Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 184#ALT image text in Prep/Queues

I am concerned that the photo :File:Emerging Mummy - cropped (1a).jpg in prep 4 may be a copyright violation, as the US does not have freedom of panorama for sculptures (Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama). I suggest substituting a different first hook and leaving out the image from the Freedom (Frudakis) hook. Pinging {{ping|Bruxton|Storye book|Theleekycauldron}}. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

: If using that image was an error, then it was my error, since I cropped out the section for use in DYK. I looked at the image licence, and at the We Love Monuments tag, and assumed that the image had been seen and approved. I am puzzled by this. Nevertheless, if you say so, it must be so. I shall see whether I can suggest another hook.

: ETA I have had another look at the article and it says not only that the Secret Philadelphia leaflet by Lebeau mentions that the sculpture was created as a photo op, but also that the artist has actually written "stand here" in the alcove, to encourage that. (See chapter 28 "Closer to Free" in the online leaflet, linked in the article as ref.6). Moreover, if you look at the other pictures in the [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Freedom_Sculpture Commons category], the artist has posed in the alcove to show us how to do it. If those things are not an encouragement for the public to take photos, what is? I think that the author could not sue on this basis, and would not want to anyway, whether there is lack of panoramafreiheit or not. So I think we can afford to leave the picture where it is in prep 4. Storye book (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

::: Hmm, I'm not convinced wikipedia's legal team would be happy with us for relying on that. If we do replace the image while I'm asleep, please promote Template:Did you know nominations/KHOL to its place, as it's also a u.s. non-bio—thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

::: tell you what, though—how difficult would it be to ask the artist to provide permission for the photo? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

:::*{{ping|Mx. Granger}} Thank you for catching it. Yes, the actual sculpture does invite photos so I am unsure how to proceed. I see other notable monuments tagged wit this template. {{:FoP-US}}

{{tq2|The architectural work depicted in this photograph may be covered under United States copyright law (17 USC 120(a)), which states that architectural works completed after December 1, 1990 are protected. However, architectural copyright in the United States does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work. See COM:CRT/United States#Freedom of panorama for more information. :This law only applies to architectural works (such as buildings or other structures) and not other forms of 3D or 2D artwork such as sculptures, paintings, or posters. Images of these artworks taken in the US must be deleted unless they are in the public domain, or their presence is trivial.}}

:::*It is used on the FDR memorial photo. Somone also used a dfferent license for this actual [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FDR-Memorial-Fala.jpg sculpture of FDR]. Bruxton (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

::::*Reading through my own posts, might be best to delete. The wrong license may be on several of other sculptures but it does not give us license to do the same. The license on the first FDR monument photo which I posted in green, is a photo of the wall entrance to the monument. I guess they are considering it architecture? The next one of FDR in a wheelchair may be improper. Bruxton (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Zenos Frudakis Freedom Philadelphia - cropped (2).jpg

:::::* Update. I have been informed by user:Mx. Granger that using a cropped-out extract of :File:Zenos Frudakis Freedom Philadelphia.jpg would be "fine", because that is a verified free-use image with permission of the author. I have therefore created some cropped versions of that file, which (as I understand it) you may use on DYK with the existing hook. I have added one of them here, the rest of the cropped versions of this original, plus the original, are in [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Freedom_Sculpture Commons category:Freedom Sculpture]. Please only use the images with the VRT permission tags, or the cropped versions thereof. Storye book (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::*That is good news {{ping|Storye book}} We will see if it is enough I was smirking a bit regarding the irony of this situation. That we did not have the freedom ...to use a photo of a sculpture which depicts freedom. I couldn't resist. Bruxton (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::* Well we do have that specific freedom in Philadelphia, according to the Philadelphia leaflet which you have used as a citation in the article. It is clearly spelled out. But WP is WP. Storye book (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::* @Admin. Please remove the current image in prep 4 (which carries a deletion tag) with :File:Zenos Frudakis Freedom Philadelphia - cropped (2).jpg which is free, it is in the article, and the creator of the article has approved it. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - the licence on the [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Zenos_Frudakis_Freedom_Philadelphia.jpg original Commons image] doesn't seem clear to me. There should be explicit separate licences listed for the sculpture and the photograph of it, and personally I'd like to see confirmation from the VRT team that the permission they've stamped on it refers to the sculpture specifically. Also, the "source" field simply points back to the Commons file itself, which doesn't seem right. We should not run the image until these issues are resolved.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• :Also, if we're using a cropped image it would seem better to me to use :File:Zenos Frudakis Freedom Philadelphia - cropped (1).jpg rather than :File:Zenos Frudakis Freedom Philadelphia - cropped (2).jpg, as it is clearer what is going on in the freedom image and the "photo opportunity" slot is visible, albeit with someone standing in it. In fact, unless the resolution would be bad, we could even use the original :File:Zenos Frudakis Freedom Philadelphia.jpg, which shows the whole sculpture and is IMHO much more informative and the meaning clear compared with only showing part of it.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

:::* {{ping|Amakuru}}. If it will resolve the problem, then using the original image which is already on the article page Freedom (Frudakis) would be fine. It was the image initially selected by the DYK creator/nominator {{u|Bruxton}} anyway. It is time that this issue was wrapped up. Storye book (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

:::*:{{ping|Storye book}} I do agree it would be better to use the original image, but as far as I can see there is still a licensing issue to resolve. An image of a sculpture requires two separate licenses - one for the sculpture, and one for the photograph. At present only one is listed, with a VRTS ticket and it's not clear who took the photograph and whether they released the rights to it. If that ticket in fact covers both the photo and the sculpture then that should be made clear (and we'd need to consult someone with access to the VRTS correspondence I believe). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::* {{ping|Amakuru}} Since it is you who seem so worried about it, could you please contact the VRTS department and find out? Storye book (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::*:OK, well it's not that I'm "worried" as such, but the DYK rules require us to comply with Wikimedia's copyright policy under US law, and that is as detailed at c:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Art_(copies_of). Separate licences are needed for the photograph and the sculpture, and unless those are clear on the file itself, we can't run it on the main page. Anyway, as per your request I've filed a query at the relevant Commons noticeboard c:Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team/Noticeboard#Ticket_#2009101510049171, so let's see what comes out of that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Mexico Freedom of panorama

I was wondering if the image at Template:Did you know nominations/Fuente de las Tarascas is acceptable for the main page before I promote it. Pinging nominator {[u|Tbhotch}}. Also pinging {{u|Amakuru}} who might have an idea. SL93 (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

:Fixing ping - {{u|Tbhotch}}. SL93 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

:I'm asking because Wikimedia Commons states - "The Mexican law only mentions that artists don't receive payment and doesn't explain if use for commercial purposes is possible. It is supposed that it's possible." SL93 (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

::Commons link above. Section Protected: Under the 1996 copyright law as of 2018, the following are protected - it lists sculptures. — Maile (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

:::Thank you. I quoted from a different Commons page. I'm glad that I asked here. SL93 (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

::::{{u|Maile66}} The bottom of the page for freedom of panorama says - "Reproduction, communication and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs and audiovisual processes of works that are visible from public places (lugares publicos)." "Pictorial works or works of drawing", "Photographs", and such are also listed under Protected. It looks like freedom of panorama likely does apply for sculptures in Mexico. SL93 (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::Mexico has freedom of panorama for everything as long as you are standing on an open-to-public space. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::Just to clarify on the above, the sculpture doesn't need to satisfy US laws in this instance? As already noted, pictures of sculptures inside the US are not allowed, but the assumption is that freedom of panorama restriction doesn't apply in the US to overseas works?  — Amakuru (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::There are two basic things that will have to be met by a Commons file: it has to meet US copyright requirements (which are often stricter than the copyright requirements of the file's home country) and it has to comply with the rules of the home country. Hence, the only issue here is the Mexican FoP rules. Schwede66 04:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Following a query I made at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#File:HMS Tactician Jan 1953 SLV Green.jpg, I have nominated the file :File:HMS Tactician Jan 1953 SLV Green.jpg for deletion. It appears that although it is public domain in Australia, it remains copyrighted under US law. This file was originally included as the picture hook for Queue 2, so I've swapped it out of there and put it in the second hook at Prep 4 for now. If it turns out I have made an error here, and the image is actually eligible, then it could be moved back into the picture slot later. Pinging {{ping|Dumelow|Trainsandotherthings|Theleekycauldron}} as nominator/reviewer/promoter. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

:Sounds good—sorry I missed that! I'm watching the deletion discussion, we'll find another image theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

::Thanks for the ping. Not my image, I found it on Commons and checked [http://search.slv.vic.gov.au/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=SLV_ROSETTAIE917932&vid=MAIN&search_scope=Everything&tab=default_tab&lang=en_US&context=L&isFrbr=true the source] (the State Library of Victoria) which stated: "This work is out of copyright" and "No copyright restrictions apply". It didn't occur to me that the US would have a more restrictive copyright regime. Commons is in dire need of a purge of media without a United States public domain tag, sometimes it seems that most media I find there is missing one - Dumelow (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The C of E has been topic banned from DYK, based on a discussion at ANI. My close can be seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1065447558&oldid=1065447007&title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents here]. I'm posting this here mostly to direct your attention to the last paragraph, which says "Finally, this last bit is a judgement call, since it wasn't really discussed, but just to prevent another discussion: Any of The C of E's already-approved DYKs can proceed thru the pipeline (thanks for the prompt about this, User:28bytes). We're preventing future disruption, not punishing anyone. And, I haven't checked to see if this applies, but: any already-made but not-yet-approved DYK's can proceed, but if the QPQ hasn't been done, or any uninvolved reviewer rejects the DYK for cause, that can't be fixed or appealed. Hopefully that seems fair enough that I don't get claims of deciding this part unilaterally."

My intention was, if an in-progress nomination has no problems, there's no sense pulling it, but if an in-progress has any problems, the C of E isn't allowed to fix it, so the nomination should be closed. This seems fair and reasonable, but if my lack of understanding of how the DYK process works means that I'm overlooking a complication, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

• Looking at his contributions list in template space, I believe that these are all of the DYKs of his that are in progress (i.e. have not run on DYK, and have not been rejected):

1. :Template:Did you know nominations/Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin) - approved and listed on April Fools' Day page; new hook needs to be reviewed
2. :Template:Did you know nominations/O'Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom - possible hook issues
3. :Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Imperial Memorial - approved and promoted to prep; has run on main page
4. :Template:Did you know nominations/Dick Graves - approved for regular set and promoted to prep, and listed on not for April Fools' Day page
5. :Template:Did you know nominations/Rosa (cow) - approved and promoted to prep; has run on main page
6. :Template:Did you know nominations/One fuck rule - on hold, article is at AFD rejected; article is being merged into another
7. :Template:Did you know nominations/Hawkstone Lager - being reviewed, alt hook needs approving/rejecting to be revised; disagreement as to whether this violates WP:DYKSG#F10 (WP:NOTADVERTISING) closed due to multiple article concerns

• Hopefully this list should make it easier for users. 6 and 7 from this list were also discussed at #For fuck's sake, and number 2 is the only one I could imagine also being an issue (since the others are approved). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• :Thanks for that. I could also imagine the Dick Graves one as being controversial, as although the article has been re-written and a different hook approved, it was mentioned by several editors in the ANI discussion. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• ::I've just updated the status of the nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
• I think that was a good close, Floq. I was dwelling on that issue during the discussion, but never got an opportunity to bring it up (it seemed a bit presumptuous even with how the wind was blowing); your reading that you implemented is the one I was hoping for, per WP:NOTPUNITIVE. While the disruption here was too great for anything but a full tban, C of E also clearly enjoyed DYK, and stripping him of the last few already-approved ones would just salt the wound. Thanks also to Joseph for compiling the list. Vaticidalprophet 17:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• I've noted the two nominations that are currently at April Fools' Day. The Hawkstone Lager ALT1 hook has grammatical problems and runs on a bit, which I had noted earlier but just realized I forgot to ping The C of E at the time; someone would need to propose an ALT1a or ALT2 hook if the nomination is to continue, and shepherd the nomination through the rest of the review process, if Floquenbeam's close allows. It is always possible that issues will be found with already-approved nominations—happens all the time here at DYK—in which case perhaps an editor could step in and address any issues, as often happens when nominators don't return to a nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• : I just updated the list of 7 at the top to reflect the current status of the various reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• Thanks for that list, Joseph. I didn't mean to imply already-approved hooks couldn't be pulled or modified as a normal DYK process. Also didn't mean to imply others couldn't address problems in C of E's in-progress nominations, if they wanted to. In particular, I didn't realize from reading the ANI thread that the Dick Graves article was still an active issue, I thought it had already been resolved. Not a fan of making penis jokes about some guy's name on the main page, April Fools or otherwise, especially since this is the exact type of thing that got C of E in trouble. But I'll leave that to the normal DYK processes, I pretty much stopped dealing with main page stuff so I won't raise the issue myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• :I mean I guess it has been resolved, I don't think anyone specifically mentioned the new hook that Theleekycauldron approved. I just thought it might get still get complaints. Maybe I'm being over-cautious.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• ::Pawnkingthree, the new hook was mentioned in Fram's ANI post that began the discussion: {{tq|After his two first attempts at getting a hook with "dick" and "cock" on the main page were rejected, they suggested a third alternative, again using "dick" in a deliberate manner.}} That third alternative is the one that has been approved for April Fools' Day. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• :::Thanks, I missed that. I don't think it's much better than the first two, myself. (Also it does appear a bit odd to have C of E DYKs suddenly appear two and a half months after his topic ban was enacted, but that was permitted by the ANI close.) Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• FYI I have unapproved #1 and proposed an alt hook, so if anyone wants to take a look at that one and re-approve it (or not) with the new hook I would appreciate it. 28bytes (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• (And agreed on a good close for the ANI discussion.) 28bytes (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
• Approved the gremlin alt ({{u|Theleekycauldron}}) and have given a hook review to the outstanding O'Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom - I think it needs a new hook to proceed, if anyone wants to give it a shot. Kingsif (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

:*This is, of course, if the O'Halloran and Francis article isn't flying far too close to The C of E's previous TBAN on nominating British politics at DYK... Kingsif (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• {{u|Floquenbeam}}: Just for clarification, would the articles created/expanded by The C of E, but nominated for DYK by someone else be allowed? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
• :{{yo|Kavyansh.Singh}} from discussion on The C of E's talk page, it looks like that's not technically disallowed, but I'd recommend reading through that thread and absorbing every caution before doing so. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 12:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
• :: {{yo|Theleekycauldron}}: Yeah, reading through that thread (a long one), I feel that while it is not restricted, one should take care while doing so. We are not restricting 'The C of E' from writing/expanding articles. We merely have issues with his DYK hooks, and if a third-party wants to nominate his work, they should be allowed to do so, given that the hooks should be "appropriate". Nonetheless, I have never, and hopefully will not nominate any article for DYK which I have not worked with. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that very fair-minded close {{u|Floquenbeam}}. Having said that, I think I must concur with {{u|RandomCanadian}}'s comment that the AN/I discussion in question was a "knee-jerk disproportionate pile-on". The C of E's serially poor judgement with regard to hook selection is well known but also well in hand given the blanket veto that any user could exercise over his hook proposals. The AN/I discussion also strikes me as very much an example of double jeopardy given that he had not AFAIK previously been sanctioned or even warned for mere profanity in hooks, nor is there any guideline precluding the project from such.

As is well documented, I personally have had many infuriating arm-wrestles with The C of E in the past given some of his lamentably subpar April Fool's submissions, but as noted above, the hook veto had already well and truly dealt with that issue. In spite of his predilection for the sensational, the user in question does have an eye for an interesting hook and IMO only needed a little oversight to keep his excesses in check. This looks to me very much like a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Gatoclass (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• I missed the discussion owing to being quite busy over the past few days, but I would agree that the move is long overdue. While The C of E has made some hooks that are harmless and perfectly fine (for example Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Challenge Cup which I recently reviewed), he was clearly doing breaching experiments and testing the community's patience. I always thought that his apparent focus on Rhodesia was odd, but I think what's shocking is his own admission that he was doing provocative hooks on purpose for his "own amusement". At the very least I would have supported a topic ban from biographies and politics broadly construed, but a full topic ban seems like an appropriate action too given how it appeared he didn't get the hint despite multiple warnings and discussions. Maybe one day he will change, genuinely realize his errors, and return with a new outlook and only focus on appropriate content, but only time will tell if that will happen. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

:: With regard to the Rhodesia submissions, I searched that AN/I discussion in vain for any indication as to how exactly these nominations were supposed to have "crossed the line" or represented a "breaching experiment" as some contributors indicated. Gatoclass (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

:::My guess was that, given the topic ban from Ireland-related topics but still wanting to make DYK hooks that somehow related to British imperialism, he settled on Rhodesia. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

:::: {{ec}} It's not a crime to have an interest in British imperialism or any other topic. The only requirement is that whatever topic one chooses to write about, one writes about it in a neutral manner. If nobody can point out exactly how these Rhodesian hooks/articles breached the neutrality requirement, then there isn't a problem there that needs addressing. Gatoclass (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with having an interest in Rhodesia by itself, it was more about the whole context of it all that was worrying. I do remember one Rhodesia hook he did (unfortunately I cannot remember the exact article right now, but it was about a statue of some kind or a person who had a statue of him) that made fun of Robert Mugabe. Now we all know Mugabe was a terrible dictator who held back Zimbabwe for much of his rule, but as far as I can remember the hook felt like an excuse (for lack of a better term) to make fun of post-colonial rulers of a British colony than anything and I was surprised that the hook as written managed to be approved and promoted. At the very least, that nomination felt it went against the spirit of the topic bans if not the letter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::: I do recall that hook Naruto, and while I thought it was clunky and needing a copyedit, I think one would be drawing a long bow to read a pro-imperialist subtext into it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::For those following along at home, Template:Did you know nominations/Rhodesia/Zimbabwe government buildings would be the ticket. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 12:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

:::{{yo|Gatoclass}} my question is, aren't bans supposed to be preventative, not punitive? It doesn't look to me like there was much bathwater left to throw out. As far as I can tell, no one questioned the fact that the veto system worked pretty much exactly how it was supposed to, preventing any offensive/provocative hooks of CoE's from reaching the main page. is there a hook that slipped past veto onto the main page that I'm missing? in other words, has anyone shown that the veto system failed to prevent The C of E from doing harm to the actual project, therefore necessitating a wider net? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 12:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

:::: Not so far as I'm aware. Gatoclass (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::Also, just as a response to the earlier comment about profanity, while as far as I know he was yet to be sanctioned for that, his profanity hooks (such as attempts to put the N-word on the Main Page, multiple times) were brought up multiple times in the ANI discussions and may have at the very least played a role in the veto being implemented in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::: The n-word is not actually a profanity, it's an epithet. With regard to his nomination of another article including the epithet in May last year, that was in my opinion an inexcusable lapse of judgement that probably should have resulted in at the very least a warning if not an additional sanction at the time, but dredging it up at AN/I eight months later seems belated to say the least. And in any case, only a handful of respondents referenced that nom when casting their !vote. So the !vote was mostly about the profanity, and what disturbs me in part about that is the implication that profanity itself should be avoided in DYK hooks, which would not in my view be a helpful development. Gatoclass (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::@Gatoclass, I dont think there's any implication that profanity should be avoided. The point is that it shouldn't be dragged into a hook kicking and screaming. If a particular article's best hook contains profanity, fine. But 'though his cock was grabbed, experts said Dick's was exquisite' wasn't that, nor was the proposed alt 'some dick sold a casino without getting the sale written down' any better. The man sold his casino to an employee on a shake of hand and told him "Pay me when you can" and we're calling him 'some dick'? We could build a great hook around that, btw, and we don't even have to mention the silly rooster. valereee (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::: Part of the problem {{u|Valereee}} is that this has all been a bit of a slippery slope. For year after year, The C of E (and some others) have submitted hooks to the DYK April Fool's project that are quite crude and provocative, and have not only not been sanctioned, but been glad-handed for it instead. So although The C of E's protests of innocence do to my ear ring hollow to some degree given that I think he is well aware of the provocative nature of some of these hooks, it is also probably genuinely bewildering to him that in one moment he is being celebrated for such contributions, and sanctioned the next. With regard to this particular nomination, I don't know if it was intended as an April Fool's hook, but it may well have gotten approval in that context and passed on the day in question without comment. If the nomination wasn't intended for AFD, then I think it likely that it's just a case of The C of E forgetting that what may be acceptable in one context is not in another.

:::::::: If there is one positive thing to come out of this mess however, it may be that we will see a decline in the "anything goes" attitude that some users including The C of E have had toward the AFD subproject up to now. It's an area that's needed closer scrutiny for some years, so the fact that somebody has now been sanctioned for gratuitous nonsense may cause some other would-be offenders to think twice. Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::Honestly I generally hate the AFD set. I'd much rather we put the one best AFD joke in, and even then only if we have one really clever one. One that really works on multiple levels rather than a full set of 8 groaners. valereee (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::: Well last year, I actually rejected half the nominations and intended to run only one set, but somebody didn't read the discussion on this page and went and promoted all the rejected hooks anyhow. I was pretty pissed about that but given the consensus model, one cannot simply impose one's own preferences. As it happened, we didn't get a single objection, so there was evidently no harm done, but then it seems all the more questionable when the community suddenly turns around and hands a user a blanket DYK ban for doing pretty much what he's always done with little if any complaint. Gatoclass (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::Are you talking about this current issue? Because I think I could go through dyk talk for the past three years and come up with many, many complaints. I really don't want to have to do this, as it sounds tedious, but Gatoclass, really are you saying that there haven't been complaints? I can remember complaints that weren't even referenced in the ANI. Please don't make me go track those down, I'll strike this before I have to do that, but you don't remember that? valereee (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::: {{u|Valereee}}, when I wrote the above, I was thinking specifically about last year's AFD, for which AFAIK there were few if any complaints. But of course I am aware that there have been many complaints over the years about hooks submitted by The C of E - I should do, since I myself have frequently been the complainant. My point though is that The C of E has been contributing what I consider to have been some pretty crude and/or clunky hooks to AFD and elsewhere for many years and getting away with it, in the sense that those hooks have frequently made it to the main page and stayed there for their fully allotted time without being pulled, regardless of any objections that might have been made somewhere along the way. In which case, I think it must be bewildering to him to suddenly cop a six month ban for doing what he's done many times before, namely proposing a hook containing the f-word or an overdone pun on the word "cock". I mean, he literally had a hook/article featuring the very same overdone pun on AFD last year, with no complaints. And now suddenly he cops a ban for proposing the same joke? Regardless of what one might think of The C of E or his contributions, the inconsistency of response from the community is glaring. Gatoclass (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::::Gatoclass, for me the deciding issue was not having "Dick's cock" in the hook, it was suppressing the fact that said "cock" was actually a gold rooster in the Dick Graves article before things came to light: "cock" was used to the exclusion of "rooster" (except in the case name), and this was the second year in a row he'd done it (see last year's AFD court case article, which was only fixed during this year's ANI discussion). That's deliberately writing unencyclopedic and misleading prose in not one but two articles a year apart. That's not only inexcusable, it's warping the encyclopedia for the sake of a hook, and more than enough, in my opinion, to warrant a topic ban, which is why I supported one. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::::{{yo|Theleekycauldron}} A little truth telling here, and why I haven't been in the midst of these discussions. While I realize that Wikipedia does not censor, I think any project that shares Main Page space ought to take into consideration that the MP has no age restrictions on viewing. Maybe I'm more conservative than others, but I think we need to shoulder some responsibility that school children also possibly read our Main Page. I have nothing personal against this editor, but am somewhat offended with potty-mouth repetitions on that page. Not the least of which, is that I get this mental image of a bunch of adolescent boys in the boys restroom, giggling over smuggled nude female photos. And for a more detailed insight into what kinds of topic bans can be applied, and how long (some are permanent), please see Active editing restrictions. It can be worse, sometimes I'll run across an editor who has been globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. And with those, there are no explanations, just a notice on their user page that they are globally banned. — Maile (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::::::{{yo|Maile66}} as someone who has recently and frequently been exposed to adolescent high school boys, I totally understand and sympathize with that concern :) I also believe that gratuitously vulgar language unnecessarily restricts access to the site, subsequently harming our mission to provide open access to all. And don't get me wrong, those homophobic and racist slur hooks? I was close to leaving a long-winded rant on The C of E's talk page, cursing him out for even thinking to treat that like a joke. That is absolutely inexcusable, and towards CoE as a person and editor, I will absolutely hold that against him—and I'm not inclined to accept his rather hollow apologies.

