Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

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

Shortened hook for Nature-positive

I've just promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Nature-positive to T:DYK/P1 with a shorter hook and wanted to check this was within the purview of the promoter? If needed the original hook can be reinstated.

@Manxshearwater @John Cummings CSJJ104 (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

+1 to the shortened version. RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

PS, yes, it's very much within the purview of a promoter. It's recommended that you ping the nominator and other people who participated in the discussion, which you have done, so all is good. RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, the original hook was

• ... that over 90 world leaders have commited to the Leaders' Pledge for Nature; to nature-positive policies, reversing biodiversity loss and full nature recovery by 2050?

The new hook is

• ... that over 90 world leaders have committed to nature-positive policies?

CSJJ104 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Happy with this, thank you! Manxshearwater (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the pledges and see that, for my country of the UK, the leader who pledged was Boris Johnson. There have been several Prime Ministers since and we now have a completely new government which is, for example, now planning to weaken planning restrictions and build lots of housing in the green belt. The article indicates that the UK is not legally bound by this pledge and that it is not on track to achieve the goals. So, to address the reality of this, I suggest that the hook just say that those leaders signed the pledge, without suggesting that it's a firm commitment. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I think revert to the original hook in that case or “… that over 90 world leaders have made a pledge to achieve nature positive?” Manxshearwater (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Manxshearwater  Done BorgQueen (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Are the following hooks "definite facts"?

User:Andrew Davidson has noted down many hooks at WP:ERRORS which he feels does not meet the requirement for "a definite fact" in WP:DYKHOOK. These include:

• ... that the Poozeum holds fossilized dinosaur feces (pictured) which may have come from a T. rex?
• ... that researchers estimated that training the model for ChatGPT used the equivalent energy footprint of "driving 123 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles for a year"?
• ... that Ghana and Ivory Coast have been accused of setting up a cocoa cartel?
• ... that some estimate that maintenance of existing software costs up to nine times as much as creating it in the first place?
• ... that Jenny Hurn (pictured) in Lincolnshire, England, is said to be haunted by a boggart that crosses the River Trent in a dish propelled by oars the size of teaspoons?

Andrew's argument is that if the hook says people estimate/accuse/theorise, it cannot be a definite fact. I argue that the definite fact is that people have estimated/accused/theorised, not what they are estimating/accusing/theorising. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems a philosophical difference over what a "fact" is, which we can't solve but we could have a consensus one way or the other. The existence of estimates/accusations/theories is a potential fact. While they do feel qualitatively weaker in that anyone can say anything, I don't think they should be ineligible by default. Perhaps they should face a higher level of scrutiny. For example, that cocoa cartel one feels very much not NPOV. CMD (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record, Andrew's contention for that latter hook was that it was a cartel and that the hook should state "... that Ghana and Ivory Coast have set up a cocoa cartel?" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

They are right that stating a bland fact reads as less POV than copying an accusation. A more WP:IMPARTIAL feel. CMD (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

To me, that seems somewhat contradictory. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

X accuses Y is a more tabloidy WP:TONE than plainer talk, it doesn't create confidence in the text. Similar perhaps to the counterintuitive situation where having too many citations suggests the text might be questionable. CMD (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

These issues are covered to some extent in the various sections of Words to watch whose nutshell summary concludes "Use clear, direct language. Let facts alone do the talking." From what I've seen lately, nominations often start by stating something plainly in Wikipedia's voice. The review process then weakens the hook by adding qualifications or weasel words. The hook then comes across as uncertain and so not a definite fact. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the origin of the "definite fact" rule but it has been around for a long time. FYI, here's the earliest case I found when searching the archives: Peyton Short. There wasn't a clear resolution in that case. Notice that someone says that "In the future, the best place to address this is Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors". That's not a good answer though as discussions don't last long there and so issues are often left unresolved. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

