Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

Halloween set

[edit]

I think it could be nice to have a Halloween-themed DYK set this year, like last year. Would anyone else be interested in working on this? User:Premeditated Chaos said that she has a page ready, so that's already one. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago, I did Feetloaf. Not sure I've got anything better than that in the wings. The scariest I've got in my dusty drafts collection is User:RoySmith/drafts/Token Sucking. That's been incubating for six years and I still haven't managed to get it done. Maybe it's worth putting some effort into for this year. RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the nomination up for mine now: Template:Did you know nominations/What A Merry-Go-Round. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is another approved nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret C. Waites. TSventon (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer of my hook Template:Did you know nominations/Brian David Gilbert suggested that I post it here. The hook mentions Stranger Things (scary), Halloween monsters (spooky), and the American health insurance system (AAAHHHHH!!!).
— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw a review in the Guardian for a programme called "Killer Cakes" if that's of any use.--Launchballer 08:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haunted (Laura Les song) is nominated for GAN. This might be a potential option for this set. Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can work up articles/expansions for a deathcamas and a "ghost of Gondwana" spider species--Kevmin § 18:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Slime (fantasy creature) to go with this set. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also asked that Template:Did you know nominations/Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites (song) be included in the set. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnocentricity?

[edit]

I know we've done Halloween sets before, but I wonder if this is excessively ethnocentric? This is historically a Christian event (although it's been co-opted by people outside the Christian faith) and Geography of Halloween says The celebrations and observances of this day occur primarily in regions of the Western world. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't explicitly endorsing Halloween, it's just a fun project to get spooky/thematically appropriate hooks on October 31st. I really don't think this is an issue. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Halloween is celebrated everywhere where there is a strong American influence, which is quite a large part of the world, especially the English speaking one. We should try to celebrate some Indian holidays too, but there isn't anything wrong with a Halloween theme. —Kusma (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is willing to build a set for a non-Christian, non-Western special occasion, I would be fully supportive and find articles to help. Z1720 (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hallowe'en hooks

[edit]

Listing the proposed Hallowe'en hooks below, their topic, and their progress. These are not listed in any particular order:

If other hooks are proposed, please add them to the list above. Z1720 (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're targeting Prep 2 the next time it rolls over.
I think we're targeting Prep 2 the next time it rolls over.

I would definitely go with Slime (monster) for the lead hook because it's got a great image. RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's wonderfully goopy and a nice Halloweeny green color. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since some of the hooks are shorter, would editors be OK with 10 hooks? OTD can add hooks if it gets too long for Main Page balance. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original plan, as I remember it, was if we had 9 short hooks, we'd go with 9. If we had longer ones, we'd go back to 8. That plan seems to have lasted about 5 minutes :-) RoySmith (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I love the caption for the prep set, but we might get yelled at in ERRORS. @AirshipJungleman29: who selected this caption: are we OK with the caption as it currently stands, or should we look for something more encyclopedic? If we keep the caption, I suggest that someone monitor ERRORS or pre-emptively put a note there saying that consensus was to have this caption and it shouldn't be changed. Z1720 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

omg I love the caption haha Di (they-them) (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Launchballer, thanks for the ping about the edit to these hooks. As for the Waites hook, I would trim Cabot House—that was added in by a second reviewer but I think the name of an undergraduate dorm doesn’t mean much for most people. If that leaves room to put the books back in, I think that’s more interesting than the name of the dorm, but I’m also fine if you want to leave both out to make it punchier, so just, she’s said to haunt an undergraduate suite at Harvard College? Innisfree987 (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually a moot point because @AirshipJungleman29: reverted the edit.--Launchballer 16:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here that Haunted (Laura Les song) was nominated. If someone reviews it, I will promote it.--Launchballer 16:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer Reviewed and passed. CMD (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promoted. I did suggest Killer Cakes above.--Launchballer 13:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if Template:Did you know nominations/Get the Hell Out could make the cut? Was about to promote it for another set until I realized it's a zombie movie hook. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: Good idea. Assuming it checks out, ALT0/2 would work best if we're doing that. That set is currently being held up by #Progradungula barringtonensis - if you could give that a third review, I can assess this.--Launchballer 17:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider ALT1, which I just copy edited and trumps the other hooks IMO Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess. My objection was that it didn't mention 'zombie', but I see no reason why it can't be mooched from another approved hook. I just checked the article and while a GA reviewer might whinge about the length of some of its sentences, DYK is very much not that, so you may put it in the prep set.--Launchballer 17:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven hooks?

[edit]

I notice Prep 2 has eleven hooks in it. Is this a good thing? RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did trim some of them, but @AirshipJungleman29: reverted me. Also, I just pulled one.--Launchballer 09:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was when we had ten hooks. That Brian Gilbert hook stands out as being quite long and not that Halloween-y. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take that back now it has an excellent image. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Queue 1

[edit]

Neutron stars in fiction

[edit]

