Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Error reports Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you. |
DYK queue status
Current time: 18:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 18 hours ago() |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.
Christmas DYK sets
[edit]With Christmas just over four weeks away, I think this is a good time to ask: does DYK want to do sets for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day?
If yes, here are some potential hooks that can be used:
- Template:Did you know nominations/Pflaumentoffel: Food, needs a review
- Template:Did you know nominations/The Christmas Invasion: TV,
currently in Prep 6at SOHA - Template:Did you know nominations/HMT Night Hawk: Ship,
ApprovedSOHA
In addition, these articles are at WP:GAN and could potentially be used as Christmas hooks:
Thoughts about creating this set are welcome below. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent idea. I did actually see the Christmas Invasion in prep and wondered why it wasn't being saved. Pinging @DoctorWhoFan91, Piotrus, DimensionalFusion, Thriley, and Grimes2: who are involved with the first two noms. (I've been putting off expanding Piri & Tommy for over a year and they did a track called "Christmas Time" if that's of any use?)--Launchballer 15:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: Nominate it when its ready: if we decide not to use it for this set, the article will still be better. Z1720 (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's fine with me - I can review any new XMAS hook if pinged. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: I'm not really familiar with DYK- should I add somewhere that it should be saved for Christmas (I will read the instructions to DYK more comprehensively later). @Z1720: Great idea. Also, I'm working on another Christmas special- if it gets nominated and passed by then, I can nominate that for DYK too. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, what someone needs to do is pull the nom, leave a note, and put it in WP:SOHA. I've done that.--Launchballer 11:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm planning to do a nativity painting. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Christmas hooks should go into the "Special occasions" section at the bottom of the WP:DYKN page. Thanks guys! Gatoclass (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, they should go into the "Special occasions" section at the top of the WP:DYKNA page (direct link: WP:SOHA), and only once they're approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
While not a "Christmassy" hook, it would be nice if Template:Did you know nominations/HMT Night Hawk could run on Christmas Day for the 110th anniversary of her sinking - Dumelow (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Dumelow: Since the hook mentions Christmas, I think it is appropriate for the set. It will also help us diversity the setZ1720 (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I can work up an article on a Brazilian Krampus species.--Kevmin § 17:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/Dickinson pumpkin. I just made a Christmas hook for this. Thriley (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/Austrosphecodes krampus the "Krampus" hook is live and nominated .--Kevmin § 20:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/Adoration of the Magi in the Snow, a stunning Bruegel painting with pic, is now ready for review. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
- Now reviewed, needs promoting & moving. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- If anyone is looking for a Christmas article, I started Draft:Alvin Greenman. He played Alfred the janitor in Miracle on 34th Street known for his "Make a buck. Make a buck" critique of Christmas commercialism. Thriley (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a reason why Revelation of the Magi was already promoted instead of being held for Christmas? Or to be more appropriate, not held until Epiphany? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't mind if Template:Did you know nominations/Christmas: A Biography runs on Christmas Eve if the Christmas Day prep is full. ミラP@Miraclepine 17:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've just approved Template:Did you know nominations/National Gingerbread House Competition which might be nice to run in the holiday season - Dumelow (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Two sets?
[edit]I just noticed this proposal was for two special sets. I think that's excessive. One would be plenty. RoySmith (talk) 17:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not at all, the more the merrier. Assuming we have more than enough for one set that is. And they don't all have to be run on Christmas Day, they can be split over Christmas Eve/Christmas Day or even Boxing Day or New Year's Day and so on, depending on their relevance. Gatoclass (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- ... that Gail Damerow was described by one magazine as "poultry's Cesar Millan"?
This is more of a sanity check or a strawpoll rather than raising an issue. This was the promoted hook, while the alternative was:
- ... that Gail Damerow's book described by the New York Times as the "authoritative book on ice cream" was created because of the lack of good recipes in her ice cream maker's recipe booklet?