::::::::::::::And then... I remember that The C of E doesn't exist in a vacuum. We had dozens of other editors here, keeping watch and reserving special powers over his hooks to make sure that nothing offensive reached the Main Page. We're folly if we think we should be able to change every person's behavior, force every juvenile actor grow up; sometimes, what we should do is make sure someone's harmful impulses don't affect the project. The veto did this well; I'm not aware of any unambiguously offensive hooks that CoE made that slipped past the veto. To impose further restrictions seems, to me, unnecessary. Did we think that CoE was going to change his stripes instantly? Did we just reserve the veto power as a deterrent, rather than something to actually be used? If yes, I find that to be a rather untenable use of sanctioning. Keep in mind that we just lost quite a bit of good Main Page content, albeit from a problematic editor. Was it worth it? No further offensive hooks were prevented from reaching the Main Page this way; they were all vetoed by someone or another. I won't, for a minute, defend what The C of E did—but I think we only hurt ourselves with this tban. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Well, you hit that nail square on the head → The C of E doesn't exist in a vacuum. I like to believe he (they?) will learn from this. But in real life, history seems to repeat itself with the same cast of characters. — Maile (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::With regards to the veto, while it was working, given the recent episode of proposing not one but three separate hooks with profanity, and even writing an article in order to fit the use of such profanity (as seen in the Dick Greaves case), what happened showed that there was more to his issues than hooks that could be vetoed. There were issues where the possibility of a veto was not enough to address the concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• It seems very clear that the C of E is being censored and so it makes no sense to run his DYKs regardless. Anyway, I think we should definitely censor the Hawkstone Lager article in particular because that fits its campaign perfectly and so that would be quite ironic. Also, promoting the product would be contrary to DYK rule F10. But are we still allowed to use the letter F? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

::I wouldn't say he's being censored. Plenty of his non-controversial hooks have been allowed to run in the past. In addition, hooks that include profanity have been allowed to run in the past. I think it's really more of a combination of him having a history of breaching experiments and questionable judgement on hooks that led to what happened. If he didn't have a history of hooks that apparently pushed British imperialism, homophobia, in the past, I think there would have been more toleration about his profanity hooks. Some editors above mentioned reservations along the likes of "what about the children?" or "the Main Page is not the place for profanity", but if you've read the multiple discussions about him on WT:DYK and ANI, censorship concerns were a minority and in fact the concerns were more to do with his judgement than the use of profanity itself. I mean, if proposing a hook that clearly made fun of Muhammad, and insisting on said hook even when other editors had expressed concerns, and only dropping the idea when it became clear that the alternative was rejecting the nomination entirely, wasn't a warning sign then I don't know what is. In addition, proposing a clearly pro-Unionist Ireland hook and requesting that it run on a day known for sectarian tensions was at the very least bad judgement and at the most a clear example of the kind of POV pushing that we strive not to promote. In any case, even the topic ban suggested that he could always make non-controversial edits to other topics, then appeal at least six months from now once he's understood what cause his issues and makes sincere and genuine efforts not to repeat those actions again. Then if he does that, he can always be welcomed back with open arms and the story can have a happy ending. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm planning to nominate Technical support scam for DYK given that it has been improved to GA, however there is a failed DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Technical support scam already. Any ideas on what I should do now? Perhaps Template:Did you know nominations/Technical support scam (2) or G6 the old nomination? Pahunkat (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

:I don't know if there's a specific guideline on this, but the recent :Template:Did you know nominations/Midnight Sun Mosque (2nd nomination) used "(2nd nomination)", so you might want to do the same (though you might have to do the nomination manually rather than with DYK-helper or wizard). eviolite (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

::Thanks Eviolite, I'll create it using that format. Pahunkat (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

: Pardon the orthogonal ping. I have highlighted certain sections of the article for WP:NPOV. Specifically, there is an assertion that technical support scams {{tq|primarily originate from call centers in India}} that seems WP:UNDUE and is backed by a qualitative statement in a news article sans any proof. Will require further detailing before a bold assertion is made imo. But, if any of the regulars here want to take a look at that, that would be much appreciated. Ktin (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

::The talk page is here for anyone who wants to comment on that issue, already some discussion on the issue. It isn't relevant to my question though. Pahunkat (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

::well, it does hold up the nomination (which is up and running at Technical support scam (2nd nomination)) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I specifically stated my preference was for ALT1 to be used (because I thought it is the more interesting of the two). The reviewer did not comment as to which hook was better/more suitable. I'm a little baffled that I now find my hook promoted with a modified ALT0. Unless one hook is clearly superior to the other(s), shouldn't my stated preference be taken into account? Pinging {{re|5225C}} reviewer, and {{re|Theleekycauldron}} promoter. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

:The modified ALT0 in Prep 5 would be more interesting to a broad audience. ALT1 would be interesting to a small niche.Flibirigit (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

::ALT1 seems more interesting to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

:::Hey, Bloom6132! I'm sorry about the bait-and-switch here. My reasoning was about the same as Flibirigit's—I found ALT1 more interesting personally, but I had a hunch that a broader audience would probably like ALT0 better. They are both reasonably interesting, so I can swap it out if you insist—just wanted to show where my head was at. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

::::{{re|Theleekycauldron}} no worries. Thanks for explaining your reasoning! I can now see where you and Flibirigit are coming from, so no need to swap. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::Ah, I appreciate it—cheers to you! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 05:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The previous list was archived an hour ago, so I've created a new list of 17 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 13. We currently have a total of 223 nominations, of which 115 have been approved, a gap of 108, down 4 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

• December 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Dendrodoa grossularia

Other old nominations:

• December 22: Template:Did you know nominations/John William Kiser
• December 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Hawkstone Lager
• December 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Chinese dama
• January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Zero-COVID
• January 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction
• January 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Tek Fog
• January 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Bulli Bai case
• January 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Cosford
• January 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Garden room
• January 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Ioan Caragea
• January 11: Template:Did you know nominations/2022 College Football Playoff National Championship
• January 12: Template:Did you know nominations/North East MRT line
• January 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Fleischman
• January 13: Template:Did you know nominations/House Subcommittee on Legislative Oversight
• January 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of Halim Dener
• January 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Jeffrey Rosenfeld

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it OK for Prep 7 to have two hooks about Tristan and Isolde? J4: "Mix your hooks up. ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art LaPella (talk • contribs)

: whoop! my bad theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Murad Takla needs more input on the sources and notability. The nomination has been stalled since December 25. SL93 (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Does someone know who maintains the iOS Wikipedia app? The iOS app has a homescreen quite similar to our Web mainpage. Someone does actively maintain that page. However, I do not see any WP:DYK articles being showcased there. It will be a good idea to connect with them and see how we can showcase some of our best hooks on that app. I do not know the traffic that the app / homescreen receives, but irrespective, I was thinking that it will be a good showcase for our efforts. I posted this on WT:ITN as well to see if someone there knew. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

:{{u|Ktin}}, {{slink|MW:Wikimedia Apps/iOS FAQ|Developing the app and Contacting the app team}} may be useful here, as might MW:Wikimedia Apps/Team/iOS. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

:I'm not familiar with the app you are talking about. But perhaps it's this one:

::https://github.com/wikimedia/wikipedia-ios

— Maile (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks folks. I am happy to go reach out to them to see if they can include some of our hooks from WP:DYK on an ongoing basis. However, before I go too far, I want to check -- is there an interest from the regulars here on pursuing that avenue? Based on that I will reach out to them. Ktin (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• :FWIW, I use the Wikipedia Beta app on Android and it also does not show DYK (but does show ITN, OTD etc). My understanding is that it is automatically generated from the format of the desktop Main Page (rather than being human maintained on a daily basis) but I am not 100% sure. eviolite (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• ::That is accurate. I installed the Android app on a different phone and it seems very similar. And, you are also right that it does seem like a parsing of the homepage into a mobile specific page. I still think if folks here think it is worth asking -- I am happy to try reaching out to the folks there (iOS and Android) and asking if WP:DYK can be included in some form in those apps. What I do not know is the number of users who land on those app homescreens vis-a-vis our web homepage. Ktin (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
• :::I have gone ahead and posted here MW:Topic:Woovak9ewnnydabz. Let's see if we get some response. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Gutama Soegijo was approved a month ago for a date request of 29 January. Can it be added to Prep 7 or Prep 1 (both of which are currently full)? I don't particularly care about the image slot but would like for it to run on the requested date. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

:{{u|DanCherek}} Done. SL93 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

::Thank you! DanCherek (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Lillian Eichler Watson was nominated by someone who is related to the late subject of the article. I wonder if such a nomination is ever acceptable. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

:Yes, editors with COIs are allowed to navigate content processes if adhering to relevant guidelines. There are several GAs written by disclosed COI editors. Vaticidalprophet 01:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

::{{u|Vaticidalprophet}} Ok. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

{{archivetop|1=Issues resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)}}

The Wizard Pharmacy article, which is in the DYK queue, has been tagged as undisclosed paid editing and its creator blocked. Under this circumstances, is it still acceptable for it to appear on the front page? Calistemon (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

:I think it would reflect poorly on DYK to run an article created in defiance of the rules prohibiting undisclosed paid editing, especially in that it may not be sufficiently neutral. At the very least, it needs to be pulled by an admin from Queue 3 before it runs on the main page in 19 hours to allow a thorough check if we do ultimate run it, but we have been known to disallow nominations by people violating other Wikipedia norms, such as block evasion or sockpuppetry. Pinging admins, including Maile, Gatoclass, Cas Liber, Amakuru, Wugapodes, and Cwmhiraeth, who can pull the nomination from the queue while we're waiting for a more definitive decision on whether it should run at all, and move a hook from one of the Preps to run in its place. (Perhaps Prep 7's Tana Tidung Regency hook?) Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

:: {{done}}, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I did move the Tada Tigung Regency hook to queue 3 but have returned it to prep as the article content does not support the hook. The hook states that the regency is the smallest in its province, but the article says it's the smallest "not counting the City of Tarakan". The discrepancy will need to be resolved before the hook is featured, and I can't do so because the sources are either in a foreign language or offline. Pinging the nominator {{u|Nyanardsan}} for clarification. Gatoclass (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

:Because Tarakan is not a regency, it is a city. Perhaps removing the phrase from the article would solve the problem? Nyanardsan (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

:: Yes {{u|Nyanardsan}}, that would solve the problem as otherwise the meaning is unclear. Gatoclass (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

:::Done removed~ Please take a look Nyanardsan (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

{{archivebottom}}

In Queue 2 has a cartoon image gesturing to the right. Is it technically possible to position the image on the left of the hooks as it would work perfectly there? Also, can we remove the words "the Centers for Disease Control's" from the hook to make it less clunky? I don't think they are needed and they make it four links in the hook. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

:{{u|Philafrenzy}}, looking at the code for the mainpage image, there does not appear to be a provision for left alignment; instead right alignment is hardcoded. Why not just produce a mirror image of the cartoon image? Schwede66 08:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

::I thought of that but although it's a cartoon, we are cautioned against mirroring images somewhere here. I easily can if there is support for it. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

:::It's just gone live and the image is pointing to On This Day instead of the hook. If anyone wants to flip it they can. I can't because it is protected. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

There are two Indonesia hooks in this set.

• ... that Tana Tidung Regency is the smallest regency by land area in North Kalimantan and has the province's lowest poverty rate?
• ... that Paul Gutama Soegijo travelled from Germany to Indonesia to study the gamelan instruments of Java for eight years?

The second one is marked as a special occasion hook. Does anyone know off the top of their heads whether that means both are before I start digging around or swapping something that shouldn't be swapping?

Pinging noms: {{u|Nyanardsan}} {{u|DanCherek}}, thanks for any insight! valereee (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

:Nyardsan, we also need the 'smallest land mass' sentence in the article to get a citation. valereee (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

::Paul Gutama Soegijo looks to be a date request based on date of birth. So should be fine to move Tana Tidung Regency (as that doesn't have a connection with 29 January). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

:::Yes, Joseph2302 is right. (Alternatively, you could swap Paul Gutama Soegijo into Queue 7.) Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

::::I get so confused with dates...would moving PGS to Q7 actually make it appear in a better time zone? valereee (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::No worries, I do too. Unless I'm mistaken, Queue 7 will run from 7am to 7pm in the Western Indonesian timezone. DanCherek (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::Swapped PGS into Q7. valereee (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::An admin should probably move Tana Tidung Regency out of the queue until the citation that {{u|Valereee}} mentioned is added. SL93 (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The creator of Dudleya cymosa subsp. pumila changed plant host to larval foodplant which I agree is the better term. Also pinging promoter of Template:Did you know nominations/Dudleya cymosa subsp. pumila. {{u|Kavyansh.Singh}}. SL93 (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

: If I understand the suggestion correctly, I have made the change (Special:Diff/1068387901). Let me know if the works. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

::That works. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The previous discussion was archived above before a very important decision could be made: whether the DYK nomination should be allowed to proceed given that the article was written and the editor/nominator blocked due to undisclosed paid editing. Here are the relevant sections from above:

• The Wizard Pharmacy article, which is in the DYK queue, has been tagged as undisclosed paid editing and its creator blocked. Under this circumstances, is it still acceptable for it to appear on the front page? Calistemon (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• I think it would reflect poorly on DYK to run an article created in defiance of the rules prohibiting undisclosed paid editing, especially in that it may not be sufficiently neutral. At the very least, it needs to be pulled by an admin from Queue 3 before it runs on the main page in 19 hours to allow a thorough check if we do ultimate run it, but we have been known to disallow nominations by people violating other Wikipedia norms, such as block evasion or sockpuppetry. [Removing list of admins who were requested to remove the nomination from queue, which was done] while we're waiting for a more definitive decision on whether it should run at all ... [more no-longer-relevant removed text about a substitute hook for the queue]. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping we could have a discussion on the matter here, where more DYK people could see it and give their thoughts, rather than have a sparsely attended discussion on the nomination page. Thanks for your participation. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Well, first things first we should ping {{u|Psiĥedelisto}} and {{u|Storye book}}, as the reviewers. UPE is a fiendishly tricky issue, and opinions amongst experienced editors on the merits of UPE-related articles divorced from their context of creation run the whole spectrum; I'm sympathetic to every side. Both reviewers felt the article was fine on its merits before the discovery, and may or may not still think that now. Vaticidalprophet 03:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly object. When did we ever sell our Main Space to a commercial entity?
• # Free advertising on Wikipedia's main page - an article created by a paid editor, who also created the DYK nomination.
• # Any written-for-pay article, with a DYK nomination written by the same paid editor ... is nothing more than paid advertising, no matter how you turn it around.
• # Gives the appearance that Wikipedia is (a) endorsing a for-profit entity; (b) Wikipedia's main space is for sale.
• I think we should reject the nomination, based on it being paid advertising - and Wikipedia is not the one who got the money - on our Main Page. If we open the door to one for-pay DYK hook, it sets a precedent — Maile (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• I generally judge paid editing by the quality of the content, on an individual basis; but here, I think that undisclosed paid editing shouldn't be rewarded with a spot on the main page. DYK is a source of sought after exposure for new and improved content; it shouldn't be given to rulebreakers, we can't encourage content creation via rulebreaking. I don't have a problem with paid submissions to DYK, as long as they're aboveboard, the content is quality, and we don't get into another Gibraltar situation. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Had I known about the UPE I would have rejected the nomination…given that I think it should be pulled from the queue. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 08:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: Wizard Pharmacy is now under discussion at WP:AFD. {{format linkr|Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wizard_Pharmacy}}. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 08:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• I totally agree with {{u|Maile66}}. Schwede66 08:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• Regardless of the AFD outcome, putting this on DYK would be supporting UPE. The nomination should be rejected as a result, as UPE is a violation of the WMF terms of use. Which is stronger than any DYK criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• In my opinion, if the editor has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing or creation of the Wizard Pharmacy article, then of course it cannot go to DYK. I, too, agree with Maile on that.
• That said, I am at least grateful that the paid editor did do a good job, having followed all the rules except that (unfortunately serious) one. I have recently been struggling to deal with a far worse one on Little Amal (created by me) where an incoming editor has not only naively given away that they are editing at the behest of the conpany's producer, but that editor does not understand or follow WP rules and does not know some of the facts, so that there is little or nothing of their work that I can allow to remain in the article. So, although I agree that the Wizard Pharmacy article should be pulled from DYK, and that its editor should of course be blocked, there are worse ones around. Sigh. Storye book (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• :{{yo|Nick-D|Joseph2302|Gatoclass}} Hang on a second—speedy deletion under WP:G11? Obviously, this nomination isn't going to come back, so I've closed it. On the other hand, Storye book has vouched for the article's neutrality, both before and after learning of the article's undisclosed paid contribution status. Storye book is a competent reviewer, I trust their judgement; and I skimmed through the page myself before it was deleted and found nothing ridiculously out of order. G11 is supposed to be for {{tq|exclusively promotional}} articles. Am I missing a policy that states that all undisclosed paid contributions must be reverted, and pages deleted under G11? Having re-reviewed every paid disclosure guideline I can find, I don't see any article penalties for undisclosed COI editing as long as the article is written well enough, although of course there will be blocks involved for UPE. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• and the closing statement for the AfD says WP:G8, which makes even less sense—it'd be for that article's talk page? i'm... i'm lost here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• It was TOS enforcement -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• we should really... have a separate CSD for that one. Neither G8 nor G11 applies here, in which case the afd process should play itself out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
• (Edit conflict). The initial reason given for deletion of the article was that the article was run-of-the-mill and therefore not notable, and that the sources were not good enough. Whether the article should ultimately have been deleted is not for me to say, but I can say that I don't agree with those reasons.
• : As I understood it, the reason for notability was that the pharmacy was the first to do something or other (I forget what, but I remember that it was something like a new prescription-provision process that would have mattered to the customers)
• : I did check all the sources, and I was satisfied that they were capable of representing those truths which were repeated in the article. Regarding those sources which may have also contained puffs, I did not think that the puffery (which was not repeated in the article) was strong enough in the source to imply distortion of those truths which were mentioned in the article - e.g. stuff like dates of opening, locations and so on. I felt that the sources were certainly not obvious potential liars like e.g. Breitbart (don't check that out, it's nasty), The Sun newspaper and certain blogs. I'm not saying the sources were ideal, but they were well-intentioned, and as far as I could tell, they were enough to support the article's facts. But I'm only one voice saying that. If there is disagreement about deletion, then as it's not a harmful article in itself, maybe it should come back for discussion (re the article, not re DYK)? Storye book (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• I think in our zeal to save the Main Page from advertising, we got a little carried away on the process. It was put up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizard Pharmacy at 08:18, 27 January 2022, received one Ivote for deletion at 08:49, and deleted at 10:02. AFD is meant for discussion by more than one editor. but it's water under the bridge now.— Maile (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• For comparison, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 126#Tony Ahn PR/Reputation Management for some of the aftermath after {{User|I'm Tony Ahn}}, a determined publicist, had used Wikipedia (including getting DYKs for his clients so they'd be on the main page) for quite some time before the plug was finally pulled on him in 2018. – Athaenara ✉ 22:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant to record that the CSD reason was G11, not G8 in the AfD. As the article had been created by a COI editor in response to an apparent solicitation, it was a clear cut advertisement as none of the content could be trusted to be neutral or reliable. This business might be notable, but that's a different issue as an article would need to be started from scratch for the community to have any confidence in it. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

{{yo|Kavyansh.Singh|SL93|Cwmhiraeth|Vaticidalprophet|BusterD|Canadianerk|Coolperson177}} If you're remotely inclined—I have a little too much on my plate right now to cover the prep sets and things are not looking great at the moment. We have one fully built prep, one almost-finished prep, and pretty much everything else is empty. If you guys can do whatever you're up for, I'll finish it off when I wake up in a few hours. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

:I don't get pings, but I do watch WT:DYK, although it's a busy talk. I'll take a look. I've had inconsistent computer access lately, but that's resolved now, so I've more time for this. Vaticidalprophet 11:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

::'preciate it :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

::: I got a prep done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

:@Theleekycauldron Really can't help atm, I'm sorry! I've been trying to clean up anime and manga project english voice actor articles since I started actively editing in October/November, and have stumbled across some which are insanely undersourced. I came across one that only had one source total for example, and there are several others w single-digit source counts and as low as 0-10% of the filmography sourced... I'll be back to help DYK sometime next month *I hope*, but I'm at the point in my new-to-Wikipedia phases where it's hard for me to just stumble across a stub in an area I'm working on and am confident to edit in, and just leave it for someone else and hope it doesn't get AfD'd (after already being neglected as articles for years...) - I know y'all need consistent prep builders, and I'll hopefully be one later this year - but I gotta devote as much of my editing time on the Wiki as possible to fixing this mess. I'll pop by the queues for a bit next week - beyond that, I can't promise much at this point given just how much time it's taking. All the best - Canadianerk (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Didn't think to ask about this when I created the nomination. Is there any way that Template:Did you know nominations/USS R. B. Forbes could be put in the special event slot for February 25? That date is the anniversary of the ship's sinking. Hog Farm _Talk 14:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

: Done! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

(this was previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_184#Price_of_the_Modi_Years,_To_Kill_a_Democracy,_and_extending_DYK_guidelines_to_non-fiction_books)

• ... that according to Price of the Modi Years, Prime Minister Narendra Modi "has not received due credit" for shrinking India's workforce by a fifth?

{{ping|Kavyansh.Singh|Theleekycauldron|Venkat TL}} - I see that the hook above has been re-posted into Prep 5, but the article has been altered significantly since that hook was written (rightly so, given the concerns raised last time), and it no longer contains mention of the "due credit" line. We'll need a new hook I think. This probably means reopening the nom, unless anyone has a quick fix to suggest here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

: Suggesting ALT2 here: – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

:* ... that Price of the Modi Years has a "clever" cover?

::: Sorry, but I don't find the suggested alt interesting, especially considering that there ought to be a really good hook to be extracted from the article content.