no, yes (but the estimate itself is shaky), yes (but the accusation was the consensus of RSes so it probably should've been stated in wikivoice), yes (but the estimate was slightly reported), and yes (but boggarts aren't real anyway), respectively. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Have to agree with Airship, we're not saying Poozeum has T. rex faeces, we're not saying that ChatGPT uses that much energy, etc., the hooks are saying that these things have been claimed, which is fact. Now, if there was an article where there were two contrasting and equally-DUE claims about something, and a proposed hook only mentioned one of them, even if saying "X has said..." that could present neutrality issues. But AFAIK, that doesn't apply to these. Kingsif (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree as well, along with that the H. Wortman Pumping Station stated below is fine as well. Andrew said, "It's puzzling to me that others have difficulty in spotting such issues which leap out to me." Maybe because some of what he "finds" is bs, considering such complaints often go stagnant at ERRORS. Yes, the operating mode of the pumping station was different before, but that was decades ago, and it is now a municipal monument. Climate change can do a lot of things over the years, and are we really going to say that every weather-related hook can't be used because the climate could always change it? There is no compromising with Andrew. For the extinction hook below, we could fix that by saying it's estimated which is still a fact, but he would whine that it isn't a definite fact because it is estimated. SL93 (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

(1) "that the Poozeum holds fossilized dinosaur feces" is a definite fact. (2–4) I could go either way. I do think such hooks at the least should face higher scrutiny for interestingness, since nothing in hook 3 indicates that the accusation is taken seriously or made by people in a position to know. So why should we care? (5) I think this one fails WP:DYKFICTION. Although folklore is not inherently fictional, I think this is too close to fiction. I find it interesting that my analysis is a mirror image of Theleekycauldron's. Perhaps we need to reword the guideline, since nobody knows what it means.

In the past, I objected to the hook "... that Halley's Comet is a living creature in several works of fiction?" on DYKFICTION grounds, but nobody agreed with me. (See the archives.) I also proposed the hook "... that the reign of Ye will be one of perjury, slavery, pestilence and death, according to the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Ezra?", which I was prepared to defend against DYKFICTION accusations but never had to because nobody raised the issue. Srnec (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

More examples

I just looked through today's DYKs to see which of them were definite facts and found another one which isn't. It's

... that the H. Wortman Pumping Station has four pumps, but is only used in exceptional circumstances?

Looking at the article, it seems that the pumping station was built to drain an area of low-lying land and that, having done so, it was put onto a standby basis. The way the article puts it is "As of 2023, the station is only operated in exceptional circumstances, such as heavy rainfall." Now the full requirement of WP:DYKHOOK is "a definite fact that is unlikely to change". As the operating mode of the station has already changed once and climate change might make it change again, this doesn't seem a definite fact; it's just the recent situation and contingent on the water level and amount of rain.

It's puzzling to me that others have difficulty in spotting such issues which leap out to me. So, I just looked at tomorrow's set. This hook immediately stood out:

... that islands are home to 50 percent of land species at risk of extinction?

This 50% figure seemed suspiciously precise and tracing it back soon showed a drift:

• the article: "It has been estimated that almost 50% of land species threatened by extinction live on islands."
• the article's source: "Islands also have higher densities of critically endangered species, hosting just under half of all species currently considered to be at risk of extinction"
• the source's source: "We found that 1189 highly threatened vertebrate species (319 amphibians, 282 reptiles, 296 birds, and 292 mammals) breed on 1288 islands. These taxa represent only 5% of Earth's terrestrial vertebrates and 41% of all highly threatened terrestrial vertebrates"

So, the fact has gone from 41% of highly-threatened vertebrates to 50% of all land species at risk. This is not a definite fact; it's a rough and variable estimate which doesn't allow for the millions of invertebrate and plant species. See also Chinese whispers.

Andrew🐉(talk) 22:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think "that the H. Wortman Pumping Station has four pumps" is a definite fact. DYKHOOK says that the hook must include a definite fact, not that it cannot include anything else. The problem with the islands hook is real, but has nothing to do with the fact rule. It's just inaccurate as written. Srnec (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The number of pumps is subject to change because the station started operating with two pumps. A third one started operating later and a fourth one was added years later. What WP:DYKHOOK says is "The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change..." Hooks which use the present tense rather than the past tense seem likely to have issues of this sort because the present keeps moving while sources are usually dated in the past and circumstances may have changed since. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

According to the source, the building was initially designed to accommodate four pumps. When the fourth pump was added, the station had reached its design capacity. Let's say we set our time machine to 1956 and were considering a DYK nomination which said "The H. Wortman Pumping Station has three pumps", I would certainly agree that was a statement which was not "unlikely to change". I would point to the pump-sized empty space in the building and read the note on the plans that said "Pump #4, future expansion" and listen to Brother Maynard's Brother intoning, "Three shall be the number, except that thou may proceed to four when the last pump is installed", and wonder if the number of pumps might change some day.

