material to 1025 characters and fewer DYK hooks means TFA can take up more space on the main page. Likewise, from an OTD perspective, if there are fewer DYK hooks, OTD can run fewer hooks in its section to achieve Main Page balance. Fewer hooks per DYK set also means that prep-to-queue promoters do not have to review as many hooks, which will hopefully get more admin to help out here.

If DYK adds more hooks to the set it will mean we cycle through hooks more quickly. OTD recently increased the number of births/deaths on each day from 3 to 4, which sometimes adds a line to OTD. I've noticed that OTD is further down the page than DYK about once a week; sometimes the number of OTD hooks is reduced from 5 to 4 to achieve main page balance. I would surmise that, from a Main Page perspective, there is space to have more DYK hooks if that is decided upon.

Looking forward to reading additional thoughts: should DYK increase, decrease, or keep the number of hooks the same per set? Is your opinion contingent on how often DYK runs sets? (so, for example, if DYK went to 16h sets, would you want fewer hooks per set?) Z1720 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Z1720, we have been at eight hooks per set for quite a while, as you note, and that is because that's what we need to fulfill our part in balancing the main page. We are not operating in a vacuum. Indeed, it has been suggested that we do slightly larger prep sets, but there was fierce resistance here from prep builders to including more than eight hooks per set. I doubt we have the option of attempting to reduce the number of hooks at the present time, though, as you note, if we wished to expand to nine hooks (or maybe even ten), that would likely be welcomed by our colleague main-page sections. As I'm not building prep sets, I'll let those who do weigh in on set size. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

For exactly balancing the Main page, we should perhaps be flexible in the hooks per set. The short hooks that we tend to have would make it often more balanced with one or two more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

By User:Launchballer's mathematics above, it seems likely that if we switched to 10-hook sets, we could probably go year round with 24-hour sets. That would be equitable for all hook subjects to get equal treatment. This is the alternative (and optimal) method of more equitable exposure for all hook subjects. Otherwise, we would have to return to considering whether we could raise the high inventory hook duration from 12 hours to 16 hours per other considerations above while continuing with an 8-hook policy.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

P.S. note that the (potentially) year-round 24-hour 10-hook set would result in reduction in number of annual DYK LEAD images. There would only be 365 per year, rather than 450ish.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• @Z1720, BlueMoonset, and Gerda Arendt: Are we going to seek a serious consideration of year round 24-hour 10-hook sets?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
  • TonyTheTiger, I'm certainly not in favor of doing so. I don't see any buy-in from prep set builders, who made the most vociferous objections to prep sets that large the last time increasing from eight per set was proposed. If they are on board, that's one thing; those who are building prep sets have been stressed for some time, and making things more difficult for them—and for the admins who later recheck the sets and may not be as willing to check ten hooks at a time rather than eight—could break DYK if it loses us willing prep builders and queue promoters who are in short supply as it is. (Less important, but still cogent: I don't think ten per day is going to hold up over the long haul without modification.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
    • • User:BlueMoonset what do you mean by modification? Do you mean that you do not expect a total of 3650 hooks during the year. 24-hour sets would probably require some weeks with 9-hooks. But isn't having year-round runs of 24 hours with set sizes varying between 9 and 10 easier than having 8-hook sets varying between 12- and 24-hour runs easier. Alternatively, are you saying there is so strong of a seasonality that trying to make fairly constant sized 24-hour sets is impossible?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• @TonyTheTiger: I don't think this thread has generated enough discussion yet to warrant a change, but maybe others will comment soon. I greatly dislike switching from 24h to 12h sets, and would prefer that this is eliminated. There are many ways to accomplish this without DYK running out of hooks or having a backlog, and I wanted to put forward other options. Z1720 (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• User:Z1720, I think the discussion should have gone forward. I was a bit surprised that User:BlueMoonset wanted to shut down the conversation. Almost all other sections of the main page only change at midnight. I think it would be an improvement for DYK to do so as well. I am unfamiliar with any significiant seasonality to DYK production. Thus, it seems to me that we could have 24-hour sets that generally switch between 9 and 10 hooks. We could also switch to 12-hour runs with 5-hook sets, but this would make the section to small and require too much adjustment by other sections.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Quirky vs. clickbait?

There was a suggestion made by @Bagumba on WP:ERRORS about updating WP:QUIRKY. Just noting it here for wider attention. See Special:Diff/1193598287. RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

For convenient reference today's QUIRKY hook was ultimately toned down Is a caveat to QUIRKY needed?—Bagumba (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

My view is that we shouldn't be posting hooks that are blatantly misleading, as this one is- a capital P on Poison isn't enough for readers to understand that it's a quirky joke. Not least because not everyone will know the quirky hook slot. I think there should be a rule against deliberately misleading readers. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

If I was approving this prep set, I would have not changed the hook. I think we are underestimating our readers' ability to decode information: they are smart enough to realise that the original hook was not talking about poison, but rather something else. If anyone thought it was talking about poison, they would probably click on the link to find out more information, and realise that we were talking about a song.

I did a completely unscientific test where I showed the original hook to someone who does not edit Wikipedia: they said, "first glance, I thought it might be the substance, but then I see it's capitalised and in quotes, so it's probably not and I would need to click on it to find out more. It's definitely clickbaity." (I didn't ask if it was, they volunteered that word without prompting). Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say that most of us will agree that this DYK should not have gone as-it-did to the mainpage. I think that is straightforward. Upper-case P vs lower-case p distinction will escape most of our readers.

That aside, often times, DYK editors and nominators are guilty of misconstruing "click-baitiness" with "interestingness". Even as I type this post, there are at least two threads upstream on this page that are debating interestingness. In my view, a good DYK is something that should make our readers learn more about a subject, and roughly go "Ah! I learned something today!". Instead, what we might be prioritizing here is our readers going -- "Oh! What could that be?" and then followed by "Eikes! Why did I click on that one!" Ktin (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, they'd learn how to soothe all those babies. Especially if they'd already tried out Alice and all the 28 other songs with that title!! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, the most misleading thing about this hook to me was that the fact that we weren't talking about the Bell Biv DeVoe song. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Joseph2302, @Ktin: You've both been selective in your recollection of the original presentation. It was "Poison", upper-case P and the word in double-quotes, which I maintained in the discussion is substantially different from poison. Bazza (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Neither of which is significant enough for most readers to notice a difference in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Meh. I don't object to the change -- 'the song "Poison"' isn't that much less quirky. But I also don't think the original was a problem. Valereee (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 I will admit, I missed the double quotes. It makes it only marginally better than without the quotes imho. Ktin (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

A key distinction between interestingness and click-baitiness.

Interesting: Reader clicks on the article to know more about the presented fact and / or learn more about the article now that their interest has been piqued by the presented fact.