::: Apart from that though, IMO the article is still not in good enough shape to feature. Apart from needing a copyedit, it has two other substantial issues, one of which is that the content is not neutral, and the other that a substantial chunk of the article seems to be derived, not from the book content, but from an interview given by the author. At minimum, the article should clearly distinguish between the contents of the book and the opinions of the author given in the interview, which may or may not be replicated in the book. So while the book sounds very interesting and worthy of a spot on DYK, IMO more work is required to bring the article to an appropriate standard. Gatoclass (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

:::: I agree, this article is not NPOV. Yes it's a book that's critical of Modi, but this article is wholly negative about Modi. There must be at least some reviews that don't agree with the book and aren't massively anti-Modi? The purpose of DYK is not to instill politics, ALT1 is clearly a massive POV violation too. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::The content from the The Economic Times seems to just be ripped from the headline and the first paragraph (both freely viewable without subscription). I have to imagine the ET article would be much more heavily critical of the book in full, at least much more than we say it is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 10:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::It's also listed an Economic Times Opinion piece, rather than a peer-reviewed factual article (similar to how many newspapers/website have opinion columns, which are way less reliable as sources than the other articles). Full content available [https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Feconomictimes.indiatimes.com%2Fopinion%2Fet-commentary%2Fview-a-new-book-on-the-modi-years-mixes-actuality-with-amnesia%2Farticleshow%2F88840955.cms], it is a negatively opinionated source. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::Joseph2302, please stop edit warring to add the tag. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. In case you have not realized the Book itself is a work of criticism. If you have specific points and evidence that something is amiss, you should point it out. General comments like this article sucks, it is one sided etc, is non constructive. @Theleekycauldron I have copy edited. Please review again. I hope you will guide me to take this to the finish line. Venkat TL (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::Yes, I understand the book is a criticism, but that doesn't justify the article being 100% critical. And opinion pieces being portrayed as reliable sources isn't correct either. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::Provide a praise. I will be happy to include if it exists. Venkat TL (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::{{yo|Venkat TL}} well, there isn't much I can do at this point; other editors are voicing objections, so your job is to improve the article enough that you can obtain consensus to reinstate its place in the queues. Although (for once) I agree with joseph—the article should reflect the opinion of reliable sources on the book, not the opinion of the book. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::@Theleekycauldron, is your ET concern now resolved? I did not hear back on that. Please point me the reliable source that I have missed. I will be happy to include it. Venkat TL (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I have pulled the article from prep until the problems have been addressed. Gatoclass (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

:The POV issue continues to be an issue even with their most recent DYK nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Tek Fog. I think that the general problem needs to be solved as well. SL93 (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

::Agree, all of those proposed hooks violate WP:NPOV. And the start of that article says that Tek Fog is {{tq|reportedly used by the Bharatiya Janata Party}}, whilst these hooks are asserting it to be true. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• I made a spot check on this. The book's cover shows lots of graphs with lines heading down. But notice that there are no scales. One of the graphs is the Human Development Index, which is calculated by the UN and so seems reasonably reputable. The book's cover shows this plummeting down. But if you look at the same index at [https://ourworldindata.org/human-development-index#country-by-country-perspective-over-the-last-three-decades Our World in Data] or at the [http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/IND UN], the line for India seems to have risen or stayed level – a rather different picture. The book therefore seems to be unreliable – a political polemic. The article thus seems to violate the spirit of rule 4 of WP:DYKCRIT, "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I tend to edit articles that are about 1-2k words in length when I start working on them and might take me 2 weeks or so to expand 5x. Is it worth discussing whether this limit is a bit short? I think expanding it to two weeks for articles that are not stubs when expansion started would improve the quality of articles being taken to DYK and help highlight expansions more than niche new articles a bit more. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

:While an expansion of the DYK eligibility criteria is a reasonable proposal for other reasons, enough 5x expansions are drafted in userspace that I suspect the de facto timeline for them is much, much longer than a week for most. Vaticidalprophet 13:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

::I don't usually do them in sandbox, the DYKcheck script uses 10 days, which I've always found to be a better amount. It stops there being such a rush if you are near the cutoff. I realise that is kind of a moving goalpost, but to me it seems a bit fairer. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

::: And I guess most of the reviewers IAR if it took slightly more than 7 days, say 10 or 12. The unwritten upper limit here is 14 days, I guess. Because, I don't remember which, but I have seen a nomination which took 14 days for 5x expansion, but was approved anyways. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

::::No IAR needed; the supplementary guidelines explicitly state: {{tq|The "seven days old" limit should be strictly enforced only if there is a large backlog of hooks. Otherwise nominated article may still be approved if it were created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations.}} See also Wikipedia:Did you know/Not exactly. DanCherek (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::Perhaps the bolding in {{tq|DYK is only for articles that have achieved one of the following within the past seven days:}} is unnecessary in the instructions page? {{tq|The "seven days old" limit should be strictly enforced only if there is a large backlog of hooks.}} (emphasis my own) seem to contradict themselves in the eyes of new editors. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::In practice, DYK is pretty much perpetually backlogged; in fact, it's one of the reasons why we have the whole switching-between-one-and-two-sets-a-day thing. If DYK is so backlogged that we have to do two sets a day to clear the backlog, there seems to be little appetite for enforcing the "loose enforcement" supplementary guideline unless the lateness was not by much (i.e. 1-2 days) and was an isolated case rather than the nominator being regularly late. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::I had the opposite thought. We used to have three sets a day presumably routinely enough that "8-hour sets" are mentioned in plenty of DYK's supplementary material, and that hasn't been the case in...certainly well before I first noticed DYK as an editor. The particularly high levels of backlog that was presumably written for don't seem to be the case ever nowadays. Vaticidalprophet 11:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

::::::::I vaguely remember four-sets-a-day being a thing at one point (around the same time DYK had the "from Wikipedia's newest content" hatnote), but from what I've read it was attributed to DYK having lower standards before. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::Mentioned not too long ago on this talk page was the fact that we seem to be switching between one-set-a-day and two-sets-a-day with increasing frequency, and that all the manual steps and required checking is a timesink. For that reason I would personally define a "large backlog" as a situation where we're continually running two sets a day and the number of approved hooks still continues to rise. DanCherek (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

::Case in point {{u|Vaticidalprophet}}: First Carlist War and User:A. C. Santacruz/sandbox has already reached a 2x expansion (with about 0.5x of the original article having been removed), and I expect to reach 10x or so before moving it to mainspace. Not that I was thinking of this when I started the thread, but found your comment a bit surprising if only for how true it is. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

: When you plan such a thing, how about doing the expansion in user space with all the time you need, and when ready adding it to the article in Main space in one batch? It needs some attention to changes in between, of course. A different approach (which I came to favour) is make the article GA, - then you can forget about the petty character counting, and can slowly work towards higher quality, - the deadline for nomination is 7 days from GA qualification. My latest example: BWV 157, and there was no way to expand it 5fold. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

::Of course, then you enter the GA backlog, which is its own thing. Like others, I note that the DYK system incentivises draft-space additions. It feels a bit gamey to do this, but ultimately a temporary delay to your article improvements is not a huge price for en.wiki if you want to submit something to DYK. CMD (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

My first time creating a new section at WT:DYK (I think) ... In Prep 5, can someone please change {{tq|a My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episode is said}} to {{tq|My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episodes are said}}, because the episodes in question (i.e. "The Cutie Map") are not a single episode but a double episode (or a two-parter, whatever you wanna call it). Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

:Done! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/John Wayne Bobbitt Uncut to prep 2, but I now have a question about the article and hook which should be an easy fix. The reworked hook says, "... that John Wayne Bobbitt Uncut was the bestselling pornographic film of 1994 and had the most rentals that year?" Was it the bestselling in the United States or worldwide - or something else? I assume it is referring to the United States due to AVN being a United States publication. Pinging nominator {{u|Polycarpa aurata}}. SL93 (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

: no answer to this, but a pointer to the nom for BWV 157 sitting in the approved noms, waiting for promotion to a 6 Feb prep, 2 or 3, 3 preferred as Europe is awake then. I am not supposed to move "my" nom to special occasions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

::I've moved it. DanCherek (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

:::And now in prep 3 so that it can have an image slot. SL93 (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

:SL93, while researching this I saw many suggestions that this is (or was) the best selling porn movie of all time. I am fairly sure that those claims are all based on the awards from Adult Video News. AVN is American and my assumption is that they were only tracking American sales and rentals. Just as an example of why English and probably other foreign sales would not have been counted, the movie wasn't released in England [https://reprobatepress.com/2020/01/25/half-cocked-the-rise-and-fall-of-john-wayne-bobbitt/ until 1996]. It probably *was* the best selling pornographic movie in the world in 1994 just based on US sales, but the AVN award should not be assumed to indicate that. I hope this helps. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

::{{u|Polycarpa aurata}} I added in the United States to the article and hook because that is all we can be sure of without original research. SL93 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:::SL93, while I am sure that is correct, there is no source that qualifies as "in the United States". It might be best to leave it to the reader to interpret. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

::::{{u|Polycarpa aurata}} I don't feel comfortable having this as a hook without knowing. I'm almost positive that it would be brought up at WP:ERRORS. SL93 (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

::::Pinging {{u|BlueMoonset}} for their thoughts. SL93 (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::SL93, I found the the answer in our page on the AVN Awards, which "recognize achievement in various aspects of the creation and marketing of *American pornographic films*". So "in America" is correct. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::Thank you. I'm glad that is solved. BlueMoonset, sorry for the unneeded ping. SL93 (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::I will keep it as United States per the usual standard on Wikipedia. America redirects to United States anyway. SL93 (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::Thank you for your help with this. I'm still feeling my way around Wikipedia. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

The quirky hook, about the Claudia Quintet, has a "the" added, presumably since it details an ensemble and not a person. The "the" was purposefully omitted in the hook i proposed for the quirk (since Claudia Quintet sounds like a real person, if probably a secret agent in an 80s film). Could the original hook be restored, please? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

:Should probably ping the {{@DYK admins|a=|p=}} here, just in case. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Pinging admin, promoter and reviewer. Pamzeis (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• :{{done}}. Seems fair enough in this instance, as it's still accurate with "the" removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• ::thank ya thank ya :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• :Yes, that's why I promoted the hook as originally proposed by leek. DanCherek (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

:For deliberate nonstandard grammar like this that wouldn't survive a normal copyedit, should we put hidden comments in the hook to clarify? —Kusma (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

::{{ping|Kusma}} Yes, I guess we should and I will note that I should do this for future reference. In this case, the issue was reported at ERRORS during its run, and {{u|Maile66}} did a good-faith re-addition of "the" into the hook, presumably not realising that this discussion had taken place and that the omission was deliberate. (For the record, while I am not a fan of mangling something into nonstandard grammar just to make a humorous hook, I did think the usage "that Claudia Quintet did...." was not actually incorrect, just less a usual formulation, so I gave it the go-ahead here). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Well, yeah, I did make that edit in response to WP:ERRORS. When I looked at the article itself, both the lead paragraph and lead sentence in the "Early Work" section begin with, "The Claudia Quintet..." Oops, but the article wording should be consistent with that hook, I think. — Maile (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

::::Yep, true. In general that's the case, although historically the "quirky" slot at the end of the set does get a little more leeway in these matters.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• I tried to crop the image to make it clearer at size, but it's already been cascade protected over at Commons, and I'm not sure how to deal with that. Does someone else know how to crop an image that has already been protected? And without screwing up the protection? valereee (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• :{{yo|Valereee}} If i'm correct (and I am like, 60 percent sure I am), you could upload the crop as a separate image to enwiki, at which point it should automatically cascade-protect on its own. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• ::@Theleekycauldron, it's not even letting me save the crop because of the protection, even though it's named something else. valereee (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• ::Oh, I see...so download the original, crop it on my own machine, upload as another image here on enwiki, and switch to images. Ugh, it's only a few hours. Trying to figure out if this is worth the possibility I'll screw something up that someone else then has to fix lol... The image isn't bad. It just could be better if the empty space were removed so we could actually see the subject. valereee (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• :::Well, I managed to change it, but now I think I need to protect it, and the instructions at Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions say to follow the instructions at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload Special:Upload] and the button isn't working for me. Ugh. I'm just going to revert. This is silly. People need to crop these tiny images while there's still time. valereee (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

I hate to bring this issue up yet again, but I think it's important to remind workers here that those who aren't workers here may never see changes to their hooks that happen in prep or queue.

When a hook is promoted, it disappears from the watchlist of non-workers here. For those of us who are regular workers, it's easier to follow our hooks: prep builders have all the preps on their watch, and admins have all preps and queues. So it's maybe easy for us to forget that the average nominator and reviewer do not have those pages watchlisted and unless they are constantly checking their hooks, they can easily miss a change, which as we've seen in the past can be anything from annoying to infuriating when a nominator and/or reviewer have carefully crafted a particular hook, and then when it appears on the MP it's been changed.

Personally I think any change that represents a change to what the nominator intended needs a section opened and the nom pinged. But the bare minimum should be a ping to the nom in the edit summary of the change, which isn't a burden to anyone as the nom is right there in the credits. I think we should discuss whether that should be a requirement for making a change in prep or queue. valereee (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

:This usually only becomes an issue with things that look like an innocent copyedit to the person making the change but turn out to change the meaning, or to break something totally non-obvious (like "quirkiness"). I don't think we should discuss all those (WP:BOLD and all), but I'm all for asking people to please use edit summary pings even for changes that seem minute. —Kusma (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

: the problem is that the time it takes to ping, like, reaaaally adds up. It arguably takes longer than the copyedit itself. What if this were bot-work in some way? Detecting hook modifications wouldn't be overly challenging, we should just figure out how we want to ping people. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

::I would love it if there were a bot that would automatically detect changes to hooks already in prep or queue and ping the nom. valereee (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

:::I find the edit summary based pings quite useful. I have had a few times that TLC (and perhaps a few others) has / have pinged me that way and I have been able to follow along. Would that work? Ktin (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

::I have no objection to the ping taking longer than the copyedit. We don't need to make these copyedits take 1 second instead of 3. We do need to make them apparent to the nom, IMO. valereee (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

:::It would be great if there could be bot notifications so that it becomes a failsafe system. Here's a case in point; had the nominator known about the change (and its underlying issue), it could have been fixed before it went to the main page. Schwede66 19:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

::::Using the talk page of the nom is a great idea, especially if someone can bot this. If we could record all hook changes there, also people not hearing pings could use their watchlist to avoid bad surprises when the hook hits the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::I've got a bunch of work today, but I'll see if I can slap together some proof-of-concept code sometime over the next couple of days. If you don't hear from me on this again, it's probably safe to assume that the difficulties have overwhelmed my current levels of single-minded hyperfixation :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

:::If we're making it all a bot, why not leave a message on the editor's talk, not ping them? Not everyone receives pings, and the system is faulty even for people who do. Vaticidalprophet 01:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

::::I worry about clutter—half the hooks get tweaked for one reason or another throughout this process, it'd be annoying. I'd certainly rather receive a ping. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::I have pings turned off because I really dislike them (although the dislike is most specific to "things I'd already be watching" -- I'm surprised to learn that apparently every prep builder has all the preps watchlisted, because I check them manually). I'll need to turn them back on at some point just logistically, but the date for that is indefinitely put off because pings are just an inherently panicky experience and putting myself back in all that panic sounds like a bad idea. I'm pretty sure it's still formally enshrined that you can't assume pings reach their intended targets, so anything that needs a 100% success rate officially still needs to be conducted through talk pages. I recognize the clutter issue -- it doesn't have a simple answer. Vaticidalprophet 01:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::I think I saw someone say they have bot edits to their user talk turned off because they dislike them. :)

::::::However we do this, I think it's safe to say that anyone who has (that type of notification) turned off has zero room to complain if their hook gets changed and they don't see it because the message we sent didn't get through. No one making a change to a hook should be expected to personally go to the nom's user talk, take them by the hand, and lead them gently back here.

::::::I don't actually think this needs a 100% success rate. It's not ANI. If you don't want to be notified about a change, that's cool.

::::::Hey, VP -- your dislike of being pinged to discussions you're already part of might be a good thing for the folks at Topic Subscriptions to hear. Maybe an option to turn off pings for any topic you've already participate in, whether or not you're subscribed? That way you'd still be able to be notified if someone was in a discussion you hadn't participated in and thought, hey, VP should see this. valereee (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::This is well into digression, but...The big moving part is I interpret pinged messages (on any platform, not just Wikipedia) as more aggressive than equivalent messages that don't generate pings. In ongoing conversations this gets expressed as a kind of snappy "Yes, I know we're talking, you don't have to yell". Pinged to new things, it's relatively muted if the message is obviously not aggressive, but if there's any possible reading that it is then that's a problem. I've ran into the issues with trying to work around this on a lot of platforms -- a recurring problem is that telling people "please don't ping me" means reasonable people who aren't going to be dicks anyway listen and don't ping you (including in situations you might want to get pings), while people who are less inclined to such considerations, so to speak, keep pinging, so pings actually become net worse. Vaticidalprophet 18:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::::Taking tangent to your talk :D valereee (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::{{yo|Valereee|Kusma|Vaticidalprophet}} Well, I don't have any working bots set in stone yet (some dingus got me IP-blocked visa v account creation, so no bot account yet), but I'm definitely confident that I've got a working proof-of-concept script—it's like 90% of the way to being a functional bot. I'm going to get myself a bot account and file a BRFA :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::Annoying :( Would we need to give you accountcreator or ipblock-exempt to make it possible for you to use Special:CreateAccount? (I haven't checked what the rules on these flags are, WP:PERM is where you can get them). —Kusma (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::No worries, I'm in touch with an admin—shouldn't be a huge delay :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::::I'm the admin in question. Perms wouldn't help; see T189362. I love the word dingus ... it's a cool word! Graham87 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hello, {{u|theleekycauldron}} informed me that there is a general consensus that WP:DYKSG#C6 also applies to thematic gameplay and relates to my hook below at Template:Did you know nominations/Midgard (game). They suggested I bring it up here.

• ... that the medieval fantasy play-by-mail game Midgard allows battles in size from 200 to over 200,000 troops?

I would like to use the hook and request comment. It seems that the hook applies to the real world in that players are able to choose battles in scale from the very small (200 troops) to the massive (200,000). These differences in scale are unusual for a game. The choices involve real people. Thank you for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

:For me it doesn't relate to the real world. For me it's basically "Did you know ... that in a game, there are rules?" Why is it interesting that a game has rules? Of course a game has rules, and real life people have to follow those rules. If you could explain why this particular rule is in some way interesting, maybe we could IAR, but for me, no. If this is interesting because the scale is unusual, maybe make a hook around someone talking about how unusual it is? valereee (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

::Why not build a hook around the PBM aspect, which is something that I'd imagine many readers would have no experience with. Something like ... that in the (whatever decade) play by mail games like Midgard (something interesting about them)? valereee (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Many thanks {{u|valereee}}. I appreciate your advice. I will say that I considered rewriting the hook to explicitly say "allows players to choose battles in size", or something to that effect, to highlight the player aspect. I felt like that was implied and tried to keep the hook concise. I think that may have been a mistake since the focus seems to be on the game as a result.

:::Since you asked how this particular rule is interesting to be a possible exception, the difference in scale is unusual. Board and table games, of which this is a category, don't typically vary in scale this much in my somewhat limited knowledge. Examples are Axis and Allies, Diplomacy, Risk, and others. But I'm not a WP:RS; the reviewer called this point out specifically in his review of the game (perhaps that should be the way it is written?).

:::I'll defer on this if you think it's unreasonable as a hook, of course. I appreciate your input. Airborne84 (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

::::@Airborne84, certainly if a reviewer called out something about the game as being unusual, it's worth mentioning in the article and probably in the lead, IMO. But honestly, I think the play-by-mail aspect is more interesting, and given that your reviewer also had no idea there was such a thing, it still might be a better hook.

::::FWIW, my interpretation of the fiction thing is just what TLC was saying -- anything can happen in a fictional universe, which a game is an example of. Games can have any rules anyone can think up. So the rule itself is never interesting, even though real live people play by that rule.

::::ALT1: ... that Midgard, which is unusual in allowing players to choose battle sizes from 200 to over 200,000 troops, is an example of the professionally-moderated play-by-mail games popular in the 1980s?

::::That just squeaks in under the 200. You'd have to add unusual into the article, with a citation. valereee (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::{{yo|Valereee}} hmm, I'm iffy; we ran two articles on play-by-mail games in January (and one on a play-by-email game) and one in December. I'm assuming there'll be more, so I don't think we'll be able to use that as an escape every time. not a veto, but that should be kept in mind. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::we could incorporate the fact that one reviewer withheld top marks due to a negative experience with a gamemaster, that seems a little unusual(ly petty)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::I think as a layman who knows very little about board games, personally ALT1 works even without the mention of "unusual" (indeed, deleting the characters associated that word greatly shortens the hook). However, it would also be interesting to see if a hook based on Leeky's suggestion about the gamemaster could also be proposed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::Ah, didn't realize we were experiencing a rash of such hooks! Yeah, the gamemaster's a great idea!

::::::ALT2: ... that a reviewer withheld top marks for play-by-mail game Midgard because of negative experiences with a gamemaster? valereee (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::on board with that! :) Airborne84? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::we'll also need someone who wasn't involved to formally tick that—narutolovehinata5? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::::It's sourced to an offline source so AGF in that. It's also mentioned in the article so that's okay. I'm approving ALT2 but I'll also note this discussion on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::Greatly appreciate everyone's assistance on this! I'd be OK with the ALT2 hook if it had the caveat "in 1996", to note it's not contemporary (as the game is still active) but would like to rummage around a bit first to see if there are any other options. Thanks again!! Airborne84 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Quick thing:

The second hook (which I nominated) currently reads {{tq|...that Maria Keller founded a nonprofit at the age of eight that would go on to collect and distribute more than three million books to underprivileged children?}}. Can this be changed to {{tq|...that when Maria Keller was eight years old, she founded a nonprofit that would later go on to collect and distribute more than three million books to underprivileged children?}} The proposed change flows better to me.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

:Pinging admin Maile, who promoted the prep to queue. Any other admin can also make the edit, if they agree that the revised wording is an improvement. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

{{done}} — Maile (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

readout's showing 60, and I just moved an incomplete nom back to DYKN, so we're at 59 approved hooks, meaning it's time to switch back to 1-a-day. So, for the {{@DYK admins|p=,|a=}} please switch User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400 sometime before noon UTC (roughly 2 hours and 20 minutes from now).

As for special occasion hooks: a full sweep of queues 4 and 5 reveal no hooks that need to be run within the next twelve hours, so the change is good to go. We'll need the lead of prep 3 (bach) to be swapped with the lead of queue 6, and the lead of prep 6 (sousa) to be swapped with the lead of queue 7.

Also, for posterity, I'm setting the over-under at ten days in one-a-day before wikicup overwhelms the backlog again. any takers? :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{done}}. As for when we'll have to go back, you might be right Leeky, although I'd note that in the early rounds of the WikiCup the bar for moving on is very low and people don't really need to pad out with DYKs unless they want to... personally I've done four FA reviews and that should hopefully be more than enough for round 1!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

::i suppose :) shame SL93 and I got our FAs in the first round, too, 200 points could come in handy later for us stragglers. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

::also, to be clear, the queue moves still need to happen, although that is less urgent. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:: just watching: how about switching not immediately after the limit is reached, but after the currently built preps have been handled, to make life easier for the prep builders, - perhaps starting with a bit higher limit? - personally, I don't mind switching soon, of course, full-day exposure being better for views and for keeping track in the 3 cats I watch (Germany, opera, and my own) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Gerda, hm. Can we figure out how to make our changes without having to move stuff around? Like, as we're approaching a switch, instead of doing it exactly at the stroke of 60/120, see if we have a gap in special occasion requests and make the switch at approximately 60/120 whenever it's least disruptive/causes the least amount of swapping? valereee (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:::: do as works best for you - here I wrote like mad to create Otto Borngräber in time for the next set which I thought was today, - saw too late that I could have done something more useful ;) - some admin needed to decide if he should be linked in the hook about Die ersten Menschen. It's not the greatest of articles, but perhaps better than a person's name without a link, - you decide --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::valereee, there is no realistic way of making changes without having to move promoted special occasion hooks around. At two a day, you might so many preps and queues already filled that you have to wait as long as seven days, and at one a day, up to two weeks. That's completely infeasible. If there's no way for a special occasion hook to run at its correct time without delaying the switchover, then you wait until it has run during the requested time, but that shouldn't be more than 24 hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::Not completely following but I do completely believe you. :) valereee (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, theleekycauldron and Amakuru, we never dropped below 60, so this changeover was premature. The two nominations moved back from Approved to Nominations had already been counted by the bot when their approvals were superseded at 07:33 and 08:10 respectively. At 08:40, we were at 61, according to DYKHousekeepingBot; at 09:10 we were at 60; and at 09:40 we were back at 61 (thanks to the approval of this nom at 09:20). No "59" to be found.