@Polyamorph, TompaDompa, and Silver seren: I see two problems here. First, this probably violates WP:DYKFICTION. Second, it's sourced to a blog. A blog by a professor at a major university, but I'm still not sure it counts as a WP:RS. RoySmith (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is explicitly about depictions in fiction and the hook explicitly notes that the subject is something in fiction. Does that really fall under what WP:DYKFICTION was meant to be covering when it comes to hooks? Like, the subject matter of the article is about how something is shown in fiction. Everything in the article is going to be about the subject matter in fiction. As for the source, it's very clearly an EXPERTSPS, and not even self-published, since it's done as a part of the university and by someone who has actual academic journal publications on the subject matter of not only neutron stars, but also such bodies in fiction. SilverserenC 00:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with @Silver seren Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DYKFICTION states that the hook needs to be based on a real-world fact. The hook is a real-world fact about works of fiction, so DYKFICTION doesn't apply. The source is OK, but in any case the hook is supported by Bloom (2016) cited in the Neutron_stars_in_fiction#Life section. Polyamorph (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine. There can be real world facts about fiction. And EXPERTSPS in a context where it is fine to use it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the points made above, which I agree with, I would note that the hook is (to my eye) qualitatively quite similar to previous ones deemed acceptable, such as:
TompaDompa (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If true, then there's a double standard and a major disconnect. As a reviewer, I've had major issues pointed out by the community about art hooks, particularly art hooks that feature fictional aspects of the work, which have been informally rejected as violating DYKFICTION. I will provide Template:Did you know nominations/Gulshan-i 'Ishq as an example of whose original hook was rejected. In other words, if this was about a work of art instead of a fictional work, those hooks would not have been accepted. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's an apt comparison, but an apples-to-oranges one. The article under discussion, and the ones I brought up, are about subjects/topics in fiction rather than works of fiction. The one you brought up is about a work, rather than a subject. It's the difference between describing the characteristics/contents of a single work and overarching trends in multiple (more-or-less). TompaDompa (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see your point conceptually in that one hook is a work about a painting and another is a subject in fiction, but it still relies on fictional works, and that's a distinction without a difference when it comes to the hook content. I don't see a qualitative difference between a hook about an art work that describes a fictional king and hooks about fictional mist creatures and crystals living on Pluto or exotic lifeforms around neutron stars. But, that's just me. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how Gulshan-i 'Ishq is an artwork—it seems to just be a poem? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my loose wording. It's a poem which famously includes watercolor illustrations depicting the content. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) A better comparison might be something like ... that cycles of the Life of Christ in medieval art usually show relatively few of his miracles? (Life of Christ in art) or ... that medieval depictions of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary often show her dropping her belt to Thomas the Apostle as she rises? (Assumption of Mary in art). Both of those are articles where the subject of the article is a particular subject in art, as opposed to a work of art, and the hooks are about trends in those depictions. TompaDompa (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not worried about the sourcing, but I'm not seeing how this passes DYKFICTION either. The real-world connection offered mostly seems to be an acknowledgement that this happens in fiction? If we had a hook saying "...that in X book, neutron stars harbour exotic life on their surface?", it would fail the fictional requirement. I'm not sure how saying "....that in fiction, neutron stars harbour exotic life on their surface?" would be substantially different. If the hook made it clear that it was referring to a trend, or some technique, or was contrasting it with the fact that such a depiction would be impossible- then yes, that would be a real world connection. But simply acknowledging that these depictions occur in fiction? I think it would be better to find a new hook/rework this one a bit.
And as for the counterexample hooks, I think the one about Jupiter manages to (tenuously) connect the fictional elements to a literary technique, and the Uranus one connects the fictional elements to a real-life trend. I'm not sure the other two should have been approved- but there is clearly some wiggle room when it comes to interpreting the DYK fiction rule. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For convenience, here's the hook under discussion: ... that in fiction, neutron stars harbour exotic lifeforms in their vicinity, on their surface, and even in their interior?. I personally think "exotic" and "even" make the point that this is rather unlikely clear enough. I also think the hook providing three different locations as examples is enough to make it clear that this is referring to a trend, though I suppose we could add "variously" or something like that to make it even clearer—but I also think the Pluto in fiction and Supernovae in fiction hooks are clear enough in that regard, and I don't think those hooks would have been better if they had said e.g. ... that life on fictional life on Pluto, a common motif, has included mist creatures and crystals? or ... that inducing supernovae in fiction is a recurring motif, and these variously serve as weapons, power sources for time travel, and advertisements?. TompaDompa (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with GreenLipstickLesbian that the Uranus hook is a good one, the others are more tenuous. I disagree with the topic vs individual subject argument raised above, there can be statements made about a single aspect of an individual work that could teach something. DYKFICTION may be too broad in some respects, but a hook saying fiction authors have imagined life in neutron stars seems like exactly the type of hook it is trying to prevent. Where haven't they imagined life? CMD (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rather thought the point was to prevent ... that in [work of fiction], [plot description]?. There's some recent-ish (very brief) discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Guidelines#DYKFICTION_2, where the suggestion was made that "Did you know that aliens in fiction are often depicted with green skin?" would be acceptable but "Did you know that Orions have green skin?" would not be, for basically the same reasons I've been pointing to. There's also less recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Guidelines#Recent hook and DYKFICTION involving a previous hook of mine for comets in fiction (which I would have liked to have been pinged about instead of discovering it now), where basically the same points were raised as well. TompaDompa (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If so, that doesn't exactly come through. "Works of fiction are bounded only by human creativity, making possible all manner of hooks that would be interesting if they were real – but if everything is special, nothing is." This reads as trying to create a brightline around WP:DYKINT, by preventing things "that would be interesting if they were real". This would as written apply to both "Anonymous Sciecefictionwriter imagined exotic lifeforms in and around neutron stars" and "Many science fiction writers have imagined exotic lifeforms in and around neutron stars" in the same way. CMD (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read DYKFICT the same way that Tompa does (in fact I'm the one who wrote the post with the "aliens with green skin" example). I think that there's a clear difference between a DYK that simply says "this happened in a story" and a DYK that says "X happening in various stories is a trend". One is simply repeating the fiction. The other is a real-world analysis of the fiction, and I think acceptable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a clear difference in theory, but "... that in fiction, neutron stars harbour exotic lifeforms in their vicinity, on their surface, and even in their interior?" does not provide analysis, it simply says X has happened in at least one story. CMD (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There is no analysis in that hook. Who knows if the "in fiction" refers to one work, five, or a thousand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing an issue here. Is there a problem if there's no analysis? There is a connection to a real-world fact here even if may seem implicit at first. I get the point of DYKFICTION, but in this case people here seem to be interpreting it far more broadly than intended. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I can't agree that it does not provide analysis—it identifies a pattern/trend. Do we really need to spell it out in the hook that this is a recurring thing? Methinks that would mostly just make it clunkier—as noted above, we could say something along the lines of "... that in fiction, neutron stars variously harbour exotic lifeforms in their vicinity, on their surface, and even in their interior?" to make it more explicit, but is that an improvement? TompaDompa (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That more than one science fiction writer has explored the possibility of life in a certain place does not seem much of a trend. Is there somewhere in space that hasn't had the possibility of life existing explored? I do find the exploration of life on the surface of the neutron star interesting, although unfortunately there is only one example. (This is an example of where I find DYKFICTION a bit difficult.) The Flux example of life inside the neutron star seems a bit more speculative from the source. (The source does not for one case of life around a neutron star that "the neutron star itself isn’t key to the story", which seems applicable to the other vicinity cases too, so I find those less specifically compelling.) There does seem a trend in exploring the gravitational effects of neutron stars, although I am not sure to what extent it might be differentiated from other bodies with gravitational fields. CMD (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the cited source treats these works collectively as a set based on the presence of life. TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's accurate. The works grouped together in the article are drawn from two separate sets (of the total seven) in the source, one for life in/on the neutron star, and one about the neighbourhood. CMD (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you could look at it like that, but then the source does also draw a connection between the two. TompaDompa (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's all part of neutron stars I suppose. I've had a thought. The source covers how both Starquake and Flux engage with life needing to deal with Neutron star#Glitches and starquakes, which includes also trying to explain what said glitches are. A short addition each to the article Background and Life sections, and I think we could have a hook which passes the technical DYKFICTION requirement of at least two instances, while also directly linking with the real world exploration of an unknown phenomenon? CMD (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's one possible option, though I think it's a clearly inferior one as I find it way less interesting. I have at any rate added a brief mention.
On the original hook: even if we consider life on/in neutron stars and life around neutron stars to be two separate sets (or whatever term is most apt), that basically just means that the hook covers two facts rather than one: (1) depictions of life in/on neutron stars is a recurring feature in fiction writing, and (2) depictions of life around neutron stars is a recurring feature in fiction writing. Either way, it shouldn't be a problem. TompaDompa (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you find it less interesting that science fiction writers have looked at specific aspects of life living on neutron stars than the general fact that science fiction writers have looked at life on neutron stars? CMD (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this specific case, it's because I reckon that for most people, starquakes and glitches in the the context of neutron stars does not mean anything to them. Too far removed from things they are familiar with, so to speak. TompaDompa (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean... does the hook say that it's a/ reoccurring theme? There's clearly some room for debate on that matter, but it appears that one "side" are all reading this hook as merely a list of things that can happen when neutron stars are discussed in science fiction. Conversely, the other "side" sees it as describing a trend. We're not disagreeing as to the merits of DYKFICTION- we just aren't agreeing if it applies in this particular style of hook.
@Premeditated Chaos I hope you don't mind if I ask you something, seeing as you wrote the alien examples. In those hooks I see two major differences. Firstly, that one focuses on a specific piece of media/literature. That's something we all agree does not pass DYKFICTION in its present form. However, the second difference between the two hooks is that the second one says "often". "aliens in fiction are often depicted with green skin". That "often" to me is what implies a trend/analysis is present in the hook/article. A hook merely stating "did you know that aliens in fiction can be depicted with green, brown, or metallic skin" could mean anything - am I about to click on an article, only to learn that somebody managed source an indiscriminate list of all the different skin colours authors have imagined aliens to have? Or am I going to learn the reason why green and grey aliens were so common during the 1960s? "Often" implies the second, just stating a list of possibilities implies the former. But, of course, that's just my reading. You made the examples, and you chose the wording for specifically and I'm in a unique position where I get to ask you why. What were you trying to illustrate? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenLipstickLesbian, I was trying to illustrate the difference between a hook that has a real-world connection and one that doesn't, with the first examples that came to mind. I was hoping that others might come in and make suggestions or changes, but it didn't really go anywhere - my bad for putting it at a low-traffic talk page rather than this one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Green (hunter)

[edit]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, Di (they-them), and Yue: The article and the source say "killed more than 1450 feral cats" but doesn't say anything about trapping them, so the hook shouldn't either. RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate Room

[edit]

@Hilst, Rollinginhisgrave, and Mariamnei: The hook says "army of ants" in quotes, but that phrase doesn't appear anywhere in the article. RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added to article. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 01:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veto (card game)

[edit]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, Piotrus, Oliwiasocz, and Chipmunkdavis: This is a "first" hook which requires exceptional sourcing. In this case, it's a vague "is considered" (by whom?), and it's sourced to something not in English, which I can't get to anyway because Internet Archive is still down. So, not strictly disallowed, but let's not tempt fate on this one. Is there a better hook that could be used? RoySmith (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Internet Archive has been back up for a couple of days now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wayback Machine, at least, is, which is all we need for this.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, when I tried the IA link earlier, it timed out, but I've got it now. The next problem is that I can't read Polish. I copy-pasted all the text into Google Translate, but I can't find anything that looks like it verifies the hook fact. Perhaps somebody who can read Polish could assist? RoySmith (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps Piotrus could help out here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith @RoySmith Sure (it is my article, after all). The claim of first is sourced to two sources. One does not require IA ([1]), and, side note, instead of copypaste into GT, Chrome has a right-click translate page option (perhaps it needs enabling in setting?) Anyway, from that source:

    Poles are not geese and they have their own card games. Only, there aren't many of them [...] Only about "Veta", published since 2004, can I say with full conviction that it is an indigenous production

    . The second source, pdf, states

    There has always been a lack of a domestic game that would be interesting, solidly made, and above all playable. Fortunately, Veto filled this gap.

    . Here is a source from 2009 that calls it the only Polish CGG (although that is not correct, as 2005, a year after veto, saw [2]). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. That said, if we want to be fully correct (I've expanded the article a bit with some sources), we may want to consider a revised hook:
    or
    This is because it is not the first Polish-language CCG, nor the first CCG developed by a Polish company (that would be [3]; I did not know about it until today, it is very obscure...). Veto is one of the first Polish CGGs (second developed by Polish designers, although the year 2004 also saw non-commercial, fandom-based production FanDooM [4]), but the first one that is Polish-themed. Sorry for the confusion, this stuff is pretty obscure, and some sources cited, despite being reliable-ish, make mistakes too because, well, obscure stuff. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting here that as a reviewer, my interest in the hook was related to the theming of a CCG on Commonwealth history, rather than it being the first or later to do so. CMD (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fred the Head

[edit]