Click-baity: Reader clicks on the article now that their curiosity has been triggered because the fact has not been fully presented or worse still has been presented in a misleading manner. Ktin (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Criminal: Reader comes to DYK to learn more on how to poison noisy babies. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

How exactly was the hook "blatantly misleading"? Regardless of what hook slot it's in, I can't imagine a reader possibly interpreting this as a literal suggestion that poison soothes babies. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 23:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be dictated by common sense. Let's not write something that may lead to less-observant readers giving babies poison. That, look, sorry it seems obvious. We run on common sense, and I think that slipped through because people were thinking more about the "interesting"; this should be a reminder to have a good hard look at hooks before they get to MP, but not a moment to codify something about no hooks on harmful substances. Kingsif (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• We seem to have forgotten the meaning of "quirky" lately. It should be something a bit bizarre but that's presented accurately. Tomorrow's is a decent one - "that although Olga Hartman believed that her basic research on marine worms had no practical value, it was applied to experimental studies of oysters?". Historically, we have allowed the other type of hook - ones designed to mislead or present things as other than what they're really saying, once a year on 1 April. I also don't like that myself, but you pick your battles I guess. The daily quirky slot was never meant to be an everyday version of April fools though, and today's hook veered too far in that direction IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

• Not only was that study not statistically significant... but Yōko Shimura had the audacity to use only Japanese babies!! I demand a poisonous infant refund! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

While I understand the need to want to present funny or unusual hooks at the quirky slot, I do wonder if we're taking it too seriously. For example, I have seen in the past where sets even had to be delayed for lack of a quirky hook. Maybe we should make it clear that they aren't mandatory and that the last hook could be a regular hook if there aren't any suitable or available ones. In addition, given that there have been multiple discussions and complaints about the accuracy of such hooks, including concerns such as WP:EGG, maybe we need a discussion on whether or not we need more guidelines on how to deal with them? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree we should not be holding up a set for want of a quirky hook. RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The instructions have always said that quirky is desirable, not an absolute requirement. WP:DYKCRIT currently reads, Consider picking an upbeat, funny, or quirky hook – if there is one available – and putting it in the bottom slot of the set. If there's a dearth of quirky available, make the set without it. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

So we can expect readers to understand the difference between an ice cube and Ice Cube (WP:SMALLDETAILS), but not between poison and "Poison"? That seems... weird. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I can see the vindictive headlines already: "Shock spate of A&E babe traumas after sick Wiki poison advice!!" Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems more like WP:SMALLDETAILS is just a bad idea. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems like we may need to discuss about quirky hooks in more detail given our experiences with them over the years, so I've started an RfC below. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

How should quirky hooks on DYK be handled?

Should we have guidelines regarding the use of quirky hooks on DYK, including how to define a quirky hook, what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in the case of hook wordings, and how they should be handled? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Background

As seen in the above discussion, there have been discussions over the years of what kind of quirky hooks are acceptable on DYK. Although WP:QUIRKY suggests (but does not require) DYK sets to have at least one "upbeat/funny/quirky" hook at the end of every set, this is not a mandatory rule and leaves open the possibility of sets not having such a hook. In practice, prep builders sometimes delay finishing a set if no quirky hook could be found, even if the guidelines suggest that while such hooks are desirable, they are not mandatory.

More importantly, the guideline does not define what counts as a "quirky" hook, nor does it specify any guidelines or restrictions regarding them. Editors have expressed varying views over the years about them, particularly when it comes to quirky hooks that are unusually written (see for example #Existence which is suggesting a hook that goes "... that ...") or intentionally misleading. Some support them running at any time, and some editors suggest that these hooks can only run on April Fools Day, which is the time we tend to be very loose with our rules. A common concern that has been raised over the years is that quirky hooks can either be intentionally or unintentionally misleading, along with how some quirky hooks rely on WP:EGG to work. In some cases, some editors have also wondered if accuracy or factualness had been sacrificed in the desire for quirkiness.

With this in mind, do we need to add anything to our guidelines regarding the use of quirky hooks, including defining them and if we need to set limits on their wording or use? Or is the status quo, where there are currently no guidelines regarding them, sufficient? Finally, do we need to codify the ambiguity in the guidelines, which suggest but doesn't outright state that quirky hooks are not required or mandatory in a set but merely a good practice? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

• Clarify WP:QUIRKY so it is clear that 1) such hooks are recommended, but not required, and 2) that hooks chosen for "quirkiness" should not compromise their informativeness for the sole gain of "hookiness" (as I believe the song lyrics discussion concluded last year). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Besides clarifying that sets do not need a quirky hook, we could say that when approving hooks (at any stage of the process), meeting hook requirements cannot be sacrificed for the sake of quirkiness (except AFD). That will be a reminder to use common sense without encouraging quirky hooks to be passed over IMO. Kingsif (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• A lot of the "misleading" hooks we get arise from us monkeying around with quotes – I wrote an essay about best practice in this area, and I would of course advocate that it be considered and ratified into DYK guideline. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• Definitely agree with AirshipJungleman et al. that the rules for hooks should apply to every hook, even the last hook in the set. There is currently no guideline that says otherwise, but given the strength of the unwritten tradition that "quirky" hooks are exempt from the rules, I think it ought to be set down in writing that this is not the case.
  More generally, I'd like to endorse Ktin's comment in the section above: Often times, DYK editors and nominators are guilty of misconstruing "click-baitiness" with "interestingness" ... In my view, a good DYK is something that should make our readers learn more about a subject, and roughly go "Ah! I learned something today!". Instead, what we might be prioritizing here is our readers going -- "Oh! What could that be?" and then followed by "Eikes! Why did I click on that one!" Many so-called quirky hooks are pure clickbait, and the thing about clickbait is that it does not provide a positive experience for the reader. DYK is a reader-focused process. I'm well aware that one of its stated aims is to acknowledge the work of editors, but this does not mean that the accumulation of pageviews should be prioritized above all else. Honestly, I think even the use of the word "hook" rather than, say, "factoid" is a big part of the problem. As Ktin says, a DYK set should present the reader with a collection of interesting facts, and give them the option of clicking through to the article to learn more. If they click the link only to find out what the hook is going on about, and then shake their head and immediately click the back button, that is not a victory. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
• WP:QUIRKY should give more objective guidance on cases like the "Poison" and baby hook. Was it bad because it was clickbait and not "that" poison, or was it poor taste because someone might be harmed or offended, or was it simply because babies were involved? Or was the original hook fine? It's preferable to have a consistent process for nominators, reviewers, and posters, and not left to the common sense of those involved at any given time.—Bagumba (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The queues are empty!