February 1 is a 20-nomination day so far, and February 2 is already at 15: that's two and a half sets for the one and two sets for the other: not the time to be switching back prematurely to one prep a day. However we decide to proceed, we should ensure that unless DYKHousekeepingBot reports a number either 59 or below or 120 or above, no change will be made. (Remember: one person may be removing approval from one nomination even while another has approved a different nomination; until the next report comes out, no one truly knows.) There is also no huge urgency: waiting until midnight in this case, or to the next day if midnight is fast approaching, makes sure that things can be done carefully and with less risk of error, or of issues with the upcoming special occasion hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:I have to agree that there's no rush. The reason we set it at 60 was because once we're down to 40, it's slim pickings for prep builders. If we're for instance at 58 (or even lower but most preps/queues are filled, as they are now) but seeing a definite strong upward trend in noms, we can hold off. This should be treated with some discretion rather than as some sort of toggle switch. If we really want to use no discretion at all and always immediately switch, we should probably set the lower number closer to 40. valereee (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:I'm sorry, BlueMoonset, that's my mistake—I'll wait for the readout next time. Doesn't making the switch in afternoon UTC throw off the cycle? Like, you don't want a set that went on air at noon utc to run for 24 hours... regardless, I'm fine waiting a day or two. If you'd like to switch back, I'm fine with following your lead here. We are already picking up hooks pretty fast, so I imagine we'll be back at two a day pretty quickly either way. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

::theleekycauldron, if we do switch back, then we just need to move a couple of hooks around in the preps. I'll leave to Amakuru or another passing admin to decide: either they can put us back to twice a day decently before 12:00 UTC, or swap the two special occasion lead hooks you mention above: Prep 3 with Queue 6, and Prep 6 with Queue 1 (not Queue 7 as stated previously, since it needs to run on 8 February, which is when Queue 1 is scheduled if we stick with one set per day).

::You wouldn't want to switch over in the afternoon in either direction—I don't believe I suggested that. Waiting until shortly after midnight to make a switch in either direction is always safest, though it can be done over the next several hours (but not too close to noon to avoid confusion or collisions). If it gets to be past 08:00 or so, it's probably best to wait to do the switchover until after 00:00 rolls around again. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

:::I've put it back to 12 hours; saves us from having to move hooks around. And we've moved some distance from 60 hooks anyway. Schwede66 04:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

:::: If this is so, the pictured hook about BWV 157, now in prep 3, should please go to Q2, especially as my dear prep builder inserted a "today". Needs an admin, and pictured please. If pictured is not possible that day please pictured some other day, but say "on 6 February 1727", - my preference anyway because we'll have readers who see it 5 Feb or 7 Feb. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::Gerda Arendt, I've swapped the lead hooks of Prep 2 and Prep 3, so your nomination will be run on 6 February. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::: Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Just wanted to check, are articles split from other articles eligible for DYK? I'm reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/York City F.C. (1908), and York City F.C. (1908) is an article split from History of York City F.C. (1922–1980). I believe the DYK criteria 1a {{tq|For DYK purposes, a "new" article is no more than seven days old, and may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article.}} means that this article isn't eligible for DYK, but wanted to check (since I've not had this scenario before). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{yo|Joseph2302}} you're right, this article would be ineligible—doesn't really count as new content. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

::Joseph2302, if the newly split article is then expanded 5x, or eventually becomes a GA on its own, then it could be eligible. Also, if the information in the newly split article was first added to the older article within seven days prior to the split, it is considered "new" in the newly split article, but that isn't the case here. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Oh, that last one is very interesting. Yes, I've added stuff to an article occasionally, then realized the content would support a standalone. valereee (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

::::See WP:DYKSG#A5 for a more details. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::Thanks all, the nom has been updated to note this ineligibility. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::I should have known we'd have a specific rule already lol... valereee (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

The previous list was archived a few days ago, so I've created a new list of all 20 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 26. We currently have a total of 166 nominations, of which 68 have been approved, a gap of 98, down 10 over the past twelve days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

• December 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Lillian Eichler Watson (reviewer needed to check ALT2) valereee (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• December 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Chinese dama
• January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Zero-COVID
• January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Naren Chandra Das (reviewer needed to check ALT2)

Other old nominations:

• January 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction
• January 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Tek Fog
• January 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Bulli Bai case
• January 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Holger Mühlbauer
• January 17: Template:Did you know nominations/623rd Field Artillery Regiment
• January 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Special Security Response Team
• January 21: Template:Did you know nominations/York City F.C. (1908)
• January 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Richard J. Ferris
• January 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Kausheya (silk)
• January 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-monuments in Mexico (four articles)
• January 23: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Egyptian obelisks
• January 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Aesthetics (textile)
• January 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Phylicia Whitney
• January 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Gerald Schoenfeld Theatre (two or four articles)
• January 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Sonatine (ballet)
• January 25: Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Bogoso explosion

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

:Should we move this one as a sticky post toward the top of this page to draw editors' attention? Thoughts? Ktin (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

::plus, it'd prevent archiving, we could just keep updating this list—it's worth thought :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

:::I would recommend against moving this to the top of the page, since most people look at the bottom of the page to see what's new, so people will miss it. There's a regular progression up the page, and then something new comes along to catch the eye once a week. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Apologies if this isn't the right talk page for this, but this question has been on my head for months. Why are DYK's about American radio stations so common these days? It seems like every few days there's a fun fact about some K or W station. Not that I don't like it, but I can't help but wonder why they keep showing up. 49.144.204.135 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

:It's because an editor enjoys working on radio station articles for DYK which there is nothing wrong with. Pinging editor {{u|Sammi Brie}}. SL93 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

:DYK reflects the interests of the editors who participate in it, and one of the most active editors in the process has that as her preferred topic. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and we're always looking for new blood -- if you'd like, you could start writing articles for DYK too :) Vaticidalprophet 14:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

::Another option would just be nominating other articles that were created or 5x expanded in the past 7 days. SL93 (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

:You can blame me for this. I write these because I have an interest in broadcasting history and I have identified this field as one where sourcing far outpaces the quality of our articles. The proof in how successful this is is the volume of my work: a pace of 100 DYKs a year since I started being super-active with newspapers.com in 2019, more than 20 Good Articles (all but one on broadcasting topics)...and thousands and thousands of additional references. There are still pages in the DYK and GA pipelines, too... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

:: {{ping|Sammi Brie}} I used to submit hooks on Michigan and college football at a similar pace; I then started getting negative feedback about the volume of similar hooks. It's worth keeping your "antennae tuned" to such comments. You are clearly preparing high quality content that improves the 'pedia, but FWIW, I did a review last year of DYK's lowest performing hooks, and the radio station DYKs were heavily represented. I've dealt with reader weariness by trying to be more selective in deciding which articles/hooks to submit to DYK. Cbl62 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

:::I've had periods where I've had too many DYKs (that was me with Mexican politicians in 2016!). I've shifted to also doing more GAs/expansion work of existing pages, though it's still my long-term goal to write a DYK into every TV market in the US (so far I've done 133 down out of 210). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

::*Putting this in perspective, have a look at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. Of those who are still active (and those who aren't), editors who create a lot of articles/nominations, tend to do it on subjects they have an interest in. These editors keep DYK alive. — Maile (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Over here, we have the twice-approved nomination of an eminently qualified article being held up for nearly two months by completely frivolous objections (shown as such at great length) from a user who basically doesn’t want a Communist dictatorship that collapsed 32 years ago to be portrayed in a negative light on the front page. Could someone perhaps step up and break this absurd logjam? It simply isn’t fair to the hard-working article creator to be put through these kinds of artificial hurdles. — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

: Wow! The discussion of the nom has reached 33,000 characters -- now surpassing the article in length! Cbl62 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

:Good grief. Both sides seems to be loving the walls of text.

:To me the hook seems fairly uncontroversial, so let's start with the two assertions:

:# circulated his memoirs in samizdat.

:# since the communist regime did not want them published.

:Which of those is causing the argument?

:@Anonimu, can you explain your concern about these two assertions briefly? @Dahn, ditto. To clarify: There is a very good chance walls of text will be ignored. No one here is required to read them. Whittle it down to the minimum or risk having no one bother to read it. valereee (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

::First I strongly protests Biruitorul's personal attacks against me.

::Regarding the content: none of the assertions is supported by sources.

::# The memoirs mentioned by the hook is recorded by sources to have had two copies (one of which is only asserted, based on a discussion the author of one source once had with the subject of the DYK) and basically no circulation. Calling it a samizdat is original research and extraordinary claim since Romania, unlike other Eastern Bloc countries, did not experience a samizdat phenomenon.

::# The assertion regarding the regime is also unsupported, as sources do not indicate that any attempt to publish them was made or that the regime was even aware of their existence.Anonimu (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Thank you for that brief explanation. {{u|Dahn}}, would you like to briefly respond? valereee (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

::::Briefly: (1) a manuscript now to have had several copies that were circulated in a group is a samizdat, uncontroversially so -- sources may not use that exact term (specifically because the term is rather unused in Romanian, the language of the sources), but they do quite clearly indicate what it was. (2) The samizdat's description as unwanted by the regime is not just Eminescu's own guess, it is also backed by the researcher quoting him (the quote is to the secondary source as well -- this was shown to Anonimu, yet he continues to claim "none of the assertions is supported by sources").

::::But further: even at that, I have proposed an alt hook which refers to another aspect of the article, namely that Eminescu was jailed and was allocated a 25-cm-wide sleeping cot; this has also raised objections from Anonimu, ones that he did not care to outline here. Dahn (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::I've also proposed an alt, one that is completely nonpolitical and to me quite interesting. valereee (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

• The discussion is now at 45 thousand bytes. Can someone, anyone, please approve one of the three proposed hooks and close the discussion before we all wear out into dust? Seriously. — Biruitorul ^Talk 13:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
• :Okay, it's closed now. breathe easy, fellas :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

At least one empty prep is a net positive. valereee (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

:Having two passed special occasion hooks certainly didn't help. SL93 (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

::I don't see any special occasion hooks in the bottom set? I have no objection to slotting those in from the start. But there's absolutely zero reason to have only three slots out of 56 available for people to work in. There's no upside, and there are significant downsides. valereee (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Please don't harp at me. I slotted in two special occasion hooks into that set and one in the set before it. Theleekycauldron built most of the sets and I had to backtrack to promote skipped special occasion hooks. I can add hidden notes to those hooks when I get home. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

::::Chill, everybody. She said "Please". :-) - anyway, I cleared a prep. No big deal, as I'm sure the thought of an empty prep never occurred to anyone before. I certainly never thought of it before. But it sure makes sense.— Maile (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::I couldn't get the earlier now removed message out of my mind. If people didn't skip special occasion hooks and we had more promoting admins, this would not be as much of an issue. SL93 (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::Probably re the promoting admins. As we admins are scattered around the globe, and who knows what's going on at their end, it's a roll of the dice on promotions. One thing I have noticed, is that we have been fortunate to currently have editors willing to promote so well and so often. It hasn't always been this way, in the fact that when Yoninah was around, she often did the majority of the promoting. When it rains, it pours, I guess. — Maile (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::I was gonna promote the spec occs before I went to sleep, but it was like 4am—I just collapsed. I really should stop promoting hooks in zombie mode, it just creates more work for the admins... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

::::Sorry, SL93. I removed it because it seemed unnecessarily bitchy. Hopefully the move of the spec occ holding area will help with preventing people missing seeing the spec occ hooks. And yes, additional promoting admins would be helpful. I do wish some of the extremely prolific admin contributors here would take a look at how easy it is to move to queue and that there's literally nothing scary about it, it's only a matter of doing the 8 re-reviews that is the issue. valereee (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{re|SL93}} Thanks for promoting! Would it be better to place Eberhard Zeidler (architect) as the picture hook in Prep 3? That way, it will run during the day in the Canada. Or are we switching to one set a day before February 10? (i.e. won't make a difference) —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{u|Bloom6132}} I took care of it. SL93 (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

This is totally my slip-up, but since none of you caught me, you're all getting pinged too—actually, just Amakuru. Looks like I forgot to credit Thriley in promoting the Donald Gurnett hook that ran recently—there was a blank credit slot in the prep sets. So, do double-check those when doing queue reviews. thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{u|theleekycauldron}} I'm not sure every reader will know what the scare quotes refer to. It seems better to outright state the fact at least similarly to ALT1. SL93 (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{yo|SL93}} Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. Yes, we could put ourselves unambiguously in the clear by removing all the quirkiness, but I think that's overly cautious and doesn't outweigh the quality of the hook we're losing. {{pb}} in my opinion, there are two factors at play: there's the factual accuracy of the hook, and there's first-glance interpretation. Factual accuracy is important; when the jig is up and people understand what we were trying to do, it's important that they know we didn't just straight-face an outright lie (such as "dead people have the capability to write") for a joke. So by putting in the scare quotes, it gives us a bit of cover to say "here's what we were trying to do", and the people who take the time to click/investigate will understand. {{pb}} But there's also first-glance perception of the hook, and here's where I feel we go off the rails. For some reason, we seem to be worried that if we suggest a dead person can write letters and reports, people will take that suggestion at face value, as if our readers won't think about the hook long enough to remember that dead people are—and this is true—incapable of writing letters. What we want is for people to feel a little confused, and wonder how a dead person can write letters, and then they see the scare quotes and they realize "oh, something's wonky here". So they click and learn about the real thing. We can't be held responsible for someone who reads that hook and walks away thinking "oh, they said Pontius Pilate wrote letters after his death—they must be telling the unvarnished truth". That's obviously a ridiculous conclusion, and it ignores quite a few context clues. {{pb}} For the record, I presented the hook to quite a few friends as a blind test, and all of them confirmed that their first thought wasn't to take the hook literally. I think we're underestimating our audience, and I think we're taking responsibility for more than we should—it really isn't our fault if, after we include the scare quotes, someone goes around saying we claimed Pontius Pilate was a zombie author, or a ouija board reincarnated. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

::welp—I suppose this is moot now :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

• ... that osteogenesis imperfecta causes blue eyes (pictured)—and brittle bones?

Just a quick query about this - when I hear the term "blue eyes", this suggests to me the normal situation whereby the iris is blue. i.e. where our Blue eyes redirect points. It seems therefore that this hook may be confusing, as obviously that's not the kind of blue eyes caused by this condition. I suppose the accurate way to phrase it would be "blue sclera" or, more longwinded, "blue whites of the eyes". Pinging {{ping|Psiĥedelisto|Storye book|SL93}} who were involved with the DYK nomination. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

:I think "blue sclera" would work. SL93 (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

:My understanding is this is the point, i.e. it's the ordinary sort of mild misdirection used in many hooks to make them "hooky", and changing it would defeat the purpose. (Not a pinged party, but I was the GA reviewer so have been following along.) Vaticidalprophet 13:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

::I thought that it was only ordinary for the last hook in a set. SL93 (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

:::As long as I've been paying attention to DYK (which predates even being an editor by many years), this has been relatively flexible. I can anecdotally tell you that when I was reader-watching DYK I expected to see that level of hook-quirkiness in any spot. Vaticidalprophet 14:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

::::It would be better for this hook not to be brought up at ERRORS. SL93 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::I have not yet seen evidence that someone at ERRORS wouldn't complain if DYK ran a completely blank slate. I don't think "the hook is in and of itself unproblematic, but the single most dysfunctional process on the project might disagree" is cause for a veto by itself. I think the suggested tweaks defeat the hook's purpose, and that if this hook is inappropriate (which I'm unconvinced of) it'd need wholesale replacing to an equally good or better one, not rewriting to a worse one. Vaticidalprophet 16:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::We will just have to disagree. I don't see it being a worse hook with one word being changed. SL93 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::: As I understand from the above, we have the choice of 1. leaving the hook as it is, risking being pulled due to error; 2. replacing "blue" with "blue sclera" and 3. replacing "blue" with "blue whites of the eyes". I can add that the picture does demonstrate which bit is blue, so that readers (excluding colour-blind people) should be able to understand the hook without clicking. Colour-blind people whom I know (including those in my family) are well able to check out colour-related matters via the article, so that should not be an issue. So that leaves the issue of wording. I think there is nothing wrong with "blue whites of the eyes". It does not make the hook over-long, and it's not the sort of hook which needs to be snappy like an advertisement. So I would go for choice number 3. Storye book (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::::I support that or the other option of blue sclera. SL93 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

::as a broader point, i'm not so sure... harmless misdirection generally only flies (at least, in my opinion) when the misdirection is 1. necessary for the cohesiveness of the hook (see Pilate cycle) and 2. really harmless. given the image, this probably isn't harmful at all, but I think the license for quirkiness should be limited to when it's strictly necessary, and shouldn't be used for just punch. In any case, "blue whites of the eyes" or "blue sclera" both work well. It's a good image; ten bucks on the table this'll make DYKSTATS no matter what we write. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

:::{{u|Theleekycauldron}} I highly disagree on Pilate cycle. I don't see misdirection being needed and stating it exactly is still a cohesive hook length. I have never heard of misdirection being used for cohesiveness at DYK before. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

::::Sorry, cohesive isn't the best word. What i mean to say is, misdirection shouldn't used for no reason, or just to make the hook shorter; the thing about hooks like Claudia Quintet, Pilate cycle, Condor (options), and Corynaea crassa is that the misdirection is an integral part of the hook, and that without it, you end up with a boring restatement of the facts. If you use misdirection just because it's easier to write/read, that's not okay—the misdirection (in addition to being relatively harmless and factually accurate once you look back) has to be a significant part of the way the hook is delivered, its substance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{re|Amakuru|Vaticidalprophet|SL93}} My intent was indeed harmless misdirection. When we say "blue eyes" we typically mean to refer to the iris and not the sclera, right. If you think it's too misleading and likely to be accused of being an error (which is beyond a stretch), then I think the problem can be solved by very simple change: {{!xt|blue eyes}}; {{xt|{{linktext|bluish}} eyes}}. It's also more factual because the blue tinge to the eyes is often subtle, and decreases with age. Some never have it at all (including myself). Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 00:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

::"Bluish eyes" would be OK I guess, since at least it doesn't sound like the normal description of an eye colour. I'm probably less tolerant to this sort of thing than most, but I do think this errs to far on the side of being potentially misleading. The Claudia Quintet thing wasn't, because Claudia Quintet isn't a real person anyway, so it's not like we're making people think she did something she didn't. Blue sclera as suggested above is also fine with me.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

:::In my view, if this is used as a picture hook showing the symptom (and it has been chosen as the lead hook), then there's no problem with the original hook wording. Schwede66 21:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

:::{{re|Amakuru}} I am really opposed to the word "sclera" as someone with OI, I can say anecdotally very little of the genpop knows this word, even some people with OI don't know it. It's over-WP:JARGON. Neutral on bluish, of course prefer my original wording but very willing to see "bluish" if that's what it takes. But it seems most are fine with the wording as is, and in the event it gets raised at ERRORS page, well, we have a discussion to point to even. (Meaning: it was considered.) Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 01:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

• ... that Progressive Corporation, an insurer, published 5,000 copies of a book "written" by Dr. Rick, its fictional advertising campaign character?

{{u|Bait30}}{{u|Bahnfrend}}{{u|Theleekycauldron}}

Not loving the scare quotes, any objection to changing to 'a book ostensibly written by'? valereee (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

: Another thing which concerns me is that did they publish exactly 5,000 copies, or around 5,000 copies? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

::I would be fine with that change. Another alternative could be "credited to Dr. Rick" maybe. Ad Age just says "recently published 5000 copies" so they definitely published 5000. I feel like whether its 5000 or more than 5000 doesn't make too much of a difference as to how the hook should be written.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 15:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Oh, I like credited to Dr. Rick better! valereee (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

::::I agree, we can go with that :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::"credited to Dr. Rick" would be fine by me. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• ... that at age 12, Shaylee Mansfield became the first deaf actor to be credited alongside the "audible" voice actors for a "sign over" performance in an animated production?

{{u|Pamzeis}} {{u|Ornithoptera}} {{u|Theleekycauldron}}

I don't understand why we're using scare quotes either in the article or in the hook. Any objection to:

• ... that at age 12, Shaylee Mansfield became the first deaf actor to be credited alongside the voice actors for a signed performance in an animated production? valereee (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• :I meant to correct that one today—I don't think they were meant to be scare quotes, but it does come off that way. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• :TheWrap also used the quotes, so I though it was OK, but yeah, no objection. Pamzeis (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Errr... there is an error in the hook for Margaret Lemon, currently at DYKN/A#Margaret Lemon. I am quite sure that Anthony Van Dyke is not the contemporary of Margaret. Wikilink needs to either be changed or redirected to Anthony van Dyck instead. Also, consider changing mentions of Anthony van Dyck in Lemon's article to the spelling used in his article for consistency. Thanks!

New hook:

• ... that the popular artist's model, Margaret Lemon, tried to bite Anthony van Dyck{{'s}} thumb off?

– TCMemoire 19:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

:Great catch! While we are at it -- is it only me who was scratching their head on "popular artist's model"? Should we wiki link artist's model? I do see that it just redirects to model (art). Ktin (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

::Hey, TCMemoire! In the future, if a nomination is still at WP:DYKNA, feel free to make comments on the nomination page :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Thanks, will do! I wasn't totally sure and wanted to make sure it was seen. – TCMemoire 18:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

anyone have any objections to me using AutoWikiBrowser to substitute all instances of the {{tl|prep}}, {{tl|queue}}, and {{tl|dykn}} templates? When it's used as a section header, the anchors in the page history don't work properly, they need to be substituted for the anchors to work. I did it on a few pages as a test, but I figured I should put out a feeler before going through the rest of the archives/user talk archives. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

:This will be a bit more work for some editor or group of editors when the move out of template space is finally implemented, but AWB can be used again to modify those links as needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

::does the move apply to the preps and queues? Those do feed directly into T:DYK, so those could conceivably stay in template space... regardless, i'd be happy to perform the necessary AWB edits myself when the time comes. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Just do it, AnomieBOT isn't happy and no one else cares. Also, please change your direct invocation of :Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted to a {{tlp|subst only|auto{{=}}yes}} on the /doc subpage when you are done, so that users know they're supposed to subst it. Primefac (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

::::Will do; time to click on the "save" button 510 times... well, i'm already down to 458. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

::::aaaand done. we're still in the same moon cycle, right? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

• ... that just four years after starting up, the president of Satellite Television & Associated Resources commented that his entire industry had "gone down the drain"?