@Dumelow, Hilst, and BeanieFan11: this probably fails WP:DYKDEFINITE ("a definite fact that is unlikely to change"). It'll be false the moment the case gets solved. RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it can rewritten to add the age of the case? Something like "... a man's body [...] has been unidentified since 1971?" If not, maybe we can use a different fact (only one I thought was interesting was the E-FIT one, but maybe the article's writer can come up with something better). – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 01:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure I see the issue here? The case has been open for 53 years, it's not going to be solved before this appears on the main page tomorrow - Dumelow (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the interpretation of WP:DYKDEFINITE is that the hook's truthfulness or accuracy is unlikely to change in the future, rather than just simply at the time of its appearance on the main page. At least, that's how it seemed to have been interpreted from experience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why that would be important. DYK hooks appear on the main page for less than 24 hours and then are essentially invisible except to a vanishingly small percentage of readers who know where to look and who won't be surprised that the fact stated in the archives reflected the position at a stated moment in time and not a statement for the ages. The wording of WP:DYKDEFINITE was added last year by User:Theleekycauldron, I had a quick look at the archives to try to find a discussion that laid out the reasons for it but had no luck, perhaps they could assist? If consensus is there that it should be an immutable fact then fair enough it just seems to work against interesting hooks and promote unnatural wording. Would we really go with "... the Battle of Towton is the bloodiest battle fought in England as of 2024" over "... the Battle of Towton is the bloodiest battle ever fought in England"?
It's already not definite that the Battle of Towton was the bloodiest as there have been other bloody battles and the numbers for any of them aren't certain. See the Battle of Hastings, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this fails WP:DYKDEFINITE, then we should change WP:DYKDEFINITE. It would be trivial to make it definite by adding "as of 2024", but it would not be an improvement. —Kusma (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 01:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that a man's body, found wearing only a woman's wedding ring and a pair of socks in 1971, is the oldest unsolved missing persons case in Staffordshire, England?
  1. This is not a missing person; it's an unidentified body
  2. Other, older remains have been found in Staffordshire – see Search for ancient skeleton for some examples. At some point, this stops being a police matter and becomes archaeology but that's not definite.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

[edit]

Wuhan trolleybus route 1 (nom)

[edit]

I find this a bit bland. The source has “当年1路电车也算是武汉的一个特产，外地来的人，必须得来坐一趟，才能领会到这座城市独有的味道。”, which I read as something like "at the time, trolleybus number one was one of Wuhan's specialities (literally: special products), and people coming from elsewhere had to come and take a ride and only then could grasp this city's unique feeling/flavour"; the nom uses a longer quote but perhaps there is some compromise to be found? —Kusma (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping nom @S5A-0043, reviewer @Epicgenius, promoter @Polyamorph. —Kusma (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the originally proposed ALT1 sounded most interesting, but it wasn't an approved hook. Maybe a variation of that would work? Polyamorph (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Polyamorph and @Kusma, I can also approve ALT1. Almost everything checked out to me, except that the hook gave the impression that the trolleybus literally circled nonstop around a statue of Sun Yat-sen for nearly 65 years. However, if @S5A-0043 revised ALT1 slightly, it can work. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something like
could probably work based on the sources we have. We even have a picture of the trolleybus with statue, e.g. File:2022-电1路经过三民路铜人像.jpg. —Kusma (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma, That ALT could work. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped in. —Kusma (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. S5A-0043Talk 00:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baguia Fort (nom)

[edit]

I can't see the source mentioning that it was turned into a hotel, only into some form of tourist accommodation? —Kusma (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping nom @Chipmunkdavis, reviewer @Lajmmoore, promoter @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy. —Kusma (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the distinction being made here? I have no issue with replacing "hotel" with "tourist accommodation" if that solves the issue. CMD (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can see online elsewhere (and on ptwiki/dewiki) it seems to be more a sort of hostel than a hotel. "Tourist accommodation" would provide better source to text integrity (and should also be changed in the article). We could also go for ALT2. —Kusma (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am doubtful this is a pertinent distinction in the (non-Dili) East Timorese tourism industry, but I have no issue with a shift to hostel or other wording, or a hook switch. CMD (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Kusma - what about ALT1? I think its quite fun? Otherwise it seems the switch in wording to tourist accommodation has been made in the article by @Chipmunkdavis and the same could happen in the hook. I too didn't see a huge distinction, but I take your point on integrity. Lajmmoore (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Apologies, I was unexpectedly busy IRL). I went for the simpler "tourist accommodation" but ALT1 isn't too bad either. —Kusma (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pabhāvatī (nom)

[edit]
  • ... that the beauty of Princess Pabhāvatī was said to light up seven chambers, making lamps unnecessary?

I read this as violating WP:DYKFICTION (I think the source is a quote from an original text inside a scholarly article. The article is in Burmese, so all I can do is point Google Lens at it and hope for the best). Ping nom Hteiktinhein, reviewer Chipmunkdavis, promoter Nineteen Ninety-Four guy to see if this can be salvaged. —Kusma (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

proposing ALT1: ... that a Burmese transliteration of the Sanskrit name Pabhāvatī is a common designation or metaphor for a beautiful woman in Myanmar? Source: "Kutha Zatdaw" (PDF). Myanmar Alin (in Burmese). 16 June 2005. p. 10. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0 (rewrite): ... that according to legend, the beauty of Princess Pabhāvatī was said to light up seven chambers, making lamps unnecessary?
ALT0-a: ... that according to the Buddhist epic Kusa Jātaka, the beauty of Princess Pabhāvatī was said to light up seven chambers, making lamps unnecessary? Source: Lhuiṅʻ, Ūʺ Sanʻʺ (1975). စစ်ကြိုခေတ် အနုပညာရှင်များ (in Burmese). Sūrassatī Cā pe tiukʻ. သာဂလခေါ် တိုင်းပြည်ကြီးက ပပဝတီရယ် ချောလှတဲ့ ဘုံကြိုးပြတ်တဲ့ မိုးနတ်နွယ် ပုံနှယ် ခုနစ်ဆောင် တိုက်ခန်းလယ် မီးမထွန်းဘဲ လင်းရပြန်ပေတယ်", translation: "In the great kingdom known as Madda, The beautiful maiden, Pabawaddy, Like a celestial who fell from the heavens, In the seven chambers, she shines without light. Hteiktinhein (talk) 07:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, she is not a fictional character; she originates from Buddhist legends and is considered a mythological figure. If she were a fictional character, then the Buddha would also be considered fictional. I am re-proposing the hook with a reference to a historical book that highlights this claim in the source. Thank you. Hteiktinhein (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma and Hteiktinhein: I've tagged the Legend section for tone issues, as its content reads like a story. Should this nom be pulled for the time being? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't understand why there is a tone issue. This article is about a mythical or folklore figure, not a historical one, so I wrote it in an in-universe style. This article is already summarized as a stub in a formal tone. The original story is 17 pages long and can be expanded fivefold if I choose to (you can read full story in English here [5]). If the tone is problematic for you, why wasn't it addressed or raised during the review process? As the only Burmese mythology editor, I've had no issues with any articles I've created. This article has already passed the DYK review process, and I'm welcome to ask questions about errors in the hook, but the current tone is fine with me. Hteiktinhein (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is part of the DYK review process Hteiktinhein; just because one editor has placed a tick does not mean the article must be completely fine. In this case, I agree that the tone is excessively narrative-like (the dramatic quotes don't help). The structuring is also a bit odd—why not discuss the first life ... first? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a Good Article nomination. This is about a legend, so I wrote like a story. Are you referring to 'past lives'? I can clarify this: the Jataka legends were retold by the Buddha in a sermon style during his lifetime. At the end of each legend, the Buddha revealed the past lives of the main figures without explicitly mentioning their names. Therefore, I don’t think it’s appropriate to feature their past lives first in the Wikipedia article. If the 'past life' is discussed first, it may confuse readers by stating something like, 'Pabawaddy is the reincarnation of the young man's sister-in-law,' as it doesn't make sense. Hteiktinhein (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten the article in a formal tone. Hteiktinhein (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not happy with the changes. @Kusma: This nom is just 12 hours away from hitting the Main Page, so I would like to ask whether you're happy with the changes put forth by Hteiktinhein? What about you, AirshipJungleman29? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have copyedited the story further, I think it's improved Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, but not sure how much. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think either a {{tone}} or a {{Religious text primary}} is still appropriate. I will push this back into prep 4 to buy some time. Apologies this took so long. Ping @Hteiktinhein, @AirshipJungleman29, @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy for awareness. —Kusma (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for copyediting this, @AirshipJungleman29:. I believe {{Religious text primary}} is not appropriate. I have already informed the reviewer during the nomination that the English version reference is only a backup. The article is supported by a scholarly article and significant coverage from the Myanma Alin newspaper, which features an explanation of the epic and highlights this was a popular opera from the National Performing Arts Competition. However, since it is in print, you can use Google Lens for translation. I know it’s not easy to find in the PDF file, so I’ve separated this coverage from the newspaper for you to see here. Hteiktinhein (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how ALT0 or ALT0a fix the WP:DYKFICTION issues, neither of those are focused on a "real life fact". ALT1 is better but I agree there are also MOS:WAF issues with how the story is currently presented; I'm also still unclear after reading the article how much of this is a real person vs how much of it is from a legend. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article text itself aside (which should do more than just summarize the legend, such as mention, for example, what purpose academics say the legend serves in the community it circulates in, or what meaning it conveys within that religious tradition), the legend exists in real life and is apparently a big part of why the topic is a subject of interest. The existence of folklore, legends, and tall tales about topics can be part of why a topic gets real-world attention and is of note or interest, regardless of the reality of such stories. This is a case where I think either WP:DYKFICTION, whether by application or actuality, is overzealous and results in favoring rather boring hooks that are about ancillary elements of a topic. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you make a good point -- DYKFIC is written specifically as a guideline WP:DYKINT, but in some cases actually ends up working against finding interesting hooks. In this case I'm not sure I agree that the more interesting hooks are the ones possibly in violation of DYKFIC; they basically amount to a description of a character (though to your point I think there are interesting parts of this story that could potentially make good hooks). 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the Buddhist and Hindu epics are often regarded as fictional in the Western world, I have no intention of disputing that perspective. However, the stories in Buddhist epics are believed to have actually taken place in ancient India, with the Ramayana being an example. If some choose to view the Buddha as a fictional figure, so be it. But why isn't the same skepticism applied to figures like Jesus? However, ALT1 also looks fine. Hteiktinhein (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
proposing ALT2: ...that the renowned Mahāgīta songwriter Yan Naing Sein composed a tribute to the incomparable beauty of Pabhāvatī in his legacy song "A-long-daw Kutha"? Source: Muiʺ (Candayāʺ.), Lha (1967). မြန်မာဂီတစစ်တမ်း ဗဟုသုတရတနာ [Research of Myanmar old music: Knowledge treasure] (in Burmese). Ūʺ Thvanʻʺ Rī , Mruiʹ toʻ Cā pe.
I don't know who proposed ALT2 or when, but I've replaced this with another hook from Approved, so that needs a review before the prep can be queued.--Launchballer 16:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times Simulator