Pinging @DYK admins: in the hopes that we can get a few queues filled, or at least one! Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that's a problem. I do have time and have promoted Prep5. It does, however, contain one article where I was the reviewer. Could one of the other admins thus please do the admin checks for the Queen Victoria Monument, Wellington? Schwede66 01:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I've been promoting a lot of preps to queues lately, but I am feeling burned out with DYK and getting really busy both on-wiki and off. It would be great if other admin can come back and promote sets more often, because I will be taking a step back (but not going away). Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm in much the same place. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Obviously I've been there for quite a while. I got not only burned out but felt demotivated by the fact so many admins who nominate regularly don't want to pitch in to do moves to queue, and I finally just landed on "I'll do a move to queue for every nom I make" as what was less likely for me to feel like I just wanted to go away altogether. Honestly I'd love to see how many noms are made by admins per year. If it's in the hundreds, which I'm sure it must be, I suspect we'd get a lot less admin burnout here if everyone would just commit to even that much pitching in: make a nom? Move a prep to queue. Valereee (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

One of the reasons I don't like doing queues is you tend to be yelled at on WP:ERRORS every time you miss something, which puts people off doing it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

We need people who point out things we missed, so it is a Good Thing if people use ERRORS. The question is whether we can do that without people feeling yelled at more than they deserve. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that's one of the reasons a lot of people don't want to work at DYK. :D It's an extremely visible project, and many errors reports include a "look how DYK fucked up again" approach. :D Working DYK is not for the fainthearted. Valereee (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Er, that was a joke...not suggesting anyone is fainthearted. Valereee (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, DYK queues can be a serious time commitment. Look at the lot (Q5) below! And you've got to be thorough or else it's see you at Errors, as Ritchie says. Or you get tired and overlook a wee detail, as I did with the Baldwin-Reynolds House nomination, and the yelling may come from a disgruntled nominator (which, in this case, did not happen). Being able to say sorry and having a thick skin helps, apart from having time on your hands. Schwede66 19:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

And regarding Valereee's comment, maybe we should be more hard-nosed and deal with "look how DYK fucked up again" comments as WP:HARASS. I can think of at least one editor who has repeatedly made this comment. Let's push back on that. Schwede66 19:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66, I did the admin checks, and I'm not seeing that there's a cite at the end of the sentence that supports the hook, nor in the cites at the end of the paragraph? Ping to Generalissima. Valereee (talk) 14:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Fixed this. It's the "Gilding Defended" by the Otago Daily Times. Generalissima (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• I posted to WP:AN and managed to recruit Waggers to help. Welcome Waggers to DYK! RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Welcome! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Awesome! Say if you want a hand or a look over your shoulder, Waggers, when you get going. Schwede66 19:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, Waggers! Definitely install PSHAW. You still have to do the human checks, but the tool makes the actual move foolproof. Valereee (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to offer another thought. Promoting to queue is a serious job; it's a mini-review of eight hooks. It takes way longer than to review a nomination. Has it ever been discussed whether to offer a QPQ credit for this task? I know that I would see that as an incentive to "do more"; that's for sure. I appreciate that this may leave us a few hundred reviews short per year, but we do have a mechanism of requiring double QPQs when the number of unreviewed nominations gets too high. Although we've never invoked this rule yet. Anyway, there are certainly downsides with this, but are those outweighed by the potential gains? Schwede66 23:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that promoting to Queue would mean only sysops would be involved. Would expanding the idea to promoting to Prep also help? Though in such cases it could be used in conjunction with the double-QPQ rule: like perhaps in lieu of doing two DYK reviews, they can do one review and one promotion instead. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It's much cleaner with promotion to queue, as it always involves a full set. Prep builders can deal with one hook at a time. I don't really have an appreciation whether prep builders usually make a full set, or whether it's more mixed and most preps are worked on by several editors. Schwede66 23:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It's mixed. If we're running out of preps and a prep builder has the time, they might build two complete ones. If there's a hole or two in a set, they might fill that hole. Unlike moving to queue, there's an element of creativity that can attract people to promoting to prep. You're solving a puzzle. Moving to queue is just checking the work of others, really.

I do think giving a QPQ for moving a set to queue would be an incentive for some. It's a fairly large job that is almost always done by a single person. It might also help relieve the issue of a set containing an admin's QPQ review, as we'd I assume end up with fewer sets that contained such a hook by one of the admins who does promotions. Valereee (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

Kihwan Sim (nom)

Gerda Arendt, I can't see where that part of the hook is referenced that says it was "the first production with the new GMD, Thomas Guggeis". AirshipJungleman29 was the reviewer; maybe they can point me in the right direction. Schwede66 02:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

"In 2023 he appeared again as Mozart's Figaro in the first production with the new GMD, Thomas Guggeis..." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I can see those words, AirshipJungleman29, but I can't see where those words are backed up by a reference. Schwede66 05:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66 and AirshipJungleman29: Looking at this hook, I do have some concerns. Is this really an interesting hook? Perhaps it is to an opera fan, but someone who isn't, the significance is not at all obvious, especially if the reader is not familiar with Guggeis or knows what a GMD is. Personally I would instead suggest the following:

ALT ... that Kihwan Sim, a bass-baritone performer at the Oper Frankfurt, learned to play the tuba during his two years of military service?

Because of this, and given that this hook is scheduled to go up tomorrow, I'd probably suggest at least bumping it down to a Prep while the hook is sorted out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll move it. Schwede66 03:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for moving. I have a DYK today (see above, the one where I thought we had almost objective reasons to show an image but we don't ), and a RD, and OTD tomorrow, and two GA reviews pending): too much of a good thing. Will the people who don't know what a GMD is (and are regarded unable to find out per link) know what a tuba is? Is that trivia anything worthy to be known about him? ... as would be his signature role, - he is not the typical Wagner singer that readers will associate with bass-baritone, but flexible and agile, in voice and action. We can drop Frankfurt and Guggeis, but not Mozart if we don't want to put him in the wrong corner. (Have you even read the bass-baritone article?) More next week, I have to prepare a busy weekend RL. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, the issue here is that the hook does not seem to be interesting to people who are not as well-versed in opera as you are. I very much doubt that our typical reader would even get or know what a typical Wagner singer is like, so it doesn't really matter to them. Besides, the Wager connection isn't even in the hook so I have no idea why you are bringing it up here.