Minor point, maybe, but I'm curious as to why the cited quote is placed in a quote box in the article, rather than simply in the prose? The advice at the {{tl|quote box}} template definition advises that it shouldn't be used in articles. Also, this doesn't seem to comply with the conditions at MOS:BLOCKQUOTE to only use a block quote if the quotation runs to {{xt|"more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length"}}. It seems like this would be better simply incorporated in the prose, as quotes usually are, but perhaps there's something I'm missing! Pinging {{ping|Sammi Brie|Muboshgu|Theleekycauldron}} who were involved with the DYK nom. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

:No strong preference either way, but I will say that in this case, having the quote floating and detached from the prose works a lot better than ham-fisting it somewhere in the body, allowing the sequence to flow with the relevant color commentary on the side. In any case, I don't much mind if it gets switched. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

::It could be better in prose, but I didn't see a reason to object to a quote box. It's up to Sammi imho. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Welp... *looks around* I have a bunch of GAs and GANs that use {{tl|quote box}}... I think in this case it flows better in the quote box than outside of it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{multiple image|width=162|image1=Posidonia oceanica (L).jpg|caption1=Seagrass|image2=Kelp forest at Taranga pinnacles Hen and Chicken Islands PA232359.JPG|caption2=Kelp (not seagrass)}}

• ... that seas are being rewilded with seagrass (example pictured){{-?}}

{{re|Melissa Highton|Chidgk1|Schwede66|SL93}} Just to notify that I've (WP:BOLDly) changed the photo accompanying this hook – kelp is not seagrass. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

:are the seas not being rewilded with kelp? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

::If we are to include {{tq|seagrass (example pictured)}} in the hook, we ought to use an image actually depicting seagrass, I'd say. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

:::true, but I do happen to like the image of the kelp better—so I'd rather change the hook than the image. just my preference, of course :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 13:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

::::I'm happy with your bold change, Ravenpuff. Schwede66 18:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

:Thanks for changing. I was being dumb while tired - I could have sworn I added a picture of seagrass. The rest of the hooks I promoted at the time turned out fine so I'm lucky it was just an easily fixable image issue. SL93 (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

:Thanks for changing - yes definitely seagrass because it makes the hook sound much better I think Chidgk1 (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Sea Otters (Enhydra lutris), from a raft of about 15, (8625968237).jpgs are an apex predator needed to control the population of sea urchins so their reintroduction to the Pacific coast of Canada has been a successful case of rewilding.{{Cite journal|last=Gregr|first=Edward|date=2021-07-07|title=Sea otters: how welcome should a recovering top predator be?|url=https://www.thesciencebreaker.org/breaks/evolution-behaviour/sea-otters-how-welcome-should-a-recovering-top-predator-be|journal=TheScienceBreaker|language=en|doi=10.25250/thescbr.brk563|issn=2571-9262}}]]

• The hook and pictures about seaweed seem rather dull. I have added a picture and caption about sea otters (right) which might be more photogenic and so work better. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

{{Clear}}

{{ping|Shubinator|Mandarax|BlueMoonset}}

User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors

has just triggered these errors:

Couldn't find hook for Harrat Khaybar, was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?

Couldn't find hook for Maud Holland, was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?

Couldn't find hook for Palácio de Lahane, was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?

Couldn't find hook for Donald H. Elliott, was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?

Couldn't find hook for Donald H. Elliott, was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?

Couldn't find hook for Princess of Xiaohe, was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?

Couldn't find hook for Lloyd Simmons, was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?

Couldn't find hook for 2022 Bogoso explosion, was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?

Couldn't find hook for 2022 Bogoso explosion, was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?

Couldn't find hook for Phil Williams (Alabama senator), was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?

Not sure what all that means, but this posted after the set was on the Main Page. — Maile (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

:The above message has now cleared from the DYKUpdatebot. — Maile (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

::This is a bug, I've just fixed it :) I'll go back through and add hooks to the article talk credits for that set. Shubinator (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

• ... that Beatriz Rico{{`s}} team of scientists uncovered a developmental mechanism for specification of inhibitory connections within the brain?

It might just be my ignorance, but I'm having difficulty making sense of this hook. To be honest, I'm not sure what an inhibitory connection is, I don't know what would be meant by the "specification" of such a thing (perhaps it's like a software spec, but for brain parts?) and I'm not even sure what a developmental mechanism is exactly. Any chance we can rephrase this to make it more clear to non-specialists, or if that's not possible, at least include a few links to relevant topics for further clarification? Pinging {{ping|MrMeAndMrMe|Feminist|SL93}} who were involvd with the hook.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

:I'm also curious. Is this Cellular differentiation or something else? —Kusma (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

:I won't be very helpful. I don't know what it means and I promoted the hook because I thought it might just be me being daft. SL93 (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

::Me too ... as I said in my review, I'm just assuming it's how it should be described. feminist (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

:Quite bamboozled myself. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

::Well, I can at least say I'm glad it wasn't just me. SL93 (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{u|Amakuru}} I personally think the hook should be pulled for now. SL93 (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

::{{done}} almost missed this one! I'll reopen the nomination so it can be considered more slowly.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

I spotted a couple of things that don't look quite right and I'm not sure how this comes about and what to do about it.

Firstly, there's a nomination for Francis G. Brink by {{u|Mztourist}} that appears to have been pasted straight onto the nomination page (Template talk:Did you know) with {{diff||prev|1070411010|this diff}} without there being a nomination page having been created for it. Does that happen when editors who nominated under the previous system kept a template set that they are trying to reuse? Is the simple fix to direct nominators to new nomination form and to remove the manual entry?

Secondly, I spotted that Template:Did you know nominations/Did you know had recently been recreated. As far as I can see, this doesn't serve any function but I can see that a confused user may create it to post a response to a discussion. So rather than deleting it, I've cleared it out and semi-protected the template. That way, this shouldn't happen again. Does that sound ok? Schwede66 19:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{yo|Schwede66}} I put Francis G. Brink at {{tl|Did you know nominations/Francis G. Brink}}, thanks for the heads-up! And thanks for the protection there, that's perfect :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

::I tried to follow the nomination procedure, but for some reason it didn't save but said I could just manually paste it in, which is what I did, apologies if I messed things up. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

:::it's all good, Mztourist :) for next time, it meant copy to {{tl|Did you know nominations/Francis G. Brink}}, not Template talk:Did you know. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{re|Amakuru}} by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ADid_you_know%2FQueue%2F3&type=revision&diff=1070830429&oldid=1070645597 swapping] Jean-Claude Corbeil into Queue 3, there are now two Canadian biography hooks in the same set. Hope that won't be problematic taking DYKSG J2 into consideration. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

:Take Holger Mühlbauer from Prep 7 slot 4 if someone corrects for this one :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

::{{@DYK admins|a=|p=}} – anyone want to make the swap before it hits the Main Page in <4 hours? —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

:::{{done}}. Thanks for spotting this.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we're having a bit of trouble with this nomination—it was recently promoted to GA(!), but for a country so big, there seems to be trouble finding a good hook that constitutes due weight. Can we get some extra eyeballs on the nom? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

:We could just simply highlight something interesting about Russia that's mentioned in the article that may not be well-known. I'm not sure why the fact needs to be something that has good weight. For example, we had Winston Churchill at DYK a while back, but instead of the hook being about his political career it was about his bricklaying hobby. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

:I didn't realize due or undue weight was even part of the DYK rules. SL93 (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

::It's not. WP:DYKHOOK makes no mention of weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

::yeah, i didn't really follow that part either—I'd get it if it were something unduly positive or negative, but expecting us to say anything that could even start to do justice to the immense complexity of russia's history and culture would be something out of West Wing republicanism (thinking that complex things can or should be simplified to simple blurbs). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

:::It looks to me that the weight is being referred to in the article itself per my reading of the discussion. SL93 (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

::::{{ec}} I do stand corrected. The rules do say {{tq|Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided.}} Any random quirk of Russia, no matter how obscure, if sourced in the article, would be valid. But, a hook about how they interfere with foreign elections would not be. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::Derp it just occurred to me that Russia is not a living individual. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::In practice, even clearly negative hooks about dead individuals and organizations are also often rejected, so the point still kind of stands. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

::::In any case, we don't think we really need to make a due weight hook. DYK was never about writing hooks meant to summarize an entire subject (and hooks that have tried to do so in the past have tended to not work out so well anyway). It was meant to highlight interesting facts about a subject even if they're not something the subject is best-known for, with the intention of making readers read the article and learn more about the subject. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::Unless I'm reading something wrong, the issue with the "weight" was more that the bit of trivia about the February Revolution was not significant enough to be included in the article at all, and of course having a hook not based on the text from the article is not allowed. What may be more of an issue for the DYK nomination is that there is a citation needed tag and several better source needed inline tags, as well as the fact that the nominator is an indeffed sock so can't communicate or rectify any issues. eviolite (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::*Well, to be DYK picky here, I don't see anything in our rules about socks. They might have nominated it, both here and at GAC, but admin {{u|Lee Vilenski}} did the GA review. I think it's the review that makes this eligible, and the nominator being a sock is a minor issue. Does DYK have any rules that say otherwise? They didn't create the article, and GAC reviewed it in good faith. — Maile (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::*:eviolite wasn't suggesting that it's ineligible, but the sockblock does mean that one or more editors needs to help resolve the [citation needed] tag and the 18 [better source needed] tags (something that the nominator would normally do). DanCherek (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::*Oh, I see. So maybe this is just a matter of resolving the tags. — Maile (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• I have offered ALT 1 on the template. We have Special Date March 8, International Women's Day on the horizon. And the article tells us Russian florists report that this is their most profitable day or the year. Russians love International Women's Day. Apparently, Russian men are very romantic. That would be a pretty good topical hook, I think. — Maile (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there! I should... probably be writing the DYK wrapped right now. Maybe I'll start setting a "before-the-month-is-over" deadline... Regardless, after spending many long hours reading dyk discussions, teaching myself javascript, and possibly neglecting homework, I've come up with two tasks that I could pretty easily implement in a new bot, and I have proof-of-concept scripts for both—but before I go to a BRFA, I want to hear your thoughts on whether or not these should be automated. Feel free to ask if you need clarifications on what these tasks do—thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not expecting this one to be super controversial; I've had a script in place for quite some time now that does basically what I'm about to propose, except semi-automatically (a user-activated script that makes the changes with the user's account). The bot, in this task, will maintain the WP:DYKSTATS page by:

1. Updating monthly tables at WP:DYKSTATS
2. Creating new tables every month, and archiving excess tables
3. Notifying users with {{tl|DYK views}} when a hook they have nominated or contributed to has reached WP:DYKSTATS
4. Other statspage bookkeeping functions that would happen in its own userspace

• replace to write first comment

We've had many, many discussions about whether prep builders and tweakers should have to tell nominators that they've modified their hooks while in prep. Proposals to force prep builders to notify noms every time have never really gained consensus, and in general, we've chosen to notify noms basically on scout's honour. Detecting changes in hooks and notifying nominators, though, can be bot work, and it can make the lives of prep builders easier. As a bonus, this would also record any changes made while the hook is in queue or actually on air at T:DYK.

The actual way the changes will be recorded and nominators will be notified hasn't been set in stone yet, but I'm leaning towards listing all changes on the talk pages of nominations (e.g. Template talk:Did you know nominations/Claudia Quintet instead of Template:Did you know nominations/Claudia Quintet—these talk pages don't seem to do much) and pinging the nominator and any other contributors. If a user would like to be talk page notified instead, they'll be able to add their name to a list.

• Awesome. I'm really looking forward to it. I'm not sure about the ping, though. It's now easy enough to add anything to your watchlist temporarily and a DYK nom page is certainly something that one should watchlist as nominator or reviewer, so I'm unsure why a ping is needed. Could the ping be restricted to the prep builder? Schwede66 09:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• :I wasn't planning on notifying the prep builder—some people end up modifying 20 hooks for small stuff in a go, I don't want them receiving 20 pings. Regardless, I agree that we don't necessarily have to ping at all :) depends on what the community wants here, and we can always change it in the middle. We should probably ping for changes made while the hook is on air, since that's more timely theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• :@Schwede66, nom/reviewers have the nom on their watch. Once the hook is moved to prep, the nom/reviewer no longer see changes on their watch. Unless you have the preps and queues on your watch -- which almost no one would unless they're working here regularly as prep builders or admins -- changes drop completely out of sight. valereee (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

::*{{u|valereee}}, that's exactly what this proposal is trying to address. {{tq|I'm leaning towards listing all changes on the talk pages of nominations}} Schwede66 20:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• I would actually rather have all post-promotion changes require some kind of notification (at the minimum an edit summary ping) but I guess there's no consensus for that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• :not necessarily—that's what the bot might be here for. It all depends :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Thanks for the proposal. If this goes forward, I would like there to be a way to opt out of all hook change notifications (whether pings or talk page messages), if possible. (I think it’s a valuable task worth doing, I just personally already keep an eye on my hooks as they move through preps/queues {{p}}) But this isn’t super important and doesn’t necessarily have to be implemented on the first go. DanCherek (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• I'm all for this proposal also. The opt out choice is a must. The bot is a nice idea, until a user starts seeing the notification one too many times. — Maile (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking there are probably common prep set corrections that should be bot-work, such as crediting errors and bad hook formatting. Anyone got ideas on that one? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

off the top of my head:

• Send out a notification if a queue does not contain a credit for an article/contains a blank credit (looks like we just made that slip up)
• Substitute certain templates used in hooks, probably {{tl|Currency}} and {{tl|Convert}}
• Add {{tl|nbsp}} where necessary
• Fix use of {{tl|'}}, {{tl|`}}, {{tl|'s}}, {{tl|`s}}, and {{tl|-?}} in hooks

• replace to write first comment

I don't understand how Columbia University tunnels got to GA status with that map. It's the poster child for WP:OR. I know {{t|Did you know nominations/Columbia University tunnels}} just got promoted, but I really think that was a mistake and my apologies for not popping up with my objection earlier.

The map is described as "Based on the original map by Mike Schiraldi". But there no WP:RS for that. The caption includes, "Information gathered over the course of many expeditions by many people". Who, exactly? The source cited for the image caption is the Columbia Spectator, which I would consider a WP:RS for some things, but the cited article is, as far as I can tell, a letter from a student, so there's no real editorial oversight. And it doesn't even have the map itself, just a mention that "a highly circulated map was compiled (credited to one Mike Schiraldi)". That's not the kind of WP:RS on which GA is founded. And it's not wikipedia's job to be the next link in a [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/978:_Citogenesis citogenesis] chain. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{u|RoySmith}}, I suggest you start a GA reassessment. When that gets going, we can put the nomination on hold until it's resolved. Schwede66 21:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

::I'm not sure I agree—I mean yes, that's a valid move, but GARs aren't exactly a speedy process. From my reading of this objection, we're in the clear if we can get consensus to properly source, replace, or mostly likely remove the map. I'd recommend working this out here, and if it doesn't happen fast enough, we can go to GAR—but I don't think it'll take that long, we're not talking about overhauling the article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

::good article reassessment has been opened, so discussion continues there :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

::See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Columbia University tunnels/1 -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

{{@DYK admins}} we're at two queues, and we're going to burn another in just over an hour—anyone able to promote at the moment? thanks in advance :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

:OK, I'm on it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The thing is quite outdated; we should be consolidating rules so that we don't have to update more than one copy of the stuff every time something changes. I want to get consensus here before I go to WP:MfD, though—if we do keep it, I suggest using templates and transclusions to keep stuff in sync. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

:If the page is currently causing any issues: instead of MfD, you could tag with {{tl|historical}} or just redirect somewhere. —Kusma (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

::ah, done, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

:::I have removed the page from Template:Learning DYK box; I guess that is where most of the traffic came from. I don't know whether it needs to be replaced by something else or what to do with the box. —Kusma (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Shubinator and {{@DYK admins}} we're only 12 minutes overdue so far, but it looks like DYKUpdateBot ain't movin'. I'll do credits if an admin does the manual move. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

:Looks like the bot performed the update on time: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&diff=1071211625&oldid=1071119885] ?? —Kusma (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

::{{yo|Kusma}} oops! That's my brainfart, I thought it was midnight UTC, not noon. sorry, y'all theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

• ... that the NCAA vacated the first Division I national championship won by an HBCU in any sport?

This is a special occasion hook for Black History Month but it makes no sense to me. Does it need ", the first ever" added after championship, and wouldn't it be better to spell out "Historically black colleges and universities" in full? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{yo|Cwmhiraeth}} not sure i totally understand the question, but I interpreted the hook to mean that the first ever championship won by an HBCU was subsequently struck down, if that helps you rephrase. and yeah, I'd spell out HBCU, we're probably not getting a black history month set together. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

::Ping Alyo, Storye book, and SL93 for this one theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Looking at it again, it does make more sense, but I misunderstood the hook to mean the "First Division Championship" rather than a championship won for the first time by ... . None of the acronyms are familiar to me nor I daresay to people from much of the world nor do I even know what sport we are talking about here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

:::: . . . that despite being the first historically black university to win a Division I national championship, the NCAA vacated Howard University's win? [?]-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

::::: That new wording by Alanscottwalker looks fine to me. Storye book (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::Probably better--the only point I might re-add is "to win a Division I national championship in any sport". Thanks for the edits regardless. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::Maybe it’s not important but I still don’t know which sport we are talking about. Schwede66 18:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::College soccer. When I first nom'd, I didn't think it was important to specify that in the hook but we easily can? E.g., "...the NCAA vacated Howard University's NCAA soccer final win?" I thought it more engaging to build the hook around the fact that the first D1 title in any sport by an HBCU was vacated, but happy to hear from others. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::Actually, one other thought. Can we change "that despite being" to "after becoming"? The "despite" makes it sound as though the university being an HBCU had nothing to do with the vacating, a sort of happenstance rather than a central part of the whole dispute. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::The proposed hook needs a bit of restructuring to avoid making it sound like the NCAA is the first HBCU to win a D-I championship. DanCherek (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::...that after becoming the first historically black university to win a Division I national championship in any sport, Howard University's 1971 soccer title was vacated by the NCAA? This feels pretty wordy to me, though I have less experience here, so I wonder if it's best to just stick with the original hook but spell out "historically black university"? Alyo (chat·edits) 00:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::::There's a grammar problem with that hook, also: it is incorrect that HU's soccer title became the first historically black university to win. It is HU itself that became that. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm going to be honest here, this is only my second DYK and it feels like I'm trying to build something from IKEA without knowing what kind of furniture it's supposed to be. In fairness, I have no idea if the burden is specifically on the nominator to fix issues as they arise post-promotion, but I don't really understand what problem I'm solving here. Are {{ul|Cwmhiraeth}}'s concerns answered by spelling out "historically black university" and leaving the original hook otherwise untouched? Does the lack of specifying which sport in the hook matter or not? My own opinion through the nomination was that the more words/qualifiers added to the hook, the worse and more confusing it got--and I think the objections you and Dan make to the structure of Alanscottwalker's hook bear that out. Alyo (chat·edits) 04:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Trying my hand at redoing the hook: "...that the first Division I college sports championship won by a historically black university in any sport was vacated by the NCAA?" Honestly it would be too hard to fit soccer in there, but specifying that this was a college championship would probably be enough. SounderBruce 10:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

:SounderBruce's hook looks good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

:Support as well. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

:Yes, this is much clearer. Too bad about not mentioning soccer but you can't pack everything into these things. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

::Just following up on my previous comment. That's a much clearer hook and through stating that it's about a college sports championship, it matters much less that it doesn't say which sport it is. Schwede66 21:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

... help theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

:We're planning to go back to 1-a-day from tomorrow morning I believe, so hopefully we'll just about be OK and the numbers will start picking up again from tomorrow! Otherwise, as a last resort, we might just have to slot in a few old hooks (we have done that before when having to make very quick swaps from a live set).  — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

:: For sure—also, someone cleared more queues than usual, so it'll be a while before we need to fill another prep :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

:: actually, we've had an unusually high ratio of unapproved hooks : approved hooks for the past couple days, so this might be a good time to test-pilot that "unreviewed backlog mode" proposal from August... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

:::I want to see more unapproved hooks before the "unreviewed backlog mode" is implemented (maybe 300ish). Many of the unapproved hooks are on hold for various reasons, and implementing the backlog mode without enough hooks to review might cause some problems. We have about a week and a half's worth of preps/queues set up, so I don't think there's a rush to get more approved hooks. Round 2 of the Wikicup will start soon, so that might encourage more DYK nominations. If editors want to increase the number of approved hooks, I suggest reviewing unapproved DYK hooks or good article nominees (as recently promoted GAs can be nominated at DYK). Z1720 (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

::::Agreed that this is not the time to be doing that test-pilot; there should be more of a gap between total and unapproved before . (However, reviewing GANs doesn't help matters, since it can add to the number of unreviewed DYK nominations: each passed GA comes with a talk-page post to the nominator that reminds them they can nomination said GA for DYK.) In fact, the gap between total and approved is down over the past 20 days by 12: it was 108, and is now only 96. Mind, it could stand to be lower, but this is a self-correcting problem now that we'll be at one set per day for a while. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The previous list is getting old, so I've created a new list of all 25 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 4. We currently have a total of 118 nominations, of which 23 have been approved, a gap of 95, down 3 over the past nine days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these: we need to get the number of approved nominations up so prep builders have more to choose from!