[edit]

The chosen hook (ALT0) fails WP:DYKFICTION and was also not preferred by the reviewer. Swapped to ALT1. Ping nom wasianpower, reviewer JuniperChill, promoter Nineteen Ninety-Four guy for awareness. —Kusma (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I also mentioned about WP:DYKFICTION but at least i pointed out another reason (not interesting) why ALT0 is non-compliant. Link to nom for convenience JuniperChill (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection here, ALT1 was provided precisely for DYKFIC reasons. Appreciate the ping! 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, one could argue that ALT0 does not in fact fail DYKFICTION, at least from what other editors have argued here. Arguably, ALT0 is not talking about plot but rather game mechanics, and while personally I think the lines between plot and game mechanics can sometimes be blurry, other editors have said that game mechanics still pass DYKFICTION. I started a discussion about this a while back but it didn't gain much traction, so I wonder if there's interest on an RfC clarifying if game mechanics fall under DYKFICTION or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 That ambiguity is something I ran into when nominating -- I'd definitely be interested in participating in an RFC if one was opened! 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, with the spate of apparently noncompliant hooks, I can't help but think our WP:DYKFICTION guideline is either overzealously applied or itself written in an unhelpful way. We can agree that we want to avoid a hook like 'Vulcan culture emphasizes stoicism', but the ALT0 in this case is describing how a real-life player would experience the game. I remember another hook that was something like 'this eighteenth-century English novel written has XYZ overt sexual themes' and it got pulled on WP:DYKFICTION grounds and replaced with a very bland quote about the novel when, frankly, what was so interesting about the novel was that during a time when Anglophone culture was publicly very sexually restrained its content was so sexually overt. Sometimes fictional elements aren't interesting as hooks because they lack intrigue beyond being fictional, but there are cases when fictional elements, because of their real-world context, are interesting as hooks. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, this is literally the first time I've had to defy a reviewer's expectations. I disagree that the hook fails WP:DYKFICTION, as it's simply describing a fact about the game in real-world context. We can't reject this one while not batting an eye on, say, another videogame hook currently in the Halloween prep set: ... that you can prepare monkey brain dishes in a Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures minigame? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. @Vacant0, Panamitsu, and NightWolf1223:, what makes that hook compliant?--Launchballer 13:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I did not consider DYKFICTION. I agree that it may not be compliant wrt that guideline. However, I think it might still work because it is describing events in a game from the fram of the real world.
NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 13:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if not, I'll propose some alt blurbs here. If allowed of course. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reopened the nom.--Launchballer 09:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preps 4 and 5

[edit]

Just a quick note, since we're down to two queues: I prepared preps four and five, and thus will not be able to promote them.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing.--Launchballer 12:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit tired from prep 4, so I probably won't do prep 5 now. Anyone else is free to chip in before I do.--Launchballer 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm going to start on prep 5.--Launchballer 15:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Canales

[edit]

@Mrfoogles, Lajmmoore, and Crisco 1492: The article does not spell out that the stations were set up for that exact purpose, only that he set it up and that that migrants' deaths are a problem, and there seems to be some close paraphrasing in the article.--Launchballer 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oof, "he attended schools in South Texas, including Sam Houston Elementary School in Corpus Christi. Canales was bilingual and learned to read" is definitely reworkable. Good catch. I did spell out the hook fact, which is readily supported by the sources.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hook fact is that they were installed specifically to save lives, and technically "undocumented immigrants" isn't quite the same as "immigrants taking routes that avoided a checkpoint along U.S. Route 281".--Launchballer 13:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the connection there is reasonably clear — all sources I can find, apparently deliberately, refer to them as “migrants” instead of “illegal immigrants”, though. The Wash post article includes a quote from him saying “It just goes to the language, to the words, and words mean a lot: ‘All these were illegals.’ Even in death, they wound up not getting the proper respect.” if that helps. It seems unlikely that they’d be making the dangerous journey and avoiding the checkpoint if they had legal permission to enter the country. Worst case, I guess it could say migrants instead of undocumented immigrants, but I don’t think that’s necessary. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say, thank you for tagging me, but I just commented on the nomination, and don't have anything further to add on its review. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ansorge Hotel

[edit]

@Kevmin and Reconrabbit: Aside from needing a copyedit, the article says "a red light would be placed in an upstairs bay window to signal the US rum-runners should not retrieve the liquor in town" and the hook says "told rumrunners of revenue men in town". These are not the same thing. Also, what makes Randrianasolo's sportive lemur a full QPQ?--Launchballer 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article says, "On occasions when revenue agents were staying in the Ansorge, a red light would be placed in an upstairs bay window to signal the US rum-runners should not retrieve the liquor in town." I thought that that was sufficiently clear, as the Ansorge was "in town". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know how I missed that.--Launchballer 13:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chris is correct, the Ansorge is in the Center of Curlew, and the back room windows directly overlook the bend of the Kettle River where liquor barrels would normally get pulled out. So when the revenue men stayed in the hotel, the owner placed a red light in the corner widow to signal rumrunners.--Kevmin § 15:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It probably ought to be more than just length, but if you're happy with it then I'll take it.--Launchballer 13:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed a couple of times in the past month on this page. A full review is considered any review action that closes out a nomination, either as passing or as failing. Thats how it always has been, and the recent trend to only treat a passing review as a "full" is rules creep far away from the actual rule.--Kevmin § 15:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes—if you start saying you have to provide the full checklist review for even ten-second quickfails, you a) go against WP:NOTBURO and b) incentivise quick-passes over providing actual reviews. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magic (play)

[edit]

@ThaesOfereode, Andrew Davidson, and Crisco 1492: Do we have a source that specifically says that Shaw was referring to Hilaire Belloc, given that the quote just says Belloc? Seems somewhat WP:SYNTHy otherwise.--Launchballer 18:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both sources make explicit that Hillaire was one of Chesterton's close friends, and that Shaw invoked him in his efforts to pester Chesterton to write (both discuss the "Chesterbelloc" essay in depth). Given their extensive discussion of the relationship, neither invokes a different Belloc when discussing the letter. It's not explicit, but the implication is strong to the point where one would have difficulty assuming it was a different Belloc. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. The association is well established – see Chesterbelloc. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. To add, Chesterton is referring to Hilaire beyond any reasonable doubt; Shaw described Chesterton and Belloc, not as simply joined at the waist but as one eight-legged being. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess. Just waiting on the last one now.--Launchballer 19:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dusko Doder

[edit]

@Thriley, ForsythiaJo, and Chipmunkdavis: I see WP:CLOP with nytimes.com.--Launchballer 18:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig is giving 16.0%. Looks to be mostly proper nouns that are matching. Thriley (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Launchballer, mostly the "Early life and education" section. Don't fixate on the Earwig percentage. RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see similarities but I didn't consider it CLOP during the review. Maybe repeating "in Sarajevo" in the high school sentence is not needed. More details would be helpful. CMD (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As time is of the essence, I've copyedited this myself. @RoySmith:, has your concern been resolved?--Launchballer 10:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's an improvement, yes. RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few others I couldn't think of alternative wordings for this morning. This should be fine now (though admittedly I thought that earlier...).--Launchballer 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It occurs to me that LLMs are a good analogy for what most people do to "fix" paraphrasing problems. They both operate at the level of words (as does Earwig). As WP:CLOP says, Close paraphrasing, or patchwriting, is the superficial modification of material from another source. Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words. If you start with the text from the source and make a series of incremental changes, moving words around, substituting synonyms, etc, you're paraphrasing. What you really want to do (and what LLMs fail to do) is read the source material, understand what it is saying, and then formulate entirely novel text to express the same information. The bottom line is that what we've got now is OK, but only because we've moved from "close paraphrasing" to "more distant paraphrasing". I think that meets our requirement, so I'm not going to object to using it. But if you're still reading this far, it should be obvious that I'm not enthusiastic about it. RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I've promoted the set by hand, although I notice that Queue 5 has one less line of whitespace than Queue 4 - have I made a mistake?--Launchballer 16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A problem with extra whitespace in queues was reported here recently, I don't remember the exact thread, but it was in the past few days. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 202#PSHAW and blank space by @Crisco 1492:, which went unanswered.--Launchballer 17:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