Which is 190 characters, but is beside the point. The reservation I have is I'm not sure if the first hook works if people don't know who Cesar Millan is. I personally know who he is, but many readers may not. So this is more of a strawpoll from the others here: does the hook work without knowing Millan? And is the promoted hook more interesting or a better option than the alternative? Courtesy ping to promoter AirshipJungleman29 and reviewer Toadboy123, although input from uninvolved readers is appreciated. In the interest of transparency: I prefer the other hook, but this is a strawpoll to test consensus, and if consensus is in favor of the promoted hook then I won't object. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I prefer the other hook as well. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had no clue who the Millan guy is, but I found it interesting. in this case I learnt about two people at once. The other hook works too, but needs significant trimming. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I prefer ALT1. Toadboy123 (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: Do you know of a way to trim ALT1? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- ... that Gail Damerow wrote the "authoritative book on ice cream" because of the lack of good recipes in her ice cream maker's recipe booklet? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- But looking at the source, I see that it actually says "one of the most authoritative books on ice cream making", which is quite different in a couple of ways. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: Do you know of a way to trim ALT1? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
- I prefer the original. It's more clicky. Also, it becomes hilarious once you know who Millan is, because the idea of someone being a 'chicken whisperer' is wonderfully absurd. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is now in Queue and it doesn't seem like we've reached a consensus on what hook to use, although multiple editors did state a preference for ALT1. Should it run with the current hook (i.e. status quo), or should the hook be bumped off to a later prep to give more time to make a decision? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- ... that George W. Bush quoted from the Quran in a speech he delivered as president of the United States?
@AirshipJungleman29: I'm surprised none of the hooks mention that it was six days after 9/11, which seems an essential detail for me, and one which could replace "as president of the United States"
: I included the detail "as president of the United States" in case it would be necessary identifying information for readers potentially familiar with the United States generally but not individual presidents specifically, but you make a strong point in favor of mentioning the 9/11 context. While I think the current hook still works as a hook, I would also support something like that (something like "... that George W. Bush quoted from the Quran in a speech he delivered six days after the September 11 attacks?"), but I don't know if that'd require going through a review process all over again. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
I would like to request second opinions regarding the suitability of ALT1 and its hook facts, which for context reads:
- ... that gay political consultant Jim Rivaldo "used to think that all gay people were hairdressers"?
Although the more interesting hook among the two options proposed, I am worried that it might be considered offensive without the context provided in the article. Given that I am not LGBT, I'm not sure if I'm the best person to determine if the hook as currently written is suitable or not. I would like to ask for second opinions and suggestions on the hook, particularly from our LGBT regulars, if the hook as currently written is acceptable or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- If we want a slightly more positive focus, then perhaps:
- ... that gay political consultant Jim Rivaldo found that there were "gay lawyers [and] gay businessmen" after moving to San Francisco?
- However, I don't find the current hook to be offensive, as it's pretty clear that Rivaldo viewed that presumption as inaccurate. Maybe I'm only saying that because I'm not gay, though. Based5290 :3 (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's fine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- As a gay man, and after looking at the Jim Rivaldo article, I do find it rather offensive that the hook chosen actively plays off a negative stereotype of the LGBT community, rather then going with ANY of the other options, such as having worked with both Harvey Milk and Kamala Harris.--Kevmin § 19:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Regardless of the appropriateness of the hairdresser angle, the issue is probably that the Milk/Harris angle is a lot more niche especially outside of America. Many non-Americans obviously know who Harris is, but probably not Milk. In addition, that angle primarily targets politics buffs, which not even all Americans are. I'm not saying the hairdresser angle is the best angle and indeed I'm very much open to suggestions, it's just that the Milk/Harris angle is probably not the best option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- ... that Seunghan (pictured) was forced out of his band because of a cigarette and a kiss?