But we're back in 2024, the building has the number of pumps it was designed for, and that number hasn't changed in 60 or so years. I feel comfortable saying it is unlikely to change. Sure, space aliens could beam two of the existing pumps away so they could reuse the steel to build a galactic death ray. Or those clever Dutch polder engineers could figure out a way to cram a fifth pump into the space originally designed for four and do that. But I'm not loosing any sleep worrying about either of those. RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Banning all hooks in the present tense does not feel likely to be a common interpretation of the definite fact concept. CMD (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Or the "unlikely to change" concept, which Andrew seems to interpret as "literally cannot change, no matter what". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Any idea if the interpretation was discussed when the current wording was adopted? I don't think I was around during the reformulation of all the instruction pages. CMD (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The basic concept was first added in 2007, based on this thread. That discussion makes it clear that the purpose of the "not likely/unlikely to change" clause was to rule out breaking news items for which information might quickly develop—quite far away from "climate change might change the situation at some indeterminate point". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It's nice to know what the original thinking was. But it doesn't seem clear how we're supposed establish how likely change is. For example, I just looked at the pending set. The first eight hooks all used the past tense and so were done deals. The last hook was: ... that South Korea has a day to celebrate North Koreans? This makes it sounds like it's a regular thing but the day was celebrated for the first time just a month ago. As a new initiative of the current President, this might easily change or not stick. That hook would be clearer and more definite if it used the past tense: ... that South Korea celebrated North Korean Defectors' Day for the first time in 2024? Andrew🐉(talk) 23:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I was just reading this -- I can't believe we've been calling the article "Chinese whispers" -- so I just started an RM.

Anyway, back to the topic: I always thought the "definite fact" rule was so that DYK educated readers about interesting facts, and not rumor, gossip, conjecture, speculation, etc., which I think is a good thing, and I'd support the requirement being construed more strictly. (Meaning, we don't go with the rationale that an "X said Y" hook is OK because the "definite fact" isn't "Y" but that X "said Y.") Levivich (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3

Is it too late to co-add the Regions of Togo to the main hook (Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Togo) and have the hook changed to "... that the five stripes of the flag of Togo (pictured) represent the country's five regions?" I just expanded it by five times today. All good if it is too late. Yue🌙 04:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

If you had a QPQ on hand that would likely ease any potential process. CMD (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Abortion in Eswatini but have not claimed it for a QPQ. Yue🌙 05:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the fairest thing to do is reopen the nom, which I've done.--Launchballer 13:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer Reviewed. Y BorgQueen (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Prep 5 - John Henry Hirst

It was said by Launchballer in an edit summary that they are not sure how the hook for John Henry Hirst meets WP:DYKINT. I promoted the hook, but now I'm having doubts. It isn't just that it might not be interesting, but also that Hirst had a significant career that should outweigh how he died. Pinging nominator Storye book and reviewer Sammi Brie. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I'd much rather see a hook that talked about how many Grade II listed buildings he designed. RoySmith (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I wish that Launchballer's own doubts had been expressed sooner. I could see a hook about his listed drinking fountain, the house he designed with a lodge for his gardener, etc. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

In fact, if you read the sources carefully, you will see that the untimely death is way more mysterious and interesting than It would appear in a bald DYK statement, but that would count as opinion, synth etc. on WP, and would require subscription access to BNA, so the whodunnit bit is not in the article. So here are some options which you have asked for.

* ... that architect John Henry Hirst designed several listed buildings, including Stoke Road Drinking Fountain, Bristol, and St Peter's Church, Harrogate?