[edit]

Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip

[edit]

@Crisco 1492, Richard Nevell, and Piotrus: I have concerns about whether this meets our WP:NPOV requirement. Also @Personisinsterest: who did the GA review. Frankly, when a reviewer writes The destruction of cultural heritage in Gaza is a really important part of what’s happening right now, and it’s kind of overlooked. I’m glad people are doing this it leads me to wonder if they are applying NPOV as rigorously as they should be. RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking for stuff to say honestly. Personisinsterest (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's something inherently wrong with being happy about the existence of an article that one considers informative and educational, and I can't help but find it a little absurd to impugn the quality of a review on the grounds that a reviewer complimented the creator. I like libraries and 19th-century American history and want both to appear more on Wikipedia, and I don't think that renders me incapable of doing decent reviews of 19th-century librarian biographers (I use this personal example because I have done such a GA review). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to discuss any concerns, but I should say that I've got a long train journey this evening and another tomorrow, and am busy between 9am and 5pm (UK time) so I can't guarantee a rapid reply.
We do of course need to uphold NPOV and I appreciate that ARBPIA articles are contentious. Is the concern about the hook, the article, or the topic area and its generally contentious nature (or a combination)? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some detailed comments
Richard Nevell, some thoughts after looking through the article. There are parts that seem extraneous to the core topic, and a few other changes that could be made which might help address concerns. The "destruction of intangible cultural heritage" mentioned in the lead is not covered or explained in the body, which seems to cover only tangible heritage. The "cultural genocide" is also not covered in the body, and the mention of looting in a paragraph about the airstrike campaign seems misplaced (looting seems a minor consideration compared to everything else, and the source gives it only a couple of mentions). The displacement of people and destruction of residential areas seems oddly placed so prominently in the lead, as neither is directly cultural heritage. The "Cultural heritage is part of civilian infrastructure" sentence as used in the lead and background does not make sense as written and placed both times; it is not a statement about history or meaning, but about whether it should be a target during a war (the original quote is already covered in the International response section). The third paragraph in Background seems to not be about the topic but Cultural heritage in general, and could be removed. The mention of "Nazi persecution of the Jews" feels pointy and I can't verify it in the source. There are two quotes given prominence, and neither seems to add significant understanding. The inline UN experts quote similarly mostly restates already known information. The Events section seems to be organised by topic, and this could be strengthened, for example the fourth paragraph seems to be summarising damage to religious sites, but religious sites are also included in the seventh and tenth paragraphs. The Quran burning is covered twice in two consecutive paragraphs. The List of sites might be better as its own separate section, and the "Date Constructed" column does not appear to be in the source. The Israeli razing of cemeteries and necroviolence against Palestinians See also should be shifted to the body, piping "identified sixteen cemeteries" as is done in the hook and lead would make it more relevantly accessible to readers. On the DYK, I would have taken ALT1 over ALT0, as ALT0 seems a disconnected list whereas ALT1 has a more specific focus. CMD (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: Thank you for those comments. I don't have time to address them properly now, but will do so this evening. Richard Nevell (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: I've broken your points down below to make it easier to reply inline. I've tried to explain the reasoning behind some of the choices. It's a bit long, so might need to be collapsed.
The "destruction of intangible cultural heritage" mentioned in the lead is not covered or explained in the body, which seems to cover only tangible heritage.
That’s a good point. Intangible heritage is mentioned in the body as a component of cultural heritage, but is not fully addressed. In part this is because the loss of intangible heritage is harder to quantify than tangible heritage such as buildings, but I have added some text explicitly addressing ICH. If that’s insufficient I’m happy to remove ICH from the lead.
The "cultural genocide" is also not covered in the body, and the mention of looting in a paragraph about the airstrike campaign seems misplaced (looting seems a minor consideration compared to everything else, and the source gives it only a couple of mentions).
Though the term isn’t mentioned, my thinking was that in the 'International response' section the mention of South Africa’s case in the International Court of Justice and the destruction of cultural heritage being part of that was enough. On reflection, I can see that there is some disconnect so I have now covered that in the 'International response' section.
The displacement of people and destruction of residential areas seems oddly placed so prominently in the lead, as neither is directly cultural heritage.
I believe that the fact that half of the buildings in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed as a result of the conflict is important context. If that isn’t included, the article would be presenting the destruction of cultural heritage in a vacuum, and the silence could imply that no other buildings or structures were damaged. With that information included, it is logical to me to note the consequence that people have been displaced, especially as this is related to the inability to access the region and carry out on the ground assessments. The destruction of cultural heritage is part of the wider destruction, not isolated from it, so in my opinion it belongs in the lead.
Half the buildings being damaged is contextual, "leaving residential areas devastated" is an emotively worded repetition of that, and that is not a strong relevant point regarding displacement. It is also a very dubious proposition that a reader will read the lead and come away with the impression that this war was a selective targeting of various cultural sites.
I have removed that phrase from the lead while retaining the bit about the extent of damage and displacement. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Cultural heritage is part of civilian infrastructure" sentence as used in the lead and background does not make sense as written and placed both times; it is not a statement about history or meaning, but about whether it should be a target during a war (the original quote is already covered in the International response section).
It is perhaps not needed in the lead so I have removed it. My thinking has been that the statement that cultural heritage is part of civilian infrastructure in the same way that hospitals, transport networks, and energy infrastructure would show that it has value to society. It seems that may not have been successful, and as the quote is used a third time in the 'International response' section, I have removed it from 'Cultural heritage in Gaza'.
The third paragraph in Background seems to not be about the topic but Cultural heritage in general, and could be removed.
With the background section, I was likely to err on the side of including more information than needed. I think it is important to explain what cultural heritage is and why it is important. The first is addressed in the opening sentence of the section, and the third paragraph addresses the second angle. That cultural heritage is linked to identity – shaping it and being shaped by it – is an important part of understanding it. I think that the reader would be worse off not having the fuller explanation of paragraph 3.
Perhaps that might apply to the first sentence, but the second sentence is about heirlooms, which is not covered in the article, and the most applicable interpretation of the third sentence is that this war is creating more cultural identity, which is possibly true but does not feel like an encyclopaedic point to make.
@Chipmunkdavis: It is not solely about heirlooms, but material culture broadly - though objects are of course part of that and indeed cultural heritage. I have reworked the second sentence to hopefully make this clearer. As for the third sentence of the same paragraph, I included an example to make it less abstract and think that removing the example would not be an improvement. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That change is not in the source, which is about "residues of a universe that is no longer", and is based on research in Jordan. This veers close to WP:coatrack, and background not about the subject in question (cultural heritage in Gaza) is better covered through the main article link. CMD (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of "Nazi persecution of the Jews" feels pointy and I can't verify it in the source.
At some point I had access to the 2018 edition of Malpas, but can't find where that was. Once I find it I will check against what the source says so that I can answer fully. I really should have made a note.
If it is a different version the link will need to be changed, the current gbooks page 199 is part of a list of chapter references.
There are two quotes given prominence, and neither seems to add significant understanding.
Jean-Baptiste Humbert quote: this is included because it adds perspective. ie: cultural heritage is important, but not as important as essentials, therefore Gaza is not able to invest in its cultural heritage. That is important for understanding the region' cultural heritage.
Mariam Shah quote: this quote addresses the intangible cultural heritage of these sites, without using those terms. It talks about tradition and symbolism, which are important to understanding heritage. These places are part of life and history in Gaza. It could perhaps be reworded, but I think it's a good quote and any summary of that sentiment that I could come up with would be much poorer.
I don't see those interpretations at all, both are statements that are pretty universally applicable. The priority issues raised by Jean-Baptiste Humbert apply to every government, even rich and unoccupied countries will choose food and education over investing in heritage. The Mariam Shah quote is a statement that would apply to any reasonably dates churches and mosques.
These quotes are explicitly about Gaza and while the dynamic about, for example, investing in food and education over heritage might not be unique to Gaza it remains helpful to understand cultural heritage in the region. And religious buildings being symbolic is not unique, but that's also useful context to understand why their destruction is significant; it speaks directly to the consequences of the conflict. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many quotes that could be about Gaza, but both of these are universally applicable statements (not just regional). Pulling them out reads as odd, especially when there is already a background section. CMD (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The inline UN experts quote similarly mostly restates already known information.
Do you mean the bit which reads "The foundations of Palestinian society are being reduced to rubble, and their history is being erased"?
Yes, it's essentially an emotively worded repetition of the article topic.
The UN quote is worth having because it is the UN and they are a major NGO. UNESCO is mentioned earlier but that is in a different context and a branch of the overall organisation. The quote has a similar gist to that from Middle East Studies Association, so I have summarised the MESA quote to make it less repetitive. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Easily stated more concisely with a "has condemned the destruction" or similar formulation. CMD (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Events section seems to be organised by topic, and this could be strengthened, for example the fourth paragraph seems to be summarising damage to religious sites, but religious sites are also included in the seventh and tenth paragraphs.
This section doesn't have a rigid structure, which perhaps isn’t helpful. It is a bit chronological, and a bit thematic, so some similar sites are groups (eg: libraries) but I still tried to follow a chronological narrative. It's not straightforward since reports sometimes don't specify the date on which an event occurred. My plan was to have a rough chronology but some events did group naturally. With the library example, a list of dates on which the libraries were destroyed would have been repetitive so I opted for a summary. I am open to restructuring this section so that it has a more clearly defined thematic or chronological approach if the current one is felt not to be effective.
One structure or the other is perhaps more helpful. If there is a mix, it may be best to start with topics and then add chronology; there may be enough detail for subsections on religious buildings, libraries, etc.
I'll experiment and see how it turns out. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Quran burning is covered twice in two consecutive paragraphs.
These are two separate instances of Quran burning – one in Rafah in May and the other at the Bani Saleh Mosque reported in August. The problem with a chronological rather than thematic approach is that this may appear like duplication.
Perhaps add the Bani Saleh Mosque is in the north, to help clear this up further.
Done - along with noting that Rafah is in the south. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The List of sites might be better as its own separate section, and the "Date Constructed" column does not appear to be in the source.
I've changed the heading from level 3 to 2, since having it as its own section rather than a subsection sounds like a good idea. I'll work on adding sources for the construction dates.
The Israeli razing of cemeteries and necroviolence against Palestinians See also should be shifted to the body, piping "identified sixteen cemeteries" as is done in the hook and lead would make it more relevantly accessible to readers.
Good suggestion, and done. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Nevell Sorry for the delay, some replies above. CMD (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how that could look bias. And it’s because I am. I am pro-Palestinian, as I have said before. And it was an overlooked part of the war. But I checked it. I checked to see if it was reliable and neutral. And when it explicitly stated the destruction was genocide, I toned it down. Personisinsterest (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is inherently subjective, since it talks about problematic behavior of a particular group (to keep it general). As such, there are always going to be some NPOV concerns lingering around. However, the article is stable, not NPOV tagged, and I did not notice any red flags in my reading. Unless we rule out any controversial topic as DYK-ineligible, I don't see what else we can do here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The use of a holocaust analogy should be a significant red flag, there is a lot that can be done here. CMD (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear there is controversy here. I've swapped this out to Prep 3 so we've got time to work on it. RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds sensible to me as this probably isn't a discussion that would be helped by time pressure. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Canales