Does this hook as currently written not violate WP:DYKBLP, especially with the context given in the article? Pinging nominator RachelTensions, reviewer Prince of Erebor, and promoter AirshipJungleman29. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Only if you agree that a cigarette and a kiss are “negative aspects of a living person” instead of just normal human activities. The story and the public’s reaction to it are a major part of his notability and a large portion of the article. RachelTensions (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- So far as I can tell, his notability comprises nothing other than his membership and unfair dismissal. I don't think a hook about his dismissal is unduly negative.--Launchballer 12:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Rachel and Launchballer. I do not think his dismissal should be perceived as negative, since it was not related to misconduct (like drug abuse or something), and the article clearly states that it was widely seen as an unfair decision by the company, and he received support from other celebrities, the press, and fans. —Prince of Erebor(The Book of Mazarbul) 13:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. This was intended to be an inquiry, so my concerns have been resolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Rachel and Launchballer. I do not think his dismissal should be perceived as negative, since it was not related to misconduct (like drug abuse or something), and the article clearly states that it was widely seen as an unfair decision by the company, and he received support from other celebrities, the press, and fans. —Prince of Erebor(The Book of Mazarbul) 13:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- So far as I can tell, his notability comprises nothing other than his membership and unfair dismissal. I don't think a hook about his dismissal is unduly negative.--Launchballer 12:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- ... that no one slept on SZA's 2023 sleeper hit?
The references that are cited for this hook in the prep's quirky slot have to do with various people saying thing like "at that point, nobody can sleep on that song anymore", referring to the song's climb up the charts. However, the clear implication from such a statement is that there were people out there who were sleeping on it before then—indeed, that's where the "sleeper hit" designation came from—so the "no one slept on" claim in the hook is dubious at best. Pinging nominator Elias / PSA, reviewer Thriley, and promoter Royiswariii. Looking at the nomination page, both this hook (ALT1) and the original hook have this same problem; the choices left seem to be replacing the hook in Prep 6 with ALT2 or finding a new hook altogether.
- ALT2: ... that SZA's "Snooze" happens to be a sleeper hit?
—BlueMoonset (talk) 05:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, BlueMoonset! I think ALT2 can work.
hold a moment.Done Royiswariii Talk! 14:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Pulled hook
[edit]Hi Gatoclass, I see that you pulled the hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Third Cathedral of Saint Paul (Minnesota) from Prep 4 for "multiple issues" - what issues were there and how can they be remedied? Right now the nomination is in limbo, not appearing in Approved, Awaiting Approval, or preps, and I want to make sure it doesn't vanish. (cc: Generalissima, AirshipJungleman29) ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 15:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it took me two hours to verify that set and I had to take a break. I will restore the nom to the awaiting approval page shortly, but if you want to know what the issues are now, they are 1/ that the Hamm article is only a x4 expansion by my count (needs to be x5), and 2/ there are discrepancies in the sources, with at least two of them, including the NRHP listing, stating that the Hamm building was built on the site of the second cathedral rather than the third. So you will need to find a way to either reconcile the sources or rewrite the hook and Hamm article appropriately - thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, will reply over there. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29, BeanieFan11, and Thriley: the hook verifies, but it's long and complicated. Can we come up with something simpler? RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know, maybe something like ... that in a 2024 game, college football player Jordan Watkins scored a record five touchdowns – even though he had never before had more than one? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- How about "... that having never previously scored more than one touchdown in a game, Jordan Watkins broke the record by scoring five?" RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's a problem with both of these: "the record" or "a record" is basically undefined in terms of what record is being talked about. In fact, as the "long and complicated" hook currently in prep is careful to state, it is a record of the school he plays for rather than a league or national record, and specifically for receptions at Ole Miss. The second of the suggestions might be sufficiently modified by changing "broke the record" to "broke an Ole Miss record" (adding a wikilink for "Ole Miss" would also be advisable if this is used). Since there could be a separate record involving total touchdowns as opposed to receiving touchdowns—you might want to check that—any other wording would need to be carefully parsed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- The point of a hook is to pique somebody's interest enough to get them to click the link. There's no need to cover every detail. That's what the article is for. RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since you have an issue with the hook and are a sysop (and thus it can't be pulled or bumped by another editor), maybe the hook needs bumping or pulling until discussion clears? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- We've still got a couple of days to sort this out. And even so, I'm not excited about pulling a hook for something that's purely a style issue. RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe a modification of one I suggested above: ... that in a 2024 game, college football player Jordan Watkins scored an Ole Miss-record five receiving touchdowns – even though he had never before had more than one? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith This is going to be promoted in the next set. Should BeanieFan's reword be subbed in? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've done that. I still think it's kind of verbose because it's trying to cram in too many details, but I guess it's better than the original. RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith This is going to be promoted in the next set. Should BeanieFan's reword be subbed in? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe a modification of one I suggested above: ... that in a 2024 game, college football player Jordan Watkins scored an Ole Miss-record five receiving touchdowns – even though he had never before had more than one? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- We've still got a couple of days to sort this out. And even so, I'm not excited about pulling a hook for something that's purely a style issue. RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Since you have an issue with the hook and are a sysop (and thus it can't be pulled or bumped by another editor), maybe the hook needs bumping or pulling until discussion clears? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- The point of a hook is to pique somebody's interest enough to get them to click the link. There's no need to cover every detail. That's what the article is for. RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- There's a problem with both of these: "the record" or "a record" is basically undefined in terms of what record is being talked about. In fact, as the "long and complicated" hook currently in prep is careful to state, it is a record of the school he plays for rather than a league or national record, and specifically for receptions at Ole Miss. The second of the suggestions might be sufficiently modified by changing "broke the record" to "broke an Ole Miss record" (adding a wikilink for "Ole Miss" would also be advisable if this is used). Since there could be a separate record involving total touchdowns as opposed to receiving touchdowns—you might want to check that—any other wording would need to be carefully parsed. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- How about "... that having never previously scored more than one touchdown in a game, Jordan Watkins broke the record by scoring five?" RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Prep 6/Queue 6
[edit]Any chance of getting Template:Did you know nominations/Packers–Seahawks rivalry into queue 6? I had put a special date request in, but it never got added to the holding area. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Gonzo fan2007 and Di (they-them): Possibly showing my ignorance, but I'd worry that fact could date; they could conceivably play each other again. Got anything else?--Launchballer 23:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, I forgot that that rule was repealed last month. Promoted.--Launchballer 00:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Launchballer, for my own benefit, what rule are you referencing? The Packers and Seahawks play each other often (which is why there is a rivalry page!), I just wanted the rivalry page to be on DYK during the game, as it will likely lead to more hits. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- They're talking about the "unlikely to change" rule, which said that a hook fact must be "unlikely to change". It was criticized for being too impractical and vague, so it was recently changed to instead say that it is an "established" or "definite" fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, I am now grasping the concern. So fundamentally the fact will change when the game starts, because the teams will have played each other 25 times. Is there any opposition to adding a qualifier, like "prior to today" or "before 2024"? So it could ready "...that even though the Green Bay Packers and Seattle Seahawks have only played each other 24 times before 2024, 4 of those games have come in the playoffs?" « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- The rule itself has since been repealed/changed so there's nothing to worry about anymore in this case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, I am now grasping the concern. So fundamentally the fact will change when the game starts, because the teams will have played each other 25 times. Is there any opposition to adding a qualifier, like "prior to today" or "before 2024"? So it could ready "...that even though the Green Bay Packers and Seattle Seahawks have only played each other 24 times before 2024, 4 of those games have come in the playoffs?" « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- They're talking about the "unlikely to change" rule, which said that a hook fact must be "unlikely to change". It was criticized for being too impractical and vague, so it was recently changed to instead say that it is an "established" or "definite" fact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Launchballer, for my own benefit, what rule are you referencing? The Packers and Seahawks play each other often (which is why there is a rivalry page!), I just wanted the rivalry page to be on DYK during the game, as it will likely lead to more hits. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies, I forgot that that rule was repealed last month. Promoted.--Launchballer 00:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