Will the people who don't know what a GMD is (and are regarded unable to find out per link) know what a tuba is? The thing is here, people who are not into opera, and perhaps even those who are into opera but not deeply into it, may not know what a GMD is. On the other hand, even the average person at least knows what a tuba is, it's a very iconic instrument. Hooks are meant to appeal not opera fans and assume intense knowledge or context about opera, but rather the typical reader who may have little-to-no knowledge about the topic. That is the kind of audience that the ALT is aiming for, not the Gerdas of the world. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Since the hook is scheduled to go up in four days, might as well start a discussion on it ahead of time. @Schwede66 and AirshipJungleman29: what are your thoughts on the ALT hook, as well as Gerda's reply above? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, Narutolovehinata, and I think the ALT hook it suitable. I sense that the average person would know what a tuba is. Personally, I'm not a useful yardstick as I used to play it! Schwede66 01:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess we can wait for AJ29 or another reviewer to chime in then to review the hook and replace the current hook if necessary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I like it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess this means it's time for someone to replace the hook in prep now, since AJ29 is fine with the new hook and has given approval? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Queen Victoria Monument (nom)

@DYK admins: Just noting here, as indicated above, that another admin needs to check this one as I was the reviewer. Schwede66 02:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima, Schwede66, and Bruxton:

• ... that British intervention reversed the lacquering of a statue in New Zealand?

The hook says the intervention was from the British. The article says "The lacquer was later removed after continued public pressure." The source says "This angered New Zealand’s leading sculptor of the time, Richard Gross, and the lacquer was soon removed in response." So unless I'm missing something (which is quite possible) I don't think these line up. Can this be clarified? If I don't respond, others can make the necessary changes if needed. Z1720 (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It refers to "... the British Society of Sculptors protested the lacquering", Z1720. Schwede66 02:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Just realized I forgot the second of two sources on the hook itself. It's cite #23 in the article, found here. I'm so sorry for the mixup. Generalissima (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima: I don't think the source supports "The lacquer was later removed after continued public pressure" as I cannot find the public pressure in the source. Should this be changed in the article? Also, I would also move the Otago Daily Times source to the end of the paragraph to support the lacquering removal information. Z1720 (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Good point on moving the cite. I said public pressure because of the fact that it was being raised at city government hearings, but I realize just "pressure" is a better phrasing since Gross played a pretty big role. Generalissima (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

My concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Kansas Business Hall of Fame (nom)

The hook fact is true, but neither Pizza Hut nor Russell Stover Candies appear in the article. One has to go on a goose chase to verify the hook fact. Bsoyka or anyone really, can the article's prose please be expanded so that the hook fact actually occurs? Schwede66 03:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Added mentions to the article prose. Not sure I love the format yet, but I think it's better than nothing and that's a separate thing to think about away from WT:DYK. Thanks for pointing this out! Bsoyka (t • c • g) 05:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Bsoyka, thanks but your addition is unreferenced, hence not good enough. But never mind, I also expanded the article and the issue is thus fixed. Schwede66 05:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

1939 Liechtenstein putsch (nom)

The source for the hook fact is in German and has been misinterpreted. What's written there is plural ("days", not "day") and I have corrected both the article and the hook fact. Schwede66 03:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Next problem; those passages in larger font are (nearly) identical. Can you please attend to this urgently, TheBritinator?

Close paraphrasing

Article

"Forgotten History-Liechtenstein during WWII"

The German National Movement in Liechtenstein (VBDL) itself formed after the Anschluss of Austria in 1938, advocating for the integration of Liechtenstein into Nazi Germany.[4] A slogan associated with the party, Liechtenstein den Liechtensteinern! (Liechtenstein for the Liechtensteiners!). This implied a radical populism that would threaten the allegiance of the people of Liechtenstein to ruling Prince of Liechtenstein Franz Josef II.

The German National Movement in Liechtenstein (German: Volksdeutsche Bewegung in Liechtenstein, VDBL) was a National Socialist party in Liechtenstein that existed between 1938 and 1945. The VDBL formed after the Anschluss of Austria in 1938, and advocated for the integration of Liechtenstein into the Greater German Reich. The organization disseminated its ideology through its newspaper, Der Umbruch. A slogan associated with the party was Liechtenstein den Liechtensteinern! (Liechtenstein for the Liechtensteiners!). This implied a radical populism that would threaten the allegiance of the people of Liechtenstein to ruling Prince Franz Josef II.

Whilst TheBritinator is currently editing, nothing is happening to this article. As I probably won't have time in the hours before this goes live, I shall pull this nomination and find a replacement. Schwede66 05:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I apologise, I received no notification for this message regarding my DYK nomination, otherwise I would of attended to it sooner.

Regarding that, what exactly regarding the article is something that was taken from the main VBDL article itself from before I started working on these two articles, which I I am assuming whoever originally made the article must of taken that part from the book, I quite honestly did not check that part as again I just took it from already used text. If this needs to be addressed, then I can happily re-write that part to be more original.

May I ask though, will this allow my hook to be revalidated? It was accepted before, though granted with a minor translation error that has now been fixed. TheBritinator (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66 I have edited the article and paragraph in question, please advise. TheBritinator (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

That's still too close, TheBritinator. Schwede66 22:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how I am supposed to do that any further without changing it's meaning. I could just remove that part about Franz Joseph II if it's not necessarily needed. TheBritinator (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I've rewritten it for you. That also means that somebody else needs to now check the nomination; I can't approve my own work. Schwede66 22:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. TheBritinator (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Baldwin-Reynolds House (nom)

This is the replacement hook for the 1939 Liechtenstein putsch. And what do I find? Moved into mainspace on 6 Nov; nominated 16 days later on 22 Nov. Crikey! I would assume that Pbritti, as a regular at DYK, knows the rules about new articles. Broc, who was the reviewer, didn't pick up on this but they are a very new editor. What do we do about that? Schwede66 09:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The answer is simple: the hook should be pulled and the nomination closed as the article is ineligible. Hopefully, this can be a learning experience for Broc, who can receive guidance regarding the intricacies of DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

You are right. Pulled and rejected. Schwede66 10:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66 and Narutolovehinata5:, Pbritti has noted that the article was nominated as a 5x expansion, not a new article. I believe it satisfies that criterion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

A small trout (a herring really) for Pbritti and an explanation for Broc. Not really that big a deal, shouldn't make too much of it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ouch, that was an honest mistake from my side. Thanks for pointing it out! --Broc (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest installing the DYKcheck tool: it will allow you to check an article's length and newness. If an article is not new enough, the tool would show red instead of yellow. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back and Broc: No need to trout—I nominated a 5x expansion. Not sure why no one seems to have noticed that until I pointed it out. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure? The Nov 14 (seven days before nomination on the 21st) article is 2,604[2] and 2,604 x 5 is 13020... Not 7,500. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: Articles can be made eligible via a fivefold expansion of an article's prose [bolding mine]. The massive parameters of an infobox do not count for or against article size. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the math then? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

616 B (104 words) prose pre-expansion, 3477 B (585 words) post-expansion, per my character-counting script. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