[edit]

@Crisco 1492, Mrfoogles, and DimensionalFusion: There's substantial WP:CLOP of both caller.com and nytimes.com. I see this was mentioned here in the thread just above, but the changes made in response to that didn't fix the probem. Please read WP:CLOP. You can't fix CLOP by just changing a few words here or there. You need to write the text in your own words. RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ansorge Hotel

[edit]

@Crisco 1492, Kevmin, and Reconrabbit: I have doubts that the Ferry County Historical Society is a WP:RS for what really sounds like an urban legend. I can't find anything else that talks about this, and was somewhat amused when Google Search Lab cited our DYK nomination template as the best source! RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that for a town that's never exceeded a three-digit population it's impressive that any historical record or society exists at all. What would disqualify the website from being considered a reliable source? I imagine additional information exists in this book on prohibition in Northeastern Washington but of course I don't own the title. This essay supports the claim that Kettle River was used as a route for rumrunning. Reconrabbit 14:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SOURCE talks about sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In what way has the FCHS established this reputation? In any case, I have written to the society to ask about the provenance of this statement. In the meantime, perhaps there's a different hook which could be used? RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0 doesn't seem particularly interesting, ALT2 is more likely usable as it is corroborated by multiple sources but most don't specifically state "July 31". The year would also have to be changed to 1917 from 1911. Reconrabbit 15:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we are dismissing sources due to the rural nature they come from (by default most of rural western North America will not have a source level above a historical society), then Al2 can be adjusted to: "...that the Ansorge Hotel (pictured) may have hosted Henry Ford one night in July 1917?"--Kevmin § 15:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also of the opinion that a community's historical society would likely be reliable for non-exceptional statements about said community. The rum-running claim, while interesting, reflects something that was found in many communities; heck, even my hometown claims that some runners drove across the Detroit River when it was frozen over (amazed we specifically have Rum-running in Windsor, Ontario). As such, I wouldn't consider this claim exceptional: high vantage point, small community, and a general disdain for Prohibition. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Bootlegging alcohol during Prohibition happened throughout the United States. The history ALT1 describes boils down to 'people put a signal light in a window to warn bootleggers about the alcohol cops' which is an interesting fact about the building but not an exceptional, unbelievable, crazy happening that can only be conceived of as mere urban legend. ALT1 is fine. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TPL

[edit]

Per the talk page layout (WP:TPL), the DYK template is supposed to go above the banner shell. As we do it now, the DYK template is put below and must be manually corrected. Can someone fix this? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That just looks wrong to me. A DYK template should not be more prominent than WikiProjects, which might be useful in the future as opposed to one fixed date in the past. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's part of the article history set which all get grouped together in one template. Like GA or FA. Looks more right to me in any case, but at that point we're getting subjective, so oh well PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the news notices are correctly placed by their bot, DYK should not be an exception. Flibirigit (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi hi! See User talk:Shubinator#Talk page order for the latest discussion on this. Shubinator (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5

[edit]

Just a note, as we're down to one queue: I'm not able to touch Prep 5 as I was the one who prepared it. If someone is willing to do it, I can take a look at Prep 6 minus Filomena Fortes and Prep 7 minus Stuntman and Gao Qifeng.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filomena Fortes and Gao Qifeng both seem fine. (You may be interested to know that "Zhang Kunyi was so distraught by Gao Qifeng's death that she mixed her tears with powder to paint plum blossoms, using her own blood for the sepals" leaps out as a potential hook, either here or if you decide to bring Kunyi to GA.) My problem with Stuntman is that it strikes me as requiring knowledge of Bruce Lee, which I don't have, although that may be because I really don't like films at the best of times.--Launchballer 11:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that note leapt out to Gao's GA reviewer as well. I'd have to see what I can find on her... she doesn't seem to have been very well covered, just based on my cursory review, and our article is mostly uncited. For Stuntman, I know I personally considered it alright because Lee is such a well-known martial artist... if it were Tony Jaa or someone else who only briefly had mainstream popularity, I would think otherwise.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived about an hour ago, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 24. We have a total of 301 nominations, of which 121 have been approved, a gap of 180 nominations that has increased by 10 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Note that this list is shorter than in the past: with this talk page archiving posts after five days rather than after seven, these lists are lasting for six days rather than eight, so fewer entries are being reviewed in the shortened time period.

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template editor

[edit]

During the recent RfA election, Pppery (talk) said that DYK recently reduced protection of queues to template editor but I cannot find the discussion of this. Can anyone point me to it? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 202#Giving queues template instead of full protection?.--Launchballer 10:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! Being able to help with the DYK queues was one of my reasons for nominating at the RfA election. I have been a template editor since 2015, for my work with templates, so it appears that as of a couple of weeks ago, I can promote the queues. There remains the question of whether it is ethical to do so if the RfA fails. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: recently withdrew an RfA and has since done prep-to-queue, having been given the right by @Kusma: shortly after I got mine through WP:PERM. I can tell you I warmed myself up by hoovering up some of Crisco's recusals (e.g. #MyRadar) and there's a couple more below, one of which (#Progradungula barringtonensis) I can't do as I promoted it. Why not do those before attempting a set?--Launchballer 02:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Hahaha. I tried promoting Prep 1 to the Queue, but User:Theleekycauldron/DYK promoter (PSHAW) pops up an alert that says: "Might I suggest [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] first?" I guess the template editor bit is still insufficient. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is for PSHAW purposes, for now :) gonna have to do it manually! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to promote a single item to Prep 3 with PSHAW. It popped up a dialog with the current contents of the prep and a set of radio buttons. The new one was classed as u0, whatever that means. I selected it and pressed submit. Nothing happened. I then promoted the nomination manually. Can you send me some documentation on how to promote an item with PSHAW? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can DYKcheck be modified so that an article appearing on RD, or as a non-blurb link on OTD, won't show red?

[edit]

@Shubinator Right now, if an article has appeared on RD, or as nob-blurb link on OTD (i.e. either a birth or a death), it will give a red "Article has appeared on In The News before" or "Article has appeared on On This Day before" message, even though only bolded links in blurbs make an article ineligible. Can the DYKcheck tool be fixed so that the red message won't appear if, for example, the article was merely an RD entry rather than a full blurb?

While we're already here, given the change in DYK eligibility to allow re-runs after re-runs, perhaps the tool could also be changed to indicate if an article has appeared on DYK within the last five years, or has appeared on DYK over five years prior? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions!
  • In The News non-bolded links: it looks like this should already work as described above? Just checked Turkish Aerospace Industries and Ankara, which are currently non-bolded links, and these aren't tagged with the ITN template.
  • On This Day births / deaths: it looks like On This Day is tagging the birth / death articles with the same talk page template (for example, see Talk:Johann Karl August Musäus which has a template saying "A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section"), so it's best to first ask those folks to adjust their tagging.
  • DYK last 5 years: I'll look into this.
Shubinator (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shubinator: RDs are exempt from ITN disqualification, but they are usually tagged. It'd be nice if we could tag the ITN templates with |RD=y, but hey. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1

[edit]

Ready Set Learn!