This nomination by Mjks28 was pulled from prep on October 20 due to hook issues (after a discussion on this DYK talk page) by Crisco 1492 for hook issues after having originally been promoted on October 11. However, it was never retranscluded onto the Nominations page after the pull. The article was originally moved into article space on August 20, nominated on August 29 (accepted as being two days late, as allowed by DYK), and passed on August 30, but it's now over three and a half months since its original nomination. Should we allow it a short period of time, say seven days, for a valid hook to be found and approved, or is it simply too late for it to be considered at this point? Any thoughts? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- If there is an issue on our end (i.e., those who prepare preps and queues), I feel like the article should be given a chance. Good catch. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Went above the two-month discretionary limit through no fault of its own but rather a fault of DYK and so it should be given a chance. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. I've retranscluded it. Ball's in the nominator's court now.--Launchballer 00:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is my article and thus requires another set of eyes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- AGF verified. Gatoclass (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hook says "up to" ten, article says "at least" ten, and source says 22(!). What's right? Pinging EF5, Departure–, and AirshipJungleman29 (may need adoption; EF is on wikibreak. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- The text on the page has 8 entries for satellite tornadoes - of which, two mention other satellites within the same entries. The confusion is likely because the list includes all tornadoes from that day of the Tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007. Departure– (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, and the table shows exactly ten. The numbers aren't numbering. Would it be safe to just drop the "at least" and "up to"? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see why not. I only see ten mentioned in the source, unless there's a different source listed on the article. Departure– (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, and the table shows exactly ten. The numbers aren't numbering. Would it be safe to just drop the "at least" and "up to"? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I’m here. Ten is the accepted number, although if I could add 22 to a table that would be amazing. EF5 13:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- The text on the page has 8 entries for satellite tornadoes - of which, two mention other satellites within the same entries. The confusion is likely because the list includes all tornadoes from that day of the Tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007. Departure– (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Currently in Q1:
- ... that the 2007 Greensburg tornado had ten smaller tornadoes rotating around it?
Well sure, what tornado doesn't rotate? Wouldn't the more appropriate word be "orbiting", per the satellite tornado article?
Pinging nominator User:EF5 - Gatoclass (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
René Vallon (nom)
[edit]- ... that René Vallon (pictured) achieved the first flight and was the first flight-related death in China?
@Crisco 1492, ProfGray, and AirshipJungleman29: I think this hook is grammatically ambiguous on whether the first flight
was the first flight anywhere or the first flight in China. (And this is more of a nitpick, but is it idiomatic to say that someone was
a death?) jlwoodwa (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- If you don't mind, would you please offer a suggested edit for the hook? It's been discussed a lot. (Btw, if a reader wonders if that's the first flight anywhere, will they wonder why they've never heard of Vallon and, hmm, they'll go to the wikipedia page on the Wright brothers.) ProfGray (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Adding commas after "flight" and "death" would make it unambiguous. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note that I've moved this hook to prep 5 to prevent four consecutive black and white images. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Technically it would have been two, as the Horn of Plenty item is a colour image of a mostly B&W composition. But that's nitpicking; no worries from me. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Raul Meza Jr. (nom)
[edit]- ... that serial killer Raul Meza Jr. began using drugs at age eight?
@Swinub, It is a wonderful world, and AirshipJungleman29: I think this might violate WP:DYKBLP. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- How Jlwoodwa? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's... really not much BLP issues where an individual's notability is limited to the negative things they've done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but DYKBLP applies even to people primarily known for negative reasons. DYKBLP states that hooks should not unduly focus on a negative aspect about a living person. Would focusing on how this person, regardless of who they are, did drugs at the age of eight, count as due? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, there's... really not much BLP issues where an individual's notability is limited to the negative things they've done. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- With no response from the nominator and reviewer I've gone ahead and pulled it. For what it's worth, even if Meza wasn't a living person the hook would probably still be a bad idea. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Timoshenko the cat
[edit]Currently in P2:
- ... that a cat, Timoshenko, joined the British submarine HMS Unruffled on twenty patrols in World War II?
