Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 204

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 200←Archive 202Archive 203Archive 204Archive 205

Queue 4

Goro Takahashi

@Sonovawolf, Ornithoptera, and AirshipJungleman29: I see WP:CLOP which needs remedying. I also don't find the hook interesting.--Launchballer 23:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Re the CLOP: Using Earwig I can see there might be minor parts of common sentences that are similar like "at the age of 28" or parts of quotes like "[I] would travel back to the United States" but nothing major. Are those the problem you are referring to, or if not, can you be more specific?
Re the hook: I believe there are many parts of this article that could pique people's interest:
  1. A Japanese man in the 70s traveled to the USA to learn silversmithing from Native Americans. He was so loved by them that they adopted him and allowed him to attend a Sun Dance. Perhaps it's a problem of rewriting the existing hook?
  2. A Lakota family adopting a Japanese man is quite rare and interesting in itself.
  3. Celebrities like Eric Clapton and John Mayer collecting the silversmithing work of a Japanese man that learned his trade from Native Americans seems like it would appeal to a more general public, but also seems less edifying to me.
  4. Goro starting the whole movement of Native-American inspired jewelry in Japan seems interesting.
Do you think these are too niche?
Anyway, thank you for your edits on Goro's page. Sonovawolf (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The current hook is:
* ... that Goro Takahashi, a silversmith adopted by a Lakota family, was the first Japanese person allowed to attend a Sun Dance?
Not sure if that was the hook Launchballer was referring to above, but in terms of interest it looks fine to me. Gatoclass (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
It relies on knowing what Lakota and Sun Dance are. I'm English, and I don't.--Launchballer 14:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Heck man, that's what the links are for. Sheesh. Gatoclass (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I tend to assume that if I haven't heard of it, a broad audience also won't.--Launchballer 16:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I may have to agree with Gatoclass here. I don't really know what a Sun Dance is, although I do know who the Lakota are. To me, the interest here is the "first Japanese person to be allowed to see X" thing, what exactly is X is more secondary to the point. Like, if he was the first Japanese person to see X, it must have been some kind of big deal even if I don't know what X is. I imagine that readers may feel the same way, although of course other editors may disagree. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I withdraw my objection then, but I still have CLOP concerns. (It's things like "at the age of 28" and "would travel back to the United States".)--Launchballer 16:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Launchballer I think I took care of the CLOP concerns. SL93 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Chromakopia

I'm involved, so must ask for more eyes.--Launchballer 23:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Where is the quote from in the "Background and recording" section? Gatoclass (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I assumed it came from the same source the previous sentence quoted from. Cut.--Launchballer 14:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think this passes DYKNEW. The nomination says it was 5x'd by MontanaMako, but I'm not seeing this expansion in the user's contribs. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 14:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
You don't have to write an article to nominate it, but pinging @Sammi Brie, MontanaMako, and AirshipJungleman29: anyway.--Launchballer 14:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
True, but checking the revision from just before the nomination vs a revision from seven days before shows just a 1.4x expansion. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I reckon it's a 5x expansion from about 10 and a half days before nominating to now and MontanaMako is a newish nominator. I won't pull it, but I won't object if someone else does.--Launchballer 16:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
It seems I didn't fully understand what 5x meant for DYK. I thought it meant that the article itself was 5x by all Wikipedia editors, not just me. If this mistake means this isn't okay to be on DYK, then so be it. Apologies for all the confusion this simple nomination caused. MontanaMako (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
You were understanding it correctly. 5x expansion is by all editors, not necessarily the nominator. The question is if a 5x expansion was accomplished within seven days of the nomination, regardless of who expanded it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I see. To be honest, I kind of assumed it would be 5x because I nominated it after the album released, thus there’d be a lot more info for the article. I could’ve been wrong though. MontanaMako (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Prep 5

From Prep 5:

  • ... that land vertebrates and freshwater fish like limias (example pictured) have been hypothesized to have colonized the Caribbean islands via a controversial land bridge?

Apart from the clunkiness of the prose (ie, "have been hypothesized to have"), the phrase "a controversial land bridge" is just confusing. How can a piece of land be controversial? What the phrase is trying to say is that a certain land bridge hypothesis is controversial. A better hook might perhaps be something like:

  • ALT1: ... that a hypothetical land bridge may account for the presence of certain land vertebrates and freshwater fish like limias (example pictured) in the Caribbean islands?

Any comments? Gatoclass (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Your ALT1 is definitely an improvement and I agree with your concern. "may account" could be weakened to something like "has been suggested as an explanation for", but of course that is getting a bit long. —Kusma (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I think the really interesting thing here is a land bridge enabling fish to migrate, so perhaps the hook should concentrate on that aspect. RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The fact is already implied in the suggested hook. But the article doesn't really expand on the method by which that may have occurred, so highlighting that particular angle further would only lead to reader disappointment. In any case, it would be a tough job combining that with the info about the bridge being hypothetical. It was a pretty tough job coming up with a hook that successfully linked the two bolded articles already, and I don't think I can do any better. Gatoclass (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
... that a hypothesized land bridge may have allowed some fish species (example pictured) to island-hop from South America to Cuba?"
Neither article explicitly mentions Cuba, but the cited Rodríguez-Silva et al paper does, so that could be added. RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm fine with that, so long as the fact is in the article and cited.
Please note that I will probably be unable to respond further here today, as I'm about to take a break. Gatoclass (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Resolved

- substituted above alt (with minor tweak for verification). Gatoclass (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Richard Stratton

Also, the Richard Stratton (diplomat) hook has way too many quotes in my view - and few of which add any information of real value. Pinging the nominator User:BeanieFan11. Gatoclass (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Not the hook User:BeanieFan11, the article. Gatoclass (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree there's lots of quotes, probably too many, but WP:OVERQUOTING isn't a DYK criteria. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Resolved

- I gave it a copyedit. Gatoclass (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Details Cannot Body Wants

Two paragraphs lacking cites. Pinging the nominator User:Icepinner. Gatoclass (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 13:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Resolved

Queue 2 (8 January)

Debra Toporowski

The text in this hook is not matched with the text in the article in a two places - (1) the article says "membership within the Cowichan Tribes" was not possible before 1985 rather than "Indian status in Canada"; it's not obvious to me that those are the same thing. (2) the article says "her mother had married a Chinese man", not a "Chinese-Canadian" as per the hook above. These discrepancies should be resolved so the hook reflects the article and the cited sources exactly. Pinging @Ornithoptera, Vigilantcosmicpenguin, and AirshipJungleman29:  — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Good day Amakuru, seems like the hook was altered after approval. I have adjusted the article to say "Chinese-Canadian". The reason why the 1985 date is important is that adjustments to the Indian Act to remove the provisions that were applicable to Toporowski's case had occurred. The Cowichan Tribes barred Toporowski from membership because her mother had lost her Indian status through that act, and therefore she too would not be applicable for membership within the tribes. As a bit of a TLDR, her mother, and Toporowski before she was born, simultaneously lost both their status and their membership. If this is difficult to reconcile, we could use ALT0 or ALT2 as well. Ornithoptera (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello @Ornithoptera:, I'll leave it up to you to decide whether this can be reconciled - if it's possible to summarise the above points in the article, so that the hook fact can be married up with what's written there, giving us a close match, then that will be fine. But if that isn't possible, a switch to another hook would be the way forward I think. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
A bit busy in terms of my work schedule at the moment, if it would be implemented it would probably be a footnote. Would it be possible to switch to ALT0? Ornithoptera (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@Ornithoptera: OK,  Done. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Bæddel and bædling

  • ... that bædlings may have been a third gender in Anglo-Saxon society?

Does this count as a "definite fact" per the stipulations at WP:DYKCRIT? I'm not convinced that something that merely "may have" been true is legitimate for DYK, given that the hook gives readers no context on which to judge it's likelihood of being true. The article itself is not really terribly forthcoming on the weight of evidence for the different interpretations of this either... @Generalissima, Tenpop421, and AirshipJungleman29:  — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It is a definite fact that they may have been (compare "Ellen Thesleff's self-portrait may have been drawn in a trance-like state?", "an enigmatic ancient site deep in Madagascar (pictured) may have been built by Zoroastrians?" ). The evidence for these terms is limited (the article itself is able to go over more or less all of the attestations), and I think the article well summarises the interpretations that this limited corpus has been given. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
that's fair, but i'm not sure i agree with that – if that's the standard, then pretty much anything can be a definite fact, since almost anything may be true? what's more accurate and definite is that smart, reputable people have suggested it is true. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
While not currently supported by the article, would either of these alternative wordings adddress the concerns?
  • ... that scholars have suggested that bædlings may have been a third gender in Anglo-Saxon society?
  • ... that it has been suggested that bædlings may have been a third gender in Anglo-Saxon society?
The idea is that it would better meet the "definite fact" guideline by showing that it is the suggestion that is definite, and not the third gender claim. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Narutolovehinata5, Theleekycauldron, and Tenpop421: I would be happy with the first of those two suggestions if it could be made to match what's in the article - attributing the claim to "scholars" while also being clear that it's only one interpretation, gives it a sufficient air of legitimacy and IMHO elevates it to the point where the speculation itself is a definite fact. Currently the lead says "scholars have suggested that bædlings could represent a third gender", but this is not directly mentioned in this language with a citation in the body AFAICT, so that would need to be done before go-live. As an aside, my interpretation is the same as leeky's that I wouldn't count "X may be true" as a definite fact. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
No opinion on this particular case, but when scholars have said something may be the case, it is a definite fact that they have so opined, which is sufficient to meet WP:DYKCRIT. Gatoclass (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I've amended to add "scholars have suggested" per above and an update to the article to reflect this.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

1957 Ruskin Heights tornado

The article doesn't as far as I can see mention that the debris at 30,000 was reported by pilots. The relevant text simply says "Debris from Hickman Mills was found in Iowa, 165 mi (266 km) away, and other debris was carried aloft 30,000 ft (9,100 m; 5.7 mi; 9.1 km)", without saying how the elevated debris was known about... @EF5, Wildfireupdateman, Departure–, and AirshipJungleman29:  — Amakuru (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I was in the process of verifying ALT0 and never checked this one. I don't have access to the source, but I did find that the NWS source the figure of 30,000 is sourced to states:

On May 20, 1957 the atmospheric wind profile displayed a clockwise change in wind direction from the surface up through 30,000 feet in the atmosphere. This type of atmospheric wind profile often is associated with rotating or supercell type thunderstorms (Figure 6)

This refers to helicity in the atmosphere, not debris. I can't access most of the sources cited there. However, the Weather Bureau May 1957 Storm Data source states:

Debris carried to height of 30,000 feet and to many miles from damage path.

I'd remove the "pilots reported" part. Even though I'm not sure how else it would be verified, pilots aren't mentioned in any of the sources I can access. Departure– (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
According to the book Significant Tornadoes, 1880-1989: Volume 2, a Chronology of Events by Grazulis(undoubtedly an RS, archive link https://archive.org/details/significanttorna0002thom/page/400/mode/2up), "A cancelled check from Hickman Mills was found at Ottumwa, Iowa, 165 miles away. Pilots reported debris at an attitude of 30,000 feet." If needed, you can change the source to this book. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't know if that's WPOR by Grazulis though, so I would be fine if "pilots reported" was removed. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Can a statement by a subject matter expert be considered original research, though? Departure– (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
What I'm thinking is that he might have gone "there's no other way to see debris at 30k at that time, so it must be from pilots" and he would be right, but I'm afraid of that being OR. But again, WP:VNT is a thing, so by that standard the original hook would work. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I've reworded to remove the reference to pilots reporting it.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1

Josie Childs

@AirshipJungleman29, SL93, and Flibirigit: Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but it looks like there's no credit template for this. RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Fell out in this edit. I've added it.--Launchballer 15:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thomas P. Fenner

@AirshipJungleman29, 4meter4, and Metropolitan90: The article says "profits ... helped finance" which implies it was one of several sources of funding, but the hook says "was paid for" which implies it was the only source. RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith We could insert the word partially if you think it is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hefker

@AirshipJungleman29, ProfGray, and Vigilantcosmicpenguin: It seems to me that to get from the the paragraph ("For David Bergelson, hefker refers to expressionist poetry itself...") in the article to the hook requires a bit more insight and interpretation than is typical for DYK, but I'd like a second opinion on this one.

There was also a question raised on the nom page about whether most readers would understand the word "Talmudic". My guess is that most people, while perhaps not actually knowing what the Talmud is, would at least recognize that it's a historic book associated with Judiasm, but let's see what others thing about that as well. RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This also contains some long direct quotes from PD sources. That's fine, but I think they need to be set out as quotes with explicit attribution. RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The article uses Template:Source-attribution to credit the public domain source. As I understand it, this attribution, plus inline citations, is enough to meet the requirements of WP:FREECOPY. If I have misinterpreted this policy, I will re-approve the nom once the changes have been made. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
It's good to hear people's thinking about this DYK. Let me clarify that the scholars Naomi Brenner and Harriet Murav are the ones who make the interpretation (or finding) that hefker conveys both senses of freedom and abandonment. FWIW, I think "Talmudic" is acceptable but, to err on the side of caution, I edited the article to give a brief descript of the word Talmud. Please let me know if there's more needed on my end. ProfGray (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7 (10 January)

Clay M. Greene

@AirshipJungleman29, 4meter4, and Pbritti: The hook conflates Some sources claim he was the "first American born in San Francisco" with Greene himself, who controversially claimed he was "the first white child born in San Francisco" RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

There are two sources cited in the lead that looked to verify the statement "first American born in San Francisco" statement. While one is an old headline, it is from the NYT and there's a secondbut offline source present. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not an issue of what the sources say. It's that the hook says something that the article doesn't say. Per WP:DYKHOOK The wording of the article, hook, and source should all agree with each other with respect to who is providing the information RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I was confused as to the issue. Would appropriate resolutions be rephrasing to something like "claim he was 'the first American' born in San Francisco" or dispensing with the quotation marks entirely? ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not understanding what the issue is here.4meter4 (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The issue is that the hook says that Greene claimed he was the "first American born in San Francisco". That is not what the article says. RoySmith (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
See the lead paragraph. Second sentence. It states what is in the hook. The selective quote about Greene's comments later in the article is not representative of all of Greene's statements on this subject as he repeated these claims in various words across many speeches. 4meter4 (talk)

@RoySmith. would this hook be more suitable as it more closely matches the lead: ... that multiple sources state that playwright Clay M. Greene (pictured) was the first American born in San Francisco; a controversial claim spread by the writer?4meter4 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Why not just do the obvious thing and use the wording from the aricle:
  • ... that playwright Clay M. Greene (pictured) claimed he was the "the first white child born in San Francisco"?
that would solve the problem. RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith Ok. If that is what you think is necessary. In digging up that source again and double checking for accuracy, the exact quote is "the first American white child born in San Francisco". I modified the text accordingly in the article to exactly match the source. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll make the corresponding change to the hook. BTW, I tried to read the source, but newspapers.com seems to be broken at the moment. Do you have a URL where I could get at it? RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I had a hard time digging it up again myself as something weird is going on (i used newspaperarchive and not newspapers.com) I had to physically go into the archive for that publication and open the date of the page for that specific newspaper as a word search wasn't getting a hit. It was really odd. Here is the link through the wikipedia library: https://access-newspaperarchive-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/us/nevada/reno/reno-evening-gazette/1933/05-24/page-4 Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I see the source of the confusion. I was expecting to see a direct quote of Greene saying, "I was the first American white child born in San Francisco", which is why I was insisting on reproducing the text exactly. But that's not the case. Regardless, I think what we've got now is fine, so let's go with that. RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Lingnan School

@AirshipJungleman29, Crisco 1492, and Yue: The article uses the word "criticism" which got turned into the stronger word "condemnation" in the hook. I'm not sure that's justified. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

  • I've used "condemnation" in place of criticism in the article. Source supports it: "In the increasingly anti-Japanese atmosphere of the times, this freshly made-in-Japan appearance was a liability much heavier than the first generation of Lingnan painters had had to bear twenty years earlier. ... After the outbreak of full-scale war in 1937, such appeals to cultural conscience were useless and the Japanese background even more damaging to the Lingnan School. ... With Japanese armies transcending China's borders, a cosmopolitanism that included the national enemy was not in style." (Croizier), "Despite some explicitly anti-Japanese art by Gao Jianfu and his followers at the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War in 1937, most works displayed unmistakable signs of Japanese stylistic influence, which aroused the ire of patriots as well as artistic conservatives." (Croizier and Liang) — Chris Woodrich (talk)
  • Then the solution would be to change "criticism" in the article body to "condemnation" because as the source suggests, it was not merely artistic criticism. Yue🌙 20:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

2008 Picher–Neosho tornado

@EF5: A citation is needed at the end of the first paragraph under the section titled Tornado summary. SL93 (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. EF5 14:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Manual update needed

@DYK admins: @DYKUpdateBot: appears to be down.--Launchballer 00:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I've restarted DYKUpdateBot, it's updating now. Shubinator (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2

2020 NFC Championship Game

@SL93, Gonzo fan2007, and OlifanofmrTennant: Why is the statement in the hook in quotes? RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Its a direct quote from the source Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Then it should also be in quotes in the article. RoySmith (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: As it seems like a fact and not an opinion, could it not have been paraphrased instead? —Bagumba (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Berta Persson

@SL93, MumphingSquirrel, Chaiten1, and AirshipJungleman29: I question whether SKBL (cited in the nom) is a WP:RS, and this is the kind of "first" which can be problematic; it's really hard to know if any woman in Sweden had ever driven a bus before she did. There's also a fair amount of WP:CLOP vs skbl.se/en/article/BertaPersson; not just the exact matches Earwig highlights, but continuing to the surrounding text. As an aside to Airship; you said in the nom that "I don't have time to check fully". If that was the case, then wouldn't it have been better to not approve it yourself? RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Probably would have been best, yes. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I can go ahead and fix the CLOP, but the About page made it seem to me as reliable. SL93 (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith Earwig now reports the article as violations being 0% across all sources. SKBL is a reliable source per this on the About SKBL page - "The project leaders are Lisbeth Larsson and Maria Sjöberg. The editorial board comprises Berith Backlund, Linus Karlsson, Ulrika Lagerlöf Nilsson, Cecilia Pettersson, Scharolta Siencnik, and Linnea Åshede. The dictionary entries were written by experts and researchers (listed under the entry for ʻArticle authors’) and translated into English by Alexia Grosjean. The database was developed by Språkbanken and is managed by Swe-Clarin. The database and the dictionary form part of KvinnSam – the National Resource Library for Gender Studies at the University of Gothenburg... As for the hook fact, Sweden's official Facebook page agrees. I don't see a reason to doubt the Swedish government in this case. SL93 (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Starbuck (film)

@AirshipJungleman29, Reidgreg, and Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: I don't understand this hook at all. I can't parse ... that the comedy film Starbuck and the Holstein bull after which it was named both had cloned remakes? as an English sentence. RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, maybe it's supposed to be ... that the comedy film Starbuck, and the Holstein bull after which it was named, both had cloned remakes? RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I mean, both seem comprehensible to me, and maybe more comprehensible if you move the "both" to after the "that"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps just go with Airship's suggestion sans the serial comma, Roy? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
updated RoySmith (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Lilium lophophorum

Maybe it's just me, but that picture looks like the plant from Little Shop of Horrors. RoySmith (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3

Aquilegia daingolica (nom)

@Pbritti, BeanieFan11, and SL93: it may be my poor understanding of botanical literature, but the source seems to say that a specimen was collected as early as 1906? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: Sloppy work on my part. I have added the collection of the 1906 specimen, now characterized as a paratype, to the article. If you would be so kind, please adjust the hook to read "that specimens of Aquilegia daingolica were collected in 1906 and 1909, but it was first described as a new species in 2013?" Apologies, and outstanding catch! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I see that I became confused. SL93 (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 Is the new hook acceptable? SL93 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Allied prisoners of war in Japan (nom)

An interesting hook, but it says that " the harsh treatment of Allied prisoners of war in Japan is well known in the West but mostly forgotten in Japan itself?". The article, however, says that it is "ignored or glossed over", which do not appear to be synonyms of "forgotten". Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging nominator Piotrus. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@Black Kite @SL93 Fair point, feel free to changed to "ignored" or "glossed over" or a more apt synonym. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Always Happy to Explode (nom)

@AirshipJungleman29: Your edit to the hook here improved my admittedly clunky syntax but I think also introduced ambiguity. The reason I had worded it such a way was to indicate that the quote refers to the one individual song, whereas I think the updated wording loses that distinction and makes it sound like the quote refers to the album as a whole. Would it be an improvement to say,

ALT0a ...that when asked about a song on Always Happy to Explode, its principal songwriter asked listeners to "love it for me, for I cannot"?

If you or others think my concerns are unfounded then I will defer, just thought I'd propose the alt. Thanks, DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the current wording is unambiguous. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough. My fiance thinks I'm over thinking it too, ha. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 4

Debris fallout (nom)

@Departure–, @Piotrus, @SL93: I have some concerns about this hook.

  • The 6.0 number isn't even found in the article, the figure given in the text is 5.5-6. It also contradicts other content in the article, which says "A later study focusing on debris fallout discovered that debris from an intense tornado was lofted as high as 12 km (7.5 mi) into the atmosphere". Why use the lower range, and why arbitrarily pick a single figure from that lower range?
  • Using "debris" unqualified could be misleading, given that the common meaning of debris is something like rubble or wreckage. Most people will not think of paper, and the idea of a piece of rubble being shot 353 km away is quite a bit more startling than a piece of paper drifting that far in the air.
  • Speaking of, the 353 km figure appears to be an extreme outlier, but this hook pairs it with the (I assume) more common 6km figure, making it instead appear like this is something that happens often.

It's possible I'm being too picky here, but I think this one needs some revision. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos Hmmm, the figure I see in the text is 5.5–6.5 km (3.4–4.0 mi) which averages the one from the hook. So an average of the lowest range, contrasted with the highest range, seems ok to me. As for classifying the paper as debris, well, it's a small piece of one, but the term does not strike me as inaccurate, and it seems to be used by professionals in this context? Granted, I am not an expert in weather - perhaps ask for a WP:30 from Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I just wanted a quick and easily citable figure for the height. 6.5 is (I believe) the highest figure from the Super Outbreak paper (the easiest to verify), so any figure it should be (5.5, 6.5, 7.5 (which I didn't use as I believe that specific measurement was potentially unreliable and questionable)) is going to work fine in the blurb. You'd be surprised how often "debris" unqualified is used to refer to anything the tornado lifts (literally its definition) - it's also not explicitly just paper, as it's impossible to verify the contents of non-meteorological debris in the atmosphere. The outlier figure from Lenoir City could be feasibly qualified with a "record" or "on one occasion" in the hook. Departure– (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that that's how "debris" is used in the actual literature, considering the article is titled "debris fallout". My point is that the layman's perception of what "debris" means is not going to be paper, and the hook comes off quite a bit differently when you read it without any qualification. If you're going to focus on the 353 figure, and it's certainly interesting enough that you could do so and ditch the 6.0 entirely, I would make it more clear that it's an outlier figure. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with this too, for a different reason than @Premeditated Chaos. Our article says Debris was frequently lofted as high as 5.5–6.5 km, which is apparently based on Knox et al which says These heights are consistent with the 5.5- to 6.5-km peak heights for debris lofting estimated by Forbes (2012) So we've taken a "consistent with ... estimated by" and turned that into a wikivoice "frequently". No bueno. RoySmith (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, in the article text. The hook is actually better in this sense as it hedges with "has been known to". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
"has been known to" is still not justified when supported only with "consistent with ... estimated by". RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
A new hook without the consistency with debris lofted into the atmosphere, still verified by the source:

...that debris fallout from a violent 2011 tornado included a windbreaker being found 107 km (66 mi) and a photograph being found 353 km (219 mi) downstream from their origins?

This is much better verified from the source, and focuses on the individual outlier event. Departure– (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd trim it a bit, and skip some of the links:
...that debris fallout from a violent 2011 tornado included a photograph found 353 km (219 mi) downstream from its origin?
RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm alright with that. I had hoped to include the windbreaker as it qualifies as the "heavy debris" mentioned in the article, but the hook works fine either way. Departure– (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, if you are going to include it, perhaps mentioning the fact that the debris was recovered in a different state will increase the hook's interesting quality.

...that debris fallout from a violent 2011 US tornado included a photograph found 353 km (219 mi) in a different state downstream from its origin?

Specifying the US for the purposes of including "state". Departure– (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
What's interesting is how far the storm moved an object. Storms don't worry about political boundaries, so telling people it's a different state doesn't add anything. RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
So far, I think that RoySmith's hook is the best option. I agree with his thoughts about boundaries as well. SL93 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Then that hook it is. State boundaries aren't too important to me, as I think that crossing at least one border (if not multiple) is expected at 353 km. Thanks for bringing that up, RoySmith. Departure– (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Done. RoySmith (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith, the hook needs to have a space between the "..." and the following "that". Please add the space when you get the chance. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I've done this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you both for having my back. RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Name change discussion

Can an article with a requested name change tag be promoted? I am referring to Template:Did you know nominations/Tel al-Sultan attack. SL93 (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines § Presentability, I don't think an ongoing move request is a reason to reject a nomination. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 26. We have a total of 283 nominations, same as last time, of which 171 have been approved, a gap of 112 nominations that has increased by 19 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It's amazing that we've been running two sets per day for the past five days and the deficit is still moving in the wrong direction. I wonder if we should be looking at 10 hooks per set after we get done beating down this backlog? RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
171 approved hooks per this list, 190 per the last one; 93 non-approved per the last list, 112 per this one. The number of approved hooks is shrinking. Am I missing something?--Launchballer 20:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I guess I interpreted "has increased by 19" as "gotten bigger". Silly me. RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Mind the gap. If you look at the Approved noms page, last night it was fully transcluded for the first time in weeks. Progress is being made on the deficit; thanks to recent promotions to prep, we're now down to 141 approved hooks, a drop of 30 in the past day and a half. But the number of unapproved hooks is increasing now that we're not in backlog mode and the GA backlog drive is in full swing. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
So perhaps an increase to 10 hooks per day is warranted at least temporarily? TarnishedPathtalk 11:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I should add that increasing it to 10 hooks per set (I wrote day above) would work if the 2x QPQ requirement was also set at editors with more than 10 nominations instead of the current 20. I forgot to write that previously. TarnishedPathtalk 12:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't see why those two things are connected. RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer above gave figures which indicated that while approved hooks was shrinking unapproved hooks was increasing. Reducing the QPQ x 2 requirement from editors with > 20 nominations down to editors with > 10 nominations would address that. TarnishedPathtalk 01:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
That two-QPQs requirement only comes into effect when backlog mode is on, which is only for brief periods when the unapproved hooks get extremely high. 112 unapproved is far from extremely high, and we want more-experienced reviewers to do those second QPQs, not people who only have five reviews under their belts. (Five freebies and five QPQs is the standard experience for someone on their 11th nomination.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough. TarnishedPathtalk 07:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6

Zoe Smith

@BennyOnTheLoose, AmateurHi$torian, and SL93: I don't think it's on to have a hook that implies someone's lazy per WP:DYKHOOKBLP. Wikipedia's birthday is on 15 January and this article mentions this site - why don't we run a hook mentioning it on that date?--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I'd added a couple of alt hooks when approving the nom, we could also use those. The Wikipedia birthday thing sounds great as well :) -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree about the WP:BLP aspect. I've swapped in ALT1. If somebody wants to go to the trouble to schedule this for her birthday, I won't object, but I can't get too excited about it. RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
What's there now works.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but Smith seems to have embraced the nickname - it's included in her official Twitter and Instagram handles, for example. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Given the standards given on WP:SOHA, it's probably not a good idea to schedule this on January 15 just because of Wikipedia's mention. It seems like a rather flimsy special occasion. We've rejected arguably more deserving occasions in the past, so I can't see why this rather weak connection should be given a pass. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

2024 attack on the Bangladesh Assistant High Commission in India

@Za-ari-masen and Surtsicna: Article does not mention the word 'monk'. Also, the lead could do with expanding, but that's technically not a DYK issue.--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Launchballer I added the word "monk". SL93 (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
And I added an end-of-sentence citation. This should be fine.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I still can't get over how certain end of citation rules are pointless - like this one. Just thinking out loud a bit. SL93 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
When I'm checking a hook, this is one of those rules I'm willing to play a little fast and lose with. As long as there's a citation pretty close, and it's obvious what source backs up the hook fact, I'm good, even if it's not strictly at the end of the sentence. So sue me. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Autoflow

First hooks are notoriously problematic. This one seems fine as earlier patents would have been rejected by law (and indeed one was), but I'm opening this to the floor just in case.--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to think this is OK. The source says "The patent grant was made possible by a decision last year by the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals", so at least there's a small window of time in which an earlier software patent might have issued. And apparently this was followed extensively in the industry press, so it's unlikely an earlier one just wasn't noticed. This is mentioned in Martin Goetz, and I also found a bunch of other citations.[1][2][3] RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ scholarship.law.columbia.edu https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1271&context=faculty_scholarship. Retrieved 12 January 2025. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ "Software patents 'a bit of a mess' says Martin Goetz, the first man to get one". the Guardian. Retrieved 12 January 2025.
  3. ^ "June 19, 1968: First software patent awarded to Martin Goetz". Patrick J. McGovern Foundation. Retrieved 12 January 2025.

RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

John Roach (bishop)

@Kingoflettuce, Darth Stabro, and Hilst: Not sure how comfortable I am with this on BLP grounds; while Roach is dead, we don't know if Casey or Schwartz is. There was a suggestion at the nom page of receiving a standing ovation for admitting to his alcoholism and I think we should go with that.--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Casey is dead, cannot find anything for Schwartz.
Perhaps as an ALT1: "... that Archbishop John Roach received a standing ovation at World Youth Day 1993 when he admitted to being an alcoholic?" ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 20:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
There may be some way to work in the drunk driving incident without being too wordy, but I haven't figured one out. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I think the drunk driving aspect would quality for WP:DYKTRIM. If you're alright with the slightly more concise ALT1a: ... that Archbishop John Roach received a standing ovation for admitting his alcoholism?, I'll swap it in.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Sounds good. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Done.--Launchballer 21:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1

Thamirys Nunes/Minha Criança Trans

@Skyshifter, Sammi Brie, and AirshipJungleman29: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation for "an organization dedicated to defending transgender youth".--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Skyshiftertalk 21:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

AGF fine.--Launchballer 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Darryl De Sousa

@Queen of Hearts, Generalissima, and Hilst: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Sigh, done. charlotte 👸♥ 21:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
My concern has been resolved.--Launchballer 21:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Zhao Chongguo

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin: One of the notes needs a citation.--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if the note can just be removed completely. I don't see many readers knowing what the wuwu year is. SL93 (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Pinging nominator Generalissima. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Removed these Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Fine by me.--Launchballer 10:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Burt (crocodile)

@CFA and WikiOriginal-9: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. SL93 (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Fine by me.--Launchballer 10:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2

Donum Montford (nom)

@Generalissima, PCN02WPS, and SL93: both the article and source make it clear that Montford only "likely" purchased his own freedom; the hook needs to be adjusted accordingly. If it fine if I drop a "likely" before "purchased"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Go ahead, apologies. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Star Trucker (nom)

I don't want to restart the kerfuffle we've seen on this page recently, but I'm honestly not sure if this hook violates WP:DYKFICTION. Opinions requested, and courtesy pings @CanonNi, JJonahJackalope, and SL93:. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29:, after reading through the special considerations section of the Did You Know? guidelines, I would probably agree with you that a hook on this article should be more focused on a real-world topic than the current hook is. I apologize for that oversight on my end, just let me know what I should do moving forward with this submission and I await feedback from the nominator. Thanks, -JJonahJackalope (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
While it probably constitutes a violation, it's an entertaining hook that does link to two topics pertaining to real-world physics, namely warp drive and maglocks - which serves our educational purpose. Perhaps we could WP:IAR this one? Gatoclass (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I thought that those two things could count as the real world information. SL93 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Warp drives are definitely fictional. Maglocks, while real, seem very prosaic, at least judging from the linked article; no idea why they were chosen ahead of space suits interestingness-wise. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I meant maglocks and the “look like American semi-trucks from the 1970s?” I just woke up. As for the space suits, I don’t see such a hook suggested. SL93 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, warp drives are fictional, but if you read the article, it includes an entire section on the physics related to the idea. Maglocks might be "prosaic" but I've never heard of them so they tweaked my curiosity. Not sure what your comment about spacesuits pertains to, but everybody knows what a spacesuit is. Gatoclass (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I could add more to the article from the XboxEra source to do this hook ... that Star Trucker "can be as relaxing or sweaty as you like"? SL93 (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, I thought it was a good one. SL93 (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 sorry for the late reply. If the current hook isn't suitable, would something like "... that players of Star Trucker have to control three axes at once?" work? The source would be this article. Thanks. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list hasn’t yet been archived but it has only a few unreviewed noms remaining, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 3. We have a total of 270 nominations, of which 147 have been approved, a gap of 123 nominations that has increased by 11 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Should this be showing up as verified??

Template:Did you know nominations/Oscar Goodman (basketball) is now the second oldest nomination. It was approved some time ago and then debate started about why it wasn't getting promoted. Now that it is at the top of the table, I am noticing it is not showing up as verified. Is it listed incorrectly somehow so that it is not showing as verified?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger The latest icon in the nomination is {{subst:DYK?}} so that puts it in the unapproved section. If someone approved the latest hooks and added {{subst:DYKtick}} then it would be approved again. TSventon (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
As I understand it ALT7 and ALT8 are acceptable, but is there anyone who has the responsibility to review it. User:Sims2aholic8 was the original reviewer who approved it. User:AirshipJungleman29 called it into question. User:Narutolovehinata5 has been the most active discussant. I am not even sure who to ask to give it a positive tick.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
This Kiwi redhead is getting treated like the perverbial a redheaded stepchild (Not making up the phrase you can google "like a redheaded stepchild"). I have heard of American bias. I can list any smoe American basketball player, but this poor redheaded Kiwi can't get no love.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there have been hooks in the past about American sports personalities that have also been questioned due to lack of appeal to non-American readers, so it isn't specifically an anti-American (or pro-American for that matter) bias. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  • For the record, I don't do a lot of international editing, so I don't know if this is unusual here, but in my editing history, I have never written an article and noticed so many editors from a specific country were so interested that they would jump in with editorial corrections before. So many New Zealand editors (User:Alexeyevitch, User:Gadfium, User:Schwede66, User:Panamitsu, maybe User:Lukraun) expressed an interest in the article as editors, that I think WP is showing a lack of ethnic sensitivity by expressing lacked enthusiasm for subjects of interest to smaller (in this case ethnic) interest groups. I would have expected a small but differently concentrated viewership for this article. I suspect clickthroughs would come from Kiwi readers who have a smaller set of opportunities to do so at DYK in general. If this ran and got less than 2k clickthroughs they probably would not be from the common locations, but with a concentration, like the editorship of this article. Is this racist?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Can someone step in with a teaching moment for me. I know this subject is of strong interest to people from New Zealand and New Zealand is a fairly small country (population 5 million). I also believe that New Zealand subjects are probably a bit rare at DYK especially those where the word New Zealand could so easily be included in the hook. I feel such strong expressions of apathy for a subject with a small ethnic interest groups seem to unfair and counter to WP interest in a year when 2025:Wikimania highlights inclusivity. Is WP's 2025 theme of inclusivity something DYK considers with respect to subjects pertinent to small interest groups.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    This isn't about inclusivity or even what country the subject from. It's a simple question of whether or not the hooks proposed are interesting to a broad, non-specialist audience. Consensus in the discussion, unfortunately, is that the proposed hooks are marginally interesting at best. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
    User:Narutolovehinata5 Confirming here. In the subjective assessments that DYK makes, there is no consideration for inclusivity.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    That is a nonsensical interpretation, the most related read of what Narutolovehinata5 said regarding inclusivity would be that DYK hooks strive for maximum possible inclusivity. CMD (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: Does your edit mean that the nomination is closed? AFAICS, most of the 2+ months elapsed was while under the assumption that this was approved and ready to go:
    5 Nov Nominated
    7 Nov Approved
    25 Dec Formally marked for issue follow-up.—Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, I marked the nomination for closure per WP:DYKTIMEOUT and a lack of consensus regarding a hook. WP:DYKTIMEOUT generally refers to unpromoted nominations, though I think it might be better for it to refer to nominations that haven't run, since depending on how the wording is interpreted, promoting then pulling a hook could reset the timer under the current wording. Since the nomination is already over two months old, it was under editor discretion to time it out or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Narutolovehinata5: It seems pretty cutthroat. I could understand if it had an explicit outstanding issue for months. Instead, it was formally approved, but the lack of a promotion for ~2 mos became a stealth unapprove. That's putting the onus on nominators to constantly pester why their approved nomination has not been promoted, for fear a last minute issue will similarly be raised and their nomination will also be killed via timeout. —Bagumba (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    That's why DYKTIMEOUT isn't mandatory, it's editor discretion. There are cases when even if a nomination is already over two months old, it should not be timed out if there's good reason (for example, if discussion or workshopping is still ongoing). For what it's worth, multiple editors had expressed reservations about the hook options, so I took that into account when marking the nomination for closure. Had other editors said that they were willing to salvage the nomination, the closure marking would not have happened. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for the explanation. —Bagumba (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I have replied to the nomination as the original reviewer; personally I think ALT8 is suitable and passes the DYK brief, but if there are still dissenting voices on this I'm happy to hear them out. Otherwise I suggest this be promoted using ALT8. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I personally am okayish with ALT8, but I agree with Hilst that it probably won't do all that well on DYK. Given that they objected to the options, it might be worth hearing their thoughts first (or from other editors) before proceeding with ALT8. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I dislike ALT8 because it's not really a fact specific to Oscar Goodman. You could swap him out for any other player from the under-17 team (or even the coach), and it would still work. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    The article makes it clear that he stands out from other under-15, -16 and -17 athletes by virtue of whenever he is in a large tournament with players his age, he is always one of the best 5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    User:Hilst, see ALT9.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    For the record, I'm also very baffled with the claims that there is an anti-Australia New Zealand bias on DYK or with the nomination, or that rejecting the nomination would harm DYK's "diversity". The concerns regarding interest were independent of the subject being Australian New Zealander, and I imagine if similar concerns existed but the subject was instead, for example, British, such concerns would still remain. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    Australia (population 28 million, the 54th largest nation) is not as underrepresented on DYK and this is not an Australian hook. New Zealand (population 5 million, 125th largest), which is less than 1/5th the size of Australia, and I presume it is underrepresented. That is the issue here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
    I can't verify DYK frequency, but I can extrapolate main page underreprentation by these category sizes Category:FA-Class New Zealand articles (count 57) and Category:FA-Class Australia articles (count 478). So the WP:TFA ratio is probably closer to 1/10 the frequency of Australia, which may or may not be underrepresented relative to the US and UK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Again, the issue isn't an anti-New Zealand or anti-country bias. The question is if there is consensus for a nomination to run. If there are existing concerns or objections, then it can't run. The issues with this nomination have nothing to do with having an anti-New Zealand bias, or wanting to prevent diversity on DYK. On the contrary, a diverse selection of topics is one of the things DYK strives for. But just because we aim for diversity or promoting underrepresented topics on DYK doesn't mean rules and guidelines should be waived or ignored. If a nomination about an underrepresented topic is rejected, it is not due to a bias against that topic, or a desire to prevent diversity, but rather an issue with the article, hook, or nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6

Good Riddance (album) (nom)

@Locust member, Phibeatrice, and SL93: the hook says that the breakup was the only inspiration for the album, but both the lead and body say that it was also inspired by friendships and family. Surely the hook will need rewriting to match the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

The hook doesn’t use the word “only” or “inspired”. The hook is “… that Gracie Abrams wrote Good Riddance about her breakup from her former collaborator and boyfriend, Blake Slatkin” and that is what the song is about. SL93 (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I did not include the word "only" in the hook; I used Slatkin for the hook since it is much more interesting to know an album was written about her ex boyfriend and former collaborator (a notable person) than just friendships and family. Locust member (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
As others have stated, the hooks don’t use the word “only”—and if we’re talking about the insinuation of “only” given that the hooks omit mention of other inspirations, I don’t feel compelled by that either. I believe the hooks are fine as they are in this regard. Phibeatrice (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Ethel Lote (nom)

@Spiderpig662: I wonder if it's worth including the factoid that she only stopped because she couldn't get her foot over the back of her neck. I can't do that and I'm around 20% as old as she was! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: That might be a good idea. Would a consensus be needed before that was added to the hook? Spiderpig662 (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Prius Missile (nom)

@AlphaBetaGamma, Viriditas, Lajmmoore, and SL93: I can't read Japanese, so are we really sure this meets WP:NEOLOGISM? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I would hope so after the long discussion. SL93 (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Looking the title up in Japanese brings up a lot of hits.
Following sources use the subject in its title: [1] [2] [3] [4]
ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 23:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 asks a good and needed question. ABG, I think your sourcing is pretty poor, but the search results you provide show that the term has currency in Japan, particularly in the car industry and related niche sites, so much so, so that it appears that many of your cited sources are in part, a response from the car industry to the trend. So with that said, I think it's clear the term has currency in Japan. There's also the related and associated legal case(s) and general phenomenon of elderly drivers and unintended acceleration (usually involving a Prius) that appears in many related articles, scholarly journals, and news articles. The problem AirshipJungleman29 poses then becomes a bit narrower in terms of Wikipedia. In other words, while the phenomenon and term can be said to exist and are in use, do the sources meet the criteria for inclusion (in other words NEOLOGISM)? The article by Yoshitaka Kimura that you cite, which appears to be an article in an auto industry news site known as "Mediavague" (which I think might be funded by the auto industry to promote their products), argues that the term has been in use since at least early 2019, which establishes that it was a problem for Toyota, and was very real and threatened their business. I think this meets the RS criteria, and it reads as a kind of industry hybrid between Consumer Reports and Car and Driver. Your second link also mentions the Prius Missile but is more of a used car site run by Nextage. I'm not convinced this is a great RS, but we have a lot of others to choose from based on your search results. From there, I see a link to an article by MOTA, which is a car industry trade group, again, likely trying to dispel the internet slang which could harm Toyota's brand. Moving on, I see an interesting blog post about the phenomenon with some detail over "Creative Trends", but I don't think this meets RS. On the other hand, I see an article about the Prius Missile by jidounten lab, which appears to be a respected, reliable auto and tech journalism site. I also see a BuzzFeed Japan article about the term in your results. I think the problem here is that the sources in the current Wikipedia article, while accurate, might need to have better sources added, which I can clearly see in your google search results. Viriditas (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
My horrible attention span may have caused me to misunderstand some parts. I got lost on the last part, were you referring to links in the article or the previous message I sent here? I know it's an annoying question... ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 10:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
It’s really simple. Use the best sources you can find. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I think what Viriditas is saying @AlphaBetaGamma is that you should add some of the other sources (that are reliable) from the google search you linked, into the article since they are missing. Lajmmoore (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I replaced two sources that seem weird. I don't remember citing blogs in this article so I'm confused. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 05:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7 (23 January)

Raul Meza Jr.

@SL93, It is a wonderful world, and Narutolovehinata5: there is substantial WP:CLOP which needs to be resolved before this can run. RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I wrongly assumed that there was something that I was missing when I checked for CLOP because two substantial editors participated in the DYK. I swear to not do that again, and to follow my gut instinct. I will see about fixing it. SL93 (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith I believe that I have taken care of it. SL93 (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I am admittedly a less experienced editor, but are most of these changes needed? Does stating that someone was "sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole" actually violate CLOP? Swinub★ 01:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I would say yes if there is a way to reword it. SL93 (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
What caught my eye was
Records show that he had at least three different stepfathers and three half-siblings by the time he was 15 years old. Meza began using drugs at age eight and was first arrested in 1973 on shoplifting and burglary charges; the following year, he was accused of arson
County and state marriage records show Meza had at least three different stepfathers and three half-siblings before he was 15 years old ... Meza began using drugs at the age of 8 and was first arrested in 1973 on shoplifting and burglary charges ... The following year, the report stated, Meza was accused of arson
That's classic close paraphrasing, which is defined as "superficial modification of material from another source". Once I saw that, I kept looking and found other examples. Yeah, most of the changes were needed. RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I see. I will be more careful about this from now on. Thanks. Swinub★ 01:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't intend to single you out. WP:CLOP is one of our most commonly misunderstood policies. RoySmith (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Robert Yelverton Tyrrell

@SL93, UndercoverClassicist, and Thriley: The hook is, at best, deceptive. He may have spent six weeks at Flynn's School, but he spent four years at Trinity College. RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith Maybe this as a rewording - "...that Robert Yelverton Tyrrell, a professor of classics, spent six weeks at a private school?" or maybe "... that Robert Yelverton Tyrrell, a professor of classics, was mostly home-schooled as a child?" SL93 (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith: this is probably a British-ism, where "school" and "university" are separate: "at school" excludes "at university". We could add "was accepted to university and became a professor of classics" to clarify that distinction? Alternatively, there are two ALTs:
I might add an abbreviated version of ALT1: "... that the classics professor Robert Yelverton Tyrrell tried to get Oscar Wilde released from jail?" Source: Beard, Mary (2002). "Ciceronian Correspondences: Making a Book out of Letters". In Wiseman, Timothy Peter (ed.). Classics in Progress: Essays on Ancient Greece and Rome. Oxford University Press. p. 107. ISBN 0-19-726323-2. (Housman); Stanford, William Bedell (Winter 1978). "Robert Yelverton Tyrrell" (PDF). Hermathena. 125: 17. JSTOR 23040586. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-10-20.} (Wilde) UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I was not aware of that British usage, thanks for that. I'm not opposed to any of those, but maybe the simplest fix would be to say "... six weeks at secondary school". RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
That would work too! UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Done RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1

Joy to the World (Doctor Who) (nom)

@TheDoctorWho and Sammi Brie: the way this article mentions the incident (captioned the poster with "Joy to the Worlds", mirroring the title "Joy to the World") is not entirely clear, especially the word "mirroring". Would it not be better to simply state that the title was misspelled? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Responded with a reword. Hope you don't mind the tweak, TheDoctorWho. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Don't mind at all, was just about to take care of it myself but you beat me to it, thanks! TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2

KZJO (nom)

Needs end of sentence citation. @Sammi Brie, @Bagumba, @AirshipJungleman29. —Kusma (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kusma Done. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie, forgive me if I'm being dense, but don't we need this to be one sentence earlier? —Kusma (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@Kusma Combined the two sentences instead for DYK purposes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
That works! Apologies for the pedantry. —Kusma (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

10 hook sets?

We switched to 9 hooks per set a while ago. That has certainly kept us closer to keeping up with nominations, but we're still falling behind and having to run in 12-hour mode once in a while to keep up. I suggest we try 10 hooks per set and see how that goes. RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Not worth it. The current rate will even out over time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure if one extra hook per set will help much if at all. I do think that more prep builders would help. SL93 (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I do not mind going to 10 hooks a set. If we start running out, we can always return to 9-a-set at a later date. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Nine is already more than enough IMO. Apart from the extra work required in verifying a 10-hook set, it becomes much harder not to repeat topics with longer sets, and longer sets just tend to look cluttered. 12-hour mode has long been a staple of DYK anyhow and one extra hook per set is not going to change that. Gatoclass (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I think we're getting to the point where DYK is at risk of getting so long that hooks won't get the attention they deserve. I'd rather not move to 10 unless the overall backlog situation gets worse. —Kusma (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3

Doug Hamlin (nom)

@Queen of Hearts: The hook fact lacks an end-of sentence citation. —Kusma (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kusma, do you mean in the article? TarnishedPathtalk 10:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath, yes. Thank you for adding it. —Kusma (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
@Kusma no worries. I didn't worry about it when I was promoting the hook because it was at the end of the paragraph anyway. Can't hurt to have it at the end of each sentence though. TarnishedPathtalk 10:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
@TarnishedPath, it is actually a requirement per WP:DYKHFC. —Kusma (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Scientific Research Institute of Medicine of the Ministry of Defense in Sergiyev Posad (nom)

@Le Loy/Ле Лой, @Geni: The lead should be expanded a bit to make the article properly presentable. —Kusma (talk) 08:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kusma, done, please take a look. I got so sick of this institution it took me a while to return to the article. Le Loy (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
@Le Loy: much better, thanks! —Kusma (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Prep 2

Last Song for You

Pinging Prince of Erebor The fifth reference on Last Song for You seems unreliable. Google Translate reveals that it is a WordPress blog. I'm planning on promoting prep 2 when it is ready, and I'm just doing some early checking. SL93 (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey SL93, I believe you are referring to Film Pilgrimage, which should be considered a reliable source because Gary Wong Kwun-ho (王冠豪) is an established film historian and writer with a long career researching on film location scouting and his books are widely cited in this field. (He is also a notable figure that warrants an article, and I have had him on my to-write list for a long time.) So I believe he qualifies as a subject matter expert according to WP:RSPWORDPRESS. (Film articles on zhwiki have also cited Film Pilgrimage for the same rationale.) Also, the article is an exclusive interview with the director and lead actress, discussing the filming locations (which falls within Wong's expertise and does not contain exceptional claims). So I see no issue with citing Wong's piece in this case. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
That’s great. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Arthur Swanstrom

Pinging 4meter4 The Unruh, Delbert (2018). Forgotten Designers Costume Designers of American Broadway Revues and Musicals From 1900–1930 reference was published by Page Publishing. It is a self-publishing company. The source can work if Delbert Unruh received significant coverage over his work. SL93 (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@SL93 You have not actually looked at the article and what sources are physically cited in the article for the hook. Unruh isn't cited in the article for the source. Hischak is for the quote which is from Scarecrow Press. But Hischak oddly excluded Swanstrom from the lyrics credits. That's why I provided two different sources verifying Swanstrom as a co-lyricist of this work when I proposed the hook. One was Unruh, but the same content is also found in Bloom which is the source actually cited for the hook content in the article. Bloom is published by Schirmer Books. There isn't a verifiability issue here.4meter4 (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
4meter4 I never said that the Unruh source was used for the hook. I brought it up just in case because no unreliable sources should be used in articles. If the self-published source doesn't help anything, I fail to see why you want it there. Checking preps is not just about checking hooks. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
SL93 Here is Delbert Unruh's obituary here. He was a full professor of theatre at the University of Kansas where he taught for forty years. He was a Fullbright scholar and was honored by the United States Institute of Theatre Technology and by the Kennedy Center for his work as a theatre scholar and educator. He's clearly a subject matter expert. Given the source is only used to support a single non-controversial sentence in the article I don't think this should be issue. The Internet Broadway Database has the same content, but I think Unruh is a better source to cite given who he is over a database without an attributed author. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
4meter4 That is all that I needed, and you did not need to assume bad faith on my part. You should also know better. Well, it certainly isn't an issue now. SL93 (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I misinterpreted your objection because I had mention Unruh as a supporting source of the hook in my nomination. I didn't realize initially that you were objecting to its inclusion in the article overall. I didn't mean to make you feel attacked or slighted in my comments. Best.4meter4 (talk) 01:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
It's fine. I guess I will be clearer next time. SL93 (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
This has been resolved. SL93 (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Noel Hilliam

I promoted this to prep. Can someone check over it? SL93 (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Are NZ Short Walks and The End is Naenae reliable? Pinging Petersmeter and Schwede66. SL93 (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I've had a look, SL93, and are happy to share my thoughts:
  • NZ Short Walks – that's obviously a blog and I couldn't figure out who the blogger is. Seems a well-informed person but without knowing more about who is doing the blogging, the default position has to be that this isn't a reliable source.
  • The End is Naenae – this is a blog by Dr Anna McMartin, Wikidata Q131787008 (I've made a Wikidata entry for her). She's a reasonably senior civil servant, and the area she's blogging about falls squarely within her professional expertise. I suggest that WP:ACCORDINGTO is appropriate guidance and this content, if presented as McMartin's opinion, is acceptable to be used. And I've just spotted that the same story has been published by North and South; that's a rather well regarded magazine and gives the whole affair a lot of credence. The full story is behind a paywall and if anyone has access to it, that would obviously be preferable to use as a source.
That's at least my 2c. Schwede66 05:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
NZ Short Walks is by Joanne Rolston. She is the author of The Kingdom (ISBN 9780473338923) but appreciate that is fiction. I believe she is working on a book on NZ history - but not yet published. I can't find much about her background/qualification etc. So accept that we have to default to not a reliable source. Petersmeter (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I have removed NZ Short Walks from the article. SL93 (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 5

Loew's Jersey Theatre

@Epicgenius: The newspaper.com link for the restored organ clipping is incorrect. It links to a completely different article. The ProQuest link is fine, though. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs)

@Hilst, thanks for pointing it out. I found the correct clipping and fixed it. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The Hangover (Suzanne Valadon)

@Viriditas, Jonathan Deamer, and AirshipJungleman29: Do we need to include the fact that it "features model Suzanne Valadon and the stylistic influence of Vincent van Gogh"? I don't see what those tidbits add to the hook. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 15:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The model can be cut; I find it interesting that a painting inspired by van Gogh could be found suitable for a nightclub. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
The suggestion of @AirshipJungleman29 sounds good! Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Works for me. Viriditas (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
 Done – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 20:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 4

Du Toit's torrent frog

Olmagon AmateurHi$torian AirshipJungleman29 - How does anyone know that only two people are known to have seen the frog alive? The article even says this about the first discoverer - "He collected three individuals, which would later be studied and recognized as a new species by British biologist Arthur Loveridge in 1935." That would be two people already if those specimens were alive, and that is without mentioning the next discoverer of live specimens named Ronalda Keith. SL93 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@Olmagon: I guess the collected species are presumed to be dead, but is there a source which says that? If there is none, maybe ALT1 can be used instead. -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
SL93, collected specimens are dead. The source clearly says that they were preserved in formalin after their collection in the field. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 Collected specimens are not always dead. As for the source, I only have access to an abstract that didn't answer my question. SL93 (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
See Zoological specimen. If they are not dead and preserved, they are not yet considered specimens. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Not true. Searching "living specimen" and "living specimen meaning" shows otherwise. Cambridge dictionary along with this and this are just three of many examples. Although it doesn't matter now. SL93 (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The source right after mentioning Arthur Loveridge makes it clear that they were preserved. The View Article link originally didn't show up on my screen. I just had to refresh. I'm sorry. SL93 (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I suppose it's always possible that someone saw this frog alive but never reported it or didn't realize it was this species, that's why I specified "known", but I suppose you seem to have solved the issue already without me anyways. Olmagon (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Sitaleshwar Temple

AmateurHi$torian MartinPoulter AirshipJungleman29 - A direct citation is needed after the hook fact. SL93 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

@SL93: Added -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Tokyo Expressway

Mccunicano A citation is needed after "Southbound exit." SL93 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC) @SL93: That's what the Google Maps reference is for at the top of the junction list, but the information also exists within the page linked to the junctions that are to be closed, it's redundant to attach it for a junction that is not impacted by the closures. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 23:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Mccunicano I wrongly assumed that everything in the notes was meant to be sourced to the 6th reference, and I didn't think Google Maps was the best option when another source is available. I came to that conclusion after searching recent discussions about if Google Maps was completely reliable, and I came across WP:GOOGLEMAPS a few minutes ago which revealed to me that it can be used to such a purpose as this. You can remove the citation. SL93 (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 8. We have a total of 271 nominations, of which 156 have been approved, a gap of 115 nominations that has decreased by 8 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6

Caffey family murders

Jolielover Pbritti Hilst Caffey family murders has WP:CLOP issues per Earwig such as "to be tried as an adult" and "All four defendants were initially charged with three counts of capital murder". SL93 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Jolielover Will you be taking care of this? SL93 (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi there, some false positives due to quotations & things such as names of shows the case was featured on. I have paraphrased the rest, hope it works, thanks. jolielover♥talk 02:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Orlando Bagwell

This is my nomination so someone else needs to look over it. @DYK admins: SL93 (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Will take shortly.--Launchballer 15:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
 Done (edit conflict) Hi @SL93: I've taken a look at this and looks good to me. The only thing is, I thought the Career section seemed to be missing coverage from between 1987 and 2012, but then I noticed that was contained in the Filmography section. I've taken the liberty of folding those two into one as that seems to offer a better chronology. It's still a bit on the short side and could do with expansion on more of his career, but fine for a DYK IMHO. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Two football hooks

Queue 6 has two football hooks from the same editor because of moves that happened to accommodate a special occasion hook. Only admins can edit Queue 6 at this point. Just seeing if an admin wants to switch one out for a non-sports hook, or decide that it isn't an issue. @DYK admins: . SL93 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Back to 24 hours?