* ... that architect John Henry Hirst designed at least nine Grade II listed buildings, including Cambridge Crescent, Harrogate, which hosts the newsroom of the Stray Ferret? (Sources for both of these hooks are in the articles, next to the relevant facts) Storye book (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I boldly changed the hook to the second one. SL93 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Storye book and SL93: unless I'm missing something, the bit about the Stray Ferret isn't in the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

It is now. RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the oversight. I just came back to add it during my work break, and I’m happy to see that RoySmith took care of it because I would have had to add it on my phone. SL93 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, AirshipJungleman29, RoySmith and SL93! Storye book (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Do game mechanics meet WP:DYKFICTION?

Asking this after seeing the Until Then hook at WP:DYKQ, although this isn't about that particular hook but is more of a general question. Do in-game mechanics count as real-world, in-universe, or somewhere in between? Because depending on how such hooks are worded or the actual in-game mechanics involved, the hooks could be ambiguous. For example, "... that the adventure game Until Then has an in-universe version of Facebook where the player can like and comment on other characters' posts?" Depending on one's interpretation, one can say that it meets DYKFICTION because it refers to how the real-world user plays the game, but it might also not if one interprets the hooks as "the player" referring to the in-universe character. I'm asking this because my gut was telling me "No, hooks about game mechanics do involve real-world facts," but I was thinking of a way to mention it at WP:DYKG since the current wording is rather ambiguous. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It depends. In this case, I would say that's in-universe because the mechanics are only interacting with fictional elements. This is probably most often the case, but there are going to be times where game mechanics bleed into the real world. For example, the PainStation physically whips losing players, some folks have gotten married in Final Fantasy XIV, and a couple let their real child starve to death while raising a virtual child together in Prius Online. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

If it's in-universe to you and thus the hook doesn't meet DYKFICTION, shouldn't the hook be adjusted? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I was answering the broader question. For this specific nomination, I'd say that the approved ALT3 looks good, and that it would be difficult to adjust the promoted hook to make it less fictional. If a novel like The Circle or a show like The Feed couldn't do a hook about fictional social media, I don't see how a visual novel is that different? It's about to go to the main page, so courtesy pings to all involved: @RoySmith, AirshipJungleman29, Chipmunkdavis, Chlod, and Narutolovehinata5: Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I read the hook as an interesting point about game mechanics, which I took as a real world aspect, like an engineering quirk of a car. CMD (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

August 24 special occasion request

Hello! A while back I requested that Aoi Koga be held until August 24. The set for that date is currently Prep 4, but the article hasn't been promoted yet. Would it be okay for one of the hooks be swapped out for Koga's hook? Thanks! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I've made a hole in prep. I'll assess the article when I get back, or perhaps someone else can.--Launchballer 12:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Promoted. I remain of the view that the six week 'clock' for date requests should start at the end of the seven-day eligibility.--Launchballer 16:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Prep 1

Burnt toast theory

• ... that burnt toast could save you from a car accident?

@Bsoyka and Cunard: I think the hook is cute, but I can't help but be unable to shake off the feeling that something's off about the wording. I do get that it's a quirky hook, but the hook seems more, I guess sure about the possibility than what the article says. The article states that the theory has had mixed reception, along with how it's just a theory and not definite. The hook presents the possibility as definite, while the article suggests it's more of an example and not an assured thing. I'm not against the hook fact itself, I think it's a really interesting and catchy one, but it may be for the best to reword the hook in some way for accuracy purposes. It won't be as quirky anymore but it would probably be more accurate. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The whole article sounds like WP:NEO with a bunch of marginal sources. RoySmith (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't love it as much, but perhaps we could do:

• ... that TikTok popularized the burnt toast theory?