[edit]
I'd question the QPQ given #Large number of insufficient QPQ reviews.--Launchballer 09:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm personally thinking that it makes sense to flag something you think prohibits continuation, then continue if that issue has been addressed. There's not much point continuing just to discard the work afterwards.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess. Alright, let's roll.--Launchballer 17:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mobtown Ballroom

[edit]
  • First instance of volunteers is flagged potentially unreliable, and cited a blog. Also, "army" isn't supported by the article; volunteers could just be three people sharing a case of beer. The source also says they did the second floor "themselves". Tagging Sdkb, Juxlos, and AirshipJungleman29.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for following up about this, @Crisco 1492. It's slightly confusing because the DYK fact refers to the two different times they built the floor, whereas in the article each instance is mentioned separately. Per the DYK nomination, the best overall source is this article from Baltimore Magazine, which includes this passage: 'We built the floor there [meaning the new location] ourselves, with volunteers,' Sullivan says, 'and a bunch of them were there dancing on the floor on that last night.' Now, some of the same volunteers who were there in the beginning have returned to help lay the sprung wood floor at Mobtown’s new home at North Avenue Market.
    There are several other sources that mention each of the floor constructions, and together those (combined with my off-wiki familiarity with the Baltimore Lindy Hop community) make me confident that the "self" being referred to in the BmoreArt interview you quote is the community, not the owners as individuals. The phrasing comes off oddly outside the context of the business's particular relationship with its patrons, but we're not making an error here.
    Regarding the Almonte source tagged in the article, that is not an underpinning source of the DYK hook, but rather one that supports some details in the article (e.g. 10,000 nails) that I found pertinent but could not find sourced elsewhere. It is admittedly clearly a blog, but I'd argue that the author could be considered a subject-matter expert within the (niche) realm of Lindy Hop, having been quoted as an expert in coverage like this. Additionally, there is nothing controversial or BLP-related about the material, so on balance, until a better source comes along, I made the judgement call that including it to would be a net positive. But since the source underpinning the DYK material is Baltimore Magazine, I added an instance of that to the mention of the first floor construction.
    Hope that helps clarify and resolve any concerns! Cheers, Sdkb talk 21:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Sdkb, that helps ameliorate my concerns about the referencing (the first occasion was only supported by the blog at the time I checked, which was my concern). The only other concern is "army", which isn't supported by the article. "A bunch" (to quote the BM source) is generally a smaller qualifier than "an army".  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like Almonte also used the qualifier "army", so it was certainly way more than three people. Ultimately, both "bunch" and "army" are uncountable nouns, and therefore somewhat subjective. Sdkb talk 20:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hathumoda

[edit]
  • I'm not seeing that any attempts were ever made to venerate her, let alone progress along the process of canonization. The article has that the historian wrote a hagiography, but that doesn't necessarily contemplate sainthood; likewise, it specifically says that he knew he was writing for people who knew her, and thus would not contemplate her for sainthood. (As an aside, the article says she was "occasionally petulant", rather than "could be quite petulant"). Tagging Surtsicna, Silver seren, and AirshipJungleman29. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The hook does not say or imply that she was ever venerated or in the process of canonization. "Occasionally petulant" or "could be quite petulant" makes 0 difference. Put whatever you like. Surtsicna (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hook: "that an attempt to portray Abbess Hathumoda as a Christian saint after her death failed because everyone knew that she could be quite petulant?"
Article: "Despite Agius's hagiographical portrayal, Hathumoda was never venerated, not even by her family. Because he wrote for an audience that knew Hathumoda in life, Agius could not afford to gloss over the flaws that made Hathumoda an unlikely candidate for sainthood: his characterization of the abbess reveals anxiety and even occasional petulance." (I note that veneration links to "the act of honoring a saint, a person who has been identified as having a high degree of sanctity or holiness." As Hathumoda is identified as Catholic, one must recall the religion's very strict processes for sainthood)
Quite bluntly, the hook does not reflect the article. The article says he wrote a very favourable biography, but that she was not the sort of person that people who knew her would consider for sainthood. It doesn't say "he wanted to portray her as though she were a saint, but everyone and their mother knew she was too bratty." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not correct. The article says that a monk wrote a "hagiographical portrayal" of Hathumoda. To write a hagiography means to portray someone as a saint. The hook says an attempt was made to portray Hathumod as a saint. There is no contradiction. Surtsicna (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: I think that the article and hook need more work. The article is referenced to a single source, Paxton 2009, so it fails WP:DYKCITE and there is a risk that it does not give a WP:NPOV. The hook oversimplifies a quote from Paxton p. 46 and on the preceding p. 45 Paxton says that politics was more important than Agius's description of her: But just as in Liutbirga's case, Hathumoda's afterlife, and the afterlife of her community, were determined more by the politics of her family's tenth-century descendants than by the claims made by Agius in the VH and the Dialogue. TSventon (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DYKCITE does not say that single-source articles are not acceptable for DYK; quite the opposite, in fact, for such obscure topics. The cited source is the comprehensive study of the subject. If you know of another source that discusses the subject and disagrees with Paxton, we can discuss NPOV. The hook is not simplified to the point of being inaccurate, but neither is it or the article perfect. It is good enough to be on DYK, but if you can improve it further, please do. Surtsicna (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A number of sources discuss Hathumoda, possibly because she is a fairly rare example of a female biography from the period. When I search for Hathumoda petulance in Google books I only find Paxton's books. There are different emphases Julia M.H. Smith and Suzanne Wemple read the Vita as a demonstration of the close bonds between Hathumod and her Liudolfing kin,38 while Monika Rener and Carolyn Edwards accentuate the ways this biography separates Hathumod from her biological kin and resituates her among her monastic sisters.39 A more nuanced version of this latter reading is provided by the most recent interpreter of the Vita Hathumodae, Frederick Paxton (Negotiating Community and Difference in Medieval Europe, ed Katherine Allen Smith, Scott Wells, 2009). TSventon (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DYKCITE does not say that single-source articles are not acceptable for DYK; quite the opposite, in fact, for such obscure topics. The cited source is the comprehensive study of the subject.: For clarity, while female biographies from medieval Europe are often obscure subjects, finding other academic sources about Hathumoda specifically was a relatively straightforward exercise using Wikipedia Library and Google Scholar. I went ahead and added sources to the article, plus some content cited to them. My additions were minimal for want of familiarity and time, but suffice it to say that Julia M. H. Smith's 1995 Past & Present article names Hathumoda ~20 times in the body text and analyzes Hathumoda in what can be known in history and in her depiction in Agius's Hathumodae; and Sarah Greer's 2021 Commemorating Power in Early Medieval Saxony: Writing and Rewriting the Past at Gandersheim and Quedlinburg has hundreds of control-F hits for Hathumoda (considerable even granting that some of these are for Vita Hathumodae).
In any case, the ship has sailed, and the bridge is crossed. I'm in no way saying the hook needs to be pulled or anything, and now there are multiple sources cited to warrant the topic's verifiability and notability. But I would encourage article creators and hook nominators to avail ourselves of our resources. Academics, including historians, have been researching and writing about a lot of things for a long time, and yes, there are still and always will be lots of obscure topics, but some topics that are obscure to the general public are less so in the scholarship. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sugrue

[edit]

@Thriley: When I gave Prep 1 a final check, I found that the quote in the hook is in the source, but not the article. I considered pulling the hook and replacing it with one from Prep 3, but since I could not promote it anyway, I added the quote to the article. Hope this is okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thriley (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3

[edit]

Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Dan Leonard, Belbury, Cowlan, BootsED, and Tavantius: The hook reads ... that several major U.S. politicians have spread conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season?. Considering that some of these politicians are running for election, perhaps this is another one we should invoke WP:DYKELECT on? RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two alternate hooks in the nomination make no mention of the election and may be more appropriate. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 especially. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe ALT1 then. Tavantius (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled this. It's not just the hook that's a problem. The article itself devotes significant space and more than half the lead to talking about specific people running for office. It can wait until after the election is over. RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2 (Halloween)

[edit]

Progradungula barringtonensis

[edit]
@Crisco 1492: Would you be alright with me adding Get the Hell Out to that queue, as per #c-Nineteen Ninety-Four guy-20241028165100-Hallowe'en hooks it's clearly had two further reviews?--Launchballer 18:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding tag as I forgot: Launchballer — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One step ahead of you. (If you forget to ping, just add the template and ping in the edit summary. No-one's any the wiser.)--Launchballer 18:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trunk-or-treating

[edit]
I approved Barringtonensis above, but I'm not seeing any problems with this one.--Launchballer 12:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian David Gilbert

[edit]
Needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 12:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 14:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern has been resolved.--Launchballer 14:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remembrance Sunday (10 November) and Armistice Day (11 November)

[edit]

I normally like to offer up some appropriate content for the above dates. This year I have nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Lichfield War Memorial and Template:Did you know nominations/Carlton Colville Scouts Memorial for your consideration. Thanks in advance - Dumelow (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We probably shouldn't run both in the picture slot on consecutive days, so is there any image hook-day combination you would prefer Dumelow? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not precious about the picture slot, if one can run the Lichfield one is probably better - Dumelow (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dumelow:, will review both of these tonight after work if nobody else does them first. Flibirigit (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both nominations are now approved an in the special occastion holding area. Flibirigit (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys, much appreciated - Dumelow (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3

[edit]

Yang Pao'an

[edit]
I think the hook is helped by knowing who Chiang Kai-shek is, although arguably his loyalty alone is enough for WP:DYKINT. ("Generalissimo" was originally in the hook, but I don't see the word in the article.) I think this is all fine.--Launchballer 13:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Teleke Lauti