That checks out, thanks for explaining. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies, Pbritti. That's a 5-times expansion within 8 days. I've put the nomination back into the approved folder. Schwede66 18:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

More than perfectly ok, Schwede66! I've made enough errors at DYK to know how easy it is. Thank you for your hard work on the project, especially with how overloaded DYK has been for a while now. You all do great work! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies to everyone involved! While my earlier comments about newness stand, if the article is indeed a 5x expansion then it should be eligible. Eight days is just outside the 7-day requirement, though in practice we do tend to IAR such cases so it should be fine. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No apologies necessary, Narutolovehinata5! Mistakes like that aren't personal and happen all the time (well, at least they do for me). Worth noting that the expansion itself occurred within two days (Nov 20–21), but I had marked the article for expansion with a template a week prior but didn't make any substantive changes until later. But thank you for the IAR note–you all have given me leniency before and it's always appreciated! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I indeed used the DYKcheck tool, and had decided that it fulfilled the criteria; I unfortunately do not recall the details of my decision. I think @Pbritti's math makes sense. Broc (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Word issue in P3 hook

"* ... that the languages of Lebanon are so commonly code-switched between that "hi, كيفك [kīfak]? ça va?", which combines English, Levantine Arabic and French, is a typical greeting?"

Seems like either a word was left out after "between" or, more likely, that "between" was left over from a previous version of the hook and should be deleted? Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It's referring to code-switching between languages. The "languages" having been already mentioned. The formulation is grammatically sound, and I didn't have an issue myself on first reading, but if it could be misunderstood, a rephrasing may be needed. Kingsif (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, I see your point that in this formulation, "between" is meant as an adverb, but in a sentence this dense I surely wouldn't be the only person to make that mistake. Daniel Case (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

How about "... that speakers so commonly code-switch between the languages of Lebanon that "hi, كيفك [kīfak]? ça va?", which combines English, Levantine Arabic and French, is a typical greeting?" It does add four characters to an already lengthy hook. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I was going to suggest that, because code-switching states that code-switching or language alternation occurs when a speaker alternates between two or more languages, the "between" is already built-in and not needed, so * ... that the languages of Lebanon are so commonly code-switched that "hi, كيفك [kīfak]? ça va?", which combines English, Levantine Arabic and French, is a typical greeting? might be better. But on reflection @Firefangledfeathers's proposal is much neater. Bazza (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe a shorter version:

... that "hi, كيفك? ça va?" is a common greeting in the languages of Lebanon?

I think most readers will recognize that there's three different languages represented there without needing to call them out explicitly. RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't really make sense though. The greeting isn't in the languages of Lebanon, its in their application (if that makes sense). I like Firefangledfeathers' hook better. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, just a suggestion. RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, merci ktir for your feedback.

Would it make sense to say

... that code-switching in Lebanon is so common that...?

Also, the C-cedilla in ça va should be capitalized, no?

And should there be a space between the question mark and "Ça va ?", per French punctuation rules, or do we keep it as is, since the kifak has the left-to-right question mark, not the right-to-left one (؟)? FunLater (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Right. This is now in Queue 3. I've adopted the changes suggested by FunLater including all the little tweaks (which is beyond my realm of knowledge; I rely on the info provided to be correct). The main difference to the hook suggested by Firefangledfeathers is that it avoids a link to code-switching; if readers don't know what that is (and most won't), they can find out by reading the target article rather than the link directed traffic away. The resulting link is a tad EGGY but acceptable in my view. If others disagree, we can revert to Firefangledfeathers' hook. Schwede66 18:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused about the "[kīfak]" part. Is that an optional word, an explanation of how to pronounce the Arabic text, or what? RoySmith (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It's the transliteration of the text that's written in the the Arabic script.

We can just use "kifak" to make it less confusing, which is used by the sources and in the commonly used alphabet Arabizi. We can also use kīfak, which is in IPA. FunLater (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Both Arabizi and the Arabic script are used when writing Levantine Arabic. FunLater (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I think what would be less confusing would be to leave the kifak out and just use the arabic text. The point of the hook is that the phrase is constructed using three different languages. Even I, who speaks no Arabic, recognize the Arabic letters as being Arabic. Likewise, while I have just a few scattered words of French, I recognized the French text as being French. And that's really all we need in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

But then the question mark would be weird.

"hi, كيفك? Ça va ?" is wrong because the question mark is in the opposite direction

and "Hi, كيفك؟ Ça va ?" looks weird FunLater (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

For context Arabic script is written from right to left, so the question mark is also in the opposite direction of the most used scripts. FunLater (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Which leads to the obvious question, why isn't it "hi, [kīfak] كيفك ? ça va?". You generally place transliterations after the original, and in the case of Arabic, "after" means "to the left of". RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I still consider it after, since most of the text is left to right. The Lebanon article and probably most articles on this wiki do that. It's how it's commonly done. FunLater (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

A more fundamental problem is that the article has a couple of maintenance tags, and that's not allowed. FunLater, do you have time to address that? If you don't, then I'll pull this out of the queue to give you all the time you need. Schwede66 19:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll remove the "Symbols for writing numbers" section (even though it can be partly verified from the images).

I'll also remove French from the languages used to communicate between some speakers.

This would lead to the only uncited claim being that "people in Lebanon who come from other countries in the Levant may use their own Levantine dialect" (which is obvious, what matters is the population numbers, which are cited). Should I also remove that for now until I find sources later?

I think it's worth noting that I added the maintenance tags. FunLater (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

In the second line, I'm referring to the "used as the main way to communicate between some native speakers of Levantine in Lebanon" part, which has a citation needed template. FunLater (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 6

Nancy Nash

Queue 6: Nancy Nash (actress) (nom)

• ... that Nancy Nash (pictured) had to convince her parents to let her drop out of the University of Texas to become an actress in 1926?

@Silver seren, FloridaArmy, Launchballer, and AirshipJungleman29: The article itself says nothing about dropping out, and that she hadn't even started college yet: This conflicted, however, with her prior plans to start studying at the University of Texas the following week and she had to convince her parents that pursuing a film career was more important. The problem I'm seeing is that the source mentioned at the nom and attached to the sentence in the article doesn't appear to verify either, and just says "...Nancy persuaded her parents that a motion picture career is as important as a college education." It doesn't say she dropped out, which college or when she planned to start, or anything like that, only that she chose acting over college. I glanced through some of the other sources but couldn't find anything verifying these facts, am I overlooking something? - Aoidh (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The source does mention University of Texas (bottom of first paragraph), however I may have put two and two together to make five in saying that she definitely left. Just in case I've also missed something, I invite Silver seren to provide an ALT.--Launchballer 16:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, I apologize and I see that part now. I don't know if "in three days" quite means the same as "the following week". My understanding is that you have to had started college to drop out of it, but that might just be a misunderstanding on my part, but ideally I think there should be a source supporting that wording, given the often negative connotation around referring to someone as a drop out. - Aoidh (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

If you are accepted to a university and registered to begin classes (which would indeed be done if you're three days out from starting them), then yes, you would be dropping out if you chose not to go to the university. This isn't the same thing as getting an acceptance letter months out and choosing not to go. That wouldn't be dropping out, but it's not the same thing as this situation. Should the nom instead read:

• ... that Nancy Nash (pictured) had to convince her parents to let her not attend the University of Texas to instead become an actress in 1926?