Bsoyka (t • c • g) 13:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Cunard hasn't been online since the 15th so a new reviewer will need to sign this off. Looking at the source of the statement, I just noticed another issue: the statement "The exact origin of the idea is unclear, but the topic has notably been popularized by users of TikTok and other social media platforms." is not directly supported by the Grazia link. Indeed, the article in fact claims the theory was "proliferated" by a particular TikTok user, although I'm not sure if the user in question did popularize it or not. In any case, that will need to be revised. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Adjusted the sourcing in the article to rely on [1], which says, Brought into the spotlight thanks to the therapy side of TikTok. ([2] also says, Coined on TikTok, this concept is becoming increasingly popular on the app.) Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

"The exact origin of the idea is unclear" sounds like synthesis and will need actual sourcing to back it up. Otherwise, it should probably be omitted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel like I read that somewhere in my research, but I can't seem to find where. Removed for now. Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

As the hook was in the next prep to be promoted to Queue, I've bumped it to a later prep to buy more time for discussing the hook and article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Some sources:

1. This source says, "The burnt-toast theory is simple: it’s the idea that something as small as burning your toast could actually end up saving your life or allowing something better to happen. Maybe those five minutes you took toasting a new piece of bread saved you from being in a car accident."
2. Another source says: "Picture this: You’re making toast in the morning as per your normal routine, only this time, it burns. ... The whole process has added five minutes to your morning routine, so although it’s an objectively small inconvenience, you’re now running a bit late leaving the house, and therefore, arriving at work. You’re annoyed. But you jump in your car and head to work. But on the way, you see a car accident, and when you hear the details of the crash, you realize that had you left your house on time, it could have been you. That burnt toast — it might have saved your life."
3. A third source says, "Maybe those five minutes you took toasting a new piece of bread saved you from being in a car accident."
4. A fourth source says, "Called the 'burnt toast theory', it encourages us to embrace the bad things that happen because there’s usually a good reason for it. 'It's basically the theory that if you burn your toast in the morning (or something challenging happens), the time you spend making another toast may have saved you from a car accident, or maybe it makes you late to a meeting,' the viral theory states."

The hook says "... that burnt toast could save you from a car accident?"

I think the sources support the hook's wording of "could". Here are alternative hooks to emphasise the theory part:

• ... that according to a theory, burnt toast could save you from a car accident?
• ... that according to a TikTok theory, burnt toast could save you from a car accident?
• ... that a theory says burnt toast could save you from a car accident?
• ... that a TikTok theory says burnt toast could save you from a car accident?

Cunard (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Queue 6

General note: Earwig is out of quota again, so all the copyright checks were only done against sources.

Zénith (balloon)

@Global Donald, AirshipJungleman29, and Mhhossein: This is really not a good image. I can't make out what it's a picture of, and even after knowing what it is from the description, I certainly can't see the two figures holding hands, which is the point of the hook. If we don't have a better image for this, I'd suggest moving it to another slot. RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Would this one fit better? --Global Donald (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks better.  Done BorgQueen (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You think you just fell out of a coconut tree?

@AirshipJungleman29, Spaghettifier, and PanagiotisZois: This is in the quirky slot, which earns it some latitude, but I'm hard pressed to see how this complies with "Hooks should be definite facts". RoySmith (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a definite fact that Harris asked a version of the question posed by the hook. (It's also a fact that the reader did or did not just fall out of a coconut tree, though it's referenced interrogatively.) Spaghettifier (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

mm, I don't think this hook should run, if only because "did you know whether you just fell out of a coconut tree" is awkward construction- and also doesn't impart anything definite. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Apart from being incomprehensible, it seems contrary to the spirit of WP:SOAP and WP:DYKELECT. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WP:DYKELECT only kicks in 30 days before the election, so strictly speaking hooks about Harris or Trump aren't prohibited from DYK just yet. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see this going well if it hits the main page. SL93 (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Since it's already in queue and I'm not an admin I can't pull the hook, though there already seems to be some rough consensus to pull it. If there are any sysops online right now, it may be a good idea to reopen the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the hook (or non-hook, as the case may be), per the above. BD2412 T 01:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Nominating an article for a second time

I want to nominate Flag of North Korea for a DYK (GA promoted today), but I was unable to with the DYK tool because someone else made a rejected nomination six years ago. To my understanding, multiple nominations are only disallowed if the first nomination was successful. I could not find anything in the DYK guidelines speaking to how I am supposed to nominate an article a second time if the previous nomination was unsuccessful. Can anybody give me a quick, helpful link? Thanks. Yue🌙 22:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out by guessing the process and searching up "2nd nomination". Yue🌙 23:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the rules recently changed so that an article that already ran on DYK previously can run on DYK again after at least five years. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh! Perfect! Yue🌙 01:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