@DYK admins: As of this moment, we've got five filled queues. If we can fill another two queues before midnight UTC (eight hours from now), we'll keep running 12 hour updates for another three days. Otherwise we're back to 24. RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I've promoted one more, but don't think I'll have time for the last one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm working on Queue 5 right now, so we're good to keep going until 0000 6 Jan UTC. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
And somebody needs to back-fill the holes that got left in Queue 3 after various yankings. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: just to make sure everybody is aware, we're going to extend 12-hour mode (at least) another 3 days now that we have 7 full queues. We do have quite a backlog to dig out of. By my count, we've got 165 approved hooks, and there's another GAN review drive that just started so I expect another big influx of nominations. I expect it'll take us several more 3-day sprints to get back to normal and it'll be less disruptive to keep them going back-to-back vs flitting back and forth between modes. RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
So long as queue 3 is filled by midnight and the two date requests in queues 4 and 5 are suitably kicked back, I have no valid objections.--Launchballer 22:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I filled one of the holes in queue 3. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm getting confused as to where the SOHA hooks need to go; anyone able to get their head around it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
5 and 6 January, but they're already there. Brain fog is brain fogging, clearly.--Launchballer 13:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
As a reminder, WP:DYKSO says The reviewer must approve the special occasion request, but prep builders and admins are not bound by the reviewer's approval. The relevance to this discussion is that keeping the queues running smoothly is a higher priority than satisfying special date requests. I'm all for people putting in the extra effort shuffling hooks around to satisfy SOHA requests, but we can't let "perfect" get in the way of "good enough". It would have been a mistake to force a change to the update schedule because of SOHA. RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

5 January

We need one more queue to get filled in the next 8 hours to keep going with 12 hour mode RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I can take the next one if no-one else does in the next five hours. I'd need more eyes on the Tyler hook though.--Launchballer 16:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Doing, although Glucoboy in prep 6 looks interesting and I might swap it and Tyler to avoid outsourcing. I'll make that decision after in nine articles' time.--Launchballer 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Another six sets of 12 hour mode it is.--Launchballer 00:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

8 January

@DYK admins: We've got about 10 hours left in the current sprint. There's only 4 queues filled right now; unless we get 3 more filled today, we'll go back to 24 hour sets at 0000Z. By my count, we've currently got 156 approved hooks, and there's still that GA backlog drive going on, so I would expect another influx of nominations from that. RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I see you and @Hilst: have queues 1 and 2 in hand. If no-one else does prep 3 in the next four hours, I'll take it.--Launchballer 17:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
I took it. Next decision to be made on 11 January. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

11 January

@DYK admins: we're down to 127 approved hooks, which is great progress, but still above the threshold for another sprint if we can get 4 queues filled in the next 8 hours. RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll take the next one.--Launchballer 15:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I've queued prep 6 and can probably do prep 1 this evening.--Launchballer 17:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I did 7 (which, by the way, was totally clean, which made it easy). RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll take 1 once I've cooked.--Launchballer 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Doing now.--Launchballer 20:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
And the last one's all yours.--Launchballer 21:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm assuming somebody else will step up. This is a team effort. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, would do but am annoyingly indisposed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Someone needs to update User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates as it's protected.--Launchballer 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
OK, I've put us back to 24 hour mode. I think this was the first time we've tried the "3 day sprint" thing and from what I can see, it worked well. We ran for 12 days, knocked the backlog down from (I think) 165 to 128, and always knew where we were. No more panic when the queues ran down to empty. So, good job everybody. I haven't been keeping careful track, but I think Launchballer probably gets the prize for most sets promoted to queue during this.
My guess is we'll need to run some more sprints in the near future as the GA review drive throws more work our way. But for now, we get to stand down and get some more rest. RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

We are now back to a significant backlog. SL93 (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@SL93 We need more @DYK admins: to keep the queues filled, and then we could go back to 12 hour sets. If you're willing to help out in that department, I'd be happy to nominate you for WP:RfA. Or, if you prefer, I could just give you WP:TPE. RoySmith (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith I thought that I needed to meet "The editor should have made at least 150 total edits to the Template and Module namespaces." for TPE. We also don't have that many prep builders so I wouldn't want to stop helping fill preps just so that I could promote them to queues. SL93 (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I see now that template namespace also refers to DYK nominations. I should have figured. SL93 (talk) 02:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Just for the record, I've granted WP:TPE to SL93. It'll be good to have more hands working the queues! RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I hit something of a wall last week after attempting two in a day, but I plan on resuming in the next couple of days.--Launchballer 17:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I do have one question about moving a prep to queue. For example, I promoted two hooks that are in prep 2. Could I still promote those two hooks to a queue and leave a note on the DYK talk page for someone else to check over it? I wouldn't want to promote prep 7 or prep 1 because I filled those preps by myself, but I'm curious about if only a small amount of the hooks were promoted by me. SL93 (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I used to do both preps and queues, and often found myself in this kind of dilemma, so I decided to mostly work one side of the street. But, yeah, when I promote a set to a queue where I've had hands on one or two of the hooks, I'll post a request here for somebody else to look at those. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith I listed Noel Hilliam under the section Prep 2 to have someone look over the article because I promoted it to prep. I wonder if using the @DYK admins template would be acceptable in such a case. SL93 (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't usually bother with the {{dykadmins}}, but it can't hurt. RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
👍 Like. Welcome aboard! —Kusma (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

18 January

If someone can queue Prep 2, we can go to 12-hour backlog mode tomorrow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Queued, currently finishing checks. —Kusma (talk) 16:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
12-hour mode should be activated between midnight and 12:00 noon UTC tomorrow. If nobody has done it by then, I'll flip the switch after I wake up tomorrow. —Kusma (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
The instructions say For a variety of technical reasons, you should only make a change shortly after midnight UTC. I've always assumed that means "sometime before noon", but I'be never been quite sure if there's not more to it than that. RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not sure when the bot does its runs to update User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors, whether that depends on update frequency and how long it takes for the bot to notice a change in updates per day, but I don't really think anything will break if we change the time between updates in the late UTC morning. I wouldn't flip the switch at 11:55, but 8:30 should be pretty safe. —Kusma (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
The last queue I promoted was a few minutes after midnight. I must have caught it in mid-update and confused something because as soon as I saved it, I got the "Oh no, all queues are empty!" warning box (which tankfully turned into something more encouraging shortly after). RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

A friendly reminder that the lead hook of Queue 3 is a special occasion hook that is supposed to run on 26 January. It will have to moved soon: if we don't continue twice a day on 22 January, then it will have to go into Queue 6. If we do continue, then it would need to end up in Prep 2 if we don't again continue on 25 January, or Prep 3 if we continue twice a day on 25 January as well. The key, of course, is to get it out of Queue 3. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

BlueMoonset I took care of it. However, the new first hook in Queue 3 will need to be reviewed by someone else because I promoted it to prep. @DYK admins: SL93 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
 Done. The Silicon Island hook and article look OK to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Edit top section

I tried to correct a grammatical error but this page doesn't seem to edit like others: "go to article's talk page" should be "go to the article's talk page". Al Begamut (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I corrected it at Template:DYK archive header.--Launchballer 21:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Eye-rolling hook in Q5

"* ... that the discontinuation of a Warsaw-based Yiddish literary journal in the summer of 1939 was unrelated to the invasion of Poland?"

If you read the article, you learn that the journal folded due to financial shortcomings and published its last issue on June 30 of that year ... about two months before the Germans invaded. At a time when no one was expecting that to occur, at least not imminently. Hell, if you read the hook and know basic history, your first thought would not be "Well, I'd like to read the article and find out why" but "Whoever would have thought it was?" Just because the war in Europe started on September 1 of that year does not mean every event in Poland that year, especially those prior to that date (save, of course, the Gleiwitz incident) must automatically have something to do with it.

Put it this way: it would be like a hook saying that the cancellation of an American TV show that happened to occur in spring 2001 was "unrelated to 9/11".

I could understand, perhaps, if the sources showed that it was a common perception that the journal had been shut down due to the invasion. But they do not appear to. We do appear to have one source offhandedly saying this, but purely on its own. That's the sort of thing that really shouldn't have made it into the article because of SYNTH-y ness like this. Pinging @AirshipJungleman29: (reviewer) and @Generalissima: (creator, who in fairness did say during the nomination that they were open to alternate hook ideas. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there was a much higher volume of Yiddish literature curtailed in Poland after the Nazi invasion than there were American TV shows cancelled after 9/11 also, the invasion happened in the summer, so your comparison doesn't even make sense Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
While you are technically correct that the invasion happened in the summer, in the sense that it was prior to the September equinox, Yidishe Bleter published its last issue a full two months before then, when no one was anticipating an imminent German invasion.
And otherwise your attempt to claim my comparison "doesn't make sense" itself does not make sense, because it misses the point: there is no rational way anyone would believe that an event that occurred in a year known for a tragic, world-altering event that no one anticipated would have anything to do with that event if it occurred some time before that event. Better comparison, perhaps: "While many people believe Neil Peart died of COVID, that is not the case" (although frankly given that he died very early in a year mostly marked by the pandemic, that would be a more forgivable misconception. Daniel Case (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3 (26 January)

It Was on a Friday Morning

@SL93, Extraordinary Writ, and Staraction: this hook seems misleading. If Im following the ariticle correctly, the fight to get the hymm removed ran on for years, so to say it was "removed from the hymnal within 24 hours" is dubious. RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that it is misleading. The hook is ".. that a U.S. government official ordered that "It Was on a Friday Morning" be removed from a hymnal within 24 hours?" which is a true statement. It does not say it was removed within 24 hours. Per "On July 9, the chief chaplain of the Veterans Administration, James Rogers, issued a memorandum ordering: "Hymn No. 286 shall be removed from all new Books of Worship within 24 hours." SL93 (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I don't really see how "ordered that it be removed within 24 hours" can be read as anything other than "within 24 hours of the order". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Posting here to note that I've seen this conversation; I agree with SL93 and Extraordinary Writ that ordered "It Was on a Friday Morning" removed from the hymnal within 24 hours? (emphasis mine) makes the action the order, not the actual removal. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

What I can't promote

The nominations that I have participated in and that are not being promoted is getting longer. Here is a list of the oldest ones needing promotion.

Template:Did you know nominations/2019 NFC Divisional Playoff game (Seattle–Green Bay)
Template:Did you know nominations/Science Fiction Chronicle
Template:Did you know nominations/Their Highest Potential: An African American School Community in the Segregated South
Template:Did you know nominations/The Scarecrow (children's book) SL93 (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Always happens when one person takes on most of the promoting load—I should know. Thanks for directly identifying them, I'll take care of them. Ping me if you need the same sort of help in the future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I will be sure to. SL93 (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Sticking to either prep building or queue promotion (but not both) avoids this kind of conflict. It's not a rule, just something that I've found which makes my life simpler. RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I will stick to queue promotions for the most part now. Hopefully, we get more prep builders once we enter a crisis mode of empty preps. SL93 (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1

Sam Kee Building

@Yue, Jeromi Mikhael, and Hilst: Article and hook attribute, source doesn't.--Launchballer 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It does. "With distinctive bay windows that expand the floor space of the second storey, the Sam Kee Building was recognized by Guinness World Records as the narrowest commercial building in the world." SL93 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Forgot to add the CBC source used in the nomination to the sentence in the body, but it also attributes appropriately: "The structure at 8 West Pender Street is also the world's narrowest commercial building, according to the Guinness Book of World Records." Yue🌙 22:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
The sources both attribute Guinness but don't use quotes. We shouldn't either.--Launchballer 22:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
We should when it's not paraphrased from the source. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I used quotation marks because they're titles made up by Guinness. Not opposed to removing them either way though. Yue🌙 08:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Pantropiko

@AstrooKai, SL93, and Royiswariii: As far as I can tell, the promoted hook was explicitly rejected on interestingness grounds, and I think quite rightly.--Launchballer 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

That's true. I only approved the first hook. SL93 (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I swapped it with Sympathy Is a Knife.--Launchballer 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Liang Sishun

@TheLonelyPather and Toadspike: The hook is contradicted elsewhere in the article; it says she published the book "in 1908, when she was sixteen years old" but the article claims she was born in 1893, which would make her 14 or 15.--Launchballer 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer I'm guessing this is down to East Asian age reckoning, which adds a year or two. Toadspike [Talk] 19:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is not an error, and the hook can run as-is. However, we can also add a footnote to the article clarifying the Chinese age counting system once TLP has confirmed that the dates and ages accurately reflect the sources. Toadspike [Talk] 19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I think adding a footnote would be an excellent idea.--Launchballer 19:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I support a footnote. SL93 (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer@Toadspike@SL93 Thank you all for catching this. I will double check and get back in 24 hours. In case I cannot find East Asian age reckoning, I can also change the hook to include her year of birth. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer@Toadspike@SL93 I checked my sources and it turns out that only Liu 2016 mentions that the book was published when Liang was sixteen years old. The 1908 date is confirmed by another source. To avoid overcomplicating things for the reader, I removed the mention of the phrase sixteen years old. Now, may I suggest a new hook based on WP:CALC:
  • ... that Liang Sishun published a Chinese poetry anthology in 1908, when she was about fifteen years old?
Thank you all for your detailed attention. Cheers, --The Lonely Pather (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
That looks good to me. Toadspike [Talk] 08:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Sounds good. SL93 (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Eoscorpius

@An anonymous username, not my real name and Ornithoptera: Where's the hook?--Launchballer 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"Eoscorpius was placed in the newly erected family Eoscorpionidae by American paleontologist Samuel Hubbard Scudder in 1884. While other experts of the time, such as Ben Peach, considered the genus to be hardly different from modern scorpions, Scudder believed that it was sufficiently distinct to warrant the creation of a new family." SL93 (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@SL93, for some reason, this hook wasn't picked, even though Ornithoptera explicitly preferred it. Is it possible to change it? — Anonymous 19:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
ALT1 is fine by me. I wasn't sure if there was a preference because both hooks were approved. SL93 (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
"British geologist Ben Peach expressed regret that the name Eoscorpius was given to a genus so similar to modern scorpions, speculating a much earlier origin for scorpions as a group." for ALT1. "Ben Peach, considered the genus to be hardly different from modern scorpions" for ALT0. SL93 (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I got thrown by the word "extreme". I didn't see ALT1 in the nom as it wasn't properly labelled, and I think "criticism" is slightly stronger than the source and article.--Launchballer 22:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer, is there another word you would prefer? The source indicates that Peach publicly indicated his displeasure (however mild) with the chosen name, which seems like enough to constitute criticism (even if it's not the most severe). I don't think readers will be shocked and upset to find out that Peach didn't go as far as to leave a scathing review of the scorpion's naming. — Anonymous 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Frankish Tower (Acropolis of Athens)

@UndercoverClassicist and Zeete: Article and hook attribute, source doesn't.--Launchballer 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It's in the St. Clair source, cited in both: "Among those who contributed to the debate in the local Athenian press was L. Kaphtantzoglou, who described the tower as Turkish, and compared it to the droppings of birds of prey.". This is Lysandros Kaftanzoglou, who was a Greek academic. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
It does. "Was everything built on the Acropolis between ancient and modern Hellas to be regarded as a temporary intrusion? Among those who contributed to the debate in the local Athenian press was L. Kaphtantzoglou, who described the Tower as Turkish, and compared it to the droppings of birds of prey." I had to scroll down to page 494 because the search option didn't work. SL93 (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
What I meant was that the source attributes Kaphtantzoglou but does not uses quotes, and we shouldn't either.--Launchballer 22:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I think I have written enough on Wikipedia, and written enough essays, to know that quotes are used for direct statements that are not paraphrased. That avoids a copyright issue. SL93 (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer: Ah, I see -- I'd agree with removing the quote marks (and will do so in the article); it's quite likely that he actually wrote "owl-shit" or something similarly (un)printable. I don't think that creates any WP:CLOP concern, as there's no real way to rephrase the quote more than trivially without losing WP:TSI. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about that, but it is an easy fix if someone complains. SL93 (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Is "bird poo" too lowbrow for the main page, I wonder? UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2

long-legged lovebird

Di (they-them) Cremastra Hilst I don't see why "humanity's cradle" was used rather than "Cradle of Humankind". SL93 (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I just used a descriptive phrase rather than the actual title to create intrigue. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I feel about using a descriptive phrase for it, but I will see what others think. SL93 (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Just a fancy form of a name that was pretty poetic in the first place. Some wordplay is allowed. Cremastra (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Either one is fine by me. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. SL93 (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

1453

Generalissima EchetusXe The article says "in late 1452 or early 1453", but the hook says "in 1453". SL93 (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Rephrased the article portion a bit - the eruption may have occurred in either year, but the cooling occurred in 1453. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
That works for me. SL93 (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Actually, just to be less ambiguous, it'd be nice if an admin could rephrase it to '... that in 1453, a "mystery eruption" cooled the Northern Hemisphere?' to make it clear the eruption wasn't necessarily in 1453. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Done. SL93 (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Limits of being involved

I promoted Queue 4 earlier today. Full disclosure: I was the GA reviewer for Science Fiction Literature Through History: An Encyclopedia. I do not remember whether that technically disqualifies me from queuing; if it does, can someone else double check this one? —Kusma (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me, though very possibly worth trimming "topics not typically associated with science fiction, such as" per WP:DYKTRIM. I think WP:DYKRR's "nor may you review an article if it's a recently listed good article that you either nominated or reviewed for GA" at least implies the need for another review; possibly worth spelling out.--Launchballer 15:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
The article has been reviewed by QPQer and prepper and I am taking responsibility by signing my name, so I don't think I should be disqualified from queuing. I think the hook works better with the explanation. —Kusma (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
I think that the two examples make it more interesting of a hook. SL93 (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

DYK's use of the T: pseudo-namespace

There is currently a proposal (Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to prohibit the creation of new "T:" pseudo-namespace redirects without prior consensus) to fully deprecate the T: pseudo-namespace. A significant chunk of the remaining T: pages (Special:PrefixIndex/T:) are related to DYK, including the main T:DYK redirect and redirects to all the preps and queues. Some of these are directly referred to in our Template:DYKbox, and in places such as the Wikipedia:Did you know/Prep builder instructions. I've !voted to exclude DYK from the proposed sunsetting, but perhaps we should also think of switching to using TM: shortcuts as standard. CMD (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's an odd historical quirk. T:DYK/P and Template:DYK/P are both old redirects to different places. CMD (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Is there any way to tell how often a redirect is used? pageview analysis doesn't seem to do anything useful for those two; I assume the numbers it's reporting are how often the page is actually rendered for viewing, exclusive of being processed as a redirect. RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Unfortunately WikiNav doesn't seem to work for them. I will say both have very few What links here incoming links. Looking at those I found User:Uanfala/sandbox/T pseudonamespace shortcuts, which also notes T:DYKT and Template:DYKT go to different targets, and those are much more in use, albeit the second mostly in a transclusion. CMD (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I think this includes the views of target through the redirect. Generally the /P redirects have not a lot of views [5] (under 20/month except for a short time three years ago) so slowly deprecating them might not hurt us too much. First step: Update the Wikipedia:Did you know/Prep builder instructions to no longer recommend these redirects as part of the edit summary. (As most promotions are done using PSHAW which uses the full page title, they do not get used very much). —Kusma (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I only today created the Template: alternative redirects for the preps and queues, so I'm not sure we have agreement to shift yet. There's some odd ones and I created a couple I probably shouldn't have. There are some I didn't replicate, for example, T:DYK/PE seems to be an ancient hangover from when there were just three preps. CMD (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion at VPR looks like it's cruising to a snow close in support of phasing out T. The current discussion is just about not creating any new T entries, but the handwriting is on the wall that T will eventually go away completely so we should be moving in that direction. RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
That was my thought in creating the redirects. It also seemed in the DYK spirit, reflecting all our tools being prepped for a move out of template space. CMD (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
A more complete list of hangers about that might be worth cleaning up somehow:
CMD (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Intuitively I'd expect the desired redirects to be not TM ones but something like TT:TDYK Astonishingly, that gets you to some page written in Cyrilic. RoySmith (talk) 20:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
TT: is the Tatar Wikipedia. But [[mos:]] is not the Mossi Wikipedia; you need m:mos: to go there because of enwiki-specific reasons. —Kusma (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't see a problem in recommending the new prep shortcuts from Day 1, so I updated the instructions. —Kusma (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
And I've updated Template:DYKbox RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis I tried to nominate T:DYK/N, T:DYK/NN, and T:DYK/PE for deletion, but Twinkle barfed on it with "Notifying redirect target of the discussion: Template talk:Did you know/Preparation area 3 is a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia talk:Did you know, aborted" :-) RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh my. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 August 6#Ancient names for DYK prep areas RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
The ancient texts! Well if they must be kept we should probably direct them to a help page listing history, as they as said in the nomination do not make sense. I also found Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 15#T:tdyk. CMD (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I, for one, am in the habit of using T:DYK to find unreviewed nominations to review and to reach the nomination page for making new nominations. This won't show in incoming links because I don't follow a link; that's what I type in the URL bar of my browser. I guess this would mean I have to remember some other alphabet soup with even more letters to get there instead. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

You're a smart guy. I'm sure you'll be able to learn to type one more letter. RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
There is currently no proposal to outright delete these shortcuts, we just stop promoting them and do not add new ones. I expect we will keep them for at least a couple of extra years. —Kusma (talk) 11:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
After which I predict we'll have this conversation all over again. RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't dare to predict whether it will be before or after the next conversation about DYK being in the wrong namespace. —Kusma (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

2/day

I have just activated 2/day, 12-hour set backlog mode. Hope a few people can pitch in and help promote hooks to prep and preps to queue so we can do this without burning out anyone. —Kusma (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

There are only five queues filled after the midnight promotion was made, so it's time to go back to 1/day, 24-hour set backlog mode. Pinging @DYK admins: so that this can be done in the next few hours. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, is the current rule that we only do 12-hour sets for three days at a time? I must have missed that change, but I'll trust BlueMoonset to be on top of it.  Done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
It doesn’t seem like a good idea with 135 approved nominations. It also looks like we will have to go back to two sets a day again soon. SL93 (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
IIRC the three day cut off was put in place to ensure the rate was reduced before admins (and now template editors?) burnt out. Being able to trigger it a second time quickly is I believe part of the intended design, dependent on there being filled preps and queues that show that volunteers have not yet burnt out. CMD (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thanks for the information. SL93 (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I pushed for the 3-day rule exactly to prevent burnout. Previously, our only criteria for mode change was how many noms were stacked up in the approved pile. So we'd start doing 12-hour sets and quickly run the queues empty with nobody willing to put in the work to keep it going. Now at least we find out if we've got the work capacity to handle it without getting to the crisis stage of zero queues filled.
Informally, I think flitting back and forth between modes is a bad idea because it complicates the job of people trying to schedule special occasion hooks. I'd rather see us stay in 12-hour mode for a bunch of consecutive cycles, but not at the cost of running the queues down to zero. RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I've done one, though I notice that PSHAW hung when I clicked the button - pinging @Theleekycauldron:. The next one has one of mine in it; will do the other eight if no-one else does in the next three hours.--Launchballer 19:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: We now have seven filled queues, which means we head back to 2-a-day. An admin needs to update User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates - or better yet, unprotect it so I can have at it. The two date requests, for 26 and 28 January, are in queue 2 (at least 26 January morning) and prep 6.--Launchballer 22:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I do not think we should unprotect the bot controls like the Time Between Updates. The change to that page should happen after midnight UTC (otherwise the bot will update DYK immediately). I can do it in the morning if nobody has got to it by then. —Kusma (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Kusma; unprotecting the bot controls would be unwise. I expect to be around shortly after 0000 UTC; I'll take care of it. RoySmith (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, one could change it from full to template protection. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
That seems inadvisable when template protection users seem ready to change the file at the wrong time. Leave it for the admins. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not just that. If an admin screws up editing that page, they can fix whatever mess the bot will make. Template editors can't. —Kusma (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
PSHAW also hung when I tried to do a set yesterday... regarding flitting back and forth, I think that's far better than just ploughing on regardless. I would oppose removing the 3-day cut-off. Remember that burnout might not only lead to unfilled queues, it might lead to a reduction in the thoroughness of the admin checks and we want to give people a breather. It seems like the process for moving special occasion hooks around is not so onerous? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: It's been three days and we're on two queues, so we rotate to 1-a-day.--Launchballer 00:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Done. RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
The Artur Bubnevych hook in Prep 6 is a special occasion hook for January 28 (the day of his consecration as bishop), and will need to be moved to Queue 4; swapping a hook from Queue 4 with it is probably the easiest way of accomplishing this. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Prep 1

Shouldn't the name "Julius Caesar" be wikilinked? The AP (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

And someone might consider bold linking only "named" instead of "is named after" The AP (talk) 13:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
@TheAstorPastor: "Julius Caesar" has not been wikilinked as that would probably result in a lot of readers clicking on Julius Caesar rather than your article. Ideally they click on your article and then on Julius Caesar if they want more background. I think "is named after" is fine, "named after" would also be possible. TSventon (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 12. We have a total of 288 nominations, of which 169 have been approved, a gap of 119 nominations that has increased by 4 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Prep 6 Queue 6

I am confused by the bishops hook credits in prep 6. Only Diocese of Banias and Adam of Acre are in the DYKmake credits, but not John (bishop of Banyas). The John article's talk page shows the wrong DYK of Template:Did you know nominations/Ernesius which is in prep 2. The Ernesius article talk page also has the nomination that is in prep 2. Pinging Surtsicna SL93 (talk) 15:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

It's my fault, SL93. I first nominated Ernesius alongside John, but then changed it to have Ernesius alone and John alongside Adam and Banias. Obviously I did not execute it as neatly as I thought. Surtsicna (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I added John (bishop of Banyas) to the credits in prep 6. SL93 (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I am confused by this hook:

I understand that as saying the Green Bay packers had a total of nine home victories in twenty years. That is hooky, but incorrect: the article says they won nine straight home games against the Seahawks. The hook could equally mean "nine Football Conference victories", but I had no idea that the count would involve the Seahawks. Can this be clarified? Ping Gonzo fan2007, Launchballer, AirshipJungleman29. —Kusma (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Kusma, check out the nomination. I think my original hook was much clearer and still hooky. This was proposed and I accepted it to get it across the finish line. That said, still prefer the original hook. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
The original hook was tagged as not interesting and confusing per Launchballer. I hope that a new hook can be thought of here because I would hate for this nomination to be stalled for longer. SL93 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
I personally found the original hook more interesting than the current one, which like Kusma I find a bit confusing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Can we try to reorder this to clarify and simplify? For example we could use this?