Is that better, Aoidh, Launchballer? Silverseren^C 16:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me.--Launchballer 16:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've added it as ALT2 in the nomination page. Silverseren^C 16:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks both of you, I've updated the hook with ALT2. - Aoidh (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Letter to the American People

Queue 6: Letter to the American People (nom)

• ... that a letter to the American people allegedly written by Osama bin Laden has been cited as an example of online youth radicalization?

@PhotographyEdits, Knightoftheswords281, MaxnaCarta, and AirshipJungleman29: Earwig shows a considerable match with this page which doesn't necessarily indicate which copied from which but does raise a concern. The text of the "Contents" section was added on November 17 in its entirety by User:Marokwitz where the off-wiki site says it was last updated on November 18, though it doesn't say what was updated and I could not find any archived versions of that page to compare against. My concern is that the text in the Wikipedia article was added in a large chunk that just happens to be the only part found in the other source, is written in a very atypical style for a Wikipedia article, and is only sourced to the Observer's republishing of the letter itself, making much if not all of it WP:NOR as it is an analysis of the primary text. For these reasons, I'm highly concerned that the entirety of Letter to the American People#Contents is a copyvio and should be removed but I wanted to get feedback on this first. - Aoidh (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I doubt that Aoidh. A quick look at other pages on the website shows extensive copy-pasting from large language models (compare this summary to what you get if you type "Sapiens book summary" into ChatGPT) or, indeed, from elsewhere on Wikipedia (compare this page with List of state highways in Tamil Nadu). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Given that each page on that site is user-submitted it would make sense that there is a variety of origins for the various descriptions. I mentioned this because it is a possible concern, not because I am convinced it is a copyvio but to do my due diligence in checking this, as the review on the nom page didn't mention this and I wanted to particularly see with User:MaxnaCarta if EarWig even matched it at the time, which if it didn't would strongly indicate that site copied from Wikipedia (which is what I strongly suspect but I felt I would be remiss if I didn't mention or follow-up on). However I'm also mentioning it because of the WP:NOR issue with that section, not only the Earwig match. - Aoidh (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to fully clarify I'm not trying to accuse Marokwitz or anyone of copyvio, I just want to make sure any concerns are settled before it hits the main page where the concerns might be brought up, and so to avoid the chance of the hook getting pulled or anything like that I'd rather it be discussed before that is all. - Aoidh (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I wrote this text myself on November 17, based on the original; I guarantee there was no copying involved. I never saw this "instapdf" source - they must have based their document on the Wikipedia page. You are correct that this is a summary of a primary source, and relying on a secondary source is preferred, but I found no such source on November 17, when the letter suddenly went viral. Marokwitz (talk) 19:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that's the case with regard to the matching text (especially when I started comparing diffs, your initial text isn't as much of a match as the slightly changed version that came later, which indicates they copied from Wikipedia) and I apologize if my initial comment seemed accusatory or anything, not my intention at all I just want to head of any ERRORS discussions that might pop up and risk the hook being pulled is all. I'm hoping MaxnaCarta can chime in but even without their input I'm fairly confident after looking at it more that you did indeed write the initial text and that it was not copied from this other site. The WP:NOR is a potential concern given WP:DYKCITE, I've done a preliminary search but do you think that now that time has passed and more coverage has been generated that non-primary sources could be added to the section? If that can be reasonably achieved I have no other concerns. - Aoidh (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Marokwitz: Pinging just in case. - Aoidh (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

No offense taken; that is perfectly fine. Marokwitz (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@Marokwitz, I did a copyvio when I approved the hook (as is required in all hook reviews) and had no issues. I do see the similarity now. I'd consider rewriting some of the sentences just to avoid any issues. But that is a suggestion purely because I know how quick some (not Aoidh, in fact, I believe they have raised this issue because of) editors can be to take issue with even a sniff of a copyvio and try to get the hook removed out of precaution. A little paraphrasing, and this clears up any possible misperception from anyone. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

After doing a deeper look I think I can reasonably show through diffs that that site copied the Wikipedia article rather than the other way around, though the differences are minor because there haven't been many edits made since it was added. However the differences are there; it wouldn't match the newer version of the text as it does if Marokwitz copied from that site, their initial edit would have been the one to match. I do think the sourcing needs to be addressed but I think I can reasonably show at ERRORS how it's not a copyvio if it comes up. - Aoidh (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The page in question was clearly created one day after, on November 18 and copied my original text and not the other way around. You can take my word on it. Marokwitz (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

@Marokwitz neither of us either doubted you for a second I’m sure. I’m glad it was raised. Not because you may have copied. But some other editor may have falsely perceived it to be the case. There are editors who scrutinse the mainpage for copyvios (and understandably, it is a concern). — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Guillermo Torrez

Queue 6: Guillermo Torrez (nom)

• ... that small-business leaders such as Guillermo Torrez sympathized with the Movement for Socialism despite its anti-capitalist rhetoric?

@Krisgabwoosh, Grnrchst, and AirshipJungleman29: This one may just be a nitpick on my end, but it seems misleading to descibe someone who had leadership roles within Movimiento al Socialismo/Movement for Socialism as merely being sympathetic to the group. - Aoidh (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it could be argued that Torrez's membership in the sector were what prompted him to eventually join the party. Furthermore, the hook uses "leaders" plural, so it has to account for the sector as a whole – Torrez just being one example. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Since he specifically is the subject of the hook the leaders part can be amended as needed. I think omitting that he was in the group in a leadership role and not just sympathized with it could perhaps be reworked. - Aoidh (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7

Existence

If we really wanted to have fun with this, how about:

... that ...

although with deference to the #Quirky vs. clickbait? thread above, maybe we'd have to hold that for April 1st. RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: That might work if we IAR - it plays on the title. I did not comment on the #Quirky vs. clickbait? thread, but I thought it was appropriate that you added to the hook since in my mind it was a tongue cluck after clicking and seeing that it was a song. WP:PLA Lightburst (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Not a fan, but I wouldn't stop this assuming the second ellipsis gets bolded (otherwise it is too difficult to notice that it is a link). —Kusma (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

In the example I gave above, it is bolded :-) RoySmith (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, wait, no it's not. What was I thinking. OK, in this example, it's bolded...