[edit]
This article was approved by Chipmunkdavis and promoted by AirshipJungleman29. I don't think a driveby comment precludes you from queuing this.--Launchballer 13:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium ban decision

[edit]
Hook checks out AGF and is short enough and interesting. I've copyedited the applicable sentence but it ideally should be split in two and I can't see the references, so I'm not sure which should be duplicated to satisfy WP:DYKHFC. Technically, this isn't a DYK problem but pinging @FortunateSons and Viriditas: just in case. Note that I have checked no other elements of the article.--Launchballer 12:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I restored the previous version. I think your copyedits might have changed the meaning of what FortunateSon wrote in a subtle way. Footnote 5 (Gafus 2023) is only available online in the old version, which doesn't help since this is new information that appears only in the new edition. Footnote 7 is also behind a paywall. However, the hook is additionally supported by footnote 3, which I copied to the review talk page. I will post it here below. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kühling (2024): "According to the Berlin sports and media lawyer Robert Golz, the decision can also be applied to other situations in which a private individual - similar to a football club - uses its decision-making power resulting from a monopoly or structural superiority to exclude certain people without objective reason. According to the lawyer, this could be the case, for example, if clubs exclude certain media representatives from their press conferences because they have, for example, expressed criticism of the club in the past. In this case, the press representatives' professional freedom and freedom of the press would be at stake. The lawyer sees further consequences of the ruling: 'The Federal Constitutional Court's decision could also be applied to participation in social networks such as Facebook, which have excluded a user. However, if the exclusion is due to an objective reason and was not arbitrary or irrelevant, nothing can be done to counteract the exclusion,' Golz told LTO."[6]

Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip

[edit]

Diplodus argenteus

[edit]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4

[edit]

Come In (Weatherday album)

[edit]
Not seeing any issues with this, although arguably the hook should include at least "the album", probably "the Weatherday album" for context. (Is there scope for a 5x expansion of that article?)--Launchballer 13:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Torres

[edit]
@Ornithoptera and Kimikel: Checks out to the source, though the article was unclear whether it was Mitch or Ali so I reworded it slightly. Also, WP:CLOP needs resolving.--Launchballer 13:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis trio

[edit]
I'll assess the others later, though this one is mine. I note that both user:Kimikel and user:Ravenpuff removed "for 2025" from it, which I would argue adds interest.--Launchballer 11:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: I agree, but adding "for 2025" makes the phrasing quite awkward, and the extra context isn't totally essential to the content of the hook, which is already quite long anyway. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Adrian Hasler cabinet

[edit]

DYKToolsBot not working

[edit]

RoySmith, DYKToolsBot hasn't updated in two weeks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, I'll take a look. RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. There's a cron job that's been running for a bit over 14 days, which is probably what's holding everything up (as I understand it, cron won't kick off a new job while an old one is still running). I'm not sure what got it wedged, but I've manually kicked off a run and that seems to be working fine so I'll probably just kill the stuck job and see what happens. RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside on this, I'd really like to see more joint custody of all the bits and pieces that make DYK run. I hadn't looked at this stuff for over a year and it took me some time to figure out how it all worked again. If I got run over by a bus and somebody had to pick it up from scratch, it would have been even harder. The more we're all familiar with all the moving pieces, the more resilient we all are to roving homicidal busses. RoySmith (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3

[edit]

Western Air Lines Flight 636 (nom)

[edit]

This hook was a little hard for me to parse. Maybe adding commas would help? jlwoodwa (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Novice editors mistakenly replying on talk pages

[edit]

I just noticed this edit, where a novice editor mistakenly replied to a DYK nomination on the talk page rather than the nomination page. I'd guess that this happens fairly often, since an article's talk page is a more natural place for someone to look, and clicking on "reply" to the discussion there generates the error message The "reply" link cannot be used to reply to this comment. To reply, please use the full page editor by clicking "Edit source".

We often forget just how many barriers there are to newcomers using DYK, and this is a good example of that. Is there anything we can do to prevent other editors encountering this obstacle? Sdkb talk 20:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another instance. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of transcluding the template on the talk page, we could do the same as ITN and simply place a notice of discussion. Flibirigit (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I had somebody recently reply to a DYK review I did on my user talk page. Never seen that before. Maybe it's all just a side-effect of the weird Aurorae we've been having recently. But no big deal, we worked it out on my talk page and then things picked up as normal. Whatever works. RoySmith (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also ping @PPelberg (WMF), as one solution to this would be to have the reply tool be able to properly handle instances on transcluded discussions. Sdkb talk 21:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is quite common. I think one problem is that the section header has an edit link that edits the talk page section instead of leading to the DYK nomination template. But on the whole I like transcluding the DYK nomination discussion: on the vast majority of talk pages for DYK articles, it is the only part where people discuss the article instead of just storing metadata like WikiProject ratings that have no business appearing on a discussion page at all. —Kusma (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the section that transcludes the DYK subpage should also have an HTML comment that briefly explains how this works and where to reply? jlwoodwa (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like MediaWiki:DYK-nomination-wizard.js § L-700 is the code that sets up the section and transclusion. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might help (unless people go for extra challenge and use Visual Editor). —Kusma (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure VE does display HTML comments, in boxes labelled "invisible comment" or similar. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I tried that and it shows some part of the comment, but not the whole thing. Also the transclusion of the nomination (which is treated as a "template") makes VE do strange things when you try to edit it. —Kusma (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6

[edit]
  • ... that self-help author Beth Kempton was a cultural coordinator for the 2002 FIFA World Cup in Tokyo and the 2012 Summer Olympics in London?

@Silver seren, JuniperChill, and Kimikel: Neither of the sources for this hook say what her job actually was. Is there an additional source that states what her roles were, or should we reword the hook? – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 21:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hilst How about
... that self-help author Beth Kempton held positions at the 2002 FIFA World Cup in Tokyo and the 2012 Summer Olympics in London?
I also edited the article to more accurately reflect its sources. Kimikel (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 23:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also fine by me JuniperChill (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations need adoption

[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Cannonball (MILW train) appears to be abandoned. Problems are not insurmountable if anyone has the time! Flibirigit (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

[edit]

Come In (Weatherday album)

[edit]

@Kimikel, LeMeilleurMeil, Launchballer, and Crisco 1492: the hook fact is sourced to jellybones.net and bandcamp.com. The former looks like a blog and the later is repeatedly mentioned in WP:RSN as being WP:UGC and thus not a WP:RS. RoySmith (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LeMeilleurMiel: RoySmith (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bandcamp is usable per WP:ABOUTSELF and Jellybones is an interview on a site that claims to have basic editorial standards (per its about page, it has an editor-in-chief who is different from the interviewer). For this unexceptional claim, I'm fine with it.--Launchballer 02:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith what about switching to ALT1: ... that after the original run sold out, vinyl copies of Come In were put up for sale on Discogs for as much as $100?; sourced to the Chicago Reader? Kimikel (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting a hook multiple images problem

[edit]

If a hook has multiple images, then PSHAW (a tool used to automate promoting DYK hooks) for some reason, messes it up, like in this example. Then it happened again and again. Could theleekycauldron (who made the PSHAW script) or anyone else fix this? JuniperChill (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a request for the images to be merged at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop#The Cock Destroyers.--Launchballer 11:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What happened here is somebody tried to cram a second image into the caption slot of {{main page image/DYK}}. I'm surprised things didn't blow up worse than they did. It is unreasonable to expect stuff like this to work right, and building a composite image is indeed the right way to go. RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS, my guess is that if somehow PSHAW had managed to deal with that, the bot which protects main page images would have not noticed the second image and we would have ended up with an unprotected image on the main page. Launchballer I see this was one of yours. Now that you've got the template editor bit, you really need to be getting into the habit of thinking about unexpected and undesired consequences of your actions, especially when doing anything unusual. RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the bot does not care about how we put an image on the Main Page; it just adds all files it finds on the Main Page (or tomorrow's Main Page) to the cascade-protected page c:Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en. So a double image (or a new Main Page section with five more images) is not an issue. —Kusma (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's good to know, thanks. But folks with advanced permissions should still try to get into a paranoid mindset :-) RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake entirely. (If I remember correctly, I coded them that way as a stopgap and then never got around to requesting the composite image.) I believe the bot copies everything between the Hooks/HooksEnd comments, so the substituted {{main page image/DYK}} that's in the prep set now should be fine?--Launchballer 15:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed paranoia is good here :) But there is even another level of safety: DYKUpdateBot will not copy a queue to the Main Page if it contains an unprotected image (it throws up a warning a few hours before; this sometimes happens when KrinkleBot, the bot that handles the Commons protection, is down). —Kusma (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it may have been resolved now? JuniperChill (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenpuff Special:Diff/1254341617 seems like a bad idea. I don't know everything that depends on finding the {{main page image/DYK}} template there, but replacing it with explicit CSS seems as much of a hack as what was there before. There's already a request in to create the composite image, let's just wait for that to happen and do this the right way. RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; I have blanked the image and caption while the composite is created. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up creating it myself (see the link in my first comment in this thread) and have added it myself.--Launchballer 17:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6

[edit]

Zhuhai hooks

[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Luo Shiwen

[edit]

Hi there. Would it be possible to request a second pair of eyes at Template:Did you know nominations/Luo Shiwen? The reviewer, Buidhe and myself disagree about the use of CCP-related sources and its potential impact on article neutrality.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1254376745"