Or a variation of that? The original hook would also work better than what we have now. —Kusma (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I am fine with whatever. That said, I prefer the original and did not necessarily agree with the reviewer that it wasn't hooky, but trying to be more 'go with the flow' at DYK. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll go with my version, just because it doesn't repeat "Packers". Happy to adjust if someone has better ideas. —Kusma (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
@Kusma @Gonzo fan2007: One could also read that as Green Bay winning at home for the ninth consecutive time, but only the ninth time was against Seattle. Consider:
... that the Green Bay Packers defeated the Seattle Seahawks at home for the ninth consecutive time in the 2019 NFC Divisional playoff game?
Hopefully that conveys nine straight wins, all at home, all vs. Seattle. —Bagumba (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
This has now been queued by Ganesha811. I think my version is clear enough, but we could reorder to "ninth home victory agaist the Seahawks in a row".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kusma (talk • contribs) 11:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
@Kusma: Having "in a row" separated from "ninth home victory" somehow sounds strange to me. But I'm no grammar expert. —Bagumba (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

One filled queue

@DYK admins: We are now down to one filled queue. I would love to promote preps to queues, but I have built most of the sets because not many people care to promote hooks to prep. Just like apparently not many admins/template editors care to promote preps to queues. I don't think it's burnout with so many people who can just chip in with two queues or even just one. SL93 (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Fennec fox

The nominator was indefinitely blocked and given a community ban (see the linked discussion in the nom page for details). The nomination however remains open. Is anyone willing to adopt the nomination as it was passed as a GA and the GA pass stood, or should it be closed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Gone. RoySmith (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Mark Hearld

The current hook in Queue 5 was a last minute one that didn't make it in time for Christmas. It is quite boring. Would it be possible to replace it with something close to this:

Thriley I have changed it. SL93 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! Thriley (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Three Hennepin Avenue Bridge hooks

I noticed that there's three Hennepin Avenue Bridge hooks set to run soon. They're all on different incarnations of bridges over the Mississippi River at Minneapolis, but perhaps someone more acquainted with DYK can say if this will be an issue going forward because I personally think one could arise. Courtesy links:

All active, two approved, one by me before I spotted the others or perhaps before they were added. None have been promoted to a prep yet. If we want to double down on the problematic aspect to overcome it, perhaps they can all be run on a single set (with year disambiguators present) as I know (or at least think) DYK has done in the past. Departure– (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I created/expanded these over time and really didn't really anticipate that I would have had time to work on and nominate them all in such a short span - but also a long enough span apart that they wouldn't be a single nomination. I'd like them to be separate hooks as they're all independently interesting, but as you suggested I think having clearly different names in the boldlink would be good. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Also fine with some sort of delayed running of the hooks so that they don't all run within a couple weeks of each other. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
I misread your initial proposal - having them all in the same set would be great, though I would not like to combine them into one hook. Though, if we do something like that, I could try to whip up an article for the last of the four bridges (though also the least significant) it a four hook combo would be fine... ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 19:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
This sort of thing is virtually never done, and I wouldn't be in favor of it here. A single multi-article hook would be fine; three hooks in one set about different incarnations of a bridge is against all of the guidelines about set balance, and there doesn't appear to be anything enormously special about these bridges that would warrant such special treatment. These three nominations should be run separately and with many days between each hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
That would be my general thought as well, combined with giving the bridges as unique of link titles as possible, as I've already attempted to do. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 05:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, folks have done sets for a single topic (Christmas, Halloween, fear, Olympics, etc.) but not a single subject. I think there was a really negative reaction when all the main page sections had content about the Queen of England but cannot remember the exact details. I would prefer running these hooks really spaced out to trying to cram them into one set. Rjjiii (talk) 05:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
There was also another case of a set being based around a relatively obscure religious feast a few years ago that also got a lot of pushback after it happened. The reaction was so bad that I think it actually led to the current guidelines regarding themed sets (i.e. they can only happen with prior consensus, unless they're for established occasions like Christmas). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7 (31 January)

Lilium nobilissimum

@SL93, Ornithoptera, and Cremastra: The article states the name denotes the sleeves which were used to hold the lily .... Why did this get turned into may refer to the sleeves... in the hook? RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith I based it off of "There are two theories as to how the lily had received its name, one being that due to its native habitat being that of steep cliffs, the only way one could reliably transport them home was placing the bulbs in their kimono's sleeve pouches (袂, tamoto) while scaling the sea cliffs,[9][7][4][1][11] and the other was that the native habitat was close to a locale called Tamotogaura (袂ケ浦).[5][12]" Would fixing that first sentence in the lead solve the issue? SL93 (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, if you could update the lead to match what it says in the main article, that would be good, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Done. SL93 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Ann McMillan

@AirshipJungleman29, Miraclepine, and Surtsicna: I don't understand this hook. Why is "playing" in quotes? Where does this appear in the article? RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

See note a); playing is in quotes because you can't really "play" a tape recorder except in this one context. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 Oh, you absolutely can - see Martin Swope/Mission of Burma. Black Kite (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
What about

Henry A. Henry

@AirshipJungleman29, Ploni, and AmateurHi$torian: there's a fair bit of WP:CLOP from opensiddur.org. I'm honestly unsure what to do here. The source says it's CC0 in one place, but I'm not sure if that also applies to the sections from which we paraphrased. And even if it does, I think our policy is that we need to attribute it in some way even if the CC0 source doesn't require that. Somebody who understands our copyright policy better than I do should look at this. RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging Primefac as someone who may know the answer. SL93 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  • The article in question (Henry A. Henry) doesn't actually cite OpenSiddur anywhere; a link from it is used in the Publications section. The OpenSiddur link does have a bio at the bottom seemingly copied from the Jewish Encyclopedia article.  Ploni💬  05:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  • CC content absolutely needs to be attributed in some way, usually with {{Cc-notice}}; it didn't just appear from the ether, and indicates where the content came from. Primefac (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1

Science Fiction Chronicle

I approved the promoted hook. Can someone double check the nomination? Thanks in advance. SL93 (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @DYK admins: . SL93 (talk) 02:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Not a DYK admin, but for what it's worth, the nomination looks good to me. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Chauburji (Agra)

Pinging AmateurHi$torian The hook says, "... that the Chauburji might have been the Mughal emperor Babur's original burial place? The article says, "is considered to be the original burial place of the first Mughal emperor Babur." It doesn't match. SL93 (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

"Ram Nath identifies it with the Chaukhandi within the gardens named Bagh-i Zar Afshan, which is considered to be the original burial place of the first Mughal emperor Babur." A building called the "Chaukhandi" is considered to be the original burial place of Babur. Now, whether Chauburji is the Chaukhandi, is disputed, hence "might". -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
I missed that. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

List of things named after Julius Caesar

Should the hook "that the month of July is named after the Roman dictator Julius Caesar?" be changed to "that the month of July is named after the Roman dictator Julius Caesar?" The AP (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

pinging @Ravenpuff:, @AirshipJungleman29:, @SL93: as they were involved with the hook The AP (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
The current link text is effectively the clearest and most unambiguous option we have, as per the guidance at MOS:MORELINKWORDS. A longer link also helps to draw the attention of readers and leaves no doubt as to the target article. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 18:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
+1 this is especially important for accessibility reasons. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Darren Moore

The current hook of "... that Darren Moore's Sheffield Wednesday were promoted even after they lost the first leg of their play-off semi-final 4–0?" seems like it wouldn't make much sense to non-fans. The hook "... that Darren Moore (pictured) led Sheffield Wednesday to promotion after they lost their play-off semi-final first leg by a four goal margin?" makes more sense, but I think that it should be made clear in the hook that Sheffield Wednesday is an association football club. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging EchetusXe SL93 (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
I would agree with you. I tried to make it more understandable to non-fans rather ahead of being concise. I think the best solution for either hook would be to say "football manager Darren Moore..." ? EchetusXe 09:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Done. SL93 (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Prep 3

Wanted to tag Bunnypranav on this one. You probably should not be running more than one broadcasting hook from me per set. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I just brought one of them forward before realising that there are now four in four sets. I'll do some more rearranging later this evening.--Launchballer 18:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: I rearranged the sets so that they run every two sets - they're inoffensive enough that this should be enough of a gap but this can be revisited if we go to 2-a-day. (As far as I'm aware, there's no rule preventing me from moving one of my own from a queue back to a prep.) Unless I'm missing something, the picketing hook mentions one lead anchor but the article and source mention two.--Launchballer 01:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer Reg Miller was fired outright. Laurel Sauer was only demoted (but removed from the evening newscasts all the same). Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 04:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
That should be added to the article.--Launchballer 04:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
I've done this. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Apologies @Sammi Brie for missing distribute the hooks,and thanks Launchballer for doing the needful. I'll look more at the subject of the page before promoting to preps. Thanks for bringing it up! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Eunos MRT station

I apologise if this is the wrong place to ask this question but can someone change the hook for this article? AmateurHi$torian and I have decided to submit ALT3 instead of ALT0, which is seen in the review. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 10:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Icepinner I can't do that because a reviewer cannot approve their own hook. What I can do is reopen the nomination for someone else to review ALT3. SL93 (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
@Icepinner @SL93: I think we can temporarily remove the hook and revert the promoted close. That'll add back it to the queue for someone else to review the new/diff hook. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
I plan on doing that if Icepinner wants to. I just thought I should check first because it is such an old nomination. SL93 (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bunnypranav@SL93 nevermind, I don't think it's worth the hassle. Even though ALT3 is better than ALT0, ALT0 is good enough for a DYK. Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2). Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 01:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2 (2 February)

Tomoko Aran

  • ... that Tomoko Aran, despite her unsuccessful 1980s singing career, became a city-pop icon in the 2010s?

I have concerns about the use of "unsuccessful 1980s singing career" here... This appears to be a violation of WP:DYKHOOK because the word "unsuccessful" (or indeed "success") doesn't appear anywhere in the article, and while the article talks about her career in the 1980s in general terms, there is no part of the text which can directly translate to us saying her having 1980s singing career was unsuccessful. On another note, I'd also question whether the article supports the assertion that she's a "city-pop icon", stated directly as a fact in WP:WIKIVOICE. The prose says "both the Manila Bulletin and Robert Moran of The Age considering her iconic in the genre", but that's not the same as saying she's an unambiguous and widely-recognised "icon". Would be better to just say that she was described thus I'd have thought. Pinging @Miraclepine, Cukie Gherkin, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Amakuru I added a sentence to the article about being referred to as a city pop icon with two references. I suggest this from the nomination - ... that singer Tomoko Aran became a city pop icon decades after her initial music career? SL93 (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Great, that works for me. Amended accordingly. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
@SL93: the wording should be city-pop icon, not city pop icon per the compound modifier guidelines at MOS:HYPHEN. When I first read this I thought it means a pop icon from the city, rather than an icon from the genre of city pop, so the distinction is important here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Amakuru I understand. SL93 (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Taur Ikhbeineh

  • ... that archaeologists found evidence at Taur Ikhbeineh in the Gaza Strip of interactions between Egyptians and Canaanites in the 4th millennium BC?

@Richard Nevell, Vice regent, and SL93: maybe a slightly minor point, but it's worth dotting our is and crossing our ts... I assume the hook refers to the sentence in the body which says "the earliest occupation layers at Taur Ikhbeineh included evidence of Egyptian and Canaanite cultures interacting". However, this doesn't directly mention the 4th millennium BC. I gather that this should be true because two paragraphs above we're told that the period of occupation was the 34th century BC, but per WP:DYKHOOK it really needs to be directly stated and the source used needs to directly say this in all its aspects. Does the source for this fact directly mention the time period in which the Egyptians and Canaanites interacted there? If so, please update the sentence in the article to make this clear (Also, as an aside, the citation should be at the end of the sentence containing the hook as well as at the end of the paragraph, at least until the DYK is done-and-dusted, them is the rules!) Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Amakuru I will see what I can do later today if no one else gets to it. SL93 (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I've made the statement about the date more explicit in the Wikipedia article (and doubled up the reference). Does that fix it? Richard Nevell (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
@Richard Nevell: that's great, thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Ernesius

  • ... that Ernesius, a 12th-century archbishop of Caesarea, was once prevented from crossing the Mediterranean by such a severe storm that he refused to make a second attempt?

Morning @Surtsicna, Arbitrarily0, and SL93: - just noting that the article doesn't mention the "Mediterranean" anywhere. It's also not clear where the ship was trying to sail to and where exactly it encountered a storm. It would be good to add that detail, but at the very least the hook needs to be explicitly in the article and explicitly cited. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The reviewer proposed naming the Mediterranean and we agreed that "the Mediterranean" is essentially WP:CALC as the ship sailing from Syria to Europe has no other sea to cross. I am fine with not naming the Mediterranean. The article says that the ship was sailing to Europe. I thought it was clear that the storm was in the vicinity of Acre, but I suppose that can be made more explicit. Surtsicna (talk) 09:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure anymore if CALC works for this. It doesn't mention geographic features. Either way, I don't think it would hurt to add the Mediterranean. I personally would if it was brought up. SL93 (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Indeed. The article implies that the ship was sailing from Acre to some unspecified destination. It's not within the scope of WP:CALC to say that a storm on such a journey was definitely in the Mediterranean. If the origin and the destination were explicitly named, for example Acre to Marseille, then maybe that would be OK... but as SL93 says, even then it doesn't hurt to be explicit. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Surtsicna Can you update the article to address the issue? SL93 (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
@Amakuru @SL93 They encountered a storm two days after they set off from Acre. Acre is on the Mediterranean cost and they could not have reached any other sea within two days. It literally could not be any other sea. If it is a problem to mention "the Mediterranean" because it is not explicitly named in the article, then surely it is a problem to mention "the Mediterranean" in the article because it is not named in the cited source. As far as I am concerned, the sea does not need to be named in the hook either. Surtsicna (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: since you've said the sea doesn't need to be named, and it's running tomorrow, I've changed Mediterranean to simply crossing the sea. Hope that is OK. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 21. We have a total of 300 nominations, of which 172 have been approved, a gap of 128 nominations that has increased by 9 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 4

Julier Pass

@SL93, Toadspike, and Vigilantcosmicpenguin: the image used is not great quality and mostly looks like a grey blob at small size. Why don't we go with File:Julierpass Columns Füssli.tif instead? RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith I have no problem with that. Toadspike [Talk] 16:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
OK, I've dropped that in. It's still not wonderful, but I think it's an improvement. I would be great if we could find something even better. RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
@Toadspike @RoySmith What do you think of File:Julierpass, Switzerland (6011000466).jpg (best, imo) or File:Julierpass, Switzerland (30271398622).jpg? If you want to picture both columns, the best I've found is File:Julierpass Säulen (cropped).jpg, but it's less high-res. Cheers! YuniToumei (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
I know this is going to sound weird, but File:Julierpass Columns Füssli.tif is starting to grow on me. I appreciate the effort put into finding these alternatives, but I'm thinking we should just stay with what we've got now if that's OK with everybody. RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
File:Julierpass, Switzerland (6011000466).jpg is absolutely magnificent! I trust Roy's judgement though, so we can stick with the engraving if they find it best. Toadspike [Talk] 00:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The Befrienders

@SL93, Cielquiparle, and Miraclepine: I see the article talking about one critic (Jean Blackmore) laughing, not "some critics" (plural). RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith: There's another critic besides Blackmore laughing: In a review for The Observer, George Melly wrote, "Seldom have I seen on television a more incredible hotch-potch of morally dubious attitudes, fake drama and the worst kind of tear-jerking schmalz. At the same time, I must own up to frequently bursting into astonished laughter." Should be easy to find by searching "laugh" on the page. ミラP@Miraclepine 16:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I read the first quote as belonging to Blackmore. I've done a little copyediting to clarify it. RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
PS, yes I've reviewed enough of these things to understand how to search for stuff :-) RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I was just about to start addressing things during my work break, but I see that editors are moving fast. It’s good to see. SL93 (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Bugia (candlestick)

@SL93, Maximilian775, and Mattythewhite: Why is it spelled "Bougie" in the article but "Béjaïa" in the hook? Also, I've trimmed "or other prelates" to make it a little shorter. RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I have reworded the etymology section to use Béjaïa. According to its article, Béjaïa is an Arabic name that was italianised as Bugia. TSventon (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Roll-A-Palace

@SL93, Evedawn99, and JIP: I think we should attribute the quote as an opinion rather than stating it in wiki-voice. RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I thought that it would work due to still being quoted. I will keep that in mind if what RoySmith said is the consensus. SL93 (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Prep 4

Wielka, większa i największa

I've just dipped my toes into promoting a hook, and I'd appreciate anyone with more experience verifying that I have done everything correctly. I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Wielka, większa i największa to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4. David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't be putting a seventh hook in the bottom set when it recommends leaving four empty, though admittedly there were bigger sins in that set before you got there, and I frequently make minor tweaks to articles I promote/queue (which, given that I'm already beat after reading this, hasn't been that many!) Otherwise, nice work.--Launchballer 13:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

SEEK (conference)

  • ... that so many people attend SEEK, an annual Catholic young-adult conference, that the Eucharistic liturgies are planned more than a year and a half in advance?

Looking at the source for this one, I'm not sure it makes the same claim that the hook does. The hook says that the reason for the planning beginning far in advance of the conference is because of the number of people attending. But the source for this reads as follows:

Planning one liturgy for 17,000 people is a major task. Planning five Masses and an adoration night is even more complex.

Hellwig begins planning for the SEEK liturgies over a year and half before the scheduled conference. This gives him time to coordinate with the local diocese, so as to invite them into the planning process and receive additional assistance from their seminarians and priests.

So while the number of people is mentioned as presenting a major task, the primary reason given for the long planning period is the need to coordinate with other priests and the local diocese, not necessarily the 17,000 attendeees. Also, on a secondary note, I raised a query at WT:MOSCAPS#MOS:ALLCAPS in cases where there are almost no sources not rendering it that way about whether the title should be SEEK of Seek'. There isn't a definite answer yet, but people interested in this article may have a view on that. @Arbitrarily0, Aneirinn, and SL93: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Amakuru I read it as they needed "time to coordinate with the local diocese, so as to invite them into the planning process and receive additional assistance from their seminarians and priests" because of the attendees. I guess I could be wrong. SL93 (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Amakuru, I interpreted it like SL93. The number of attendees are the ultimate reason so much preparation is needed (which includes coordination problems with the diocese). I can't imagine smaller Catholic conferences needing nearly as much lead time. But I think Darth Stabro is an expert in this area and perhaps would be willing weigh in. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi @SL93 and Arbitrarily0: and thanks for the responses... And I do agree that's a possible interpretation of what's written. It's a big event, lots of attendees, five masses and an adoration night, it all plays into the need to start planning well in advance. That's a reasonable inference, but perhaps not the only one. The issue is that WP:DYKHOOK is very strict in this regard - "The hook should include a fact that is unlikely to change prior to or during its run on the Main Page; citations in the article that are used to support the hook fact must verify the hook and be reliable". The size of the congregations and the number of masses are not directly given as reasons for the long lead time; only the need to coordinate with the diocese and invite priests is directly mentioned in connection with the year and a half period. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Personally, I find this to be within the bounds of DYKHOOK. I don't see a plausible interpretation in which the long lead time is ultimately caused by something other than the size of the conference. Yes, the coordination with the diocese is a proximate cause; but what explains the proximate cause is the remote cause, viz., the size of the conference. The context of the passage makes it clear that this is what's intended. That said, I don't wish this to be an obstacle; and I appreciate, Amakuru, your attention to detail. Here's a similar hook which might address the issue:
  • ALT1 ... that the Eucharistic liturgies of Seek, a Catholic young-adult conference which attracts thousands of attendees, are planned more than a year and a half in advance?
I could also see the clause "which attracts thousands of attendees" being removed. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
It is styled in all caps. I'm not sure if that's what I'm being tagged in about, but... ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 21:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
See ongoing discussion about its capitalization at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#MOS:ALLCAPS in cases where there are almost no sources not rendering it that way. Maybe we should let that discussion get resolved before promoting this? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
The stylization question has now been resolved. "Seek" should be used going forward. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Amakuru, SL93, does ALT1, above, seem to avoid the issue? Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
@Arbitrarily0: yes thanks, I would be happy with ALT1. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Qvadriga

Launchballer You seem to have removed this from the prep area without notifying anybody, or adding it to a different prep area, or unpromoting it – may I ask why this happened DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
DimensionalFusion The hook was on the main page yesterday. SL93 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi – thanks for responding so quick! Just wanted to check as it was not indicated where the hook had ended up DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 17:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
@DimensionalFusion: Wasn't me, guv! @Amakuru: swapped it with SEEK. I couldn't have done that as I approved it.--Launchballer 19:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi @DimensionalFusion and Launchballer:, indeed, I wanted to swap SEEK out at short notice so needed a hook to put in its place and the Qvadriga one seemed good. My edit summary did say "swap SEEK (conference) and Qvadriga between Q2 and P4" which I thought would be clear as to where it had gone, but I can be more explicit in future if required. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Nah, probably my mistake... I must've mistaken the diff between yours and Launchballer DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Prep 6

Abortion in the United Arab Emirates

@Jolielover, Grnrchst, and SL93: this "described as" line appears in the lead and body of the article, but does not say who described it thus, as required by WP:INTEXT. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jolielover: Ach, this is something I caught in my pass of the article but I guess I forgot to bring it up in the DYK review. This should definitely be attributed to Khaleda Rahman writing for Newsweek. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Regarding WP:DYKTIMEOUT, if a nomination remains pending a final review after becoming two months old, is it advisable to not mark it for closure?

For example, if a nomination remains unreviewed and is now two months old, per editor discretion, is it still discouraged to mark it for closure, or is remaining unreviewed not a barrier towards DYKTIMEOUT applying? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what scenario is being described here. The heading talks about a "final review", but then you say "remains unreviewed". So are we talking about a submission that nobody ever reviewed at all, or something which got an initial review but then never managed to accumulate a tick mark? RoySmith (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Both cases. Scenario A is a nomination never getting a review in those two months, while Scenario B is a nomination that did get a partial or full review, but a new review or second opinion was requested, but did not happen before two months. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
I think it's unfair to the nominator to close a nom just because nobody has gotten around to reviewing it (i.e. scenario A). That's our fault, not theirs. Sometimes things don't get reviewed because everybody who looks at it says, "Ugh, what I mess, I'm not going near that" and moves on to something else. I get that, but I think in such a situation somebody should at least write that in a review.
For scenario B, I think we need to consider each case on its merits. The intent of DYKTIMEOUT is to prevent arguments from going on forever. So, if there's been a big contentious review that ends up with the initial reviewer throwing up their hands and saying, "I give up, I'm going to kick this to somebody else to worry about" and nobody else is willing to pick it up, that seems reasonable to pull the plug on. RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
For context, I asked the question because of Template:Did you know nominations/Tellus (app) (which I see you've just closed), although the question was intended to be a general one since I've seen other similar cases happen in the past. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
I suspected that's what you were talking about. That one was a classic example of why DYKTIMOUT exists. It had been argued about, promoted, kicked back in the queue, unpromoted, argued about some more, and still stalled. It was obvious it had become a time sink with no hope of making progress. RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 5

Fatima Payman

Two somewhat minor points here, I'm not even sure if they're worth raising but will do so anyway just so we can discuss.

  1. As a senator, is it correct to call Payman a "member of the Parliament of Australia"? I'm not that familiar with Australian terminology, and we don't have a senate here in the UK, but I'm wondering if usually the term "MP" (or member of parliament) is for those in the lower house, and it could possibly cause confusion to label her thus? Certainly I expected that until I clicked through and read the article.
  2. The hook and the aritcle/source don't quite match up, because the hook simply says the first member of parliament of any description, while the article and source both say the first female member of the parliament. I suppose it might be self-evident that hijab wearers are always female and I doubt there's a record of a man wearing one in the parliament... but still, thought I'd raise it anyway. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Pinging @GraziePrego, Pbritti, TarnishedPath, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Amakuru! The first question: That is the correct terminology, the Parliament encompasses both the House of Reps and the Senate. In regards to the second question, I see what you mean, it's an odd technicality. I'm fine with changing the hook to specifically say female member of parliament to match the source, but you're right that there's no instance where a man has worn one in the parliament either. GraziePrego (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
I won't be any help for the first one as someone who also doesn't know Australian terminology. As for the second one, it appears self-evident to me SL93 (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Oh, and a slightly more significant issue - I'm not sure the image File:Dai Le Fatima Payman Circles (cropped).jpg is really properly licensed and free from copyright. It looks like it originates here - [6] - as a profile picture on Payman's Facebook page in June 2022... and while it does appear at the [7] page used as the image source and it's possible they had a licence to use it, I don't think we can be certain that it's legitimately "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported". More particularly, the author of the file is given as "Government of South Australia (Seniors Card)" and there doesn't seem any particular evidence that the pic in question was produced in South Australia or by that government, rather than them just reusing it. I would suggest this isn't watertight enough to use, unless someone has other evidence. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Pinging the GA reviewer History6042 to see if they have any insight about the image. SL93 (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
I am not fully sure but if it isn't then there is another image that is usable and it is File:Fatima Payman-2023.jpg. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
I think that image would work, but I would say not for the main page. We could just switch the hook out for a later biography that is in prep. SL93 (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Addressing the issues:
  1. In common usage, from my experience, in Australia we refer to them all as being members of parliament. However it is probably most technically correct to refer to her as 'Senator Fatima Payman' or 'Senator for West Australia, Fatima Payman'. See the second paragraph of Australian House of Representatives.
  2. Pbritti picked up during their review that what was stated in the sourcing and what was stated in the article were different and update the article to state that she was the first female. I guess it got overlooked by everyone in the discussion that the hook should have been updated also.
  3. Given that File:Dai Le Fatima Payman Circles.jpg (the file which File:Dai Le Fatima Payman Circles (cropped).jpg was extracted from) is taken from a government website (https://www.seniorscard.sa.gov.au/weekendplus/lifestyle/ozasia-festival-writing-and-ideas-festival) I would be relatively confident that they obtained permission from the copyright holder for modification and usage. However I couldn't be 100% certain of that. I was playing around on commons a couple of days ago and I extracted File:Fatima Payman-2023.jpg from File:Terry Young MP, Senator Fatima Payman, Senator David Fawcett, David Smith MP at Parliamentary Friends of Religious Schools and Faith Communities.jpg. That latter image originally came from Flikr and the information from Flikr lines up with the metadata from commons. Doing a reverse image search I have found small news websites using it without attributing where they got it from, but I'm pretty sure that image was lifted by those webistes from either commons or Flikr. I think we're pretty good to go with File:Fatima Payman-2023.jpg.
Please let me know if you have any other questions/concerns. TarnishedPathtalk 02:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Ps, in regards to the question of whether to refer to her as a 'member of parliament' or a 'senator', the sources says "When Fatima Payman takes her seat in the Senate in July, she will make history as the first woman to wear a hijab in Australia’s parliament."
So given that, and that 'Australia's parliament' refers to both the lower and upper house, the hook should probably be:
"... that Fatima Payman (pictured) is the first elected woman to wear a hijab in Australia’s parliament?". TarnishedPathtalk 03:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
@Amakuru, is there anything else that needs to be done for this? TarnishedPathtalk 09:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Morning @TarnishedPath: I think rewording it the way you suggest is a good idea, so we can go ahead with that. As for the photograph, I think we can't use the current one - at best its origin is uncertain, and I think it's fairly unlikely it was actually the Government of South Australia that took that photograph and then Payton reused the same on her Facebook page. As for File:Fatima Payman-2023.jpg, its origin is still not entirely clear - it appears on the Flickr page of a Lucy Segal, without indication of who that individual is. Most of her images seem to be of Senator Deborah O'Neill, so in the absence of other evidence it would be a reasonable assumption that she's someone legitimately taking photos around parliament and then posting them under a CC or PD licence on Flickr. However, SL93 indicated above that the second image probably isn't a suitable one for the DYK image slot, presumably as she's looking down and you can't fully see her face. I'm therefore tempted to move the hook down and swap a different image into its place. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
@Amakuru, I was also thinking that the new image may not be suitable for DYK because of her looking down. I see no problem with removing it from the hook and moving it down. TarnishedPathtalk 09:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Shmuel Hurvits

  • ... that the Yiddish poet Shmuel Hurvits quit his job as a teacher to become a street paver due to an ideological appreciation for manual labor?

Hi @Generalissima, Kusma, and SL93: I'm a bit concerned that not all of the components of this hook are compliant with WP:DYKHOOK, in particular the need for the whole hook to be directly covered by the article and cited as such.