A first hook

I would like more attention on the first hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Motibai Kapadia to see if it's acceptable for promotion. It seems like something that has a chance of being another incorrect first hook. Discussion can continue at the nomination. SL93 (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Milkie Way

@AirshipJungleman29, Launchballer, and Hawkeye7: This turns "tweet that she could not believe how powerful her nipples were" into "has powerful nipples" in wikivoice. That's not going to fly. RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I also would never consider choosing a similar hook as well over something else from a successful woman's career, but I know that I'm likely in the minority because Wikipedia isn't censored. SL93 (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

There's a lot of space between "not censored" and "childish pandering of T's and A's". RoySmith (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I said "not censored" because similar things have received responses of that the main page isn't censored. SL93 (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Hmph. Then ALT2? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I also have no problem with ALT2. I do mention at the nom that the hook could work with "why" instead of "that", although now I think "that"'s probably better. I do however want to defend ALT0 on the grounds that mentioning nipples, rightly or wrongly, will probably get more views even if it is "childish pandering", and that one definition of 'powerful' is "having a strong effect on people's feelings or thoughts" and that's what they did. I don't think Way subsequently describing them as such negates its verifiability. (There is a hook about Matlock's chest I could propose for his article, although I think what I'm more likely to do is wait until Wargasm finishes its GA and propose a triple hook with his previous band Dead!.).--Launchballer 22:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Getting the most views should not be our only concern. RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed all the ALTs. ALT2 is fine with me. My personal experience with DYK hooks supports Launchballer's belief that ALT0 would get more page views. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:DYKGRAT should be relevant here :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

Rockstar North

@AirshipJungleman29, IceWelder, and Thebiguglyalien: this needs an end-of-sentence citation for the hook fact. RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. I do think this is a strange rule since Wikipedia's usual citing conventions allow verifying multiple sentences with one ref tag. IceWelder [✉] 16:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

IceWelder Thanks. I think of it more like the rule that says direct quotes have to be cited immediately after the quote, even if an end-of-paragraph citation would cover it under the normal rules. It also makes life easier on the reviewers :-) RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

KTLE

@Sammi Brie: could you walk me through where everything that backs up the hook fact is in the article? I suspect it's all there, but scattered about and I'm having trouble piecing it all together. See my comment above to IceWelder about end-of-sentence citations. RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Fix ping RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Three areas, @RoySmith:

• KTLE made its on-air debut on July 3, 1959, [3]
• KIFI-TV began broadcasting on January 23, 1961. That same day was also KTLE's last: it left the air "to conserve the assets" of the company, per manager Gloria Dillard, in the wake of losing its NBC affiliation. Features of the last day included a roundtable discussion of KBLI Inc. officers discussing the station's closure and an editorial explaining the closure. The preceding paragraph explains that KIFI now had the NBC affiliation. [4]
• KTLE was on the air as late as May 1971 but closed when Snake River Valley opted not to purchase the assets. [5] and [6]

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Overriding another prep builder's pic choice

Well...? @Sohom Datta @AirshipJungleman29 BorgQueen (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Assuming good faith BorgQueen, that feels like a mistake caused by hitting the wrong button in PSHAW. Still, I would have preferred that hook remained for another picture slot. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Shoot, I've moved it to prep 2 for now. Definitely a misclick in PSHAW for my end. Sohom (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