... that ...

That's better. RoySmith (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Haha, that’s brilliant. Let’s do that. Schwede66 21:49, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of doing this, as many readers wouldn't understand what was going on. Pinging the nominator Phlsph7 for their thoughts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Also not a fan. Am dubious about it even flying on AFD. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

If the ellipsis hook is to be used I suggest only doing this on AFD. I understand everyone's desire to do quirky hooks but this is starting to become overkill. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems like prep 3 is a good choice as it already has just over 1000 characters and there is presently an open spot hanging out there Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3. To Narutolovehinata5 I do not think that we have been overdoing the quirky hooks. Lightburst (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I actually like the idea of holding this for Play with their heads day. RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the suggestion is really quirky. But I don't understand the relation between "..." and Existence. "..." is usually used to indicate a continuation or as a placeholder or an ellipsis. ... redirects to Ellipsis, which does not talk about existence. The article Existence does not mention "..." or ellipses. The best I can make of it is that "..." can mean almost anything (depending on the context) and existence is a very wide concept. Is there something that I'm missing? If we really want to use it then we should probably wait to April Fools' Day. The hook would be great for the article Ellipsis if someone ever decides to bring it to DYK. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The concept of a nonexistent object is certainly a prime candidate for AFD, but a hook featuring just an ellipsis would not work IMO, and most of the other hooks proposed are not great either. In which case, I suggest this nom be held over for workshopping prior to running on AFD. Gatoclass (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: The hook for this nomination is in Template:Did you know/Queue/7, it has been approved by a nominator, reviewer, prep-promotor and queue-promotor. Are you suggesting it be pulled for workshopping? Because it will run on the main page in about 9 hours. Lightburst (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, the hook set to run in a bit over six hours is ... that it is controversial whether there are things that do not exist? As I noted above, I think it should run in six hours as it is, not be held for AFD. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I was just making a fun suggestion. It doesn't seem there's much support for that, so I'd say just let it run the way it is. RoySmith (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Prep 1: Die Kuranten (nom)

The current hook is

• ... that the first Jewish newspaper was established in 1686 in Amsterdam?

However, the article says "Die Kuranten is considered by some as the oldest Jewish newspaper, although others consider the Spanish-language Gazeta de Amsterdam from 1672 as the oldest Jewish newspaper." We can't have hooks that present a disputed issue as fact, and it is especially bad if the hook disagrees with the article. A minimal change might be "the first Yiddish newspaper" but I haven't looked into the sourcing for that claim. Pinging nom @Kazamzam, reviewer @Launchballer, promoter @PrimalMustelid. Can we fix this while in prep (would need to be soon, it is the next one up for promotion to queue) or does this need to be unpromoted and sent back to WP:DYKN for further workshopping? —Kusma (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

There’s a discussion item further up the page about this nomination. Schwede66 21:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. See #Die_Kuranten above. The discussion there does not change my opinion that the hook is not an accurate representation of the article and should not be posted on the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

This needs to get unpromoted. When I raised my original objection, it was based just on reading the hook, i.e. I got triggered by seeing "first". But now that I'm looking at the article itself, the hook clearly does not, as @Kusma notes, say what the article says, which is "considered by some..." RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I would unpromote rather than move this to prep. Schwede66 21:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I've pulled this and reopened the nomination form. Schwede66 00:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

Catherine, Princess of Wales

@Lightburst, MSincccc, and Seddon: is taking photographs of your kids really something that meets our interestingness requirement? RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No its a fact that many don't know that Catherine's an amateur photographer who is often the person behind some of her kids' and other royals' official portraits. If you are not convinced, we can proceed with ALT1. But please I have worked for long to see a hook related to the Princess on the Main Page and most possibly on her birthday this Tuesday. Regards MSincccc (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that this hook could be considered uninteresting. If it was any other person, it could be typical. Even if it was simply a case of Kate taking pics of George and Charlotte, maybe. But the hook is about her hobby being photography and the official pictures were by her herself. To me, that's the unusual aspect. The official portraits were taken by none other than her, an actual royal, instead of a different person, not to mention the fact that a royal could have such a hobby in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Something being interesting is rather subjective. If other people feel the hook works, I have no objection. RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Pity she doesn't sing opera? Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

That take seems somewhat hidden by the wording of the hook. Perhaps using "portraits" may help with other tweaks, eg. "...and was the photographer for some of her children's official portraits". CMD (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hermann Alfred Tanner

@DYK admins: After I promoted this, I realized I was the GA reviewer for it, so somebody else will need to review this. RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done @RoySmith: I've reviewed it and with the caveat that I'm AGF on the offline German-language source (which I do not speak) everything looks good to go from what I see. - Aoidh (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Kathanar – The Wild Sorcerer

The first paragraph is an exact match for famousfix.com/list/indian-historical-fantasy-films. I'm pretty sure they copied from us, but another set of eyes to confirm that would be appreciated. RoySmith (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

That source definitely wasn't there when I ran Earwig before. I just followed the link and it took me to https://www.famousfix.com/topic/kathanar-the-wild-sorcerer, which uses the same links as us. They've copied us.--Launchballer 17:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Thumbnail size?

There's a discussion going on now on the village pump about increasing the default image thumbnail size. It doesn't directly affect {{main page image/DYK}}, but it's related so noting it here for those who might be interested. RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks like it has been decided = Larger it is. Lightburst (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Any idea when that will kick in? Schwede66 01:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussing the DYK guideline of one DYK per article maximum

Hello everyone, I'm turning to this talk page to clarify a rule point regarding the DYK guidelines

Context

I've recently been working on improving an article (Yobidashi) and it's been promoted to GA status. In order to promote this work and facts that may raise the curiosity of readers I proposed it for a DYK mention. The problem was that the article had already received a DYK citation in October 2004. The DYK rules state that this makes the article ineligible:

An article is ineligible for DYK if it has previously appeared on the main page as a bold link at DYK, unless the article was then deleted as a copyright violation.

After discussing it in the nomination discussion, I'm turning to you to see if it isn't time to change the nomination rules a little.

Opinion/discussion

As mentioned in the discussion for the mention in the DYK, I would be in favor of an evolution of the rule. 2004 is a long time ago when most of the people actively participating in Wikipedia were not yet present.

Age of the previous mention aside, the article in its current form has nothing to do with its version of twenty years ago.