Firstly, the statement that he is a poet doesn't seem to be cited - it's only mentioned without cites in the lead and the infobox, with the body not directly mentioning poetry. Secondly, the assertion "quit his job as a teacher to become a street paver" isn't directly obvious. This would suggest that when he left teaching he immediately became a street paver, while the article's text merely names paving as one of many jobs he took during the remainder of his life, not necessarily that he quit the teaching directly for that. And thirdly, the article says "paver" while the hook is more specific, saying "street paver". Appreciate this is a late spot, but hopefully the above can be resolved based on the sources, and I'll leave the hook in place for now with a view to it going live tomorrow, but if more time is needed I can push it back. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

This may need to be slightly improved in the article. The source says "He educated himself in both Jewish and general subjects, and began to work as a teacher. But an ideological attraction to manual labour led him to give up teaching and work at paving streets, and then to take up such occupations as carpentry, woodcarving, and printing, as well as bookkeeping and peddling. He began to publish articles and poems in the 1890s, first in Russian and Hebrew, then in Yiddish." (TWL) —Kusma (talk) 10:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Amakuru It's on the main page now, but I think I fixed the street paver issue. I removed the mentions of him being a poet until it can be sourced. SL93 (talk) 01:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
I've amended poet to writer,which seems to cover all bases including his journalism.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Question about transclusions to approved list

I just noticed that a recent nomination is transcluding to Template talk:Did you know/Approved, even though Template:Did you know nominations/Ívar Bárðarson has the full review needed template (). What determines which noms are transcluded to which list? Rjjiii (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: taking Ívar Bárðarson as an example, it was
  • nominated on 13 January and added to unapproved page
  • marked confirmed on 15 January and would have been moved from unapproved page to approved page by bot
  • marked redirect on 16 January and needs to be moved from approved page to unapproved page by manual edits
  • I have moved the nomination from approved page to unapproved page by manual edits today 7 February TSventon (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3

WUVN

I am missing the identification of Gene Scott as a "televangelist" in the article (it is used in the hook). Ping @Sammi Brie, @Jon698. —Kusma (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kusma Remedied with a small addition to the article. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Perfect. —Kusma (talk) 11:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Epistemology

The hook fact ("nobody knows anything") isn't easy to find in the article, where it is phrased as "there is no knowledge in any domain". Can this be made easier without losing accuracy or hookiness? Ping Phlsph7, Arbitrarily0. —Kusma (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Kusma It seems to me that "nobody knows anything" is an acceptable way to phrase it as a hook. However, I guess it can just be changed to exactly what the article says. SL93 (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
"nobody knows anything" is a correct phrasing.
The hook could also be phrased:
  1. '... that according to one school of epistemology, nobody can know anything?' or
  2. '... that one school of epistemology denies that we can have any knowledge at all?'
TarnishedPathtalk 04:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Agree with SL93 and TarnishedPath. Both TarnishedPath's alternatives are also good. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not actually sure whether I should demand a change (another option would be to mention the word "skepticism"); we do not have a rule that says "it must be easy to find the hook fact in the article". I did think it was worth bringing up. —Kusma (talk) 09:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
For academic subjects, it can be difficult to find a hook with a formulation that is both catchy and present in the article in almost the same wording. One reason is that the criteria for good hooks are quite different from the criteria for good academic explanations. The suggested alternatives would also work but as far as hookiness is concerned, I think the current formulation is better. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
OK, let's leave as is then. —Kusma (talk) 11:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 27. We have a total of 336 nominations, of which 199 have been approved, a gap of 137 nominations that has increased by 9 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Preps need moving

@DYK admins: We will have one queue filled in less than an hour. SL93 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

on it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, Casliber and Ganesha811. SL93 (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Preps

Just a notice that we will need more prep builders soon. Between a part-time job and four college classes, I won't be able to build preps much. I have been the main prep builder for a few weeks now and I am fine with that, but things will be getting in the way. I also will be having surgery on my right shoulder within the next two weeks to stop it from dislocating so easily. I'm not sure how much the pain will prevent me from building preps. SL93 (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Best wishes for your surgery, @SL93! Valereee (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2

@DYK admins: Including this one, we're at six queues. If we can get two more promoted by tomorrow evening, we can go to two-a-day. (By way of disclosure, I've got four in prep 4, so I'm extremely eager that two-a-day doesn't affect it!)--Launchballer 23:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I hope we have enough assistance for 2 a day. SL93 (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Walter_III_Brisebarre

@Surtsicna: @Al Ameer son: @Bunnypranav: Could you walk me through the sourcing for this? I'm sure it's all there, but I'd like to be sure.--Launchballer 23:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

"that Walter III Brisebarre renounced the lordship of Beirut to inherit a greater lordship from his father-in-law,(Hamilton 1992, p. 142.) only to permanently lose both upon the deaths of his wife, Helena of Milly, and their daughter, Beatrice?"(Hamilton 2000, p. 92.) The details are in Walter_III_Brisebarre. Surtsicna (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I tweaked it slightly to make it compliant with WP:DYKHFC.--Launchballer 00:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Born_in_the_U.S.A.

@Zmbro: @HeartGlow30797: @Thriley: @SL93: Hook needs an end of sentence citation.--Launchballer 23:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Done. SL93 (talk) 00:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Fine by me.--Launchballer 00:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Ívar_Bárðarson

@Rjjiii: @Tenpop421: The hook and source both mention Ívar's discovery of feces, but the article only mentions "lived and defecated'. This could do with being made more explicit. Also, there's no way this is short enough for MOS:NOLEAD.--Launchballer 23:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I have had editors tell me that the lead did not matter for DYK purposes, while others have told me the opposite. Besides that, I have made the hook more explicit although I'm not sure it is needed. SL93 (talk) 01:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
This should be fine now.--Launchballer 01:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer & SL93: I have added a lead, broken the previous text into separate sections for his life/work, separated the notes into their own section, and revised the bit mentioned above to read:

Later excavations at Gård Under Sandet (Farm Beneath the Sand) corroborated these observations.[11] Inside an abandoned Norse home, archaeologists found one of the colony's last feral domesticated goats preserved in permafrost.[11] The removal of furniture indicated that the residents had intentionally abandoned the farm, and the layer of feces on the floor showed that the goat had lived in the empty home until a wall collapsed onto it.[11]

Let me know if you all spot anything else, and thanks for the feedback, Rjjiii (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Portraits_of_Wolfgang_Amadeus_Mozart

@NeoGaze: @LEvalyn: Massive unsourced content in this, so much so that I actually gave up reading this halfway through. This should probably be pulled.--Launchballer 23:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Launchballer, I boldly swapped it out for Raging Bull (roller coaster) from a prep. The hook is directly cited after "Raging Bull was announced on October 21, 1998, set to become the tallest, fastest, and longest roller coaster at Six Flags Great America, and the first hypercoaster to feature a twister layout." However, someone else will need to take a look at this. The Mozart hook is now in prep 5. SL93 (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
The word "hyper-twister" only appears once, without quotes, in the lead unattributed.--Launchballer 01:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
To me, the cited "the first hypercoaster to feature a twister layout" makes it work. It's very picky in my mind to want it exact. SL93 (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Fine. ALT1 it is - "... that Raging Bull was the first hypercoaster to feature a twister layout?" SL93 (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Better, although it's cited to a press release and a Kenosha News article that attributes the company. I'm not sure this is enough for a first claim.--Launchballer 01:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I think it's fine unless someone can find something to the contrary, and I have yet to find it. SL93 (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I have now sourced it to - this. SL93 (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1

Paris, Linn County, Kansas

@Aneirinn, Tenpop421, and Bunnypranav: I don't see where "first county seat" - or indeed any of the lede - is cited.--Launchballer 03:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The lead is cited now. Aneirinn (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Fine by me.--Launchballer 14:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Américo Ramos

@BeanieFan11, Vigilantcosmicpenguin, and SL93: The hook is cited to Xinhua, for which WP:RSP recommends extreme caution for "extraordinary claims on [...] biographies of living people". For a three-day resignation, I'd like to see a better source.--Launchballer 03:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I replaced the ref.--Launchballer 17:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Jennifer Jones (curler)

@Sims2aholic8, Allthegoldmedals, and HickoryOughtShirt?4: I added several {{cn}} tags; these will need to be resolved before showtime.--Launchballer 03:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Launchballer I'm thinking that it should just be switched out. The nominator hasn't edited all month. SL93 (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Pulled.--Launchballer 01:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Deval Masjid

@DYK admins: @AmateurHi$torian: suggested at the nom that this be semi-protected while on the main page. Probably not necessary, but opening this to the floor just in case.--Launchballer 03:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The selected hook ("that the Deval Masjid was formerly a temple?") is lacking in context. I would suggest semi-protecting and going with AmateurHi$torian's ALT1: ... that the Deval Mosque was formerly a Hindu temple? Gatoclass (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, I asked around the functionary cabal to get some input on the protection question. The gist is that WP:CT/IPA applies here, which gives admins a lot of latitude in response to disruptive editing, but there wasn't any enthusiasm for preemptive protection. WP:PREEMPTIVE talks more about this. I've put this on my watchlist, and presumably other editors will do so as well, so at least we'll have lots of eyes on it to catch any problems quickly. Reverting should be our tool of choice, with semi-protection being brought into play only if there's a demonstrated need. RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
BTW, changed "originally" to "formerly" in both hooks as the article states that it may originally have been a Buddhist or Jain temple. Gatoclass (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
I changed the hook to ALT1.--Launchballer 14:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Andrei Demurenko

This is a first hook, and so I'm opening this to the floor for extra scrutiny.--Launchballer 03:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The article looks fine, but the hook fact that he is the only Russian officer to graduate from the US Army college is evidently sourced to a 2009 article, and history shows a hook fact based on an outdated source is liable to getting pulled. So the hook would either have to be modified or a new hook found - but the nominator said that if he can't have that hook fact, he wants to withdraw the nom, so I think to respect the nominator's wishes the hook would have to be pulled unless he wants to change his mind. Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
The nominator said that they would withdraw the nomination if they couldn't find another source confirming that fact, rather than if they can't get that specific hook fact. @Romanov loyalist: Would you be open to a completely different angle running instead of the currently-promoted angle? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
I preemptively changed it to 'first'.--Launchballer 14:59, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
In that case we could leave the hook with the change to "first" if that is alright. Romanov loyalist (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Stride (bus rapid transit)

The reviewer has since been blocked (see #Tudor City). Looks good to me, but let's open this one up just in case.--Launchballer 03:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Goodnight Chicken

@Jolielover and Miminity: This needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 03:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Done jolielover♥talk 03:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Fine by me.--Launchballer 03:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Missinaibi_Lake

@SL93: @GraziePrego: @P199:

diagram of winning shot
diagram of winning shot

This hook doesn't have a great image, especially at the small size required of the main page. One possibility might be using a deep crop of just one portion. I tried that with the thing that looks like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The result was certainly more visible, but totally missed the point of showing the drawings. I'm thinking we should shuffle hooks around and use a different one for the image. Looking at the other hooks in this set, File:Joneswinningshot.PNG from Jennifer Jones (curler) would be a good replacement. RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

This is subjective. IMO, the image quality is more than adequate, even at a smaller size, considering that the pictograms are faded as it is. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 16:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion either way, but the Jennifer Jones hook might need pulling per above. SL93 (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
I pulled Jones and moved up Fatimid coinage from a prep.--Launchballer 01:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer: Disagree with switch. Sure, I am mot impartial to this, but on the other hand, there was really no compelling reason for it, just because 1 editor didn't like it. It's now a rather ineffective hook. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 15:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
@P199 I know you're disappointed in not getting the image slot, so let me explain a bit more what the issue was. WP:DYKIMG requires that the image display well in the small size of the {{main page image/DYK}} template. Images with lots of fine detail, limited contrast, few sharp edges, and a subdued color palette unfortunately do not work well. I did a little searching and found https://albinger.me/2017/07/05/the-anishinaabe-pictograph-sites-of-missinaibi-lake/, which includes this excellent photo. Perhaps you could write to the photographer and ask them to upload it to commons? I've found that often times, people are happy to do so. That would make a great main page image. RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Bonnie Blue (actress)

I came across this DYK some weeks ago, started by Launchballer and reviewed by Lajmmoore and really didn't some of the hooks were particularly good or tasteful, and the remaining ALTs still give me an impression that this isn't something that's going to be a good advertisement for Wikipedia. So I'm bringing it here for review. If consensus is that the proposed ALT1 is okay, then let's go with that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I've put up a variation ALT1a. Personally I don't think it's either a good or a bad advertisement for Wikipedia. It's the world's oldest profession or so they say. TarnishedPathtalk 11:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I proposed some extra ALTs that sidestep porn altogether.--Launchballer 15:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Where does it say in the guidelines that DYKs have to be a "good advertisement for Wikipedia"? Lajmmoore (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7

Mink (manga)

  • ... that the Japanese manga series Mink featured futuristic technology even though its creator was unfamiliar with computers?

I'm not certain the source supports "unfamiliar with computers" here... Looking at the source [8], although I don't speak Japanese, Google Translate seems to indicate that this comes from a quote by the creator herself in an interview, where she says something like "I'm not good with machines". I think that's the sort of thing a lot of people say, in a self-effacing way, to indicate that they're not tech wizards... but I wouldn't translate that to the absolute "unfamiliar with computers", or indeed the article's version of this - "having little knowledge on computers" - stated in Wikivoice as well rather than attributed as a quote from Tachikawa. @Lullabying, Gonzo fan2007, and SL93: CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I think you meant this for WT:DYK? Stephen 19:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
I've moved this for Amakuru with a reping for @Lullabying, Gonzo fan2007, and SL93: Stephen 21:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
I will wait for a response from Lullabying as an editor who has worked on many articles with Japanese language sources. I'm not entirely convinced that Google Translate is correct. SL93 (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Hello. The sentence does indeed say, "I'm not good with machinery" and I can see how that might mean something else entirely. It can be changed. lullabying (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Hey there, I noticed this was promoted for DYK but I'm not sure if you saw this reply. Thanks! lullabying (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Lullabying: - really sorry, yes, I totally missed this and forgot to come back to it. Obviously it ran several days ago now, which isn't ideal, but too late now. I'll try to be more on the ball about it in future! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3

Miles of Plancy

@Surtsicna: @Tenpop421: @SL93: Is the image clear enough at a small size?--Launchballer 17:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I would say yes, but maybe my glasses are just that awesome. SL93 (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Marriage in the United Arab Emirates

@Jolielover: @Gog the Mild: I think this is uncomfortably close to WP:CLOP in places and could do with being reworded.--Launchballer 17:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I have rewritten some sentences. jolielover♥talk 17:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Carlos Miguel Buela

@Darth Stabro: @Patar knight: Just noting that I removed some detail per WP:DYKTRIM.--Launchballer 17:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

okey-dokey! ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 18:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Mesklin

@TompaDompa: @DragonflySixtyseven: Can't find the hook, where is it?--Launchballer 17:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

An extrasolar planet is another name for an exoplanet. Changing exoplanet to extrasolar planet in the hook would fix any problems. SL93 (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Launchballer At first, I thought it was fine because the word is a synonym, but I see where you're coming from. I have changed the word in the queue. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6 (13 February)

Victor Cordella

@Epicgenius: @Bunnypranav: @Darth Stabro: The article just says "Cordella designed around twenty churches for various immigrant ethnic groups" and hints that they're all in Minnesota, but doesn't actually say so. RoySmith (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The bottom note also has a citation needed tag. SL93 (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Cited now. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 04:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, I guess I'd disagree that it's just a hint. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Spring Willow Society

@SL93: @Crisco 1492: @Jeromi Mikhael: I'm not sure that an unattributed "probably" meets our standard for a "definite fact". RoySmith (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I have nothing to add because I have no idea what “definite fact” was exactly referring to when it was added. SL93 (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
The meaning of "definite" for DYK purposes has changed over time. Originally, one interpretation means one that was properly cited and not in question (i.e. it is not likely to be challenged). The current wording over at WP:DYKG now says that it means a fact that is unlikely to change or become inaccurate during or before its DYK run. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
I see. I don't see the hook becoming inaccurate for a production that happened over 100 years ago. The book reference is reliable and the author is reputable, but I'm not sure how attributing it would fix the concern. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
One could argue that both interpretations are correct: it being unlikely to change, and also it not being questioned. I see though that the "probably" claim is attributed to only one writer, and I can see why the claim could be challenged. "First" hooks are usually problematic due to the level of evidence required. One possible solution could be to attribute the claim. That way, the "definite" part of the hook would be that Lin claimed that it was "probably" the first, without judging the accuracy of the actual "first" claim. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense. "... that according to Theatre Studies professor Siyuan Liu, Spring Willow Society probably staged the first full-length Shakespearean play in China?" Someone would need to add the above link or a different one that mentions his career, while also adding it to the article. SL93 (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: The hook needs changed to "... that according to theatre studies professor Siyuan Liu, Spring Willow Society probably staged the first full-length Shakespearean play in China?" SL93 (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Tudor City

@SL93:@Epicgenius: There's a substantial amount of copying (beyond just WP:CLOP) from tudorcitygreens.org/history and s-media.nyc.gov/agencies/lpc/lp/1579.pdf. That needs to get fixed. I also note that Wolverine X-eye who did the DYK review has recently been banned for abuses of the WP:GAN review process, so I'd say this review is suspect as well and somebody should probably give it an extra look. RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Might as well ping GA reviewer Kusma as well. SL93 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Sorry I overlooked this; the copyvio is not Epicgenius' fault, but was present before he started on the article. —Kusma (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Sorry about this. I'll take a look; I thought I got rid of the close paraphrasing, but apparently not. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith and @Kusma, my deepest apologies for overlooking the copyvios that were in the article. I have remediated these copyright violations, but there are some proper names (e.g. "Church of the Covenant") and common phrases (e.g. "Second and Third Avenues") that cannot be easily rephrased. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Not a problem. I was kind of surprised to see this sort of problem pop out from one of your nominations, and I'm relieved to hear your explanation for what happened. Looks better now.
I've been by Tudor City many times but never inside. It looks like an amazing place to live, even more so given its location. RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Themed set and special occasion time waiver request - 1 November 2025

Withdrawn, I'll try something else. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 12:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hey folks! One of my bucket-list items has been to have all DYK entries on 1 November 2025 be Karnataka-related articles, since 1 November is Kannada Rajyotsava. Currently, I have one nom cleared for promotion - Template:Did you know nominations/New Krishna Bhavan. Is it possible for this to be held until 1 November, to allow me to get the other 8 articles in? Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 09:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bunnypranav: Courtesy ping. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 09:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
November 1 is too far away for such a long hold (it's only February), so I don't think there will be consensus towards it. If you are fine with the hook running as a regular hook, that is probably the most practical option. I see that November 1 is Karnataka's foundation day and thus a holiday in that state. However, it is also All Saints Day in many Christian countries around the world, so I don't know if a full set would work. Full sets about more niche holidays or events have been controversial in the past (even the Queen Elizabeth set for her funeral was not without controversy), and while the guidelines say that such a special set can be proposed via a WT:DYK discussion, I have doubts one will be approved either.
I think a more plausible option for you, if you really want to do an all-India article set, would be to propose one for India's Independence Day (August 15). We've had an all-Canada set for Canada Day in the past, so it's doable and more likely to gain consensus. Of course, that would require hooks about all of India and not just Karnataka, so it's okay if you don't want to go with that, and in any case, you'd probably still have to do the articles within the six-week limit. If you want Karnataka representation on November 1, my suggestion would just be to go with one or at most two hooks, since I really doubt that a full set would ever reach consensus. We don't even make full sets about specific US states or UK countries (among other theoretical examples), so I can't see an all-Karanataka set gaining consensus. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I do agree with the above (was typing basically the same content). As said on the DYK nom page, the restaurant, subject of the hook, is not much related to the holiday, it's not even mentioned in the page. You may be able to get along with a couple Karnataka hook in an all-India set, if that gets consensus. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input. In light of this, I'm fine with it being promoted right away. Perhaps I will plan something else for November 1. I'm not very well-versed in deeper DYK stuff like this and it helps to learn. Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 12:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI You also need consensus that your themed set idea should be accepted, so I have amended the thread title. TSventon (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI: this may be obvious, but if you want to write a couple of articles and then nominate them for 1 November you can create Help:Userspace drafts when you have the idea and then publish and nominate the articles six weeks before the date. TSventon (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking of something along those lines, yes. I have a bunch of planned drafts anyways. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 13:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
You would also need get a discussion going before that for multiple related hooks to run together. I would support, but as noted above others will differ. CMD (talk) 09:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 4

@DYK admins: We're now at 7 filled queues and should be able to go to 2-a-day.--Launchballer 19:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Note that the changeover should not occur until after midnight, about three hours from now. I will be moving the special occasion hook, currently the lead hook of Prep 5, to Prep 1 so it will run on February 19 as requested. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I promoted Statue of George Washington (Trenton, New Jersey) to prep 4, so it should run on 22 February.--Launchballer 22:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Sam Matlock

I wrote this, and so must ask for another review - though I see the hook's changed since promotion.--Launchballer 19:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of the new hook. I'm not sure if someone found the original one to be misleading. SL93 (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Małe zielone ludziki

@Piotrus: @Yakikaki: @SL93: This feels long. Could it be shortened?--Launchballer 19:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Is it too long per DYK guidelines? SL93 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
The last time I checked it was within the 200 character limit... so what's the problem? "Feels" long? C'mon. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
PS. Re-reading the hook, we can probably drop the first of the two instances of "Polish", and perhaps the adjective socialist (communist will be enough). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
I had meant per WP:DYKTRIM.--Launchballer 00:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Andu Masjid

@AmateurHi$torian: @Panamitsu: @SL93: Apart from the fact that the hooks lacks an end-of-sentence citation, I don't see how "might" complies with WP:DYKDEFINITE. Also, article feels WP:CLOPpy in places.--Launchballer 19:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Launchballer "... that the Andu Masjid, which might have been built as a women's mosque according to Henry Cousens, banned the entry of women?" I have added a direct citation. SL93 (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
SL93: Thanks for adding the citation and rewording the hook :) @Launchballer: I've read through the entire article and wasn't able to find the close paraphrasing; If you could please provide a paragraph or section, I'll reword it. -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Preston (1648)

@Gog the Mild: @Cplakidas: Article has "hardly credible" in quotes, hook has it without. Which is it?--Launchballer 19:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: both. "hardly credible" is part of a longer quote in the article, so the whole phrase there is within quote marks. It is not necessary nor normal to put one or two word quotes in quote marks, so the extracted shorter "hardly credible" in the hook is not. Similarly, "an enormous gamble" is a direct quote from Wanklyn but is so short that it is not in quote marks in the article. (Nor the hook.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Allbirds

@Oganguly: This cites a Medium post by the founders, which I would argue falls foul of WP:DUE, and WP:BUSINESSINSIDER, which I'd question the reliability of.--Launchballer 19:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see it as an issue in this case. The information doesn't sound contentious and one could argue that WP:ABOUTSELF applies here. If there are really concerns about the use of Medium here, the hook could be attributed rather than ditched entirely. As for Business Insider, it's a common misconception that yellow means "not allowed", when it actually means "case-by-case basis". For more controversial or contentious stuff, yellow sources like Insider (or Fox News) are probably not appropriate, but they can be used for more mundane or non-controversial information. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I was suggested to run with the Medium article for the direct quote, but here's some secondary coverage for it: https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/25/20982653/allbirds-ceo-amazon-copy-shoe-environment-sustainability-steal. The Verge is kosher AFAIK. I would also say that the Business Insider article is hardly fluff and should be considered by its own merits, as Narutolovehinata5 says. Ornov Ganguly TALK 00:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Jailson Mendes

I nominated this, and so must ask for another review - though if the word 'porno' is encyclopedic, then perhaps the hook could be shortened to it.--Launchballer 19:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Soon upcoming special date request

Hello, I understand this is close timing but I just saw that February 22 is coming up, National Cat Day in Japan, so I thought it might be fun to run Template:Did you know nominations/Nekonomics if someone is able to review it on time and prep/queue it on time. Thanks, CMD (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I can prep if someone else reviews, probably to the quirky slot.--Launchballer 17:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis, I've done the review and made a few notes. Rjjiii (talk) 04:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you both. CMD (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis & Launchballer: it's approved, Rjjiii (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Promoted. I took a look before you did, lest anybody accuses me of spending less than a minute reviewing two articles.--Launchballer 16:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Three Hennepin Avenue Bridge hooks (still)

Did anyone come up with an action plan for the Hennepin Avenue Bridge hooks? All three of them are still waiting for discussion to be done here before being promoted or in one case approved at all. Departure– (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the consensus (among the few who participated) is just that they should be spread out by a few weeks. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 02:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Prep 3 – (example pictured) parenthetical missing

Hi all, this is a minor note but likely a result of the roundabout way we re-wrote the hook for Stretcher railings, see the history. We forgot to include an (exmaple pictured) in the re-write. I would suggest we include the parenthetical in the hook such as "have kinks (exmaple pictured) indicating" as this closely mirrors what was originally approved in one of the alternatives. I'm also not sure if, following the re-write, it would be best to take out the word "feet" from the caption—I don't think this is necessary but I would understand it given the discussion.

Courtesy ping UndercoverClassicist, AirshipJungleman29, Dylan620.

Sorry for any confusion. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

To the point about the caption, maybe replace "feet" with "kink"? Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Agreed with Bobby; it's no longer a foot when it's part of a railing. UndercoverClassicist T·C 18:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping, Bobby Cohn. I have added (example pictured) to the promoted hook. My apologies for the oversight when promoting. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:37, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks Dylan620, no apology needed. You did copy exactly as we had discussed in the nomination.
I did also boldly make the caption change as was discussed above, there seems to be consensus for it especially given the topic of discussion on the nominations page. However, I'm not sure of the etiquette (being my fourth ever DYKN and first with an image) with this so I'm making sure to note that change here. Feel free to revert of course. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 21:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Need to set DYK updates to twice-per-day

@DYK admins: please reset User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates to 43200 right away—certainly before noon UTC—so we can start three days of two-a-day promotions. (This is because we had seven filled queues before midnight and—more to the point—have six filled queues now, effective after tonight's midnight promotion, which is the agreed-upon trigger for the change.) The special occasion hooks have already been moved to reflect the faster promotions, and hopefully this faster rate will help get us reduce the number of hooks on the Approved page are don't transclude. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done. —Ganesha811 (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
As we have just run out of queues, I have reverted this to one update per day. —Kusma (talk) 00:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
We have six empty queues though. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
And only two filled preps, far from where we need to be to reduce the backlog. —Kusma (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

dyk-pingifier.js preview release

One of the annoying things about reviewing hooks (perhaps the most annoying) is all the boilerplate copy-paste that's necessary to generate the discussion threads we use. So, gathering up what minimal javascript skills I possess, I put together a little tool to help with that. There's a beta version at User:RoySmith/dyk-pingifier.js. Once you've installed that in your common.js (or whatever), when you're looking at a DYK nomination template, it'll add a text box to the top with the wikitext for the appropriate L3 header. It'll also scatter some "ping" buttons around, one after each user signature. As you click each one, it'll add the appropriate {{ping}} to the text box. Once you've got what you want, you can click the "Copy" button and paste that into this page.

I used it to generate the top part of Special:Diff/1275010685.

I already have some improvements in mind, but this seems useful enough for people to look at, so have at it. On my list is also adding a L2 header for the queue, being smarter about recognizing signatures, and auto-recognizing the "big three" (nom, promoter, author) who should always be pinged.