Over one month old:

• December 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Lillian Eichler Watson
• January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Naren Chandra Das (reviewer needed to check ALT2)
• January 6: Template:Did you know nominations/International Habitation Module
• January 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction
• January 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Tek Fog

Other old nominations:

• January 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Special Security Response Team
• January 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Richard J. Ferris
• January 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Kausheya (silk)
• January 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-monuments in Mexico (four articles)
• January 23: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Egyptian obelisks
• January 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Aesthetics (textile)
• January 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Phylicia Whitney
• January 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Macy Rodman
• January 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Defne Magnanery
• January 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Louis Micheels House
• January 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Viktor Petrovich Taranovsky
• February 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Eeva Leinonen
• February 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Joséphine Pagnier
• February 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Bianca Baptiste
• February 2: Template:Did you know nominations/1985–1987 Watsonville Cannery strike
• February 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Sampson Hosking
• February 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Nscor
• February 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Disneyland measles outbreak
• February 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Stella Madzimbamuto
• February 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Valerie Boles
• February 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Deborah Zoe Laufer

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

{{@DYK admins|a=|p=}} and BlueMoonset: And this time, I've got the diffs to prove it :) readout's showing 56, so it really is time to go back to 1-a-day. We have quite a bit of time before noon UTC, but we'll need an admin to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400. If we do the swap, here are the spec. occ. hooks that need to be moved:

• Eberhard Zeidler (architect), currently in Queue 3, needs to run on Feb. 10—by my math, it should be swapped with the lead of Queue 1 (which is running next)
• Lucifer on the Sofa, currently in Prep 4 Queue 4, needs to run on Feb. 11—that would mean putting it in Queue 2. I would recommend taking Dr. Rick out of Q2, but since it doesn't fit back in P4, put it in Prep 3, I'll sort out the balance later.
• P4 is now Q4, so here's the round robin swap: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Lucifer on the Sofa: Q4 slot 6 {{right-arrow}} Q2 slot 2
• Dr. Rick: Q2 slot 2 {{right-arrow}} Prep 2 slot 5
• Church Street station (MBTA): P2 slot 5 {{right-arrow}} Q4 slot 6
• Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, currently in Prep 5, needs also needs to run on Feb. 11 (Q2)—again, I'd take Shaylee Mansfield out of Q2, but since it doesn't fit back in P5, put it in P3 and I'll deal with the balance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• New instructions (these swaps should be made on February 10, and the actual timing switch should be made on the morning of the eleventh): theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• All that needs to happen is that Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky (in Q5) needs to go to Q4:
• Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky: Q5 slot 4 {{right-arrow}} Q4 slot 2
• Baillieu Myer: Q4 slot 2 {{right-arrow}} P2 slot 5
• Church Street station (MBTA): P2 slot 5 {{right-arrow}} Q5 slot 4
• :Or we could wait until midnight and have slightly less swapping around? —Kusma (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• ::{{yo|Kusma}} The switch has to be done between midnight and noon (or, a.m.) UTC; otherwise, it throws off the cycle. We could wait another 14-ish hours, let the Feb. 10 hook go on the main page before making the switch, but you'd still bump up against the same issues with the next two hooks that need to be swapped, which are arguably thornier to work out. Or we could let all the s.o. hooks flush themselves out and come back to this on the morning of february 11—but I think we're running out of approved hooks too quickly for that. Eleven hours ago, we were at 69 hooks; now we're at 50 hooks, we'll be at 46 once the preps are fully refilled, and we're still running 16 a day. There's no rush, but I do get worried about these things. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• :::if we do make the swap on february 10, we need to swap the leads of q2 and q3 beforehand, because q2 is the morning set for the tenth; so the hook needs to be live in the morning for when we extend it to 24 hours instead of 12. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

:::: okay, we're past noon UTC, so don't do the swap yet :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::Sorry, having been too quick to make the switch last time, I was too slow this time! Happy to do it during the morning of the 10th (sometime after midnight) if that's what you want me to do. Or indeed the 11th. Just let us know what the decision is!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::No worries, Amakuru! :D let's do the swap on the morning of February 11, I think we can make it work until then—in the meantime, the second and third swaps need to be done before the relevant set goes live, I'll update the instructions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::Why don't we use a bot to do the switch? Thingofme (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::::Just switching without manual adjustment would mess up all the special occasion hooks already scheduled. —Kusma (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::{{@DYK admins}}, please correct if I'm wrong, but doesn't the swap TLC described above (Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky from Q5 to Q4, etc.) need to happen right now (i.e. within the hour) if we're switching to 24 hours on the 11th? Apologies if I've misunderstood. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::{{yo|Extraordinary Writ}} yep! :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::{{ec}} Extraordinary Writ is correct. If we are to switch to 24 hours, Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky needs to be switched to Queue 4 from Queue 5 immediately. Otherwise, we'll have to wait another day. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::: Looks like we missed the draw; let's make the swap on the morning of February 12. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

: {{outdent}} {{@DYK admins}} good mornin'! it's february 12, and it's also really time to go back to one-a-days. Sometime before noon UTC (a little more than seven hours from now), an admin is going to need to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400. All special occasion hooks are already in the correct spots. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging admins Maile, Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, valereee, Cas Liber, or anyone else who sees this to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400 as soon as possible (and definitely before 12:00 UTC). Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{done}} I just now saw this. Hope I wasn't too late, but I made the switch. — Maile (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

::Thanks, Maile. You were very quick: only 12 minutes after I posted the request! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

:::HA! Timing is everything!. I had been out of the house for a while, and just walked in and saw your ping notice. — Maile (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• ... that footballer Chris Hussey studied part-time to gain a first-class honours degree after overcoming anxiety and obsessive–compulsive disorders?

I was wondering whether this hook raises BLP issues. If I had had mental health problems I would not like the fact to be plastered on the main page of Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

:I wouldn't want to publicize it either, but he did [https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/former-sheffield-united-coventry-city-4711008 volunteer the information] and give advice to others in his situation—it's not like this is a tabloid scoop, or something else out of his control. I'd be less okay with us publicizing the sleeping pills bit, but kudos to him for not being ashamed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

::As far as I can tell the point was that he wanted his case to serve as an inspiration for those who had similar experiences to him, so I don't think it's a BLP issue in this case since 1. he himself brought it up, and 2. the hook is meant to be uplifting and inspiring rather than putting him down. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Good points. We'll leave it then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

{{edit fully-protected|Template:Did you know/Queue/2|answered=yes}}

Just wondering if it's necessary to include "(pictured)" after "Nicole Kidman", as I'm seeing that Kidman's photo seems to be the one that will be showcased on the main page. This is my first time nominating an article for DYK, so do disregard my suggestion if it's not needed or required, or perhaps it'll be automatically added once it's up next? Thank you! — Film Enthusiast^✉ 17:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC) — Film Enthusiast^✉ 17:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

:Good question; what's up with that? A few hours ago, I fixed the missing "(pictured)" that's currently on the mainpage after a complaint at Errors ({{u|Cwmhiraeth}} had promoted that). This set was promoted by {{u|Amakuru}}. Coincidence? Schwede66 19:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

:We ran a trial without (pictured) a while back, and as far as I can remember, consensus was that we should include it. I have added it. —Kusma (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

::{{u|Kusma}}, I had wondered whether I had missed a more recent discussion. I for one was in favour of being able to leave out "(pictured)" but there wasn't consensus for it (back then). Schwede66 00:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

:::I haven't actually got around to running checks on queue 2 yet, I'll do it later today before it goes live. So the omission wasn't my decision, I just copied it from the prep. Looks like {{ping|Theleekycauldron}} you added the hook to the prep [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_2&diff=1070757622&oldid=1070755178 without the "pictured"]. Was this an oversight, or has something changed? I personally thought we should retain "pictured" for all Hooks even where it looks obvious, for consistency, and because we got a lot of complaints at ERRORS when we removed it. Haven't seen a follow up discussion but I would still !vote against removing them.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

::::{{yo|Amakuru}} yeah, no, that was totally my oversight :) sorry it spawned all this discussion! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::No worries, just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

This should have gone to {{u|Lear's Fool}} and this to {{u|Bloom6132}}. Somehow these got both scrambled and swapped. I swapped the credits because they were in the wrong prep sets, probably after a swap of some sort, but I failed to notice the credits themselves had somehow also gotten their editors swapped, which seems like a very strange error, not one I remember seeing before. The two hooks weren't even promoted by the same prep builder. At any rate, is there a way to fix it in retrospect? Other than just reposting the correct DYK to the correct user talks, I guess? Both editors will still have the correct count, but it might be nice if someone knew how to fix the log. valereee (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{yo|Valereee}} For reference, these (1 2) are when the editors got mixed up. I'm not sure I've seen that before either, that's strange. As for fixing the log—as far as I can tell, the "official" (programmatic) log works by referencing edits made by DYKUpdateBot, so no, not really a way to fix that. We'll know in our hearts, I suppose, the truth theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

::Whoa, I scrambled them myself? How the heck did I manage do that? JFC. I am rapidly becoming a danger to the 'pedia. Well, thanks, TLC! I'd promise to be more careful but I honestly thought I was FIXING things. valereee (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Am I the only one thinking that the (now one and only) Queue for Valentine's Day is not particular rich in romance, while the following one has an actress pictured, "Let me sleep beside you" later, and more music. Swap the two, perhaps? ... unless we have something date-related --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• ... that at the height of their popularity, eight-ball jackets were such a status symbol in the East Coast hip hop scene that they were frequently stolen at gunpoint?

A couple of queries about this one - the article says {{xt|"The popularity of the jackets among youth led to owners being robbed for them; these incidents occasionally escalated into shootings, some of which were fatal"}}, and the use of "occasionally" here doesn't seem to match with the hook's assertion that this took place "frequently". Secondly, and I'm not really certain about this, but is a robbery which later "escalates into a shooting" the same thing as something being stolen at gunpoint? Intuitively I'd imagine "stealing at gunpoint" means the gun is involved from the beginning and is an integral part of the robbery, rather than it starting out as a regular theft with the gun only being brought out later.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

:Pinging {{ping|Premeditated Chaos|SL93|Theleekycauldron}}  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

::You can steal something at gunpoint without it being a shooting - think of a standard movie mugging where a guy shows a pistol and yells "your money or your life" without ever pulling the trigger. The jackets were frequently stolen in personal robberies where guns were used to intimidate the victim into compliance, but were not necessarily fired. Occasionally, those robberies escalated into shootings for whatever reason. Finally, a small fraction of victims who were shot in these robberies wound up dying. Does that make sense? (Edited to add: I did tweak the article's wording a bit, hopefully that's more clear?) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

::{{ping|Premeditated Chaos}} {{ec}} thank you, yes that makes perfect sense. And I see that you have made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eight-ball_jacket&diff=1071794383&oldid=1069963301 an edit to the article] to clarify that the robberies were frequently at gunpoint (and that seems verified by the Herald-News source), so I'm now happy with this one. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Cheers, thanks for calling it to my attention :) I realized the original version didn't mention guns explicitly so the clarification makes it much better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• ... that following Soviet occupation in 1940, the Lithuanian Armed Forces were transformed into the Lithuanian People's Army, dropped all use of Lithuanian national symbols and faced repression?

I'm somewhat concerned by the "faced repression" at the end of this hook. Criterion 3a for DYK says that the hook must {{xt|"include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article"}} but this article does not use the word "repression" anywhere. The original formulation of the hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Lithuanian People's Army gave it quite specifically as "mass arrests" and "executions of the personnel", which is a definite fact and is found in the article, but I'm not sure that we can translate that definitively and without attribution into the more general term "repression". In some cases mass arrests might not be seen as repression, if they're regarded as legally defendable for example. Repression is a rather loaded and potentially POV term, and while I don't doubt that it was pertinent to the situation in Lithuania under Stalin, we still need to either put it in the article explicitly as an attributed quote (in which case the hook should also have it quoted) or, if it's a broadly enough accepted "fact" that we can put it in WP:WIKIVOICE, then do so explicitly and with a citation to preferably multiple reliable sources which attest that "repression" or some closely related word occurred. Or alternatively, we can go back to the more specific mass arrests and executions language of the original nom. Pinging {{ping|Pofka|Sammi Brie|Theleekycauldron}} as nom/reviewer/promoter. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{replyto|Amakuru}} In the ALT2 I used link to article political repression, but in the final version it was removed. Stalin's political repressions is a universally accepted fact. The Lithuanian soldiers who has shown their anti-Soviet attitude were punished for their political pro-independent Lithuania views. Phrase "political repression" is supported in this context by Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940)#Sovietization of the Baltic states, [https://gulag.online/articles/soviet-repression-and-deportations-in-the-baltic-states?locale=en gulag.online], etc. A few examples of politically repressed Lithuanian soldiers: Kazys Skučas, Mikas Rėklaitis, Konstantinas Dulksnys (mentioned in the article). So maybe we should remake it to "... that following Soviet occupation in 1940, the Lithuanian Armed Forces were transformed into the Lithuanian People's Army, dropped all use of Lithuanian national symbols and faced political repression?" (200 characters). -- Pofka (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

::{{ping|Pofka}} thanks for the reply and for the info on the Soviet occupation article. The thing is though, per criterion 3a, the hook fact needs to be explicitly mentioned in the linked article Lithuanian People's Army, not just in a non-bolded linked article. Also, the hook looks to me like it's referring specifically to repression in members of the Lithuanian Armed Forces / Lithuanian People's Army, whereas the political repression mentioned in Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940) applies to the whole population... As you say, Stalin's political repressions is a universally accepted fact, and I don't dispute that, but it needs to be explicitly stated in the article and it needs to be cited, specifically in the context of members of the army who were repressed. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

:::{{replyto|Amakuru}} I added additional reference (pdf with 37 pages), published by the General Jonas Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania, which states that the repressions were carried out against the officers of the Lithuanian Army. Moreover, I slightly modified the last sentence of the header so that it would be more connected with the DYK hook. Is it solved now? -- Pofka (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Pofka}} thanks, that looks like it satisfies my concern, since the article now explicitly says they were repressed and the fact is cited. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::{{replyto|Amakuru}} Great, thanks for pointing out. :) This new valuable reference is really necessary for the article. :) -- Pofka (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

I don't want to be too hasty about this, so I'll leave my notes here before going to GAR or pulling the hook. Pinging {{yo|Styyx|BuySomeApples|SL93}} as nom/reviewer/promoter; Pamzeis has a lot of experience in this area, so I'll ping for her opinion as well. I have some questions about sourcing and due weight of The Perfect Pear, so bear with me: (version review :D)

• The article makes significant use of Equestria Daily as a source. surprisingly, the site looks pretty decent in terms of reliability, but it is still a fan website concerned with all things My Little Pony, so I'd still be concerned about whether the information presented constitutes due weight.
• While Screen Rant is listed as marginally reliable for entertainment at WP:RSP, it's also used here basically as a summary of IMDb pages, and we have good reasons for not using that as measure of critical reception (see WP:Citing IMDb). I definitely don't think we can use that to assert {{tq|widespread critical acclaim}}.
• The only thing taken from IMDb is the rating (and therefore the order of episodes), the text is written by a writer of ScreenRant itself.
• Reverted lead to what it was when I initially converted it from a redirect. The sentence was changed by some random IP, which I apparently only noticed partially before the GAN. I agree that this doesn't count as "widespread critical acclaim", hence I didn't write it. :)
• Aha, I gotcha. The review from ScreenRant is good, the IMDb rating (and the screenrant text that bases itself off of that) isn't. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• A lot of material is used as a primary source for itself—I'd be more okay with it if the sourcing was still treated carefully, but there's a lot of stuff I had to cut/I see in the article that I would strongly prefer rely on secondary sourcing:
• {{tq|In a Twitter post after the series finale, writer Michael Vogel explained that the feud between the Apple and Pear family came from a long-running joke among the show's staff "that Applejack should have a nemesis named Pear Steve", which made them laugh every time.}} This is cited to the tweet in question—I cut the last clause, so this is more just to illustrate the problems with relying on primary sourcing, especially for a GA.
• I'm fine with the cut.
• press.discovery.com is used as a source for a Discovery channel press release—of course it'd be reliable for itself, but it's primary, and I do wish the details of the release and production didn't rest pretty much solely on primary sources (there are a few secondary sources here and there).
• I sort of found a replacement source by Yahoo for this: [https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tv-news-roundup-little-pony-master-none-premiere-223520927.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAERh9KXag3JOoqgz4O7i0alBUT_vwLDtUsbeEvfmWbxAIINSO4WnLKKYuMiq64ssWIrgWu4jUIgm74saal9sb8bZHTHXImRXwXOSZeVfRwvjXjRHbfaLeH9GSMSyfu65E9h6eciNLT-ZDi4zopGRnl68g5Dm2SjVOZ8eG024INtS], but it doesn't really mention what the article says, so I can change it a bit and replace it with this one.
• Ooh, that sounds good :)
• Swapped.
• Yahoo.com isn't a terrible source either, but it's used to confirm its own release of the episode's trailer
• I mean, it's the promotion section we're talking about so..
• It does seem to be independent enough. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Foxtel.au (cable company down under) is used as a source for the show's television release
• To be honest, I don't really have a comment on this one, I just don't know.
• Shout! Factory is used as a source for that company's release of the show on DVD
• As I said in the GAN, I can swap the DVD primary sources, if you really want me to. The first one can be confirmed with a source of Lake Agassiz Regional Library [https://egcatalog.larl.org/eg/opac/record/306949], and the second one with a source from Amazon [https://www.amazon.co.uk/My-Little-Pony-Friendship-Complete/dp/B07RK8Q88J].
• I think that's better, yeah theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Swapped both. ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 18:20, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Overall, the article isn't in terrible shape, but it looks like a lot of information rests on sources that aren't reliable, to the point of falling afoul of WP:PRIMARY's use cases. Because of that, there's a lot of information that I couldn't justify including based on the sourcing available for it. Could this be cleared up before we think about pulling/GAR? In fact, given that I can't point to two super-solid sources that give in-depth critical analysis of the epsiode, I'm not seeing AfD as out of the question... hopefully, it doesn't come to that. This is a pretty awesome article and the hook has good potential, I really hope to run this :) Cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

:Also pinging GA reviewer {{u|Simongraham}}. For the fan site, the reasoning given for it being a reliable source on the GA review is "Equestria Daily has had a peer review, albeit more than 10 years ago, where it is mentioned that they "received coverage in mainstream media, and Hasbro/The Hub have acknowledged them as well, sending them exclusives and putting references to the site in official television advertisements". This information is sourced in the WP article itself." I'm doubting that makes it a reliable source. SL93 (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Fwiw, I think Equestria Daily can be a reliable source. Some exclusive coverage and interviews are especially useful for MLP-related pages, but not everything on the site is of equal quality/depth. I was unsure about the use of Twitter as a source, but I don't have a strong opinion on the rest. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• {{U|Theleekycauldron}} Well what a day, shit went loose on both enwiki and trwiki while I was asleep. :D Apart from responding to most of your questions above, I have expanded the "Production and promotion" section with a source from DenOfGeek about the involvement of Shanter (the GA reviewer asked me to look for sources regarding the involvement of the guest stars, and I said that there weren't any, turns out I lied). ~Styyx^{Talk? ^-^} 12:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{U|Theleekycauldron}} I was the promoter and I feel like unpromoting the hook until the issues are solved. Does that sound fine? SL93 (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

::{{yo|SL93}} yeah, no issues there—hopefully this gets done soon, though theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Done. SL93 (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

::::{{yo|Styyx|SL93}} all right, looks like it's in a much better shape now—thanks for working with me, Styyx! We'll need someone else to put this back in prep. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

::::*Doesn't someone need to re-approve the article/hook on the nom page first...?{{hp|Styyx|SL93|theleekycauldron}} Pamzeis (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

We have this organisation that has an annual awards ceremony and if the individual (national) winner wasn't notable before, they will be through the award. I've cottoned onto the fact that somebody from that organisation has been tasked with writing a bio for the upcoming winner. Yes, COI and the rest of it, but some of us have checked the bio, it was done well and neutral. Nobody has any concerns. A professional photographer was involved who published their work with a Commons-compatible licence. Great outcome! So, next time the award comes round, would it be feasible to have the article (after checking it for neutrality etc) nominated for a special occasion, with a date request but without being able to say why it's a special occasion because it's a secret? We can have a pro-forma hook and all the usual processes. But what we'll keep up our sleeve is an "annual award winner" hook that we'll publish in the next slot after the award was announced? That would obviously involve a couple of admins as we are talking about checking sources hot off the press just prior to publishing things on the mainpage and those admins would need to be in on this secret occasion business. The next awards ceremony is 12 months away but it's good to sort this now because if there's consensus, we can just say that we do secret occasion hooks. Thoughts? Schwede66 20:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

:I'm against the idea of secret occasion hooks, especially secret hooks that the community doesn't get to review. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

:Not sure DYK is a great place for news. We had some problems with special occasion hooks scheduled while some Olympic sportsperson was expected to compete. When something went wrong, things became a bit unpleasant. Let's not have hooks that require predicting the future or on having insider knowledge about the future. —Kusma (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

::{{u|Kusma}}, yes, as I was coordinating all the summer Olympics hooks, I certainly remember that. It was an individual who went septic over a mistake (where a country decided to change the composition of their relay team and the person we featured no longer competed) and in the end, the troublemaker got blocked as it was a long-term behavioural pattern. Schwede66 18:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

:::This doesn't seem like it will devolve into "burn DYK to the ground because a source became outdated after the hook hit the MP", but I do fundamentally believe that requiring a source which will only exist when the hook is due to hit the MP goes against the DYK process - it wouldn't make it through a normal nom process without that source. Why can't we just treat the article like any other and let it be given a hook a week later? Kingsif (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

:Wouldn't it violate policies to use admin tools (i.e. edit the mainpage) in conflict of interest? even if both the article and hook are neutral... also, who's "we"? I feel like I'm missing something here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

::The first we? That's "us in New Zealand". Schwede66 09:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

:::I could maybe see a ready-to-fast-track process with experienced reviewer, promoter, and admin all ready to push through and swap in. I assume someone will be publishing the bio the minute the award is announced? What time is that UTC? valereee (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

::::{{u|Valereee}}, this year, the award will be in two days' time, but the bio got published a few weeks ago so it is ineligible for DYK. As it's an online award due to COVID restrictions, it's at lunchtime local time. My guess is that in "normal" years (will there ever be a normal again?), this is an evening event with the result known by 07:00 UTC at the latest. My thinking was to encourage them for a bio to be moved from draft to mainspace timed in a way that it works with DYK processes; we could thus have it in mainspace within the normal 7-day timeframe if we wished. That way, the article review could be done without any pressure, and it's only the hook, hook fact and swapping out where things would need to be fast-tracked. Schwede66 18:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::Oh, that's too bad. Oh, well. Everything about COVID sucks. valereee (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::My opinion on this is that in principle it would be OK if the hook passes through the usual checks and balances with an independent reviewer and an admin who sign off and double check the whole thing. Really the only difference between this and the standard process is that there's no time for the more general checks and copyedits that take place in the prep areas in the days prior to a hook running. Which probably aren't essential anyway, and any errors can still be brought up at WP:ERRORS as usual. However, having said all that, I am more concerned about the COI aspect of this and also with whether the awards ceremony bio is really a sufficient reliable source to establish notability and avoid concerns about reliance on a single source. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is fairly clear that such editing is "strongly discouraged", so in itself we should probably not get involved with this on that basis. But perhaps if the bio were written by independent editors and also cited to sources other than just the awards ceremony bio, it would be OK. This depends a lot on the detail I think, and if that detail isn't going to be available to the wider community then it's hard for us to make a determination.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::::Agreed, the lack of transparency here is what gives me pause. We can't say for sure if the article is appropriate if we don't even know exactly what the subject is or what the article is like. I'm just not comfortable with an article getting an IAR run on DYK because of some "secret" process without oversight when it's been discussed in the past that it's important that any important decisions about article and hook reviewing be made on-Wiki for all to see. In addition, there do appear to COI concerns and given that we recently had to pull an article from prep (with said article later being deleted) because it turned out to be an undisclosed COI creation, having this so soon after that incident doesn't feel right to say the least. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

:I really wonder why we can't just treat the article(s) like any other and let it be given a hook a week later? There won't be any secrets, the article can go through a normal nom process, etc. Otherwise, DYK could turn into a hotbed for promotion if people catch on to being able to do this kind of thing (rather than improve regular old content) - would this really be any different to a phone company making an article for a secret new phone drop and asking to run the hook on the day of the drop? Just because an award isn't selling anything, it still gets attention for the awarding body. (Yes, I know I nommed a Chadwick Boseman Oscars hook for the Oscars ceremony last year, but nothing was secret, nor COI, and neither of those subjects needed promotion…) Kingsif (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

::Thanks, all. I hear you. When this event comes round again in 12 months' time, I shall make sure that the article isn't written by somebody from the awarding organisation, and that'll get round any potential COI issues. Schwede66 23:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

:::As was mentioned above by Kingsif, is there any reason why the article couldn't have just been written the normal way and run as a regular hook after the event? That way, not only would the COI concerns have been mitigated, it would also address the opaqueness concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if DYK checks whether the article title is sane before DYKing an article. Currently Canada v United States (2012 Summer Olympics) is in the DYK queue (afaik). Can you guess from the title what the article is about? No? Seems bad. Discussed at Talk:Canada v United States (2012 Summer Olympics). --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

:It's not in the DYK rules, but agree that the article title should at least tell people that it's a football/soccer match. There is a discussion about this article title (and similarly named articles) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Suggestions for article name?. Note: I am the person who approved this nom, but the actual DYK hook does make it clear that it's a soccer match. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

::{{yo|Tagishsimon|Joseph2302}} since the link is piped, I don't think we need to pull the article from queue—but I hope you reach a resolution on that one :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• ... that Neon Genesis Evangelion director Hideaki Anno's abusive father was an influence on the writing of the character of Gendo Ikari?