So I'd like to have a discussion about the possibility of adding new DYK mentions to articles that have undergone major changes or that had previously received this mention several years before. - OtharLuin (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• See previous discussions: 1, 2, 3. My take is that articles that passed GA a couple years (ten is certainly enough) after being featured on the Main Page are deserving of another go at DYK, but at the same time we already have more DYK noms than we can handle, so I understand that there is overall little appetite for expanding the pool of potential nominations. —Kusma (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think one issue here is how many additional articles would become eligible if we allow a repeat DYK nom for passing GA after ten years. I don't think it would be a significant number, but I don't have any data. Given that GAs are typically more interesting than short new articles, we might even get more interesting hooks, so allowing GAs to be reruns seems a net positive to me. —Kusma (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I do wonder if articles previously featured on DYK can be eligible again after a minimum period. What I was thinking was five years, but other editors may find it too short. 10 years seems okay but could be too long for practical purposes. The idea I also had is that, if such an article is renominated for DYK, it must be under different circumstances from the previous nomination: for example, a previously-featured article as a new creation can only be featured again on DYK as either a 5x expansion or as a newly-promoted GA. In addition, perhaps it can only run if a completely new hook is used, as in the old hook cannot be used for the new nomination. In the discussion that relaxed the ITN/OTD rules so that said articles can run on DYK after a year has passed (previously, virtually all ITN/OTD blurb articles were totally ineligible), there was also talk about previously-featured articles to be given another chance at DYK, but there wasn't enough discussion regarding that specific issue to result in a consensus. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Anything before about 2010 had very little process or quality control, so I would say things that old should be allowed to run again for sure. Just because it ran under the archaic no-process DYK in 2004, that shouldn't preclude it running through the proper DYK process in 2024. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• I agree the rule should be relaxed, perhaps to exclude articles which featured before the current process (or its like) was attempted (2010 ish?). I have also recently realised that I have broken the rule at least once before, with Battle of the Indus. Improving articles long-dormant is also a worthy goal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Question: Since the subject had apparently already been mentioned several times during DYK's existence, wouldn't it be better to turn this discussion into a consensus-building exercise on the new DYK eligibility conditions in preparation for a vote (I've seen a previous approach fail for lack of participants)? As mentioned above by Kusma can we agree that an item promoted to GA or FA can represent itself for a DYK heading? And what about a 10-year period between each DYK? - OtharLuin (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Why is this an age-limited discussion. As a 1500 characters article goes to 7500 and a 7500 character article goes to 37500 they become dissimilar? I think a second appearance should be required to be 5x of a first time appearance and I also believe a 3rd appearance should be allowed for another 5x. Basically, I think any 5x should be allowed a run, but a repeat run would need to be both 5x or GA within the last seven days and 5x of the version that went on the main page to start the original DYK run. I don't think just taking it to GA should renew DYK eligibility because then people might do DYK and delay GA certification just to get a 2nd run without expanding the article significantly. Thus, I think a subject should be allowed up to 3 runs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Supporting DYK nominations if an article is extended 5 times since the last DYK-nominated version is something I could support. - OtharLuin (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't want people to write a new article, have it appear at DYK, then expand it 5x, have it appear at DYK again, and then turn it into a GA and have it appear once more, all within a few weeks. Better to have a minimum wait time of a few years so readers won't recognise the topic as a rerun. I do not think people should be encouraged to 5x expand an article that has been 5x expanded before, but rather go for GA as that rewards quality of writing over quantity. —Kusma (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  So if someone created an article at 1500 characters and nominated it for DYK, they could then expand it to 7500 characters and have another DYK as soon as the review was approved? Having the same article at DYK twice within a few weeks doesn't seem desirable to me. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• There needs to be a standdown period to prevent GAMING. Something between 2 and 5 years. Beyond that, I'm happy with subsequent appearances under the normal criteria (5x expansion or GA). Schwede66 17:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Schwede66: How about a one-year moratorium for everyone except the original nominator of the article? The same person probably shouldn't be taking an article to DYK twice, but if we want to encourage finding and building on other's work... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• I think even GAs would need to be 5x of the previous DYK. Thus, gaming would be less of a problem. There is no way for a GA to be less than 1500 characters, so we don't currently worry about character count of GAs. If we allow repeat DYKs we need to enforce 5x for all DYK appearances. Thus someone can not get a 1st or 2nd DYK at 7500 characters and then another for a GA of the same content even if time has passed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  Your suggestion encourages people to game the system by deliberately making their first DYK as short as possible. —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  All rules are made to be broken and gamed. If we require 2 years between DYK nominations, this might not be the case.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• If we are going to allow all 5x, we should have a rule that 3rd time DYKs must pass GA before DYK promotion because if an article that is at least 37.5k characters in length can not pass GA, we might not want it on the main page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3: 11 Jan

NZ MPs mass nomination (nom)

I've just moved prep 3 to queue but the lead hook is one that I nominated. @DYK admins: could one of you please check that one? The tricky check is the hook fact; when Bremps dealt with it, I pointed them to this Google Sheet (tab "changes with final results") and that cleared things up. The electoral system is a bit hard to follow and the changes from preliminary to final results have been written up in the target article, but trying to follow what's going on becomes a lot easier by looking at that spreadsheet. Any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. My guess is that between DrThneed and me, we probably have all the nominated articles on our watchlist to ensure that there aren't any shenanigans going on (in fact, I semi-protected one of the articles the other days after continued disruptive editing). Schwede66 17:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Green Bay Packers awards (nom)

Pings to Gonzo fan2007 (nominator) and ZooBlazer. There are several problems here:

• I can't see the hook fact in the article. Where does it say that the AP NFL MVP Award has been given out 28 times?
• If I follow the source given in the nomination, I count 30 awards; not 28. Am I right or am I counting the wrong thing?

A prompt response would be appreciated because this will hit the main page soonish. Schwede66 18:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

• Schwede66 I see where you are coming from. I was relaying on basic math for the first part (i.e. that the award has been given out over 28 seasons from 1995 to 2022), with the seven awards to Packers players being evident in the table. Maybe a revised hook like:

ALT1 ... that since 1995, the AP NFL MVP award has been given to a player for the Green Bay Packers seven times? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

That will do the trick. Thanks! Schwede66 19:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66 My bad, I probably shouldn't have taken a list as my first review/QPQ. I thought that if the info was supported in the table, that was okay to use, but at the same time it should probably be mentioned in the text as well. It does look like it is 30 total. I must have forgot to count or I miscounted something while I was checking the number of Packers winners.

Not a good look for me in my first review. -- ZooBlazer 18:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK is a complicated business; it's very easy to not get every detail right. I've been at it for coming up 15 years and further up this page, I made a big review blunder. Hence, all is good, ZooBlazer. What we want is for all to be correct when it hits the main page and through collaboration, we'll get there. Schwede66 19:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)