If you're on github, the best way to report any issues is to file a bug on github, but I'm happy to accept feedback on-wiki, etc. RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I took this for a test drive. A L2 header probably isn't necessary if you're starting a new section, but linking to the actual username rather than the display name would be useful.--Launchballer 00:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Can you give me an example of where it gets the name wrong? I know of one case, but I'd like to hear what you found first. RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
It gave me "{{ping|~ L 🌸}}" for LEvalyn and "{{ping|Heart}}" for HeartGlow30797.--Launchballer 00:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
OK, I think I've got that fixed now, thanks for the report. RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Just tried testing it again. Most usernames come up with ranks, such as "More than 10,000 edits" or "New page reviewer", while SL93 comes up with "User:SL93" (his signature links to "User:SL93#top") and some don't appear at all, such as TompaDompa (presumably because he doesn't have a userpage).--Launchballer 17:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Oh, that's weird. What template is this on? RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Mesklin.--Launchballer 17:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I see what's going on. You load User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/UserHighlighterSimple.js which puts those things in the title attribute of the userpage links, and that's what I'm grabbing. OK, I've got a better plan, working on a fix. RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I just uploaded a new version which (fingers crossed) fixes all the problems with usernames and funny signatures. I've also added a button to optionally include a L2 header. RoySmith (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Two interesting glitches in the most recent set: the "Add L2 Header" doesn't seem to work (although I use 'add new section', so have no use for this anyway), and "狄の用務員" generates "%E7%8B%84%E3%81%AE%E7%94%A8%E5%8B%99%E5%93%A1".--Launchballer 18:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Hmmm, interesting. The L2 header stuff was working for me, but now it's not, so obviously I broke something along the way :-) As for 狄の用務員, that sounds like I'm just not encoding/escaping something properly. Thanks for the reports; keep 'em coming.
BTW, L2's superpower (when it works) is that it adds the date the set is going to run to the header. It was pointed out on WP:ERRORS a while ago that when you have several L2 headers which all say the same thing (i.e. "Queue 7"), incoming links don't know which one to use and you often get to the wrong one. Adding the date fixes that. RoySmith (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer what nom were you looking at when the L2 functionality failed? I can't reproduce the problem. RoySmith (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to work for me on any nom, but I just went to the first one linked on this page (Walter III Brisebarre) and it didn't work there.--Launchballer 21:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
It's not working for Walter III Brisebarre because that's not currently in any queue or prep. The L2 header is supposed to be a link to the queue it's a part of. It wouldn't be hard to extend that to also work for noms in preps, but that wasn't my original use case so I haven't bothered to make that work yet. For something like Walter III Brisebarre that's not in either, I'm not sure what makes sense to do there, but I guess something better than what it's doing now, which is to just silently fail. RoySmith (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
I just checked it with Mammillaria prolifera in queue 7, which works, and then with Antimonumento +65 in prep 1, which doesn't.--Launchballer 21:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Oh, very nice! Definitely helpful! Valereee (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

DYK with image

Howdy! I was wondering if there was any reason that the image I added for the DYK of Festival Internacional da Canção was not included. I do not want to be a diva, but I love the way it captures the performance of Milton Nascimento at the festival and was the one who uploaded it Commons. Why? I Ask (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it violated WP:DYKIMG: "Try to avoid images that divert readers from the bolded article into a side article".--Launchballer 00:26, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
It is the person named in the hook playing at the festival. Funny how the main page today does exactly what it says not to do. It could also be re-captioned to say "Nascimento [no link] performing at the Festival Internacional da Canção". Why? I Ask (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm ready to say just keep it without an image no matter what because not every image can be used. I'm more concerned about the backlog. SL93 (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 5 (15 February 12:00)

Nitty Gritty Dirt Band

@Bunnypranav: @TenPoundHammer: @Hawkeye7: This is a "first" type hook, which requires a high quality source. WP:ALLMUSIC says Some editors question the accuracy of these websites for biographical details and recommend more reliable sources when available, so we really need something better. RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

There seems to be a newspaper source as well in the hook, but I can't read it as it is paywalled. Anyone who has WikiLibrary access to Newspapers.com can give a look at it? ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 16:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
You mean "Smoky Hill festival to feature Nitty Gritty Dirt Band". The Salina Journal. April 28, 1978. p. 1. Retrieved July 11, 2024? That says "They are the first performers of contemporary music to tour the Soviet Union under State Department auspices", which is a bit more restrictive than what the hook says; "the first American musical act" could have been a classical (or something else other than "contemporary") music group that toured before the NGDB. As a technical nit, see WP:CLIP for the right way to cite newspapers.com. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I clipped the newspaper source here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
No, that's not what they mean by a clip. What you want to do is click the "Clip" button in the toolbar (the one with the little scissors icon). Then you get to drag a selection rectangle over the area you want and save the clipping. You should end up with a URL that looks like https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-salina-journal-nitty-gritty-dirt-ban/165396238/, i.e. with "/article" instead of "/image". That URL should be visible to anybody even if they don't have a newspapers.com account. I don't know why they make this so complicated and unintuitive. RoySmith (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Gah! No, that doesn't quite work either. I'm sorry, I have no clue what's going on other than newspapers.com seems to keep mutating their system and breaking it in new and exciting ways. This used to work. It used to generate a /clip URL which was visible in an incognito window. These new-fangled /article URLs seem to just show you a scaled-down teaser image but then requires you to log in to see the full size one. Sammi Brie do you have any idea what's going on here? RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
They seem normal to me, though Newspapers.com did change the style of its clipping pages somewhat recently. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 01:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
They probably also mean "since the Cold War", since it's not inconceivable that lots of groups toured in the Soviet Union before then. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Here is a source that does not say "first" for the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band (and has other musicians in the SU earlier, but perhaps just with a single concert), although they are the first band mentioned together with the words "toured the Soviet Union". According to "Atomic Tunes: The Cold War in American and British Popular Music" (via TWL), "American jazz musicians Dave Brubeck, Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman, and Louie Armstrong made well-publicized tours in Eastern Bloc countries from the 1950s on. The US State Department sent both classical and jazz musicians as “good will ambassadors” to shine a positive light on American culture.
What about popular musicians? In July and August 1957, folk musician Peggy Seeger performed in Moscow, China, and Warsaw. Her half brother, Pete Seeger, played concerts in Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the Soviet Union in the spring of 1964. The Soviet Union also invited several country artists. Roy Clark (host of the variety show Hee Haw) and the Oak Ridge Boys (famous for their 1981 song “Elvira”) were the first country musicians to perform there, in January 1976. The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, another country group, toured the Soviet Union in May 1977."
I would suggest to just go for "... that the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band toured the Soviet Union in 1977?" which is true without further qualifiers. —Kusma (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Suggestion for better alt hook: ...that, almost 30 years before joining Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, Jim Photoglo wrote their single "Fishin' in the Dark"? Sources for that: https://www.kmuw.org/music/2019-03-20/the-nitty-gritty-dirt-band-celebrates-new-members-new-notes Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
@Kusma my problem with that is it may not be interesting to a wide audience. I grew up in the US during that era, so I recognize that the band was American and that Americans touring the USSR was a rarity. To many other readers, not so much, perhaps. How about:
... that the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band's instrumentation ranged from clarinet, mandolin and piano to washtub bass and kazoo? RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
A US country band in 1970s Russia sounds like reverse Leningrad Cowboys Go America to me, but I am not good at writing hooks so it is best not to listen to my hook suggestions :) —Kusma (talk) 00:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: this hook is demonstrably wrong and is scheduled to go live in 12 hours, so somebody needs to either update it or pull it. I'm wp:involved at this point. RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@TenPoundHammer, Kusma, Hawkeye7, RoySmith, and Bunnypranav: do we have any consensus around a particular alternative at present?  — Amakuru (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
With how little time there is left, it's probablh safest to just pull it for now, then continue discussion at the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
I would also say to just pull it out. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:15, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Possibly worth moving Siege of Hennebont (1342) into that set so it has nine hooks? So far as I can tell, it checks out.--Launchballer 16:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: Maybe another hook can be moved into the queue to make it nine hooks. We have 23 minutes. SL93 (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
@Ganesha811 please re-transclude the pulled nomination to Template talk:Did you know or Template talk:Did you know/Approved. It's best to also add a note on the nomination so it doesn't show up as good to go - otherwise it may be re-approved as-is. Shubinator (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I am traveling and will not be able to get to this in the next 12 hours but will handle it then. However if another admin has time before then I would appreciate it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Done. RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Mosawo

@Miminity: @Bunnypranav: @Sky Harbor: Shouldn't it be "sang from a female perspective" rather than "in a female perspective"? Tenpop421 (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of days ago, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 31. We have a total of 340 nominations, of which 187 have been approved, a gap of 153 nominations that has increased by 16 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Does it really mater what date a nom is filed under?

When I pull a hook and need to re-transclude it back into WP:DYKN sometimes the section for the date it was originally filed under no longer exists, so I just stick it under the closest date to save a little work. I've always assumed that the breakup by dates is just for editing convenience and to give people a rough idea of how old something is, so being off by a day or two doesn't matter. Am I breaking anything by doing this? RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Breaking? Not that I can think of, though those people closing hooks due to timeout reasons might be doing it sooner than they ought. It takes a few seconds to copy an adjacent date and adjust it. I do the equivalent all the time when I'm moving no-longer-approve nominations back from Approved to Nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

April 1st?

@AirshipJungleman29 suggested that my Template:Did you know nominations/Neptune All Night be held for April 1st, which I agreed to. It seems to have fallen into the cracks, as it's no longer in WP:DYKNA. What's the right process here? RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

It's in Wikipedia:April Fools' Main Page/Did you know with a few others.--Launchballer 21:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
OK, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1 (19 February 00:00)

Nagi Nemoto

@SL93: @Miraclepine: @Reconrabbit: This one's going to be tricky. The article says like a rubber band [...] being crushed which is quoted in the hook but without the elipsis. Which version is correct? The source is not in English so I can't read the original text (although I do appreciate the translations provided in the nom). Given that this is a WP:BLP talking about some of the most sensitive topics a BLP can touch (mental health issues), we need to be sure we get this one right. RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Or we could use the ALT0. Even if one could argue this is not interesting outside of VTubers, the fact that the word "VTubers" is extremely similar to YouTube can give a broader audience the irony-driven oomph between the digital nature of YouTubers and the analog nature of classic TV sets. ミラP@Miraclepine 17:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree that ALT0 can be used for that reason, but I'm still curious if the ellipsis should be in the article or not. SL93 (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
There's multiple ways the metaphor being quoted could be translated (though the meaning is pretty much the same, it's just the verbiage). May be better to exclude the quote and instead just refer to "she talked with a counselor and subsequently recovered". Reconrabbit 17:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Was gonna bring up that MOS:ELLIPSIS allows square brackets for omitted text, but I've changed it as requested. ミラP@Miraclepine 18:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith, what do you think of ALT0? SL93 (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
ALT0 seems fine to me. RoySmith (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I have changed the hook to ALT0. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

History of the National Hockey League (2017–present)

@Rjjiii: @The Kip: @Conyo14: @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: This is a MOS:EASTEREGG, deliberately using "yet" to hide the fact that the league has already announced that they will play in 2026. RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, there's a huge amount of text that's almost an exact copy from deviantart.com/ I'm guessing they copied from us, but somebody should verify that.
On a related topic, the first edit comment in the article history is "start of split" which makes me think this was forked from another article. In which case WP:COPYWITHIN requires proper attribution which I'm not seeing. This also affects the GA and FA reviews, so @Kimikel @Kyle Peake who did those reviews. RoySmith (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I do not think EASTEREGG should be an issue here; the hook fact is phrased to be intriguing without being deceptive. It could be considered a WP:DYKDEFINITE issue, but I think that's okay too because the hook is obviously running before 2026.
This article was apparently split from History of the National Hockey League (1992–2017), so you are correct that the article should give credit for the split; I didn't notice that. As for the webpage with identical text, I can confirm that the page copied from Wikipedia. It matches the same day's revision of the older article with tweaks for tense. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Talk:History of the National Hockey League (1992–2017)/Archive 1#Move to 1992–2017 is where the discussion was had. For more info. Conyo14 (talk) 22:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
There's some template you can use to generate a "This was copied from that, see that's history for attribution" message, but I can't remember what it's called. If anybody knows what it is, could you please add that to this article's talk page, and then I think we're good to go. RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I can certainly do that if the template is something that is readily available. Conyo14 (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
EF5 took care of it. SL93 (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Yup, that's the one I was thinking of, thanks! RoySmith (talk) 00:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
I've also done a dummy edit, Rjjiii (talk) 03:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7

Mammillaria prolifera

@Surtsicna: @Gerda Arendt: @Hilst: Two problems here. For one thing, the supplied "QPQ" comprises little other than 'prose needs work', although I'm minded to let it slide as it just so happened to do for the nom in any event (and frankly, that bit ain't where the backlog is). More serious, however, is the fact that the hook states "that connoisseurs look down on it" in wikivoice but the article has "The cacti nurseryman John Pilbeam notes that because of this it is "almost looked down upon by the connoisseurs"", and that's not going to fly.--Launchballer 18:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Launchballer Surtsicna ... that, according to cacti nurseryman and journalist John Pilbeam, the Texas nipple cactus (pictured) is so easy to grow that connoisseurs almost look down upon it? I added journalist to the article per the journal that he wrote for. SL93 (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I changed to a trimmed version of that.--Launchballer 18:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
What more does the QPQ need to say when the prose and bias issues disqualify the article from DYK? Surtsicna (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Rosalind Gefre

@Darth Stabro: The hook says "has given thousands" but the article says "it was estimated that Gefre had given 7,000 massages", which isn't quite the same thing.--Launchballer 18:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Launchballer I have changed it to "... that Catholic sister Rosalind "Sister Roz" Gefre has given an estimated 7,000 massages at St. Paul Saints baseball games?" Feel free to change it if you disagree with that wording, or consensus says that it was a bad idea. SL93 (talk) 03:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Fine by me. I also added "by 2006", since she probably kept going.--Launchballer 18:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I was more ambiguous to start since she has done it quite a bit since then, only retiring in 2019 iirc. However I couldn't find any other numbers anywhere. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 19:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Celeste 64: Fragments of the Mountain

@Captain Galaxy: @Hawkeye7: Hook fails WP:DYKINT, as I highly doubt a broad audience would know what a Quake engine is. Also, the article could use a copyedit.--Launchballer 18:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: If I am allowed to change the hook then if it fails a guideline, could the new hook be "... that Celeste 64: Fragments of the Mountain wasn't originally going to be the name of game and was instead a meme with its developers?" The source is from this article from GamesRadar+. I have also gave the article a small copyedit if that helps. CaptainGalaxy 18:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't find that interesting either and I just realised this set doesn't meet WP:DYKVAR anyway, so I pulled it.--Launchballer 18:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Alf Jacques

@SammySpartan: Article has "estimated" but the hook has "over" - which is it?--Launchballer 18:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I've changed the article prose to use "over", since the source uses "more than". – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 18:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Malibu Feed Bin

@Sky Harbor: @Lazman321: Hook says "23 tons" but the article says "23 short tons". Which is it?--Launchballer 18:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Launchballer The source says, "23 tons". SL93 (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
I have changed the article to "23 tons". SL93 (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
The Convert template does not give just tons (which are short tons), which is why it says "short tons". If the template allows that option (it does allow for metric tons/tonnes, but not short tons/"tons"), I'd prefer the template. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
I added it back. SL93 (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Tomodachiga Yatteru Cafe

@狄の用務員: @Muboshgu: Massive amounts of puffery in this including one section I yeeted once already, and this will need to go away before this can run.--Launchballer 18:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

You mean "Appeal"? Perhaps it can be improved by making it proper paragraphs, but I don't agree that it's "massive amounts of puffery", and other editors didn't agree with you when you yeeted it. See Talk:Tomodachiga Yatteru Cafe#Spam? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
The way it was written was spam. Example - "The ease of TYC has the security of not having any awkward atmosphere. Watching the video, you will be surprised at how natural the interactions" SL93 (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Okay, yes, that is spammy. But that's not in the article any longer. The baby was thrown out with the bathwater, but the baby's back now. The remaining text looks fine to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
It might be the language gap, but reading that article is still really hard work ... Therefore there is a potential fear that a staff-customer relationship may involve a one-sided emotional investment where the customer's friendliness is due a feeling of closeness with the staff which reciprocates the same outward friendliness without any feeling of closeness. or As a result, he decided on a frank customer service style that was reminiscent of his own friend's part-time job, rather than the brightness of a theme park. Black Kite (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I think it's because of this on the creator's profile - "I mainly use machine translation for conversation, and since the machine is not very accurate, please forgive me if there are any rude expressions." So I would say a language gap is correct, and I'm not entirely certain if the machine translation is also being used in articles. SL93 (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
And as the citations are in Japanese, unless one is fluent in that we're not even sure if the text matches the sources. Black Kite (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I use machine translation for my preliminary translations, but I look it over myself before writing.I personally think Sara Fukamori's insights are useful and not spam, but as I stated in Talk:Tomodachiga Yatteru Cafe#Spam?, this section is not essential to the article, so if it is controversial, I think it is fine to remove it.If the rest of the section has "Massive amounts of puffery", please point it out to me specifically and I will consider addressing it. I am not a native speaker, so I cannot comment on the fluency of the English text. I sincerely apologize for this. 狄の用務員 (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I suggest pulling the hook until a native speaker of both Japanese and English can look over the article. SL93 (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I pulled this.--Launchballer 18:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Justus Trettel

@Jonathan Deamer: The article says "Justus helped build stills for farmers so that they could earn extra money during a period of a depressed economy", while the hook says "Justus helped make stills so farmers could illegally make alcohol during the Prohibition", and I think this should be spelt out in the article.--Launchballer 18:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Launchballer. I've adjusted the article to say "Justus helped build stills for farmers during the Prohibition, when alcohol was illegal, so that they could earn extra money during a period of a depressed economy". Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Requesting advice on hook length

Hello folks, I'm currently reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Bechbretha and I am wondering how to interpret this part of the guidance that I've put in bold and Italics: "The hook cannot exceed 200 prose characters. Counting starts from after the space following the three dots, and ends at the question mark. For articles with multiple boldlinks, text in boldlinks after the first do not count toward the limit."

  • Is it the boldening that doesn't count?
  • Is it additional boldened words that don't count?

If the latter, taking out the additional boldened words from ALT0a would leave a 137 character skeleton like this: ... that among the sources for early Irish law are judgments on bees, , , , and ; , , , and ; and ; , , , and ? - would that hook then be accepted? This is my first complex hook review, so patience is appreciated! Lajmmoore (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

The markup needed to make things bold never counts. It is only text characters. The clear intent of the text you quote is that characters in the bold linked text after the first one do not count, as your skeletal example shows. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the clarification @David Eppstein, I thought that was how it read, but then doubted myself Lajmmoore (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
My (personal) take on this is that hooks like these with (if I counted right) 15 bolded links are so out of the mainstream that trying to apply the letter of the rule to them is just pointless. Do what makes sense and move on. RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2

Ankarette Twynho (nom)

Resolved
 – All hook facts are now present and cited in the article. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Fortuna imperatrix mundi, Departure–, and SL93: The article does not contain the phrase "judicial murder". (It also doesn't contain anything I recognize as a synonym of "judicial murder", but the quotation marks in the hook mean the exact phrase should be in the article regardless.) jlwoodwa (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jlwoodwa: Thank you; now adjusted. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 22:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Doctor Who series 13 (nom)

@DoctorWhoFan91, Crisco 1492, and SL93: As far as I can tell, Doctor Who series 13 § Production doesn't contain this exact statement. It says that the series was impacted by the pandemic, that they thought they would be unable to do the show under COVID conditions, that writing continued remotely throughout the pandemic, that COVID caused the lack of exotic locations, and that it presented some "curveballs", but it never states that the entire duration of the filming was under COVID conditions. I don't mean to come across as nitpicky, but since the word "entirely" seems to be important to this hook's interestingness, I think it should be directly supported by the article. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

I would pedantically say that the part you have quoted is an acknowledgement that the show was under COVID conditions and they didn't think they'd manage, but it's not a particularly interesting hook in the first place so can we send it back for something better. Kingsif (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
I would say the same thing as Kingsif, but there are two other hooks on the nomination page. SL93 (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Maybe rephrase the last one to "there was only one story told in ...", but they're not the most interesting, either. Like Doctor Who series 13 itself, I suppose. Kingsif (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Well, there has only been one statement of it not being interesting so far. I think that the last hook is fine and interesting enough with it being a first for the show since 1986. I suppose the series is interesting itself based on the positive reception in the article. SL93 (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
I also would say the same thing, but there are two other hooks, and I think the third hook would be interesting enough, even to non-fans. DWF91 (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Given the previous saturation of COVID hooks and how there was an impression that a hook's interestingness relying on COVID was considered "cheap", it might be safer to just swap the hook with one of the other options. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
I have changed the hook to an alt that doesn't mention COVID. SL93 (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Chinese government sanctions (nom)

Resolved
 – The statement was modified and is now verified by the article's sources. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

@Haha169, The Account 2, Launchballer, and SL93: The article stated without citation that The Taiwan Affairs Office announced its first sanction under the new law in November 2021, and the Ministry of Commerce announced its first Unreliable Entity List designation in February 2023. The lists in Chinese government sanctions §§ Sanctions announced by the Taiwan Affairs Office​ and Sanctions announced by the Ministry of Commerce (Unreliable Entities List) do start at 5 November 2021 and 16 February 2023 respectively, but I don't think this falls under the summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article exception to WP:DYKCITE – the fact that no sanctions preceded these dates is an additional claim and requires its own citation. I was able to fix half of this myself, since the first Unreliable Entities List source does specify that the sanctions were added for the first time. But since I couldn't find an analogous statement in the Taiwan Affairs Office sources, I have tagged that part as [citation needed]. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

jlwoodwa I changed the sentence to "The Taiwan Affairs Office announced a sanction under the new law in November 2021" and referenced it to the only November 2021 sanction under the Sanctions announced by the Taiwan Affairs Office section. I changed the sentence because I have been unable to verify it as being the first, even though I'm almost positive that it was. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Quickfails not counting as QPQs

It was recently brought up to me in a DYK review (by @Narutolovehinata5:) that reviews which are quickfails don't count for the purposes of a QPQ. This seems reasonable and such a rule is implied by note e (It is disputed whether reviews that do a full review, only to arrive at a quickfail result, count for a QPQ) in the current version of WP:DYKG. However, note e is in a weird place (coming after a sentence on how someone should review a DYK) and the rule is nowhere explicitly stated (it certainly isn't in WP:QPQ). Does anyone know why note e is in this section? And would anyone object to me adding a clause about this rule to WP:QPQ? Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Tenpop421, the note was added by @Narutolovehinata5: in November 2024 here and amended by @Theleekycauldron: here so they will know the background. TSventon (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Actually, the guideline (from what Leeky told me) is that quickfails (i.e. just simply saying that an article is not eligible for whatever reason, without further elaborating) can't count as QPQs. However, there is disagreement if an review that results in a quickfail result, but still checks all criteria (i.e. paraphrasing, newness, length, QPQ, etc.) as opposed to immediately failing in a concise manner can count as a QPQ.
For example, a review that goes "Sorry, but Article is not eligible because it is not new." would not count as QPQ, but there's dispute if a review that goes "The article is long enough and sourced, has a QPQ, the hook is interesting, and it is cited inline. However, the article is not eligible because it is not new enough, as it was not created within the last seven days." can count as a QPQ or not. Leeky said it shouldn't, personally I think it should, I'm not sure what the rest of the community thinks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
A complete review that mentions all the DYK criteria and concludes that it fails due to an irremediable fault (not nominated in time, for example, or not expanded and clearly not possible to get a 5x expansion) definitely counts as a QPQ. The quoted review above could be more complete: there's no mention of a copyvio/close paraphrase check or a check for a 5x expansion (given that it wasn't created recently enough to qualify as new). BlueMoonset (talk) 01:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
So essentially, the issue with such reviews shouldn't really be that a quickfail result happened, but rather that the review was incomplete. That's already an issue even for simple passes or for "reviews" that don't check everything. Personally I was never a fan of the idea that reviews that result in an automatic fail should not be counted for QPQ since it would be unfair to the reviewer especially when they were reviewing in good faith. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Once you've determined that the nom fails, what's the point of spending any more time on it? There's more useful things one could be doing with their time, like doing another review. Our job is to keep the queues moving, not auditing people's time cards. RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
The logic is this. Say you're reviewing an article. You see that it was long, you were able to check the hook's interestingness and reliability, and you even checked the QPQ. You also checked for close paraphrasing. It is only after all is said and done when you noticed that the article was not newly created. In such a case, I don't think it's fair to disqualify such a review just because the nomination was an automatic fail with no chance of salvaging. It's the effort that should count, not the technicalities. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
It's the result that should count, not the effort. We should reward people for being efficient, not penalize them. RoySmith (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
That is a heavy U-turn from proir accepted practice with regards to quick fails, and I for one am not impressed with the logic that "Well if you tick the boxes even though its a blatant quick fail we will still count it. No matter what happens in with scenario, the nomination has been DELT with. The reversal of policy should not have happened. Since QPQ's were implemented years ago quick fails counted as a QPQ.--Kevmin § 02:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I assume we're talking about Vittae which was used to qualify for Bechbretha?
My personal take on this is I'm more concerned about successful reviews that turn out to be pencil whiped. If somebody just smashes a checkmark onto a nomination without actually examining it in detail, the problem is not that they haven't done enough work but that they've done the project a disservice by potentially letting something through which might not actually qualify. That's not what happened here. This was a nomination which had a legitimate problem that @Tenpop421 correctly flagged as disqualifying. And now we're going to ding it because doing so didn't consume enough of its time? That's wiki-lawyering and we've got better things to be doing with our time. RoySmith (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. Not doing a full review and passing the nom anyways shouldn't count, but correctly identifying a disqualifying problem - even if done quickly - should. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  • A simple thumb-rule. Anything that can be failed by running the DYKCheck script should not be counted toward a QPQ. Everything else, should count toward a QPQ.Ktin (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
    I think that is highly unfair. For one thing, DYKcheck is not perfect, especially for edge cases like 5x expansions. There have been times when DYKcheck said an article was not eligible when in fact it was, usually due to move-related or expansion-related shenanigans. As RoySmith said above, it's more the process we should reward regardless of the outcome. If a nomination is passed, but the passing was just a rubberstamp that didn't actually properly check the article, not only should that not count for QPQs, but that also arguably does more damage than a proper and full review of an article that ultimately quickfailed. A quickfailed article is simply rejected and never runs, so it has less of a fallout. A poorly-reviewed passing article that makes it all the way to the Main Page can lead to consequences. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
    My point was specifically about fails. As with all thumb-rules, these are just that. I think overall, the question to ask is the effort expended significant. Unless one goes against what DYKCheck states (e.g. 5x expansion calculation as you note -- which would then result in a pass, negating this thumb-rule) I think this will work. Ktin (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
    I know I have not been around for a bit, but, what does passing without a review even mean? Are editors doing that?! We have a much bigger problem then. Ktin (talk) 04:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm most in favor of the idea that that quickfails shouldn't count in basically the way Ktin describes (newness and lack-of-QPQ fails shouldn't count because they're too simple). I'll more weakly support the idea that QPQs should count per RoySmith (you process a nomination, you get a credit). The current impasse where quickfails don't count except if you do some meaningless box-ticking to get around it is, frankly, pretty silly. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
And, yeah. I'm more and more convinced that if you do a check-mark quickpass and then it turns out you missed something huge, we should be revoking that QPQ credit. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
What is the downside of letting quickfails count without trying to find a specific carve-out where they don't? Someone gets an easy QPQ? A quickfail gets the nomination off the queue regardless. A much easier rule of thumb is that a review counts, rather than trying building some vaguely-defined system which needs reviews of reviews. CMD (talk) 05:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
  • The default assumption should be that all (or at least all correct) reviews count. Most quickfails are correct applications of the criteria, meaning they should count. If we want to use "QPQs not counting" as a stick to encourage better reviews, our problem is with nominations that are incorrectly passed, not with nominations that are correctly quick-rejected. The rules should be amended to remove any unnecessary and counterproductive exceptions about quickfails. —Kusma (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'm gonna delete that footnote from WP:DYKG since there doesn't seem to be a consensus about whether simple quickfails count as QPQs, which makes the question of whether full reviews which are quickfails count as QPQs kind of besides the point. Tenpop421 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3 (21 February 00:00)

Hayes Manufacturing Company

@SL93 @CanonNi @CosXZ I don't trust the "first" assertion. I found https://www.ruraltech.org/pubs/reports/2008/log_trucks/section_1/index.asp which doesn't quite say Cummins put diesels in logging trucks in 1919, but it sure comes close. Let's go with something that's more certain. RoySmith (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith What about ... that logging-truck manufacturing company Hayes Manufacturing Company introduced diesel engines to their vehicles in 1933? SL93 (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I've been away doing other stuff and just saw this. It seems reasonable (if not terribly exciting) so I've dropped it into the queue. If other folks want to keep looking for better variations, there's still a day before this hits the main page. RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't really see how that hook is interesting to a broad audience. Yes it's early, but the context of the diesel engine being early might be lost among viewers. It might be a better idea to just pull the hook for now and go back to the drawing board. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
I think it's fine, and in my view it's better than many of the hooks that go through. You say that it might be lost among viewers, but that also means that it might not. I did propose another hook, but no one has commented on it. SL93 (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Reading the article, I think something good could be done along the lines of "Hayes made vehicles ranging from logging trucks to teardrop busses". A photo to go along with this would be great; there's a few CC BY-NC-SA photos at https://openverse.org/search?q=hayes+teardrop; perhaps the photographer could be contacted and asked to drop the NC part? Or maybe we could find (via {{photo requested}}) somebody local to the museum who could go take some commons-compatible ones? RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith I decided that I would be fine with pulling the hook for more brainstorming, especially if we want an image. I do think that a hook from prep should be added in its place though. SL93 (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
I suggest moving the hook to WP:DYKAPRIL because the first hook I suggested was meant for there. Cos (X + Z) 15:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
I've pulled Pascale St-Onge from prep 1 to replace it. They're both Canadian hooks. I have no opinion on the DYKAPRIL part, so I'll leave it to somebody else to handle the transclusion. RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Yonggeumok

@SL93: @Seefooddiet: @Jolielover: The article has equivocations like "story of uncertain veracity" and "reportedly asked", which got turned into a statement in wiki-voice in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm wondering if reportedly is being correctly used, such as with "The restaurant reportedly calls the dish chu-tang (추탕; 鰍湯), an archaic name for the dish." and "The business was reportedly severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic." SL93 (talk) 01:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
SL93 is right; it's just my writing style. I use "reportedly" too much. I just removed a bunch of them. There's no significant reason to doubt the claims given, I just write skeptically about everything. The hook is just as reliable as most others. seefooddiet (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm confused. The article still talks about a story of uncertain veracity. That doesn't sound like a matter of writing style. RoySmith (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
That's a single story about one North Korean person, where the given article cited says that they haven't been able to verify the story. There are multiple other stories about different North Korean people with stronger backing. seefooddiet (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree. While I'm not sure if the interpreter counts as a politician (and they might), there are for sure two North Korean politicians and two South Korean politicians mentioned. SL93 (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Main Street Vehicles

... that the horses used to pull the Disneyland Main Street Vehicles' 3 ft (914 mm) narrow-gauge horse-drawn streetcars consist of Belgians, Brabants, Clydesdales, Percherons, and Shires?