QPQ timeouts

I've been noticing that we have an enforcement problem with QPQs. WP:DYKG says that QPQs should be submitted within a week of nomination, but we assume that nominators aren't aware of this requirement – we ping them five days in, and they give QPQs anywhere from 10–14 days after nomination and it usually slides. I think we should add "Please provide a QPQ within a week of nomination" to the nomination page smalltext when the QPQ line is left blank. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, (putting on my grumpy hat) there's no reason it should take a week. I'm more than willing to give DYK newbies slack, but I see some veterans doing this. That's just making more work for your fellow editors because they have to chase after you. I'd be in favor of a closing on sight any nom from somebody with more than N DYKs to their name (pick any reasonable value of N) if it does't have a QPQ. RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking that it contradicts each other. I normally take "should" to mean that it's (strongly) recommended, but not mandatory. Meanwhile, the phrase "please provide a QPQ within a week" sounds like it means that it must (mandatory) be submitted within 7 days of the nomination. Therefore, I think that 10 days should be the normal maximum and 14 is the absolute maximum. at Template talk:Did you know, it says that "a rejection usually only occurs if it was at least a couple of weeks old and had unresolved issues" and I take couple to mean two. I'm thinking the phrase "as you have nominated more than five articles, a QPQ is required. This should be done within 7 days with 10 being the absolute maximum" fits me better. JuniperChill (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

meh. i think a week is more than enough time for something someone should already have on them when they make the nomination. The week is just a courtesy – if it were up to me, we would require nominators to do their QPQs well before the nomination, so that if the check bounces (the nomination gets pulled off the Main Page), then the credit becomes invalid. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

And I have been reviewing DYK articles well before my sixth nomination. I never thought I would be good at reviewing them, especially my first one. Good thing they don't expire. I actually track my reviews and cross them out if used. I do think a week is already a good enough time though. JuniperChill (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and change WP:QPQ from "Ideally, a QPQ should be submitted within a week of a nomination. After one week, and a reminder to the nominator, a nomination may be closed as "incomplete."" to "A nomination may be closed as "incomplete" if a QPQ is not submitted within a week". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking more like "A QPQ must be submitted (for those required to submit one) at the time of the nomination." If you're too busy to do your QPQ now, then hold up your nom until you've got time. RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I have no objections, but I suspect a lot of nominators might. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, we have more nominations than we can handle. If people object to getting their act together on time and stop nominating, that's to our benefit. Seriously. RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I like that idea. Those other editors can just not nominate then. SL93 (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. Special:Diff/1241179543. RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we should honestly go even further. QPQs have a reputation for being sloppy reviews just done to get a credit – when nominations get pulled off the Main Page, we should be revoking people's QPQ credits. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, boy, and I thought I was being bold! RoySmith (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this too, but only for mistakes that those editors should already know about. SL93 (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Quite often the QPQ runs after the hook you're using it for, which could create a fair bit of complexity as to who owes a QPQ and when. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

We could either require that QPQs be completely finished before they can be used, or accept QPQs that haven't run on a provisional basis (holding the nomination until the check clears). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

PS, as a practical matter, I would suggest that at least for a while, people still be given warnings along with a pointer to the rule change. It's one thing to prod the herd in the direction you want them to go, it's another thing entirely to stand in front of the herd while doing it and get trampled to death. RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you've acted a bit hastily. One of the reasons that the QPQ timeout limit is seven days is because after that is over, a nominator can't immediately renominate with a QPQ done (because WP:DYKNEW no longer applies). If a new nomination is closed immediately, the nominator can now just open a new nomination with a QPQ; so in effect, the new WP:QPQ protocol is just the most annoying way of pinging the nominator asking for a QPQ. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the bold change as it's too bold and deserves more than 50 minutes of discussion. One of the reasons we have never required QPQs at the time of nomination is that some nominations, particularly some of the lengthier 5x expansions, take all of a week to complete, so there is no time to do a thorough QPQ. I notice that isn't mentioned, and there seems to be little sympathy for these sorts of significant contributions to Wikipedia. If that's DYK's future, it seems to me a shame. At the same time, there are people who seem to nominate many new articles a week and rarely have their QPQs ready. I have less sympathy in that case, since it seems to be a failure to plan one's time (as opposed to not having enough of it). BlueMoonset (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

About theleekycauldron's suggestion, which is really a different matter altogether, it's something I've thought about over the years, and something I'd be in favor of, depending on the issue behind the pull. (Is this pulled from main page only, from main page and queue, and even from prep?) If it's something that's supposed to be checked and wasn't properly done so, then I think it makes perfect sense to require a replacement QPQ for the one that was botched, and hold up noms from the reviewer until it's done. Of course, it might ultimately lead to people no longer being welcome at DYK because their QPQ reviews continue to be problematic... BlueMoonset (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)