Who cares what the cat's name was? Surely the hook should just read:
- ... that a cat joined the British submarine HMS Unruffled on twenty patrols in World War II? Gatoclass (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's a fascinating question, actually. The reason why the cat shares its name with Semyon Timoshenko is historically interesting. The Russians and the British were allied in their fight against the Nazis and the cat was named in honor of the real Timoshenko after he began mounting major counter-defenses during the German invasion of the Soviet Union. I think the cat was named Timoshenko by the crew of the sub after the counter-offensive in Rostov, I'm not sure. I suspect it was a morale booster, and with a cat named Timoshenko walking around the sub, it was a reminder that the war was not yet lost, there was hope. So there's a lot of history here, and for that reason, the name is interesting. Others may disagree. Viriditas (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Fine, but then that should be explained in the hook, otherwise it's a complete puzzle why the name is included. Suggest changing it to:
- * ... that a cat named after a Soviet general joined the British submarine HMS Unruffled on twenty patrols in World War II? Gatoclass (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- My own thinking: less is more, and such "puzzlement" as you put it might lead to more people visiting the article. Also, not too keen on linking before the main article, but if you unlinked it, it would probably still work. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delinked, thanks. I cannot agree however that adding the name of the cat adds anything of value to the hook, because the name alone will be completely meaningless to 99.99% of readers. Gatoclass (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- No objection to your new version, but I think what you and I consider "meaningless" might be different. It sounds like you oppose names in hooks, and I can understand that as I tend to oppose dates. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- In general, I oppose names in hooks for non-notable persons, or to put it another way, names that cannot be linked to an article. Otherwise, what purpose do they serve? They are just conveying a piece of useless trivia. There's another reason I oppose them as well, but stating that might lead to another debate which I'd prefer not to have right now - cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Anyhow, I have substituted the above version - thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 06:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- No objection to your new version, but I think what you and I consider "meaningless" might be different. It sounds like you oppose names in hooks, and I can understand that as I tend to oppose dates. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delinked, thanks. I cannot agree however that adding the name of the cat adds anything of value to the hook, because the name alone will be completely meaningless to 99.99% of readers. Gatoclass (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- My own thinking: less is more, and such "puzzlement" as you put it might lead to more people visiting the article. Also, not too keen on linking before the main article, but if you unlinked it, it would probably still work. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Fen Juhua
[edit]Also in P2:
- ... that Fen Juhua, the "first of the lady knights in the Chinese cinema", fought for love?
- appears to be a clear breach of WP:DYKFICTION. Pinging nominator User:Crisco 1492, reviewer User:Prince of Erebor and promoter User:AirshipJungleman29. Gatoclass (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Suggested alt:
- ALT1: ... that Fen Juhua has been described as the "first of the lady knights in the Chinese cinema" for her role in a 1925 film? Gatoclass (talk) 01:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- DYKFICTION reads "If the subject of the hook is a creative work, the hook must be focused on a real-world fact." She was first of the lady knights in Chinese cinema, per Teo; that is the crux of the hook. If you'd prefer ALT2 ... that Fen Juhua became the "first of the lady knights in the Chinese cinema" after fighting for love in a 1925 film?, that keeps both elements while still keeping the link grounded as "a film". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- That's fine by me - substituted. Gatoclass (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
- I wrote these, so a second set of eyes will be needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- AGF verified. Gatoclass (talk) 03:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I promoted to prep; second pair of eyes needed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- . Verified. Gatoclass (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Lede needs to be beefed up. I've tagged the article. Pinging Darth Stabro, Generalissima, and Gatoclass. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Darth Stabro. Tag removed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Nazi crimes against children
[edit]Currently in P3:
- ... that Nazi crimes against children, such as kidnapping, euthanasia, and mass murder, resulted in more than two million victims?
There are some issues with this hook. Firstly, "victims" do not only include those killed, and the way the hook is phrased conflates the different categories of victims.
Secondly, the article states that more than 2 million Polish children lost their lives in World War II - but were they all killed in crimes, or is this the total number of children who lost their lives from all causes? Also, since this number refers only to Polish children, shouldn't the hook have "in Poland alone" appended (assuming they were all crime victims)?
So I'm strongly inclined to pull this hook until the issues are sorted. Pinging the nominator User:Piotrus for comment; any other comments welcome, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass Maybe it is late here, and I am tired, but I don't under stand your first concerns. Victims means all children who lost their lives because of Nazi policies and actions. Just like Holocaust victims includes not only people murdered directly, but those who starved, froze, etc.