That is quite a clumsy hook. It could be improved by omitting ' 3 ft (914 mm) narrow-gauge horse-drawn streetcars. Schwede66 02:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Jackdude101, Gatoclass, and SL93: Pinging everyone from the nomination. I think that at least one of "3 ft (914 mm)" or "narrow-gauge" should be trimmed, since they're a bit redundant together. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I've done some trimming. RoySmith (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
This change is acceptable. Keeping the word "streetcars" is important, as the horses are not involved with the other vehicle types that are part of the attraction. Jackdude101 talk cont 14:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I did some further tweaking to make it read better. In "that the horses used to pull", you need to read it carefully to figure out if "used to pull" means "are utilized to pull" or "no longer pull", so I've clarified that. RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

One filled queue

@DYK admins: After the current queue hits the main page, there will be no filled queues. SL93 (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

We have two more filled queues. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 16:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Three more now. SL93 (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Prep 5 – (example pictured) parenthetical missing

I'm not sure what exact text should be used. Rjjiii? Muhandes (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

(pictured) is fine.--Launchballer 14:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! Rjjiii (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Hook breaks statistics template

The hook for Marusankakushikaku in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders fails to show up, with the entire hook replaced by "6". I'm assuming the special character confused the living heck out of the bot or something. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 08:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It's because there's a = in the hook. Pinging @Theleekycauldron: as maintainer.--Launchballer 08:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
took a whack at a fix, should resolve itself on the next update :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:52, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Prep 6

1996 North Carolina Secretary of State election

I think "veered off course" is too strong a term to use for the effect of the hit-and-run, at least given what's contained in the article, which merely states that "The event had an impact on some voters"; that's not the same as saying the incident completely derailed his bid.

Also, on another point, the "Results" section has no prose at all, just a table, which IMHO mean it's not quite main-page ready. If this was presented at ITN it would probably be rejected on that basis, and WP:DYKCOMPLETE also mandates that the article be "reasonably complete", something which isn't the case if it's missing discussion and analysis on the results. (See 1964 Illinois House of Representatives election for an example of how a results section is normally presented with prose). If nothing else, the results section would be another chance to mention whether the hit-and-run was the ultimate cause of Petty's defeat. Pinging @CaramelizedMargaritaLime, Daniel Case, Pbritti, and Cielquiparle: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Have unpromoted it to allow for more time to address the concerns raised above. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
I just realized I promoted the wrong hook and have struck the ALT0 in the nomination template, and properly formatted ALT1, so there is no confusion. The issue regarding the "Results" section still needs to be addressed though. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 4. We have a total of 335 nominations, of which 185 have been approved, a gap of 150 nominations that has increased by 3 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hennepin Ave bridge hooks

Howdy @SL93: and @Premeditated Chaos:, thanks for promoting my hooks regarding the two different Hennepin Ave bridges. I'd wonder if it would be best to move one of them out of a prep so that they have a bit more time in between each other to avoid confusion as they're two separate bridges. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, for sure, I didn't see that they were back to back. Someday I'll learn to read. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Well, they were promo'd within ten minutes of each other, so totally understandable that you missed it. No worries! ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 04:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2 (27 February 00:00)

Cybermania '94

@SL93: @IceWelder: @PARAKANYAA: This seems like one of those "first" hooks we should probably avoid. I don't see how anybody can prove that this was the first one. RoySmith (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It says first hooks require very good sourcing, not that they are verboten. If we can’t then it should say that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree. SL93 (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, this was already a topic in the DYK review. Since sources before, during, after, and long after talk about it being the first, I think the rule for "exceptional sourcing" should be met. IceWelder [✉] 19:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

UserBenchmark

@SL93: @Bunnypranav: @Win8x: @Surtsicna: Extensive WP:CLOP vs tomshardware.com. Earwig shows some of the problem, but by eye I can pick up lots more examples that Earwig didn't flag. This really should have been picked up in the initial review. RoySmith (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I fixed part of it. I'm sure someone else can finish the rest within the next few days. If not, I might do it. I can't do much in real life anyway at the moment. SL93 (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks :) the text was added by a new editor, they didn’t know. It looks good now. win8x (talk) 21:09, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith I am having trouble finding more, but I admit that it could be because of how technical it is. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks SL93.for fixing this, I too did a check and couldn't find more. If anyone does find more clop, pleased ping me. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 05:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7 (25 February)

Kerjäläisten valtakunta (nom)

@JIP, Narutolovehinata5, and SL93: The section Kerjäläisten valtakunta § Editions is entirely cited to Discogs, which according to its RSP entry is generally unreliable and should not be cited. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for not realizing that Discogs isn't a reliable source. I am now curious if the 9th reference is reliable as well. SL93 (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
JIP Will you be fixing this, or should I remove the unreliably sourced content? SL93 (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
The two unreliable references have been removed. Some parts where they appeared are also backed up with other references. JIP | Talk 08:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
JIP What are the references? SL93 (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Seconding SL93's question. WP:DYKCITE requires all content that could reasonably be challenged to be supported by an inline citation no later than the end of the paragraph, and Kerjäläisten valtakunta § Editions now has no citations. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
After removing the references to Discogs, I was able to find at least some references about the release of the album's editions. I still have a copy of Norres's book I loaned from the library, it might have some more information. If there is anything in the article that I or anyone else simply can't find any reference for, it might have to be removed. JIP | Talk 20:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Pyramids of Mars (nom)

@DoctorWhoFan91, Johnson524, and SL93: I can't tell whether this means "the largest staged fire to ever happen in a BBC studio" or "the largest staged fire in this particular BBC studio". jlwoodwa (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It was in that particular studio, but realising the ambiguity of the sentence now, I think the reviewer might have thought the other. DWF91 (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
If there are any issues, I also like ALT1. SL93 (talk) 15:00, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I never even saw the ambiguity and thought it meant all BBC studios 😅 Yeah if an alternative wording is not proposed for ALT0 I believe ALT1 should be used instead. Cheers! Johnson524 17:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
I changed it to ALT1. SL93 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Leibel Bergman (nom)

@Prezbo, Lazman321, and SL93: The sentence Bergman continued to help lead the BARU as it grew into a national organization and changed its name, first to the Revolutionary Union and then (in 1975) to the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP). is uncited. I tried to find a citation for it myself, and it seemed promising that the neighboring citations were from the same book, but the version I was able to access (Heavy Radicals at Google Books) doesn't have any page numbers. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

jlwoodwa I bought the Kindle version because the topic interested me. I had to use three pages to cite the information. I would add the relevant quotes from the book, but the nerve blocker from my right shoulder surgery is still affecting the fingers on my right hand. Let me know if you need it after the nerve blocker wears off. SL93 (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. Prezbo (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3 (28 February)

2025 U.S. Open Cup (nom)

@SounderBruce, Pbritti, and SL93: I'm not sure this article is adequately sourced. For tables and other non-paragraph-based information, WP:DYKCITE requires every line with content that could reasonably be challenged to have an inline citation. If every row of a table is supported by the same citation, I can understand ignoring that rule and just putting one citation for the entire table. But I think at the bare minimum, every section should have at least one citation, and 2025 U.S. Open Cup § Early rounds has zero. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

jlwoodwa I took care of the sourcing. SL93 (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hanyang Park (nom)

  • ... that a lost stone monument for a park in Seoul that closed in 1918 was discovered lying in the grass in 2002?

@Seefooddiet, Sahaib, and SL93: Hanyang Park § History says that the park was closed in 1919, not 1918. Which is correct? jlwoodwa (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. Could we use "1919"? I think the date given in the source that uses 1919 is more detailed and likely more accurate. I'll update the article. seefooddiet (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
I have updated the hook. SL93 (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Interesting Hook Complaints

Currently we have: DYK ... that William Bartram was both the father of William Bartram and the grandfather of William Bartram?

I just wanted to put this here for the regulars as an example of a hook that would get extra scrutiny if it was a sports-related DYK (specifically AmerFoot), and likely would not be approved by many regulars because it is not "hooky" enough. This DYK basically says "did you know that people name their sons after themselves", an extremely common phenomena. Now from my perspective, its hooky because of the word play, which is fine! But what frustrates me is the double-standard that is often applied for topics that are more niche than "politics" or "history". We should really clarify that criteria to either allow these type of "wordplay" type hooks or ban them altogether. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Did you know is full of cringe and sexually inappropriate innudedo

DYK turns Wikipedia in to vandapedia. No respectable encyclopedia would have did you know on their front page. Who are the real vandals? 217.52.247.73 (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

If DYK gets people interested in topics they wouldn't be reading about otherwise, then it's doing its job. Wikipedia is not censored, and even then, DYK is still subject to civility and it isn't a battleground for unsavory images or content to be added to the main page. Departure– (talk) 16:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
217.52.247.73, I'm not sure I get what you're saying. Wikipedia isn't censored, so sexual innudedo will be bound to end up on the Main Page. — EF5 16:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 4 (1 March 00:00)

Gary Tuggle

@SL93, Queen of Hearts, and Jolielover: The hook is fine, at least as far as matching what's in the article, but the statement seizure of US$488,000 in prepackaged heroin and handguns is not what the source says: "48,800 bags of heroin with a street value of nearly a half million dollars". RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I changed it to - "announced the seizure of about US$500,000 in prepackaged heroin and handguns and US$40,000 in cash near Newark, Delaware." SL93 (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Honey Revenge

@Cielquiparle, Launchballer, Georgeykiwi, and Grnrchst: There's a whole paragraph that's identical to one on thenewimagefm.ca/on-hits. I'm reasonably sure they copied from us, but somebody should give it another look to be sure.

thenewimagefm copied the Wikipedia lead. The lead was edited by multiple editors over a year, not written/copied in any single edit. Some parts were improved recently in response to GA feedback. If it's correct, the copyright date on thenewimagefm is for this year (2025), but parts of the lead were written in early 2024. Rjjiii (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Prep 2

... that over 5,000 genres on Spotify use the suffix -core?

The longer string the suffix -core? should be bolded to clarify the fact that, well, it's a suffix, and its specific use is the subject of this article. Departure– (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Departure–: I don't see why we would bold this anymore than we would bold "the actor" in "the actor Dabney Coleman". What's your concern about? Tenpop421 (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure how to phrase it, but this differs because people can infer what an actor would be just from their name. Bolding the suffix will make it hyperspecific what we're referring to (no room for interpretation). I don't know how else to explain it and it ultimately isn't a world-ending issue but it's one I think could stand to be corrected. Departure– (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
For me, the hyphen marks that we're dealing with a suffix here. I'm not sure if that addresses your worry. Tenpop421 (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
I think I can narrow down my concern a bit more by stating that the -ose suffix only receives four bolded characters, all at the very end. Spotify isn't the bolded article but receives much more linked area. This is definitely more of an aesthetic issue, I recognize. Departure– (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
The easy solution to this is that we really dont need to have Spotify bolded in the hook at all. Its a well known music app/service, and is linked in the article itself.--Kevmin § 18:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
I see the problem now. Support Kevmin's solution. Tenpop421 (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't understand. Spotify already isn't bolded in the hook. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
unlinked 'Spotify' (and 'Geneva' in another hook) :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 5

Separation referendums in Illinois

Chipmunkdavis I'm having trouble finding the hook information in the article. SL93 (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Is the concern the number? If so, would changing "formally proposed annexing the counties in Illinois that had voted to secede" to "formally proposed annexing the 33 counties in Illinois that had voted to secede" help? This could be expanded to "formally proposed annexing the 33 counties in Illinois that had voted to secede in order to separate from Cook County and Chicago" as well, although it reads a bit redundantly in the context of the rest of the article. CMD (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Your first suggestion would be fine. SL93 (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Done. CMD (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Bargain Hunters

@DYK admins: I just need someone to look this over because I promoted it. SL93 (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Launchballer 10:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Signature breaks DYKbotdo

Queue 7's "approved by a human" header isn't displaying correctly, probably because of the equals sign in Launchballer's signature. Changing the template call to {{DYKbotdo|1=...}} makes it display correctly (at least in preview), but I don't understand the bot well enough to know whether this change would cause problems for it. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

My personal take on that is that the job of your signature is to let people know you wrote something and nothing more. If you've made it so customized that it's breaking stuff, you need to fix your signature. RoySmith (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
I've fixed the immediate problem, but my statement above still stands :-) RoySmith (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
See also WP:SIGPROB. RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3

National Weather Service Quad Cities, Iowa/Illinois

Per RM, the piped link of August 2020 Midwest derecho should be changed to 2020 Midwest derecho. Departure– (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Changed.--Launchballer 16:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Plutonium Finishing Plant

@Hawkeye7, Pbritti, and SL93: I'm guessing the hook is about the fact that the plant took multiple years to be demolished, however the image (a .gif labeled as an "animation") is two frames, one before and one after demolition, with a transition between them. It doesn't have any intermediate stage of the plant partially demolished. This really should be two images on the article, or alternatively, an actual timelapse or something other of the plant's demolition. The slow speed also makes it unclear that this is an animation at all. Is there a better or clearer animation or image that can be used instead? Departure– (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
My suggestion is to pull the animation and use File:Plutonium Finishing Plant in 2012.jpg instead. And change the hook to:
... that the Hanford Plutonium Finishing Plant (pictured) processed more than 66 metric tons of plutonium between 1949 and 1989.
RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
I think it's fine as is, and the caption makes it clear that it is an animation. SL93 (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Prep 7

butt of malmsey

(sorry this was a late swap-out from tomorrow's queue, Queue 5, as I didn't get to finish checking it until tonight)

I'm a bit confused about whether this is a true story or not. References to Edward IV within the body of the target article are entirely within the "In Shakespeare" and "In literature" sections, which makes it seem like the story of Edward executing George in the butt of malmsey is potentially entirely fictional. (It's well-known that Shakespeare's plays don't necessarily adhere to historical accuracy). If there is a historical basis to the story, then that should be dealt with in a section outside of the literary/Shakespeare analysis, whereas if there isn't a historical basis, the hook would not be permitted per WP:DYKFICTION. @Fortuna imperatrix mundi, Darth Stabro, and Rjjiii:. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I've shifted the section heading away from Shakespeare, apologies if it was confusing? The text itself makes it clear that the execution is an historical event independent of Shakespearian licence; the problematic aspect is the method used to carry it out. The blurb is thus accurate on both counts. Cheers. And thanks to Rjjiii for alerting me to this discussion. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 15:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Fortuna imperatrix mundi: thanks for that, at least that makes it clear that this isn't just a Shakespearean story anyway! However, I'm not seeing the hook as written fully matching the article currently in two ways: (1) "Edward IV had his own brother executed" - the article says "Clarence was arrested on charges of spreading slander and usurping royal authority; the following year he was put on trial and attainted"; while it may perhaps be accepted that the king was behind this judicial process, it isn't directly the same as saying he "had him executed". And (2) the assertion that he was "probably" killed in a butt of malmsey seems a much stronger assertion that the article's "Legend has it that he was drowned in a butt of malmsey, but the veracity of the story has never been proven or disproven, and it is unknown whether, if it happened, it was deliberate or accidental". Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi, apologies if it's a radical concept, but you know: kings had people executed. It was called royal justice. The usurpation of which by Clarence is at least in part the basis of the article. So obviously that can't change. Unless you are suggesting that someone other than the king took it upon themselves to kill the king's brother.[citation needed] On a lighter note, though, feel free to change "probably" to "possibly", that's OK. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 16:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Well sure, I don't suppose that's a radical concept at all... to you and probably to me it's obvious that a mediaeval "trial" of the king's brother wouldn't be carried out without his permission under a separation of powers constitution. But (and I hope you won't throw me into the malmsey yourself for me raising this) - does it fall under the WP:CALC or WP:SKYISBLUE school of facts that don't need citations? Not really. If we want the hook to state that Edward ordered his brother's execution then the article needs to say that too, and it needs to be backed up by a reliable source which also says that. If those three things can't be brought into line then it isn't valid... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Do you know how to spell 'medieval'? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 00:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that George was privately executed and that the method is unknown but soon after the butt of malmsey story spread as a rumour. Based on reading all available sources, it's the most common telling and would be considered historical fact as far as the history that was written down says it is so, but Edward kept the execution a private affair so no means of punishment seems to have been recorded. Kingsif (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Blah, I should have read the article more closely. The book cited says that the drowning "appears in most contemporary histories" The article has a lot of explanation cited to a 100-year old paper juxtaposed with a claim (cited to a 200-year old paper) that you can't fit a man in barrel. Regardless of the hook being adjusted, the article itself could be clarified, Rjjiii (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Having just read this hook in Q7 and compared it against what is written in the article, I wanted to bring up the same issue that Amakuru has beaten me to with his point number 2. I suggest that the hook and the article should be more closely aligned. Otherwise, this will likely show up at Errors. Schwede66 07:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
This is also being discussed below, from which I replaced the hook.--Launchballer 07:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1 (1 March 12:00)

Naide Gomes

@SL93, Yue, and AmateurHi$torian: I don't think we need the units conversion in the hook. MOS:CONVERSIONS makes an exception for "topic areas (for example ... American football where yards are primary)". I think any sport where distances are universally reported in meters would fall under that exception. RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not mind the conversion being removed. Yue🌙 03:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't mind either. Thanks for pointing out the policy :) -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 15:19, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Done. RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Documented (news organization)

@SL93, MSG17, and BaduFerreira: Even the article equivocates with "reportedly the first". Not to mention that the source says "with a product on WeChat" That's not the same as having "an account on WeChat". I have an account on Facebook, but I certainly don't have a "product" on facebook. RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith I would just replace "reportedly the first" with "the first" or "the only" per the source. To the nominator, just because a source reports something does not mean that "reportedly" should be used. I would then go on to say "with a product on WeChat". Although I still see why "account" was used and that is because it is an account that was set up for a product. SL93 (talk) 07:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith ... that Documented is the first non-Chinese newsroom in the United States with a WeChat account for its product? SL93 (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
I have edited the article. SL93 (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
... that Documented is the first non-Chinese newsroom in the United States with its product on WeChat? SL93 (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
I have changed it to this to match the source. SL93 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Madame Saqui

@SL93 and MumphingSquirrel: The article says into her seventies" which got turned into "well into her seventies" in the hook. And I can't find anything in the cited source which supports either statement. RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith I'm not sure why the article uses that source because the DYK nomination used a non-English reference. I just replaced the source in the article with a different English reference. It says, "Marguerite would eventually marry a fellow acrobat, perform under her new name Madame Saqui, and gain fame and the patronage of Emperor Napoleon himself, dancing the rope into her seventies." so I would remove "well into". SL93 (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Never mind. I changed the "Saqui continued to perform well into her seventies." to the source that the nominator mentioned below. SL93 (talk) 07:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Have now stated her specific age for that performance in article, line above had already given context. Source cited does specify this - on page 190. "Elle a près soixante dix sept ans" tranls "She was nearly 77 years old". Very much well into her seventies. MumphingSquirrel (talk) 07:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The line above was sourced to an image that didn't mention the fact. SL93 (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hennepin Avenue Bridge (1855)

@SL93, Darth Stabro, and Departure–: This copies a lot of text (almost the entire article) from mnopedia.org. It's properly acknowledged as using a CC-BY-SA source, but I think the quantity of text that's copied goes beyond what's acceptable. It may not be a strict copyright problem, but is this really what we want our encyclopedia to be? RoySmith (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

If you pull it from queue, I'd be happy to try to rework it a bit but I won't be able to get to it for a few days. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't see the issue. Everything is still cited. The copied text is both compatible in license and attributed in the article, and is reasonably well-written by Wikipedia standards. Departure– (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
At least 1500 of the 3726 prose characters must be original to Wikipedia—that is, not copied from MNopedia; per WP:DYKLEN, content duplicated from public domain sources is not counted toward the DYK length requirements. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Pulled RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Just to head off possible confusion, there's two distinct DYK submissions, about two different bridges:

Queue 2 (2 March 00:00)

Tyrannasorus rex (remastered)

... that a specimen of Tyrannasorus rex had six legs and wings and was killed by a legume?

@SL93, Surtsicna, and Paul2520: I'm thinking we should hold this for April 1. RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I like that idea. = paul2520 💬 15:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Fine by me. SL93 (talk) 15:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I added it to Wikipedia:April Fools' Main Page/Did you know but obviously did something wrong because it's not showing up there. I tried Special:Purge and force-reload in my browser, but still not seeing it. Any idea what I did wrong? RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I would rather not because I did not mean it as a joke. April 1 hooks tend to twist wording and formatting to achieve an effect. I do not see a straightforward science fact fitting there. Surtsicna (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Hmmm, OK, I have no objection if somebody removes it, but given that I seem to have screwed up the adding, I'll leave it to somebody who actually knows what they're doing to remove it. RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Interesting, now it's showing up. Do purges just take a while to have effect? In any case, I'll still leave it to somebody else to undo, to make sure that's done correctly. RoySmith (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
It's because the nom hadn't been reopened yet.--Launchballer 20:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7

@DYK admins: There are now seven queues, so we should go to two-a-day.--Launchballer 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

But not, of course, until after the midnight UTC run, which is about an hour and 35 minutes away. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Grain Belt Beer sign

@SL93, Darth Stabro, and Viriditas: Two issues; the source redirects to a YouTube channel, and I'm all ears as to why 'sign' is capitalised.--Launchballer 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Launchballer The source brought me to this which is not a YouTube channel. It does contain a news video though. SL93 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Clicking that link redirected me to [9]. Possibly a geoblock?--Launchballer 16:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
That is very weird. I'm not sure what to do with that. SL93 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Hm, I'd guess not wanting to comply with GDPR.
On the capitalization, as you can see from the nom page I originally had it non-capitalized but moved it; I think I saw a few sources that had it capitalized and it seemed more like a formal name rather than a descriptor. I'm fine with it either way, can be moved back to Grain Belt Beer sign. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
It’s capitalized because "Grain Belt Beer Sign" is its historical NRHP designation.[10] I’ve worked with these assets in the past and they are always capitalized on Wikipedia, IIRC. It's the same reason Frank Lloyd Wright Home and Studio is capitalized. It's the formal title after receiving the historical landmark designation. It looks like the rules of historical properties are entirely different in the UK. Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Pan Shu (psychologist)

@Generalissima and Tenpop421: I don't see how this meets WP:DYKINT.--Launchballer 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it does to general audiences. The hook seems just fine to me (Marxism being used in psychology does sound unusual, at least to a layperson). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
See Frankfurt School. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
As layperson, I disagree. SL93 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Other than going to Russia for the Pavlov centennial, I'm not seeing anything else usable in the article. Maybe just reject? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
I think it's fine. SL93 (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
I mean as a layperson, I disagree that it isn't interesting. SL93 (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
I think it's borderline interesting, but as an alternative, it might work to play the fact off the suppression of his work during the Cultural Revolution. For example,
ALT1: ... that Pan Shu, who incorporated Marxist principles into his psychological theories, had to write psychological theory in secret during the Cultural Revolution?
@Narutolovehinata5: @Launchballer: does this work for you? Tenpop421 (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
That sounds a lot better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
I swapped it with the second half of ALT1.--Launchballer 13:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Alexander Goehr

(It looks like this hook got moved to Prep 1)

@Gerda Arendt, Aza24, Grimes2, 4meter4, CurryTime7-24, and Narutolovehinata5: This hook is decidedly person-does-their-jobby, comprising nothing other than 'bloke forms group with four other blokes', all of whom would want trimming.--Launchballer 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