Just a quick query regarding the use of the phrase "Hideaki Anno's abusive father" in the hook and article. It seems from [https://comicbook.com/anime/news/neon-genesis-evangelion-resurfaced-interview-creator-abusive-father/] that Anno had at one point described his father thus in an article, according to a Tweet at [https://twitter.com/evamonkey/status/1172540464655949824?lang=en-GB], but I'm wondering if that's sufficient evidence to call him "abusive" in Wikivoice. I don't know if his father is still alive at this point or not, so this may also be covered by BLP (I'll file a request at WP:BLPN if we're not sure about that here). Additionally, I couldn't see reference to the power saw incident or the father's mental breakdown in the source at the end of the paragraph, so additoinal sourcing would be needed for that. Pinging {{ping|TeenAngels1234|Bleff|Theleekycauldron}} who were involved in this DYK nom. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

: Maybe if they changed it to "allegedly abusive father "? --🩸 𝗕𝗹𝗲𝗳𝗳 🩸 (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

::{{yo|Amakuru}} I think we should pull per WP:DYK#gen4—it's a funky case, because usually when we say {{tq|Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals... should be avoided}} (emphasis in original), we mean the bolded article, not the bolded article's creator's father. But I think the hook does unduly focus on Anno's father—taking a closer look, I'm convinced we have the sourcing (or, for that matter, criminal conviction) for it either. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Please suggest a replacement hook and I'll swap it over. Schwede66 04:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

::::{{yo|Schwede66}} Even if that's solved, a more pressing concern is the two {{tl|citation needed}} tags in the article. Those look a little more intractable than plug-and-chug (they look like BLP issues), and would technically be disqualifying for a run. Without the nominator on hand to fix issues, I would suggest a pull. If this isn't of concern to you, I'd suggest:

::::* ... that Neon Genesis Evangelion character Gendo Ikari has been diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder by a real-life Japanese psychiatrist? [https://www.otemon.ac.jp/var/rev0/0000/5482/center08_mizobe.pdf source] theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

::::*:{{u|Theleekycauldron}}, ah, sorry. I meant I'm happy to pull it. Which alternative hook shall I take (from prep or the approved set) to plug the gap? Schwede66 05:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

::::*::{{yo|Schwede66}} ah, gotcha :) i'd recommend Charles William Warner, prep 4 slot 3. thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• {{ping|Amakuru|Bleff|theleekycauldron|Schwede66}} Sorry. I was extremely busy with university. I've changed the hook. Does it works now? --TeenAngels1234 (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• :T'was listed at Template:Did you know nominations/Gendo Ikari :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that's done. Hook checked etc. I've dropped caps as per MOS:JOBTITLES so that it now reads {{tq|that Charles William Warner, attorney general of Trinidad between 1846 and 1870, was one of the most powerful men in the colony and often considered "the real governor"?}} Thought I'd bring this up here just in case there are any objections. To my mind, the relevant target articles should be Attorneys general of Foo but when I look at :Category:Attorneys general, that is mostly not the case. In case I've got the wrong end of the stick, please say so. Best we sort this before it moves to the mainpage. Schwede66 06:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Note to hook promoters: There are two picture hooks in the SOHA that can be promoted to their requested dates when space opens up. The first is President's House (Ninth Street) for Feb 21 (Prep 1) and the second is Equestrian statue of George Washington (Newark) (Prep 2). As far as I know, the two picture hooks in those preps (Louth (crater) and Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany) were not SOHA requests. Z1720 (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

:I conducted the first promotion of President's House to Prep 1. I'm not thrilled that the first seven hooks are short, but I will leave it to more experienced hook preppers to make adjustments or post concerns below for me to fix. I'd appreciate it if someone could double-check my moves to ensure I did it correctly. Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

::move looks good- thanks, Z1720! looks like we're on a run of short hooks at the moment, so there's not much I can do about that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{ping|Z1720|Theleekycauldron}} Should the Equestrian statue of George Washington (Newark) be in Prep 2, rather than Prep 3, to run on February 22? Thanks, Zeete (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• I've just nominated an article that would be nice to get slotted during February for Black History Month, if possible: Template:Did you know nominations/The Links — Preceding unsigned comment added by valereee (talk • contribs)
• Reviewed! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• ... that Charles William Warner, attorney general of Trinidad between 1846 and 1870, was one of the most powerful men in the colony and often considered "the real governor"?

Hi {{ping|Guettarda}} I moved this from the queue a couple of days ago, and intended to post about it here at WT:DYK at the time, but then we had a short discussion about it on my talk page and I forgot to circle back to it again. The issue is that there are quite a few unattributed quotes in the article, including "the real governor" which is used in the hook. All these quotes need to indicate in the prose who exactly said them per WP:QUOTEPOV or, if they're facts rather than opinions, rewritten in Wikipedia's own words. Including:

• "unsuccessful sugar planter"
• "not simply a British possession but a British colony" - was this a quote by Warner directly, or by the author of the source?
• "the most powerful and influential man next to the Governors"
• "the real governor"
• "education for the upper classes"

The two quotes in the "Between 1845 and 1865..." paragraph are already attributed so those are fine. I've left it in the queue for now, in case you are able to deal with the above today, but if not then I'll move it back down again. Also pinging {{ping|Tbhotch|Theleekycauldron}} as reviewer/promoter. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

:I've just modified the section header to read "Queue 4" rather than "Queue 1", since the problematic hook is in Queue 4 at the moment, and pinging Amakuru as a reminder that the hook will be promoted in a bit over four hours from now unless it is removed and replaced by another hook. It's been over two days since the discussion on Amakuru's talk page; since the edits haven't been made in that time, this needs to be removed from queue and the nomination reopened so the issues can be addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

::OK thanks. I've pulled it, and will reopen the nomination now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Amakuru|BlueMoonset}} Thanks for this. I think I've fixed these, but I did find one other problem - according to Campbell (which is the source I used in the hook) Warner was Attorney General from 1845 not 1846. I think that must have been a typo on my part. Guettarda (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

• ... that in 1850, about a quarter of the post offices of the Swiss Post were located in taverns?

• {{ping|Paradise Chronicle|Bahnfrend|Theleekycauldron}} just to note that I have moved this from Queue 4 to Prep 1, as I noticed that the "Services" section has no references. As an additional issue, there is a "clarification needed" tag further up the article, which it would be good to resolve. I assume this can be fixed fairly quickly, so I've not reopened the nom at this time. Let me know if you need more time though. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• :Hi Amakuru, sorry, forgot about that. Tried to fix it. Moved most to see also, red links removed. Tried to clarify, is it done for you like this? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
• ::Ping Amakuru theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• :::{{ping|Paradise Chronicle|Theleekycauldron}} oh yes, apologies for not seeing this, I should probably note down everything I query so I come back to it! The changes look fine, thank you.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
• ::::{{u|Amakuru}}, don't worry, all good and glad you seem to be satisfied. On coming back to something, I found this "to do" script and I try to use it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Could someone please move special occasion hook Equestrian statue of George Washington (Newark) to Prep 2 from Prep 3, so that it runs on February 22? The current prep 2 hook, Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany, could be swapped. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{u|Zeete}} Done. SL93 (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

::{{u|SL93}} Thanks! Zeete (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of all 25 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 11. We currently have a total of 153 nominations, of which 54 have been approved, a gap of 99, up 4 over the past week. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

• December 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Environmental defender

Over one month old:

• December 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Lillian Eichler Watson
• January 6: Template:Did you know nominations/International Habitation Module
• January 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Children's Fantasy Literature: An Introduction
• January 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Tek Fog

Other old nominations:

• January 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Richard J. Ferris
• January 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Kausheya (silk)
• January 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-monuments in Mexico (four articles)
• January 23: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Egyptian obelisks
• January 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Aesthetics (textile)
• January 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Macy Rodman
• January 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Defne Magnanery
• February 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Bianca Baptiste
• February 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Nscor
• February 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Disneyland measles outbreak
• February 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Ghost of Abraham Lincoln (photograph)
• February 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Women's World (Ottoman magazine)
• February 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Vince Leah
• February 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Abhijatabhivamsa
• February 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of Jay Abatan
• February 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Forum Thomanum
• February 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Nintendo Switch Sports
• February 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Sitting Bull Crystal Cavern Dance Pavilion
• February 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Noefefan Bridge
• February 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Ronen Eldan
• February 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Selling Mother's Milk: The Wet-Nursing Business in France, 1715–1914

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

IWD is on 8 March, and March is Women's month on Wikipedia. I suggest we collect hooks for the month, and those for the specific day separately, those better related to women's rights, and not about a woman or her work in general. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

:I support this idea. SL93 (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

:: I believe Template:Did you know nominations/Khairunnisa Ash'ari would be great for IWD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Apparently I was mistaken when I said that all IWD hooks were taken, but now they are with 8 hooks including that one. I'm hoping that your suggestion is used for other nominations. SL93 (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

::::I actually have an excellent idea for a West Wing IWD hook, but if we're only doing eight, we're only doing eight. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::There's one waiting with a special occasion request for March 8 at Template:Did you know nominations/Stella Madzimbamuto, too. valereee (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

::::Just because there are eight there already doesn't mean we shouldn't keep adding them. For one thing we could easily be back to 2-a-days by then, as this round of WikiCup ends in two weeks, which could encourage nominations (and therefore reviews). And if we end up with a number we can't fit, we can choose the best ones. I agree with Gerda that we shouldn't simply slot someone in there simply because she's a woman. And we definitely should try to go for as much global diversity as possible. valereee (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

::::: I moved Template:Did you know nominations/Hamdallaye, Niger to 9 March, but looked at the 8 now there for 8 March: 2 in sports, one trying to bite a finger off allegedly: back to that we should examine which message to send on a day for women's rights, not just being a woman and having done something internationally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::I agree with Gerda, we should ideally be looking for articles that are about women's issues, not simply articles about women. valereee (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::@Gerda Arendt, why make an overflow? Isn't that just going to encourage promoters to simply go with the eight that are in the original? I'd rather see them pick and choose the ones they think are best/most diverse. valereee (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::: Did you read the nom? - The nominator wants it rather 9 March pictured than 8 without, - my understanding. I, however, believe that it's closer to the idea of IWD than the sports ladies, and the pic might not be taken any other day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::depending on how many IWD hooks we end up getting, we should consider switching to 2 sets for the day. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::Oh, whoops, I thought you were referring to an overflow! valereee (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to have something be clarified. Reviewing your own nominations is obviously not allowed, and reviewing articles that you've proposed hooks to is generally discouraged unless the hooks you proposed are minor rewordings of previously existing hooks. However, is it allowed for a non-nominating editor to do a partial, almost-complete review of a nomination where they proposed a new hook that included a new hook fact, albeit without giving final approval? For example, an editor proposed a new hook for an article. They then review the nomination, checking all the article-relevant criteria (i.e. newness, length, paraphrasing, QPQ, etc.). The only thing they leave open is the review of the hook, which they leave to another uninvolved editor. Is this allowed? I'm asking because I contributed a hook to Template:Did you know nominations/Macy Rodman, and given that the article is relatively short and straightforward I was thinking of reviewing the article itself (but not the hooks). That is, I'd review the article according to the criteria, leaving only the final checking of the hooks to a different editor. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

: {{yo|Narutolovehinata5}} I've done it a few times—usually, it's because once I've analyzed the whole article, I've come across a hook I think might be more interesting. In that case, I just don't tick either hook and use the 16px icon to get final approval. In short, yeah, I think it's fine. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

::I don't think it buys much to do this, Narutolovehinata5, since you still need to get another reviewer to approve the hook, and they have to redo much of the review work to check that hook. It's one thing if, as theleekycauldron notes, you've done the review work already and realize that the hooks are problematic while thinking of a good ALT hook, but it strikes me as simpler to propose an ALT hook and let someone else do the full review including of your new hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

We have a situation where the oldest DYK nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/University of Texas at Arlington Rebel theme controversy, has been waiting for many weeks for a merge request on the article to be closed before the nomination can continue. If the merge occurs, then the nomination will fail because the nominated article no longer exists; if there is not consensus for a merge, then the nomination can continue.

It would be greatly appreciated if someone who is comfortable with reviewing Talk:UT Arlington Mavericks#Proposed merge of University of Texas at Arlington Rebel theme controversy into UT Arlington Mavericks take a look at the situation and do what they can. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I just made the decision to decline 2022 Hijab row in Karnataka because of high edit volume and instability on a quite-tense DS topic (including a thread at WP:AE). I feel like I can't guarantee the page would meet guidelines by the time it made Main Page and that putting it there could fan the flames of sectarian tension.

I am surprised there is no stability requirement for a page at DYK, especially of this type, as there is for good articles; it isn't in the rules or the supplementary rules. Would this be worth adding somewhere, especially after my experience with a topic like this one? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

:While stability isn't explicitly mentioned in the DYK criteria (after all, DYKs are not GAs), I have seen DYK noms in the past being declined due to stability issues. I think to some extent stability falls under the "within policy" part of reviewing; it's not explicitly mentioned but if it does happen it's a point against the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

::Sammi Brie, there is WP:DYKSG#D6, which starts {{tq|The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit-warring or the presence of dispute tags.}} While not explicitly "instability", it sounds like there has been some back-and-forth editing, for which D6 would apply. What you could do is put the nomination on hold for seven days (or longer) to see whether things settle down, rather than mark for closure immediately. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

:::@BlueMoonset when I brought this to the ENWP Discord, one other thing was pointed out to me: that exposure of this page could inflame major Indian nationalist sentiment. I think it would be quite a long hold, too. That topic is still evolving. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Why are we linking to Black women in the first hook in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1? Is there really any English speaker anywhere who doesn't know what a Black woman is? valereee (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

:I looked through the edit history and TJMSmith placed the link. I can't ping anyone at the moment on my phone. SL93 (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

:: TJMSmith? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Maybe we link African-American upper class? valereee (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

::::{{u|Valereee}}, done. Schwede66 00:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::Thanks! valereee (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::I agree. Thanks all! TJMSmith (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Woody (Toy Story) 2

• ... that Woody from Toy Story was originally written as a ventriloquist dummy and the main villain of the film?

{{u|Kaleeb18}} {{u|Sceptre}} {{u|Theleekycauldron}}

Any objection to ventriloquist dummy > ventriloquist's dummy? I feel like that's idiomatic and needs a link? valereee (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• A pedant writes: there isn't a 29 Feb this year, P1 is 1 March (sorry). Black Kite (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• :lol valereee (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• :: every day is 29 February if you have faith. On a more serious note, yeah, that change looks good. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

:Prep 1 is actually February 28 according to the queue page. SL93 (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• ... that Brigadier general Francis G. Brink, the first commander of Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) Indochina, committed suicide at the Pentagon with three bullet wounds in the chest?

Might be wrong about this one as well, but I thought this hook was a little off. I don't have a problem with morbid, but if the most interesting thing we can say about this person is that they committed suicide... but if consensus here is that it's fine (maybe because he committed suicide in the pentagon it's interesting?), then promotion is fine. Pinging {{yo|Mztourist|Pbritti|p=}} as nominator and reviewer, although they've already made their thoughts pretty clear on the nompage. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

:Thanks, {{u|Theleekycauldron}}, and I wanted to actually say I’ve changed my mind on whether the hook is a good idea. After some thought and consideration of how others might receive it, I think it’s permissible, but I’d like to see a different one if possible. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

::That is the most interesting thing, committed suicide at the Pentagon with 3(!) bullets to the chest. Mztourist (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

:::damn, I can't believe I didn't catch that! Shame, I just had mac and cheese—barely any room for trout. Now I get why Pbritti was ambivalent, too—all right, let's see what others have to say. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

:I have a fairly low bar for what counts as insensitive material, and I think this hook is sensitive and appropriate. If this hook runs, there may be concerns about the word "committed"; I find them unpersuasive, but a consideration. Urve (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

::{{u|Theleekycauldron}}, ah, haha. I realize now that the peculiarity of the circumstances may not have been immediately noticed (though I had myself missed the implications of featuring self-harm on the main page). I think the consensus here is to keep the original hook as is, but should something come up I am willing to take responsibility. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• {{ping|Mztourist|Pbritti|Theleekycauldron}} If there were concerns about "committed" (I am also unconvinced), or if the hook is maybe phrased with too much weight on the suicide, it could just be tweaked a little, something like "when Brink died, it was in the Pentagon with three self-inflicted bullet wounds". Though that does kind of sound like a Clue(do) solution, which might instead undermine the gravity. Kingsif (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, it's tricky to make it read well. How about "... that the death of Brigadier general Francis G. Brink, the first commander of Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) Indochina, occurred at the Pentagon due to three self-inflicted bullet wounds to the chest?" Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

{{yo|Mztourist|Pbritti|p=}} there's an elephant in the room on this one, at least to me. What was "the situation in Indochina" that made him commit suicide? That's a big hunk of of the Asian continent, with a vast history. Given that this was 1952, we can't assume it was the Vietnam War, since that wasn't a factor until three years later. Was his suicide a protest, an act of a man driven to the brink of being asked to resign? Was he being held accountable for his decisions about Indochina? Did he feel driven to the brink by a consultation at the Pentagon? I accept the suicide as the hook, but 1952 doesn't automatically jump out as a key year for most people. — Maile (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

:{{re|Maile66}} You have made me search this some more, and a [https://nebula.wsimg.com/dbfe7d3e441c2f1359313d44430f8dd7 conspiracy-theorist rant?] says the official verdict was just depression, no wider motivating factor. But [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4V-LnAOxPYUC&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=francis+g+brink+death+1952&q=francis%20g%20brink%20death%201952&f=false this book], at least, places his death (also, curiously, not "suicide") in a socioeconomic timeline of Vietnamese terrorism and the First Indochina War. It also sounds like his successor was fired for suggesting Vietnam might win, so very tense. Kingsif (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

:Here's a source for you, in which the family said he had been suffering from depression, but government officials said that was not likely related to Indo-China. {{cite news |title=Gun Found at Side of Head of U. S. Military Mission to Indo-China |url=https://www.newspapers.com/clip/96244108/gun-found-at-side-of-head-of-u-s/ |access-date=23 February 2022 |work=The Los Angeles Times |date=25 June 1952}} Here's a different source that cites his friends as saying he had been suffering from depression not related to Indo-China.{{cite news |title=General Brink Dies of Wounds Inflicted in Pentagon Office |url=https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045462/1952-06-25/ed-1/seq-6/#date1=1952&index=5&rows=20&searchType=advanced&language=&sequence=0&words=Brink+Francis+G&proxdistance=5&date2=1952&ortext=&proxtext=&phrasetext=Francis+G.+Brink&andtext=&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1 |access-date=23 February 2022 |work=Evening Star |date=25 June 1952 |page=A-6, Col. 6}}. — Maile (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

::I don't know that there was ever anything truly conclusive, as far as I know he didn't leave a suicide note. Mztourist (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

:::I think that there is enough RS basis to use "suicide" but "died in an apparent suicide" might also work if we can add source that references the partly ambiguous nature of his unfortunate passing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

::::update: I promoted the nomination to prep 5. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

• ... that Australian missionary Cheok Hong Cheong sold bananas for ten years?

I know I already talked about this on the nompage, but I have an issue with this hook that wasn't addressed before promotion. It seems to imply that Cheong sold bananas while he was a missionary, which isn't true. The hook was put in the quirky slot, which suggests to me that our intent is for people to come to this conclusion? Quirky is one thing, but this feels outright misleading. If no one objects, I think the hook should be changed:

• ALT1: ... that Cheok Hong Cheong sold bananas for a decade before becoming a missionary?

Pinging {{yo|Kingoflettuce|Cunard|SL93}} as nominator, reviewer, and promoter. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

:I'm fine with that change, but I do remember multiple times recently where hooks in that slot were way more misleading than this hook. SL93 (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

::that might actually be worth a larger clarification discussion, to be honest... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

:::I think you're reading too much into it—it's very nearly splitting hairs. Moreover, he already worked at a Chinese mission before his hiatus as a banana seller. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

::::I object to the proposed changed because the source simply does not state that he sold bananas for ten years before becoming a missionary. It does extensively state that he was A) a missionary and B) a banana seller for ten years. If I wanted to go down your route, I could also contrive a reading that his becoming a missionary was somehow caused by his banana-selling. Let's not overthink things. Like I said on the nom page, any incorrect assumptions they might have after reading the hook will be gone after properly reading the article. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::I think the original hook is fine even though readers could make a wrong inference. The proposed new hook is inaccurate based on Kingoflettuce's note that the subject "already worked at a Chinese mission before his hiatus as a banana seller" and could also lead readers to make another inaccurate inference. Should hooks where readers could make a wrong inference be disallowed? I think it would be worthwhile for the DYK community to have a discussion to get clarity about this. Cunard (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::I mean, if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but I thought it wasn't an unreasonable inference to make. There are cases where if someone gets the wrong idea, it's not our fault, but it isn't immediately clear in this case, and I don't see how this misdirection is necessary for the hook to work. Would this method of correcting the inaccuracy work?

::::::* ALT2: ... that Cheok Hong Cheong sold bananas for a decade in between missions?

::::::I think that could actually work as a quirky, to be honest. Like I said before, though, open to shifting with outside consensus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::ALT2 complicates matters. It would make me think that he stopped being a missionary at some point to sell bananas before becoming a missionary again. Why not just rework the hook to say that he was a missionary while selling bananas for 10 years? ALT3 ... that Australian Cheok Hong Cheong sold bananas for ten years as a missionary? SL93 (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::::...why not just use the original hook. He didn't sell bananas as a missionary, he didn't sell bananas before becoming a missionary, he simply was a missionary who happened to sell bananas for ten years. Why the need to be so banally precise when it's just a hook introducing them to a much more thorough article?? These semantics are giving me a headache. The man is known for being a missionary, hence he is introduced in the hook as an Australian missionary, and the "hooky" fact is that he sold bananas for ten years. The original hook captures all of that. It's needlessly confusing to debate over whether this necessarily implies yada yada. We should devote our energies to more substantive matters...... Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm fine with the original hook which is why I promoted it. I only suggested ALT3 to maybe get this pointless conversation to an ending point. Mostly because apparently no one cares beyond those who participated in the nomination. SL93 (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::From what I've seen from this discussion, the concerns seem to be more about accurateness or preciseness, and hooks that were considered even slightly misleading or having the potential to mislead have been rejected or revised in the past. I have no opinion about the hooks themselves, this is just the perspective I've seen from previous experience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::{{edit conflict}} Ya, tho I must say he sold bananas as a banana seller, not a missionary, even though he was a missionary...So ALT3 really isn't saying the same thing as the original. There's no need to draw so many lines in the sand, the article gives a good enough picture of who the man was.Kingoflettuce (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::What struck me was that he sold bananas from 1875 to 1885, and in 1885 he was made superintendent of the Church of England in Melbourne. While the missionary comparison is a reasonably interesting contrast, this juxtaposition strikes me as far more so. Hence this proposal:

:::::::::::*ALT4: ... that Cheok Hong Cheong sold bananas for a decade, after which he became superintendent of the Church of England of Melbourne?