- Regarding the second point, yes, we can append the hook with "in Poland alone", that would be a correct clarification if deemed useful. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
User:Piotrus, given that it's often quicker to propose an alt hook rather than debate the merits of another, I think I will just do that:
- ... that in addition to millions murdered, Nazi crimes against children included compulsory sterilization, forced labor, forced institutionalization, medical experiments and Germanisation? Gatoclass (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass Thanks. I am fine with this, arguably even better than what I came up with, thanks. Pinging reviewer @Darth Stabro and mod @AirshipJungleman29 Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 02:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Does anybody mind terribly if I swap the image for The Horn of Plenty from the current one to File:Lee Alexander McQueen & Ann Ray - Rendez-Vous 61.jpg? The newer one was just uploaded yesterday (Elli is my queen) and, being made to look like bubble wrap, is a clearer demonstration of the trash concept imo. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Much nicer image, too. First thing I thought of was bubble wrap. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm also good with that. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- swapped, feel free to revise the caption or alt text, Rjjiii (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing the swap, cheers y'all. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- swapped, feel free to revise the caption or alt text, Rjjiii (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm also good with that. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Christmas: A Biography
[edit]Hello, I need someone to choose a hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Christmas: A Biography and move it into the Christmas queue. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Viriditas, are you saying that the nomination is passed? If so, please add the tick and I can promote a hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I’m saying we need a second reviewer to choose a hook, as I don’t find any of the hooks interesting. I have asked the nominator to add different ones from the secondary sources (of their own choosing) that I find both interesting and educational, but the nominator disagrees. To their benefit, the nominator has offered many different hooks to choose from, but is singularly focused on a hook style I do not like. I’m hoping other eyes can decide in favor of the nominator or otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: Due to time constraints on building a Christmas set, I will just go ahead and pass the hook in spite of my disagreement with the interestingness criterion. That way you can choose from the set. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Okay I passed it. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: Due to time constraints on building a Christmas set, I will just go ahead and pass the hook in spite of my disagreement with the interestingness criterion. That way you can choose from the set. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I’m saying we need a second reviewer to choose a hook, as I don’t find any of the hooks interesting. I have asked the nominator to add different ones from the secondary sources (of their own choosing) that I find both interesting and educational, but the nominator disagrees. To their benefit, the nominator has offered many different hooks to choose from, but is singularly focused on a hook style I do not like. I’m hoping other eyes can decide in favor of the nominator or otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I am currently taking a look at the nom to try and determine the best course of action. Gatoclass (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I have promoted one of the hooks that seemed interesting to me, but many others also seem fine. Not really sure what all the fuss was about in the 40kb nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, that saved me some work :) Gatoclass (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Backlog mode
[edit]@DYK admins: At Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 203#WP:UBM, the suggestion was that we go through backlog mode "with the goal of reducing the number of noms at WP:DYKN to 80 or so". We're now at 79. If there are no objections, I propose ending backlog mode at 00:00 UTC.--Launchballer 13:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Good work, everyone. I agree with moving back to regular mode. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
DYKHOOK: Facts that will likely change while posted
[edit]A few weeks back, WP:DYKHOOK changed as follows:
− | The hook should include | + | The hook should include an established fact |
Currently on the Main Page, there is a hook that resulted in a thread at WP:ERRORS about a fact that changed: the total number of games between two teams was in the hook, but it became dated because they were playing each other shortly after its posting.[1]
While there's consensus that a hook doesn't need to remain true in perpetuity, I wasn't expecting that it would likely become dated while it was posted. This was flagged earlier at #Prep 6/Queue 6 (above), but it was decided that no hook changes were needed given the recent guideline change.
Question: Should "unlikely to change while posted", or similar, be added to WP:DYKHOOK? @Gonzo fan2007, Launchballer, and Narutolovehinata5: Courtesy ping as participants from the above thread. —Bagumba (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I would support this, or at the very least some clarity that the hook will need to be updated accordingly while it is running. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- AirshipJungleman29 made the change, so pinging for their input here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Prior to AJ29's changing to "established fact", I had reworded the guideline to say "unlikely to change prior to or during its run on the Main Page"; this wording was changed for being redundant. Should the wording be reverted to this wording instead? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with that wording. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Prior to AJ29's changing to "established fact", I had reworded the guideline to say "unlikely to change prior to or during its run on the Main Page"; this wording was changed for being redundant. Should the wording be reverted to this wording instead? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)