:::::::::::If you think it useful, we could add ", Australia" after "Melbourne". Pinging Kingoflettuce, SL93, theleekycauldron, and Cunard. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::::tick (16px) as verified in the article and interesting—happy to go with this if we can agree on it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Works for me Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::::::::::This is a good and accurate hook, thank you. Cunard (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::::::::::An admin needs to change it. The hook is in queue 6. SL93 (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm onto it. Schwede66 03:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

{{@DYK admins|a=}} we're currently at two queues; I'm not sure if Cwm is planning on adding a third later tonight (I'm turning in early), but it would be super appreciated if anyone's available to make a prep-to-queue promotion? Thanks in advance :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

:okies Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I have recently reviewed my first nomination with an image, :Template:Did you know nominations/Trial of Neumann and Sass and am not sure that the image is public domain. What should I do about this, is it enough to have noted my doubts, or should I ask the nominator to double check on Commons? TSventon (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I tried to promote Template:Did you know nominations/Janine Brookner, but I was unable to fix the do not write below this line thing. When it looked like I managed it, the IWD list and below on the Approved nominations page looked like they were all closed nominations. SL93 (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

::Janine Brookner is sitting over in SOHO, exactly which is where I think you wanted it to be. — Maile (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

:I meant Template:Did you know nominations/Julie Croteau. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

::I closed this out for you, as you already have it in prep. Not a big deal to do for you. — Maile (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

:::{{u|Maile66}} I moved them both to prep 2, but both of my closures didn't close correctly so I undid them to see if someone could find the issue. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

:::I was trying to see if someone could close them for me, but correctly. The bit about do not write below this line is on the bottom of Janine Booker, but the closure is messed up. SL93 (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

::::I think I also fixed the closure on Janine Booker. — Maile (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::Thank you. I appreciate it. SL93 (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

:I'm actually not sure which one of those two. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I know it is a special occasion hook, but if the Russian military start parading in Kyiv, we can't post that. No comment on the Russian military hook in this set further down (or the one currently on the MP, of which removal would be more noticeable). Kingsif (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This hook, if it wasn't clear: "that after the 1871 German victory parade in Paris (pictured) 151 years ago today, the French symbolically scrubbed the streets on which the Germans had marched?" Kingsif (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

:Did you mean the 3rd hook: " that a Cossack detachment led by Imperial Russian Lazar Bicherakhov joined forces with British general Lionel Dunsterville's expeditionary corps to prevent Ottoman advance?" I assume you don't think we should run the lead hook because it would be insensitive, as it does not seem to be related to Russia-Kyiv. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

::no, I think that kingsif is talking about the lead, since it might look allegorical to the current russian invasion (e.g. russians are symbolically dirty invaders and the ukranians should remove them). But honestly, I disagree; we should be asking ourselves what lengths we should go to, what topics we should be censoring, for an appearance of neutrality. That hook was proposed on February 7, it's gone through all the normal processes, no one has suggested that this should be or is commentary. This only maybe looks bad as surface level optics; the harder anyone looks, the less there will actually be.

::Pinging {{yo|Dumelow|Bloom6132|SL93|p=}} as nominator, reviewer, and promoter. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

:::No one would likely say anything about the German victory parade hook if it wasn't for the invasion going on, and I certainly don't want to assume any bad faith towards the nominator (and I don't see the slightest reason to potentially do so). The event happened in 1871 and I don't feel right about censoring history for any reason. SL93 (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

::::I wrote the article in question (German victory parade in Paris (1871)). It is about a historical event I nominated for its 151st anniversary. I think it's a bit of a stretch to connect it to current events. Coincidentally I also wrote the article mentioned as being on the main page in the first post (Viktor Taranovsky) about an Imperial Russian general; again written before the current invasion and, in my opinion, of little relevance to it - Dumelow (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Yep - of course it is unrelated, but the organisers of the edit drive for Ukrainian cultural month (which they organised last year) have had to issue an FAQ (and their banner doesn't appear every time you load the MP) because they keep getting messages that it's inappropriate. I don't think we necessarily should hold the hook, but if Russian forces get into Kyiv, the allegory wouldn't be hard to spot. Kingsif (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

• Unrelated (sort of) footnote here. May 20 marks the 21st anniversary of Russian Wikipedia, which seems to be doing as well as the rest of us. Interesting. I don't guess we could take Russian Wikipedia to GA, just to get it on the Main page later. I'm laughing a little bit, because you see in the last paragraph that Vlad wanted the government to come up with something similar. — Maile (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• : oh, yeah... while we're on the subject... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

::I've just been assuming that the GANR will see it delisted because that is a huge subject. Kingsif (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Richard J. Ferris looks like it might have a too negative hook for DYK. Pinging nominator {{u|Ktin}} and reviewer {{u|TonyTheTiger}}. SL93 (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

:I placed the nomination on hold. I was hoping for some discussion by now. Pinging {{u|BlueMoonset}} for their opinion. SL93 (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

::{{ping|Ktin}} I think the issue is the hook working of "financing scheme", when the word "scheme" is not mentioned in the article. That may well have been what he was doing, but perhaps find a different wording. — Maile (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

:::I'm also not sure we should have a hook about someone's financing scheme if that really is what happened. SL93 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

::::More information would be needed for me to understand. It doesn't look like he did anything illegal, or even out of the ordinary, but maybe I missed something. In the news all the time, companies merge, companies diversify. They split part of it off under a different name. Look what's happened to the tech industry in the last two decades. Or the fact that the "help desk" or "service request department" of most companies are outsourced, often to groups in other countries. And all the outsourcing is about money - a bigger labor force at a much lower cost.— Maile (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

::::: Agree with Maile - the financing method used here doesn't strike any red flags with me. The method maybe isn't standard, but doing stuff like that to prevent a hostile takeover isn't too out of the ordinary. Hog Farm _Talk 21:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

::::::I'm fine with it now, only if the word scheme doesn't have to be in the article. SL93 (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey folks. I am sorry I am out for a couple of days at the hospital. In the meantime - nothing negative with this hook. If the word scheme needs to be substituted, can someone be bold and substitute the word with arrangement or something like that. Ktin (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

:Can this be resolved by replacing scheme > plan? In AmEng, scheme generally is negative. valereee (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

::I will add an alt hook with plan. That's what I was thinking. Negative or not, scheme is typically thought of in that way. SL93 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

::It doesn't help that the definition of scheme is "make plans, especially in a devious way or with intent to do something illegal or wrong." SL93 (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

:::I approved your ALT2. I think it works well. — Maile (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

• Sorry folks. I am fairly inactive these days on WP. I don't pay attention to pings. I see scheme was swapped out for plan. O.K.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 20. We currently have a total of 215 nominations, of which 83 have been approved, a gap of 132, up by a whopping 33 over the past ten days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

• December 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Environmental defender
• December 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Chinese dama

Over one month old:

• January 6: Template:Did you know nominations/International Habitation Module
• January 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Tek Fog
• January 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-monuments in Mexico (one of four articles still need reviewing)
• January 23: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Egyptian obelisks

Other old nominations:

• February 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Victoria Brownworth
• February 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Vince Leah
• February 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Abhijatabhivamsa
• February 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of Jay Abatan
• February 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Helene Hathaway Britton
• February 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Boots theory
• February 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Georgy Dokuchaev
• February 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Tuttle Capital Short Innovation ETF
• February 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Jaz Brisack
• February 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Ein Danklied sei dem Herrn
• February 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Loski
• February 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Mohawk Island
• February 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Longacres
• February 16: Template:Did you know nominations/1585 Broadway (two articles)
• February 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Jennifer Bates (labor organizer)
• February 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Ronald Lou-Poy
• February 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Baucau Airport
• February 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Miles Hadfield
• February 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Smalls
• February 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Jonas Grethlein
• February 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Ladder (option combination)
• February 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Pushpaben Mehta
• February 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Khairatabad Ganesh
• February 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Domitille Barancira
• February 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Subwoolfer
• February 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Metropolitan main line
• February 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Space Family Carlvinson
• February 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Somali pigeon
• February 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Verena Conzett
• February 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Helen Steven
• February 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Keventers Milkshake (ALT1b needs checking)
• February 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Surajit Sengupta
• February 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Leon P. Miller

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Just letting everyone know I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Queue/5&diff=1074789542&oldid=1074757896 corrected the grammar of a hook] in Queue 5 before it could embarrass us on the Main Page. (It was also necessary to clean up the prose in the relevant section of the article. Please take a close look at these things before you approve them). Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

:the hook was my bad, sorry! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I just did my first prep to queue promotion (T:DYK/P1 to T:DYK/Q1). Everything seemed fine except for a stray comma, but my paranoia still makes me ask whether anyone could please check my work. (I've had quite a few articles on DYK last year and now feel the urge to try and help with the admin side of things). —Kusma (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

:It looks OK to me. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

::Thank you so much for getting into moving to queue! It's really helpful to have that help from DYK regulars. I don't offhand see anything that seems incorrect about the mechanics of the move. (Haven't looked at the actual hooks/articles/nom pages, but I assume that wasn't what you were asking about?) valereee (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

WMFLabs Dup detector throws up an error message; 503 Service Not Available. The URL of this tool is https://dupdet.toolforge.org/ . Earwig's Copvio Detector is working fine from toolforge. Do we do anything about the Dup detector? — Maile (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

:It's being looked at, according to User talk:Gryllida#Duplication Detector. DanCherek (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't normally ask to "jump the queue", but considering current events in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, I think Template:Did you know nominations/Yulia Tolopa might be very topical? --GRuban (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

:@GRuban, is there a date you're requesting, or just ASAP? valereee (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

::I'll get started on a prompt review... but on a more morbid note, I'd be quite surprised if the hook were not still topical in two weeks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

::: No date, just ASAP, given the troop movements. Honestly, I am afraid any time it could become an obituary. There's an article I read somewhere about the Russians having a list of people that need to be dealt with when they invade. If there is such a list but she's not on it, I'll be shocked. I didn't use a lot of Russian-Russian sources in the article (as opposed to Russian language Ukrainian) but that's not because they didn't exist, it's because they were very yellow journalism. They certainly exist and they are not kind to her. --GRuban (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

::Probably unnecessary agreement, but I agree as ASAP as possible - it's a nice article and has some interesting hook suggestions, so it would be a downer (and horrific) if it became ineligible under our "don't post hooks that could be seen to take a side in current affairs". Get it onto the MP before anything that may or may not happen does. Kingsif (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Given how much tensions already exist, wouldn't promoting the hook now not be kosher? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

::::I was thinking that pre-invasion would be safer than either during an invasion or waiting for it to be over. But you are correct that now would be horrible timing. Kingsif (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

::::: {{smiley|cry}} --GRuban (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::: Here's the article about "the list": Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/02/20/ukraine-russia-human-rights --GRuban (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

:::::: {{re|GRuban}} Hey, with this and now noms relating to the invasion, I might start a set in my user space for all Russia and Ukraine hooks we can't run until further notice. Kingsif (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

:I don't think there is a strong reason to avoid Ukraine-related hooks right now. If our articles and hooks are neutral, then having them on the Main Page is good for showcasing how Wikipedia works even during conflicts. (Current battlefield news might not be appropriate, though, because we don't know for sure what is WP:RS; also WP:NOTNEWS). —Kusma (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

::A hook about architecture or random companies in Ukraine, sure, but a Russian national fighting for Ukraine? No way. Kingsif (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

:::Censoring Wikipedia's Main Page? No way. (Having said that, I can't assess the neutrality or the sourcing of the article in question, so there may be reasons not to feature it). —Kusma (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

::::Today's OTD, by the way, features Soviet Occupation Day. —Kusma (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

::::There is a difference between censorship and just choosing not to say something. Kingsif (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I slowly got used to the new format of nominating, via the top line of an article, but now don't find that option anymore. The traditional method also doesn't work. ?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

:{{yo|Gerda Arendt}} you can use Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination—but the old toolbox still works for me, I'm not sure why you'd be experiencing difficulty there. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

:Are you referring to Eleonore Schönborn? I have tabbed viewing, and I see the DYK tab at the top of that article. `— Maile (talk)

:: Now I also see it again. Perhaps it's just the shaky line on a train. Thank you both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I've just started a draft over at Draft:Wikipedia:Nominate, and wanted to get some contributions from other people. Essentially, I would like there to be a good essay on Wikipedia that encourages editors to nominate content they haven't created for DYK or FP. In my mind, no one owns stuff here, and as long as the original creator hadn't or was not planning to nominate the content, I think editors should be encouraged to do so if they think Wikipedia would benefit from highlighting it. It's been a few months since I participated at DYK, but I thought maybe y'all would be able to contribute a valuable perspective to this essay. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

:I've just checked the page and it is still pretty empty. As to me it should be clarified what nominations are meant and where the to be nominated articles are to be found. Like a New pages feed to the new ones and the articles which recently gained GA status. And I guess not all know from start what FP means. I didn't for example. Maybe a link to what it means could help. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

In the seventh hook of Queue 1, ABC News is the name of a news organization, not the title of a specific show, and it should not be italicized.  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  01:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

:{{done}} — Maile (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I just happened to notice that we admins don't seem to be checking for alt text for the images.

Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions

Instruction #2 under "Required Preparation". "Ensure the image has an alt text useful to those with visual impairments, if necessary, per WP:ALTTEXT."

Prep builders probably weren't even aware of that requirement, so I added it to the Template:DYK Prep Set Instructions — Maile (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

:I wasn't aware of it and it also isn't in the supplementary guidelines. I never thought to look at the admin instructions. SL93 (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

::If we require alt text to be promoted to a picture hook, shouldn't we add that to the reviewing guidelines? So that the burden for this doesn't just fall on admins to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

:::I support this idea. SL93 (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

:I think the "if necessary" should be reviewed - when is it necessary? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

:The last time we had this discussion I believe {{u|Graham87}}, who is expert in this, said it's not actually an issue here? I can't remember exactly what was said, (and I didn't really completely understand it at the time) but I remember concluding that the alt texts I'd been adding to DYK images weren't really helpful so I stopped doing it. valereee (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

::My understanding is that the alt text isn't actually shown on the main page if using e.g. a screenreader which doesn't show images. This is the case for the DYK image or any other image on main page. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images explains it more fully. Yes, I believe this is for the visually challenged, with screen readers. I would think for the main page, we would not have the option of not having it. — Maile (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

:When an image doesn't have a thumbnail (which is true on the Main Page), the specified caption is automatically used as the alt text (see Wikipedia:Extended image syntax#Alt text and caption). I can't imagine a situation where this wouldn't suffice for accessibility purposes. I've edited Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions and Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide (plus reverted the edit at Template:DYK Prep Set Instructions) accordingly. Graham87 03:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

{{@DYK admins}} We are down to two queues and one will moved to the main page later today. We are almost back to two-a-days as well. SL93 (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

:I'd like to suggest that if we do reach 120 before March 8, that we stay at one a day until we run the International Women's Day set (Queue 2) for the whole of the day, and then start with two sets a day on March 9. (If we don't reach 120 until after March 8, then we naturally don't switch until we do.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

:Is it just me, or do the issues with preps needing to be moved typically happen on the weekends, during the middle of the night for the Eastern US? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

File:The Weston House, 62 Park Tce, Christchurch.jpg

Weston House is the lead hook in Q3. I've just managed to score a series of nice photos from the last owner, which she kindly uploaded to Commons. I've swapped the ibox photo to the one shown here. I suppose I shouldn't swap the photo in the queue myself; could an admin please do so (after the necessary license check)? Thanks heaps. Schwede66 23:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

:I support it. That picture is much better. SL93 (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

:{{@DYK admins}} SL93 (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

::{{Done}} Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

:::{{u|Cwmhiraeth}}, thanks 🙏 Schwede66 08:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Current hook (ALT2): ... that Lewes F.C. goalkeeper Tatiana Saunders kept 16 clean sheets and gave up only 5 goals in 23 games as a high-school senior playing varsity soccer in Rye, New York?
• Main hook: ... that Tatiana Saunders is now goalie for an English soccer team, whose policy is equal pay, after playing for U.S., Icelandic and French teams?

I thought Victuallers would bring this up here, but given that it's not happening, I think I'll get the jump on it. I think the main hook was probably the better suggestion, since it's women's history month and the main hook better highlights her accomplishments—sports trivia might be more hooky, but I don't think it is in this case and it's less important. Courtesy pings to {{yo|Mandarax|Cielquiparle|Rlink2|p=}}. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

:I agree. {{u|Rlink2}}, you promoted this. Any objection to choosing ALT0 instead? Schwede66 00:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

:: Main hook might need some copyediting, too. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

::@Schwede66 @Theleekycauldron @Mandarax @Cielquiparle

::No objection from me. I don't particularly like the wording of "whose policy is equal pay" (not to say the fact isn't important, just the way its phrased). Other that that, it looks good.

::Maybe a slightly better hook is {{tq | hat Tatiana Saunders is now goalie for the equal-pay team Lewes Football Club Women after playing for U.S., Icelandic and French teams? }} Rlink2 (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

:::{{yo|Rlink2}} much better :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

::::Thanks everyone for resolving!!! Cielquiparle (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

:::::{{yo|Schwede66}} could you swap Rlink2's suggestion in? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

::::::Ok. Will do so now. Schwede66 08:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

:::::::Shouldn't it be "goalkeeper" rather than "goalie"? That's the normal term used in association football. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

::::::{{Done}}. I've wikilinked equal pay in the hook (it's not linked in the article!) and don't believe that it should have a hyphen unlike the draft above. And yes – goalkeeper. I'm off to bed... Schwede66 08:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Prayer for Ukraine - could that perhaps be processed fast, in solidarity with Ukraine? We expanded 26 Feb, and after the song was performed in SN that nightL, it found unpredicted interest, 8k+ views the next day. The support should continue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

:@Gerda Arendt: We have to figure out how we want to approach the conflict—some are advocating for avoiding any hooks about Russia or Ukraine until the crisis is over. Is anyone up for a centralized discussion on how we're handling the topic? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

::Yes. Quite frankly, Gerda's hook seems like a good idea, a rather nice one, in fact. But it might be a good idea for input here. So far, Gerda seems to be doing more than, say, news outlets who are just showing us the awful stuff. — Maile (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

:::As much as I think running the hook would be a nice touch, I can't help but feel there could be concerns about us taking sides in the conflict if we run any hooks about Ukraine or Russia anytime soon. Template:Did you know nominations/Russia was stuck for a while and unfortunately it's starting to look unlikely that it could run anytime soon owing to poor timing (even though the proposed hook has nothing to do with the conflict), while similar concerns have been raised about Template:Did you know nominations/Yulia Tolopa (a hook about a Russian woman fighting for Ukraine, which would very likely not be a kosher hook right now). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

::::Okay, I'm just going to put this out there, and if I end up getting laughed off of the stage, know that I'm feeling about as stupid as I look. {{pb}} Is it really fair to characterize this as an "ongoing dispute" for which we are promoting one side? I mean, in the strictest sense, of course: There is an active war between two countries that started last week. Of course it's an ongoing dispute. {{pb}} But I have a hard time believing (and the old-timers can correct me on this) that we treated climate change or evolution as "ongoing disputes" back when evolution and climate change deniers were mainstream thinkers instead of the fringes. Wikipedia has pretty much always stuck by the fact that, despite the lack of overwhelming popular support giving rise to a political dispute in the United States, the scientific consensus (the reliable source) overwhelming weigh in favour of these two concepts. I am sure we've run many, many hooks treating the two concepts as foregone conclusions, despite there being a "dispute" in American politics about whether it's real. {{pb}} This invasion has received widespread international condemnation; it's certainly been unanimous from Western nations, and from the editorial boards of many of our most trusted RSes. The consensus of reliable sources (not to mention some 87 countries, and both in and out of the opinion section) seems to be—and I could be calling this wrong—that Russia engaged in baseless lies and propaganda as a pretext to carry out an unwarranted and unprovoked invasion of a sovereign (albeit rival) country. {{pb}} Listen, this is triggering my bullcrap-o-meter as well. But I was talking to SnowFire the other day about their DYK nomination, and they commented that some people come off as good or bad or crazy or funny because they are, and reliable sources report it that way. And that's the way it goes here, too; Gerda and GRuban seem to have written verifiable hooks that reflect the consensus and the attitude of reliable sources. {{pb}} I am not an expert, and it's entirely possible that I'm inadvertently POV-pushing. My apologies if I am, I don't mean to. But if we keep looking at the sources and coming out with the idea that Russia is the worse actor here, well... that's the way it goes, no? we shouldn't be running hooks that read simply "Ukraine rocks", we shouldn't be going out of our way to smear Russia. But if a straight telling of the facts paints Russia in a worse light... how is that our problem? If these hooks reflect the integrity of our verifiability and neutrality policies (particularly due weight), and Russia still comes off worse—I don't see how we can shy away from telling what we believe to be the verifiable facts. What am I missing? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

:::::WP:DYKCRIT gives the following quote: {{tq|Articles and hooks that ... promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided.}} Granted, this does not apply only to Russia-Ukraine but to many other contentious areas too where tensions are high. At the very least, while the Tolopa hook was nominated in good faith, the hooks proposed so far (especially ALT1) may not be appropriate at this time. It's arguable if either the Russia or Pray for Ukraine hooks also fall afoul of that criterion, but personally I lean more towards the "better safe than sorry" attitude even if we can all agree that what Russia is doing is very, very, very wrong. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

::::::I certainly agree with theleekycauldron and disagree with the criterion in this case. The primary consensus is that what Russia is doing is wrong and it's nothing different from the main reporting. I quote theleekycauldron - "The consensus of reliable sources (not to mention some 87 countries, and both in and out of the opinion section) seems to be—and I could be calling this wrong—that Russia engaged in baseless lies and propaganda as a pretext to carry out an unwarranted and unprovoked invasion of a sovereign (albeit rival) country." I honestly don't see anyone complaining about a Pray for Ukraine hook. I quote Narutolovehinata5, "we can all agree that what Russia is doing is very, very, very wrong". From what I'm seeing all over news outlets and social media, this is extremely stupid to me and isn't merely being better safe than sorry. I'm not trying to be uncivil, but I'm also not going to hold back what I feel are valid opinions. SL93 (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

::::::I highly doubt such a criterion means to avoid all hooks from two entire countries. I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Arithmetic (book). It's about a book from 1703. The United States, for example, have been in conflicts with other countries as well although not like this. This is such a weird stretch. SL93 (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

:::::The difference is that climate change deniers are objectively idiots and Wikipedia can, for lack of any more polite way of saying this coming to me right now, ignore them for having no factual basis. Are Russian soldiers and the people supporting them objectively idiots? Can we even measure human conflicts with scientific objectivity? Of course not, to both. Kingsif (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• I support Gerda's request above. OK. Everybody please really look at what Gerda's hook says. Prayer for Ukraine spiritual was written in 1885 and it's on a choir album from the year 2000. ALT1 refers to the performance of it on Saturday Night Live this week - but so what? There is nothing there that shows bias or favoritism either direction. I see nothing wrong with this hook going on the main page in the near future. — Maile (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

:Exactly. I would support it either way, but are we really going to censor a spiritual from 1885? SL93 (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

:As someone who thinks of such censorship as the same as book banning, I can't get behind the DYK project if this is implemented with such hooks. SL93 (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

:Given that the Russia hook is not conflict-related and neither is Prayer's ALT1 (at least not directly), perhaps both can be allowed to run? If there are any concerns about taking sides (which was one of the issues with the Russia hook), it may be even be possible to run both hooks in the same set as a compromise, just to alleviate concerns that Wikipedia is favorite one side over the other. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

::I haven't even seen anywhere close to sufficient evidence that there are or will be any concerns. SL93 (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

::: I mean, as long as we run all four hooks, the balancing seems like one of the finer points. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

::{{yo|Narutolovehinata5}} Good thinking on balancing! hmm... the Russia hook is IWD. Maybe we slot it in that set, and put in Tolopa's hook as well? We can run Prayer for Ukraine and Snake Island in other sets. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)