It has been discussed in the nom. It's not "does their job", - they were all still students. It appears in his obit as the first thing, described as of nationwide influence. Three people are mentioned in the lead, five in the prose of the obit. We can be fair to list the two not always mentioned also, especially since one of them also died recently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Both 4meter4 and CurryTime said that the names mentioned were well-known in Europe and elsewhere so I deferred to them regarding interest. I personally didn't find the hook all that interesting, but I was wondering if it was just an effect of my experiences and that people from other places would think otherwise (and it's happened before). I took a look at the article and nothing immediately came to mind when it came to alternative hooks, although maybe the other pinged editors can chime in. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree, but I went by the opinions of editors who said they were well-known. I'm fine with it being changed or pulled. SL93 (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Did you read the obit I linked to just above? It's not my pet fact, but from The Guardian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
In this case, the hook fact is prominently placed in the subject's obituary in The Guardian. The argument presented here is spurious given the stature of the group of individuals within classical music/performing arts, and the fact that the hook fact was already prominently featured in an internationally known newspaper in relation to the subject. The hook is fine and should remain.4meter4 (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Given we have an editor who objected to the hook (Launchballer), two who are unsure (myself and SL93), and two supports (Gerda and 4meter4), it seems that there doesn't seem to be much consensus to run the hook as it stands. It's probably a safer option to just pull the hook for further workshopping. @Launchballer: In your opinion, is there anything else in the article that stands out and can work better as a hook for you? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Given that this is scheduled to run on the 1st given the switch to two sets a day, where do things stand with this? Should it be bumped off, pulled, or just be allowed to run? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Pinging RoySmith or SL93 regarding the above so we can have clarity either way. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
We have the Guardian as an objective source for the information, and that it had impact for the culture of a country, - do you understand that? What else do you want? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
The issue here isn't The Guardian mention or The Guardian being used as a source. The issue is if the hook meets WP:DYKINT. Even if the hook fact was prominently featured in an obituary, the question is if general, non-specialist readers would find the information interesting enough to click on Geohr's article. The reliability or reputation of the source is irrelevant to this concern. As it stands, its interestingness to a broad audience is an open question and it might be for the best to just pull the hook reopen the nomination for further workshopping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
You define interestingness by what the broad audience wants to know, and I define interestingness as what would be good to know for the broad audience, and we will probably not get together. This fact is good news about collaboration, for the introduction of something new, regardless of what the something is, and I would like it spread. - I'd like a move of the hook away from an early-morning position on 1 March when Europe sleeps, to a later position, while we discuss if we should really limit the facts we give our audience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
The thing is that "interestingess is defined by what the broad audience wants to know" is what is supported by WP:DYKG, specifically the criterion that hooks should be "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest". That is, even if the reader is largely unfamiliar with the context, they will still find the fact interesting. Your view of interestingness is contrary to what the guidelines state, as well as going against what is established practice on DYK.
As for the goals, I don't necessarily see them as inherently incompatible. A nominator can propose a hook that they want people to know, and is also likely to be received well by said people. The thing is, because it is the readers' interests that are supreme, per WP:DYKINT, such a compromise would still need to be within the purview of DYKINT. Meaning, a hook that the nominator likes and is interesting even to readers not in the know. Hooks that appeal only to the nominator but will alienate or turn away readership go against DYKINT and generally should be rejected for violating DYK guidelines.
Of course, in this particular case, it's unclear if the hook is interesting or not to a general audience, but I was speaking in general terms. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I kicked the hook back. For what it's worth, we're scheduled to go back to 1-a-day on 1 March, so hooks in this set should still get 24 hours.--Launchballer 11:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I heard that before, while I tried to explain that in this particular case, an average reader who knows nothing about music might perceive as interesting that their were people working together for something new. We have enough desasters, crime, you name it. - Thank you for the move, Launchballer, - I wasn't concerned about only 12 hours, but about about those 12 hours when most of those interested would sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: I read the article and found the bit about New Music Manchester confusing, so I tweaked it slightly. The New Music Manchester article (not written by you) isn't very informative either. TSventon (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I think, though, that "as students" is redundant, when the previous sentence said that they studied. I have no access to the sources of the group's article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
The hook is fine. I am profoundly sad that anything having to do with classical music is labeled as not interesting, but we're OK running scatology. Do we really have this low an opinion of our audience? RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what our audience is without feedback from readers. I didn't come back to this discussion for a while because I don't care if it runs. I'm not a good judge of classical music or sports hooks anyway. SL93 (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
The issue has never been about classical music specifically, we've had multiple hooks regarding it that have been proposed and ran without objection. DYK doesn't really have an anti-classical music bias (one could argue that it's actually the opposite given how often they disproportionately run compared to other topics, like how DYK has a bias for radio and TV stations, but that's a topic for another day). The issue has been if the hooks proposed meet WP:DYKINT, and that is something that applies to all topics and not just classical music (sports hook also sometimes fall afoul of it). It's not impossible to write a classical music hook that meets the guidelines, and it's been done many times before.
To answer SL93's question, this isn't perfect feedback, but one possible data point is page views. Generally speaking, hooks that use Gerda's usual role hook format tend to do really poorly views-wise (in fact, many times they're among the least if not the least-viewed hooks for a month). By contrast, classical music hooks written by other editors, or those that don't follow her usual "jobby" format, tend to do a lot better. Not usually spectacularly, but often at least closer to average. So at least in this case, the data suggests that classical music isn't the issue, it's how the hooks are worded and proposed. I haven't checked the stats for sports hooks and how our readers receive them, but I do remember that hooks about regular pop music surprisingly tend to underperform as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 thank you for your well-reasoned response, but I think you misunderstood what I meant by "Do we really have this low an opinion of our audience?" We should be making editorial decisions based on more than just what hooks we think will garner the most clicks. If clicks were our only metric, we know how to maximize that: lots of sex, scatology, and Taylor Swift. I'd prefer that we aim a little higher, and not worry so much about the click counts. RoySmith (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I remember when we had a bunch of Taylor Swift hooks a while back (to the point there were complaints), they surprisingly didn't do all that well among readers. Indeed, pop music hooks have tended to underperform, which is a bit counterintuitive when you think about it. I agree that views aren't everything, it's just something to consider. We also already have guidelines on avoiding excessively sensational or gratuitous hooks, so in practice sex or scatology hooks wouldn't necessarily make the main page anyway. I do think that certain hook formats (for example, most role hooks) are fundamentally incompatible with DYK's goals, and there doesn't seem to be much if any appetite to get rid of DYKINT wholesale anyway (and if that did happen, it would definitely open a whole can of worms). As I said earlier, the issue is rarely if ever subjects, because no topic is inherently "uninteresting". Classical music isn't inherently uninteresting, and neither is American football (among other topics). A perfectly fine and also broadly interesting hook can be proposed regarding even the nichest of topics. Often, the question is if such hooks are even possible, and if they are, if the nominator is willing to propose or agree to them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Back to the topic: "This article, promoted to GA on 19 Jan, is new enough, long enough, well-sourced, and copyvio free. The hook is cited, verified, and in the body of the article. That the hook is interesting has been established above. QPQ provided. Good to go." Tenpop421, 22 Feb. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, looking at the hook again right now, while I don't really think that the hook is that interesting, it's at least marginally interesting especially with the "progressive force" quote. My main concern was more about if the names involved are well-known enough that a hook gain interest just by their mention, thinking that maybe they're more well-known in certain parts of the world than over here in Asia. The thought I had is that maybe the hook would be more appealing to American or European readers, and that said names are well-known enough there even among the general public. I don't know if that's the case, but if it is, the hook could probably stand as is.
I'm not completely a fan of the hook and would rather it just be pulled for further workshopping (mainly because of concerns raised rather than my own personal views), but I wouldn't object to it running as is either. It's at least apparently more interesting than previous hooks that are solely about opera performers doing such-and-such role, a format that consistently underperforms views-wise and as usually written almost always violates DYKINT. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

2023 Little Rock tornado

@Departure– and Mgreason: Hook appears in the lead uncited, while the body says "one of the most heavily affected" and both it and "theft" lack an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Cleaned up in the body. I think that per the source, the hook can be changed to say "the neighborhood with the most devastating damage from" instead of just "affected by". Departure– (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Agnieszka Machówna

@Grumpylawnchair: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Done. SL93 (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Moira Pollock

I approved this, so must ask for more eyes.--Launchballer 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I've checked it and fundamentally it's OK... there would be two points I'd raise on it, (1) is a magazine describing Moira as a "battleaxe" really a suitably interesting hook for this? I'd have thought most characters in soaps are battleaxes, it sort of comes with the territory and if she is one that's down to the writers, not a result of any astonishing real-world facts; and (2) is this really eligible for a fair-use screenshotted image from the show? I don't think such an image is in any way necessary to understand the character, and also a photograph of the actress in some other setting would serve the same purpose just as well, and could probably be obtained if anyone bothered to try, which means the fair-use image is replaceable and not valid IMHO. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Both fair cops. Narutolovehinata5 and SL93 have probably already seen this, but perhaps @DaniloDaysOfOurLives: would like to comment. I will decide what to do about the malmsey hook when I've eaten.--Launchballer 16:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping :) Regarding the hook - I had suggested other hooks but other editors did not like them, so I am not sure. The reason that I proposed the battelaxe hook was because Moira was referred to that in many sources/pieces of reception, which is unusual for critics to use the exact same wording. Additionally, I have read/written/expanded many character articles and rarely any of them have been viewed/seen as battleaxes. As for the photo, it has a fair use rationale as a TV screenshot as a way to identify the character, just like most TV character articles, and there are no free images of the actress (and over the years, many editors have tried). However, honestly if this is going to be such an issue, I would rather withdraw this nomination. I did want this to be a DYK, but I also do not want it to be stretched out for so long and cause issues for the article or anyone on here. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Butt of malmsey

@Rjjiii and Fortuna imperatrix mundi: Unless I'm missing something, this fact ran on 12 February for Fall of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence. I think this needs a different hook. (Note to self: I haven't yet looked at the article.)--Launchballer 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: this is already being discussed above. The claim in Wikipedia's voice that Clarence was executed in a butt of malmsey is not backed up by either Fall of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence or Butt of malmsey, which both state that the assertion is a "legend" or "tradition" of unknown veracity. I have no idea why this wasn't picked up during the review of that hook, but it might almost be better to run the hook in a modified format here, stating that it's just a legend, just to set the record straight a bit.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
If this hook can't run, I have to say this leaps out at me from the article:
ALT2: ... a butt of malmsey was required to make "Tyre that is excellent", as part of a mixture of "fat Bastard, two gallons of Cute [and] Parrel".
Might work as a funny hook, as it reads as a bit of literary nonsense to the modern ear. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Launchballer Have you finished eating? I'm about to pull the hook myself. SL93 (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
I replaced it with ALT2; if a 'correction' hook can be finalised in the next couple of days, feel free to replace it.--Launchballer 07:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
The new hook sounds fine to me. SL93 (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Prep 4

Gary Tuggle

I feel like this should be attributed, as this is a subjective claim made by the Delaware US Attorney's office, who obviously have an interest in promoting it as such. Also, the source is more specific and says "largest seizure of prepackaged heroin" rather than just heroin in general. Courtesy ping to nom Queen of Hearts, reviewer jolielover, commenter SL93. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I feel like that's covered by the word "potentially". Prepackaged can be added, sure. jolielover♥talk 04:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
I think that "potentially" covers that, but I added "prepackaged" to the article and hook. SL93 (talk) 10:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Mariann Budde

Something about this phrasing just seems off to me. Maybe "[...] after she asked Donald Trump to show mercy to marginalized persons"? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 05:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, tagging User:Pbritti, User:Surtsicna. Feel free to ignore but the phrasing just feels off in the OG hook. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 05:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
I see that the hook has been changed for the better. SL93 (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Mammillaria albiflora (nom)

@Surtsicna, Mhhossein, and SL93: I don't think "this species has become critically endangered" is an interesting hook on its own. How about including another fact from the article, like the poachers breaking through the fence, or (as vigilantcosmicpenguin suggested to me on Discord) going for something humorous with the just a phase quote? jlwoodwa (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

... that Mammillaria albiflora is mainly threatened by illegal plant collecting? I have never head of illegal plant collecting until now. SL93 (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
@Jlwoodwa, @SL93 I love the "just a phase" idea. How did I not think of it first! ALT2 then: ... that a botanist initially dismissed this little cactus as "probably just a phase" but came to take it seriously? Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. SL93 (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
I have updated the hook and added a direct citation. SL93 (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. --Mhhossein talk 14:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about an hour ago, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 12. We have a total of 323 nominations, of which 176 have been approved, a gap of 147 nominations that has decreased by 3 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3 (2 March 12:00)

Mammillaria glassii

@SL93, Surtsicna, and BeanieFan11: Substantial copying from https://plants.jstor.org/stable/10.5555/al.ap.person.bm000011313 (See Earwig report). RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith I think I took care of the copying in the Charlie Glass article. SL93 (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, looks better now, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Themed sets

Is there a proper criteria for themed sets? I've seen a few before at Wikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame/Themed sets and was wondering if there's a set-in-stone criteria to have one - i.e. what topics are wide or otherwise important enough to qualify, when they should occur beyond a specific day, how long before one gets made should it be proposed, etc. Cheers! Departure– (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

See WP:DYKSO Departure–; the only criterion that matters is that it should have received consensus to run on this page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

International Women's Day

WP:DYKSO says that a thematic set is usually assembled for International Women's Day, which is 8 March and Prep 7. (Template:Did you know/Queue#Local update times says different, but we come out of 2-a-day at midnight on 1 March and prep 7 is the eighth set after that.) I've taken the liberty of starting this, but I need Serving cunt promoted and Japanese Girls Never Die and Women's History Museum of Zambia approved so I can promote them.--Launchballer 17:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Launchballer: would you be interested in Template:Did you know nominations/Robin Shahar for this set? Tenpop421 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Probably not. While the biographies are a bit more 'fluid', there's already a lawyer hook in that set and that's probably a bit more positive than "man is mean to woman".--Launchballer 07:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Also, I took in an extra biography, so my priority is the first two.--Launchballer 08:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Very fair Tenpop421 (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I promoted Women's History Museum of Zambia and Breakfast (Dove Cameron song) and will move it if Japanese Girls Never Die is approved before the set's queued.--Launchballer 00:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

This hasn't been clarified in the rules: in the case of multi-article hooks, which articles should have the hook fact directly mentioned?

The precedents I've seen, from recollection, are mixed. In some cases, all articles needed to have the hook fact explicitly mentioned or supported, but in other cases, it was sufficient for just one article to do so. The guidelines don't make it clear how to handle hook facts based on multiple articles, whether the hook is based on information spread across multiple articles, or in cases where multiple articles are nominated but only one directly states the hook fact. Should this be clarified in WP:DYKG? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The hook fact should probably be present in its entirety in one article in the spirit of WP:SYNTH. (Possibly there are exceptions, but it seems a good general rule.) However, a hook fact might only makes sense written out in the context of one article, so requiring it in multiple articles may only result in adding fluff to articles or running similar topics multiple times, which we seem to generally try to avoid. CMD (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Just to gauge your opinion on this @Chipmunkdavis: This recent multi-article hook I nominated has its facts (i.e., the translations of the various titles) distributed across several articles. Would you object to that? Tenpop421 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
A 15 article hook presses heavily into possible exception territory, but it's an interesting example because I would expect the fact to be fully included (although distributed across various sentences) in the linked Early Irish law, which readers can still access even though it is not technically one of the bolded links. CMD (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I think the fact in the hook should be allowed to be distributed across the various articles. Improper synthesis should of course not run, per Wikipedia policy, but usually the syntheses that go on in hooks are pretty trivial. A good example here is the big New Zealand new MPs hook which ran in 2024, where we wouldn't expect each article to name all the other new MPs. Tenpop421 (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that each bolded article should at least contain part of the hook, because a bolded article that doesn't is unlikely to be a main or at least a major factor in the hook (per WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE). To be honest, I don't know of an example where one bolded article didn't contain any of the hook. I'd be interested if you, knew any, @Narutolovehinata5:. Tenpop421 (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Queues

@DYK admins: We have only two filled queues while we also have six filled preps. SL93 (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

We now have five filled queues. Thanks for being awesome. SL93 (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Need to set DYK updates to twice-per-day

@DYK admins: please reset User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates to 43200 right away—certainly before noon UTC—so we can start three days of two-a-day promotions. (This is because we had seven filled queues before midnight and—more to the point—have six filled queues now, effective after tonight's midnight promotion, which is the agreed-upon trigger for the change.) There are no special occasion hooks I know of to worry about at the moment. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Done. RoySmith (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: If I've done the math correctly, we need to fill three more queues in the next five hours to keep this going. RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: This should probably go back to one-a-day now. There's now a special occasion hook for 9 March and a special occasion set for 8 March (see #International Women's Day), but they can be moved if we get to seven queues before then.--Launchballer 00:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: please reset User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates to 86400 right away—certainly before noon UTC. Our three days at two-a-day are up. I'm pinging because I'm not sure whether the redirect from {{dykadmins}} actually works to ping folks on the DYK admins template list; I apologize if this is a reping, but we have under nine hours left to switch back to once a day. Thank you so much. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
 Done. (and can confirm I received pings from both Launchballer and you, but no worries!)  — Amakuru (talk) 06:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: Do we go back to 2 a day already with seven filled queues? We had six going for a while as well. SL93 (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2 (10 March 00:00)

Brian Driscoll

@SL93, BeanieFan11, Reubengoldstein, and Surtsicna: The initial review says "no obvious copyvio", but frankly, I'm at a loss how that determination was made. The Earwig report shows large amounts of copy-pasted from njtoday.news. RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7

Isabel Coursier

Pyropylon98 The information in the Ski jumping world records section is already cited above, but it needs to be recited in the section because no sections should be unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Pinging Pyropylon98 again as they have been editing. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I don’t see anything above. Can you possibly link what I should be fixing? — Pyropylon98 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Pyropylon98 "The information in the Ski jumping world records section is already cited above, but it needs to be recited in the section because no sections should be unreferenced." which refers to Isabel Coursier#Ski jumping world records because it has no citations. The "above" refers to that information only being cited above that section. A new hook was suggested below. SL93 (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
ah i see, i didn’t cite because other old ski-jumper bios leave that section uncited, i’ll fix that — Pyropylon98 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. It's just a DYK rule, even though I don't agree with the requirement if it is cited elsewhere. SL93 (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see where the article supports the claim of "first North American to break the world record for women’s ski jumping" RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith "She broke the distance record for female ski jumpers, and became the first North American to accomplish the feat." SL93 (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Where is this supported in the source? RoySmith (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith I found it in the next reference, and I have now fixed it. I knew I saw it. The reference says, "From that day forward, Isabel was celebrated as being the first female world champion ski-jumper." That makes me think that saying she was the first world champion instead is better, even though it's obvious that includes North America. SL93 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
That works better, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
PS, reading that new source, it occurs to me that as frightening as ski jumping is, the idea of jumping hand-in-hand with somebody else seems even more frightening. RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, I wonder if:
... that Isabel Coursier held the first world's record in women's solo ski jumping?
would work even better? People might get curious about the solo part. RoySmith (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
I like that better than my idea. SL93 (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
the only reason I didn’t say she was the first to break/set the record is because List of longest ski jumps#Women lists a few before her, but they are all European. — Pyropylon98 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
We would need a reliable source explicitly stating the first North American. SL93 (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
i think I saw a line in one of the sources that stated she was the “first in America”, but i’m fine with the hook being modified. — Pyropylon98 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
What about ... that Isabel Coursier (pictured) was only 15 years old when she broke a world record for women's ski jumping? SL93 (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
that’s fine
i kinda misremembered the line, it stated she was the “only lady ski-jumper in America” as she was the only known woman to compete unassisted [11] — Pyropylon98 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
page 18 — Pyropylon98 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
That source should work for both the article and hook. SL93 (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I will keep the same hook if you can add that reference as verification. SL93 (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
alright, i added the ref to the relevant lines in her bio
i guess i could’ve suggested more than one hook when i made the original nom, her being a teenager, being the only female solo jumper known at the time and being the only female jumper on the continent at the time. — Pyropylon98 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I guess I should have mentioned that here instead of fixing it myself. I don't see other prep to queue promoters doing that. SL93 (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
@SL93 I was pleasantly surprised to see that you and others are doing prep-to-queue promotions. I obviously missed all the discussion about that. Can any promoter can promote entire sets to queue if they are uninvolved and have checked each and every hook and article (and are taking responsibility for all the follow-up checks and bulletproofing)? Cielquiparle (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Cielquiparle They can if they have the template editor user right. I was approved for it by RoySmith. SL93 (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle The process is to apply at WP:PERM#Template_editor. I can't see any reason why somebody with your experience wouldn't get approved. RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Shirley A. Pomponi

@DYK admins: This is my nomination, so I need another set of eyes (no offense if you only have one eye) beyond the reviewer and promoter. SL93 (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I've swapped out this queue with prep 3, as we're at seven queues and this set is themed for #International Women's Day.--Launchballer 12:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Amakuru Can you look at this if you have time? SL93 (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Kazuyoshi Akiyama

@SL93, Gerda Arendt, and Locust member: I don't see how the source backs up the hook and I see close paraphrasing that will need to be resolved before this can run.--Launchballer 12:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry, I used ref Rundel but never gave gave it the correct url, title, etc. But now. There were sources for this (and other works) being the Japanese premieres even, but this source is more cautious. - Can you be more specific about the paraphrasing, because with these lists of titles, it's not easy to phrase it differently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I think the sentence "In 1964, Akiyama made his debut with the Tokyo Symphony Orchestra, and within a few months, he was named the orchestra's music director and permanent conductor." could be worded differently.--Launchballer 12:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I tried, but am afraid that it is not as elegant. Help wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
ps: That sentence was already in the article version when he died, probably copied, and probably copied again from us for obits. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Girl in pink jacket

@Mhhossein, Aneirinn, and Narutolovehinata5: "Which?" tag wants rectifying and this should really be at Girl in the pink jacket per WP:COMMONNAME (and there's no way a biography should have a Background section!), though none of those matter right now. Why does this deserve its own article given that the content can easily be folded into the 2024 Kerman bombings?--Launchballer 12:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand the Which? tag. The tag is used for "a retired police officer and war veteran" and people can have more than one career in their lifetime. SL93 (talk) 14:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
War veteran of which war? I agree that it would be more appropriate for the title to be Girl in the pink jacket. Aneirinn (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Does it really matter if the information isn't available? It's so trivial. SL93 (talk) 21:02, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I removed the sentence entirely. Google Translate does not verify any of it. Everything else checked out fine. SL93 (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Launchballer I was under the impression that a subject with enough coverage could have their own article. I see no reason to move an almost 4,000-character article into the bombings article, and we have multiple editors in the DYK nomination who appear to agree with that. I would think differently if the article was much shorter. It's not like Wikipedia doesn't have enough space for another notable topic. SL93 (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I changed the title Background to Bombings. SL93 (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Guantanamo Migrant Operations Center

@Remember and Tenpop421: Far too many unattributed quotes in here, especially in the Reactions section, as well as close paraphrasing. I also note that the article is citing Fox News for "30,000", which is listed as red for politics at WP:RSP. (Also @RoySmith: the tool doesn't seem to work on this nom.)--Launchballer 12:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Ok. I'll try to fix. Remember (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Added ABC news for the 30,000 claim. I can remove all references to Fox news if people think that is what should happen. Just let me know. Remember (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Remember I think you should do that just in case. SL93 (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Ok. I will work on that. Remember (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Ok. All the references to Fox have been replaced with other sources that can substantiate the statements. The only exception is for the paragraph on the support for the program from Peter Hegseth since Fox is the only one that has those quotes. I thought it would be okay to include that one section as having Fox news as a source since they are basically just being used to support statements that Hegseth made in support of the GMOC, but let me know if people prefer I remove that. I had added this section because people had wanted quotes showing someone supporting the decision and so it is hard to find statements supporting the move. Anyway, let me know if you want me to remove this reference to Fox News too and I will try to find other statements supporting the decision. Remember (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Also, to be clear, I assume the problem is in the quotes that are just in sentences and not those quotes that are from anonymous sources within the administration. Let me know if I am wrong. Remember (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Alright fixed the section in question. Let me know if there are other areas that you think need attention or if that section needs further attention. Remember (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Done. Everything should be done and should be ready to go. Let me know if there is anything else that you want done. Remember (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Rutherford Chang

@DimensionalFusion, Thriley, Valueyou, YordleSquire, and Prince of Erebor: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 12:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. SL93 (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Maria McDermottroe

@Lajmmoore and Bogger: I added two {{cn}} tags to Gina Costigan; these will need to be rectified before primetime. Also, the cited source quotes McDermottroe for the claim that Costigan played Traynor's girlfriend, which is a breach of WP:BLP.--Launchballer 12:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer and Lajmmoore: I've added missing citations, and, while I haven't deleted the problematic reference, I added independent sources for the role played by Costigan. (changes). Alternative/additional sources for hook: https://www.reelingreviews.com/reviews/veronica-guerin/ https://www.tvguide.com/movies/veronica-guerin/cast/2030140509/ I hope that's sufficient.-Bogger (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Brain microbiome

@Bluethricecreamman, JJonahJackalope, and Tryptofish: What makes The Guardian reliable for this given WP:MEDRS?--Launchballer 12:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

the dyk nom includes discussion of the fact that this is somewhere between a less accepted hypothesis and a fringe view, and article tries to make clear that burden of proof remains with folks looking to prove this exists.
with all honesty, there is no medrs source that suggests strong evidence for this. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
My answer to this question is that we are not citing it for a medical claim, but as a primary source reflecting the opinions of the authors. The authors are respected mainstream scientists, writing in a letter to the editor saying that they, in effect, debate the existence of the brain microbiome. There's no reason to think that The Guardian is unreliable as to the existence or the content of the letter. I think it's also relevant that the letter was written to rebut a report that The Guardian had published earlier. We do not cite that earlier report, because that would indeed violate MEDRS, but the fact that it's that particular publication does not pollute the reliability for our purposes of a letter saying that there is a debate. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree with this analysis. SL93 (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Phedimus kamtschaticus

@Surtsicna and Zanahary: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 12:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. SL93 (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 4

Wei Baqun

The source for this says:

Official PRC historians collectively describe Mao Zedong, Peng Pai and Wei Baqun as "the three great early peasant movement leaders" of the CCP. The choice of the third one may surprise foreign historians, more inclined to select among others the early Shen Dingyi or Fang Zhimin. Besides the fact that he shared a violent death with his two competitors (Wei was assassinated four years after Shen's assassination in 1928, and three years before Fang's execution in 1935), who was Wei Baqun (1894-1932)? Han Xiaorong provides the answer.

So while he is "considered" to be this by Chinese leaders, it seems this is not a universally held view worldwide, and the unattributed statement above would need to be modified or clarified per WP:WEASEL. Pinging @Toadboy123, Cartoon network freak, and SL93: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

It could be stated something on the lines of "In the official historiography of the People's Republic of China/Chinese Communist Party...." Toadboy123 (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
@Toadboy123: so something like this?
I'm all for that hook if the extra information is added to the article. SL93 (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I have added the extra information into the article. Should be GTG now. Toadboy123 (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
{{u|Amakuru} It looks like this can be resolved by changing it to the new hook. It also looks like the hook below can be fixed by changing it to ALT4. This set goes live later today. SL93 (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Fix ping Amakuru. SL93 (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: Anyone? SL93 (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
 Done thanks for pushing this through SL93!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Journey to the South

Two things here:

  1. Saying he "amputated his right leg" is a bit misleading IMHO as it makes it sound like it was a deliberate act. In fact, according to the article, he cut off the leg by accident in the course of doing a pretend amputation. Probably worth adding an "accidental" or similar.
  2. I'm not sure the stated link between the "conversion to Buddhism" and the "allusion to popular one-legged spirits" is found in the article. Those two aspects are in different sections and not linked as far as I can see, the spirits are only mentioned in connection with the leg loss. Pinging @Kingoflettuce, Patar knight, and SL93: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
    I would just say - "... that the protagonist's accidental amputation of his right leg in the Ming-dynasty fantasy novel Journey to the South is an allusion to popular one-legged spirits?". SL93 (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
    I did prefer my ALT4 since it allows both the amputation/conversion to Buddhism to be mentioned without it necessarily sounding as though they were part of the "allusion". (At the same time there's more that's alluding to the spirits than just the amputation.) KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 02:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
    I would be fine with that. SL93 (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
     Done (almost) - I've put in ALT4, but including the detail that the amputation was accidental.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
    ALT4 works as well, and while I still think it doesn't flow as well, it's probably more accurate on the relation of Buddhism to the spirits and the novel than would be possible to summarize in a DYK blurb. That relationship was the central premise of the Cedzich source, which argues that the conversion of the protagonist to Buddhism mirrors the normalization of the spirits' cult, including with Buddhist traditions, and the book is arguably an attempt to further legitimize the cult. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the amputation of limbs in Buddhist literature has a long history and is a known literary trope in that genre. Because the Buddhist literature is so incredibly vast and large (it is said that there is no person on Earth who has managed to read all of it, and it is likely twice as large due to all the material that has been destroyed over time) I can only comment on one famous example of it, which is found in The Jingde Record of the Transmission of the Lamp, "The Six Chinese Patriarchs", "Bodhidharma and Hui K’o". Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Interesting?

I read today "... that Huwie Ishizaki was often asked to "write his real name", despite Huwie being his actual name? -If that is interesting - someone has an unusual name (and we get to know nothing more about him besides that "him" is the correct pronoun which isn't obvious from the name) - I really don't know what interesting means. The second part of the hook adds nothing, at least to me. I won't go to ERRORS, it's not wrong, but of no interest to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

It's an odd hook, that's for sure. Viriditas (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 5

Philip S. Low

I am noting this one to say that technically it is not compliant with WP:DYKRULES - "The facts of the hook need to appear in the article", since, rightly, neither of the two articles linked mentions the other Philip Low at all and other than their names and alma mater, there is no connection between them. I'm guessing there aren't any external sources that have noted the connection either?

Personally I'd probably be inclined to allow this one on a bit of an WP:IAR basis as it's kind of fun. Bottom line is that it must comply with WP:V and that's OK as the fact itself can be deduced via WP:CALC (or at least it can now that I've added sourced PhD dates to each of the two articles). So by default I won't take any action on this and allow it to run, but if anyone objects let me know. Pinging @Chetsford, Narutolovehinata5, Tenpop421, and SL93: who were involved with the hook.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Amakuru: note that this exact issue is being discussed above under the section header "This hasn't been clarified in the rules: in the case of multi-article hooks, which articles should have the hook fact directly mentioned?", so the rules aren't exactly fixed on this matter. Tenpop421 (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the dates of the PhDs to the articles! Had slipped my mind. Tenpop421 (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that applied to muti-article hooks. SL93 (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I, too, assumed CALC applied, however, if there's disagreement I'm happy to have it modified, perhaps thus? ...that Philip S. Low received a PhD from the University of California, San Diego, and Philip S. Low received a PhD from the University of California, San Diego? Chetsford (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing in particular, although it is an interesting question. If the fact wasn't "obvious" from what's in the articles (e.g. if some link between them was implied that isn't stated anywhere) then I would probably raise a bit more of an objection.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

American Football (1999 album)

The article mentions that it was a side project (with a source attributing this in quotes to one of the artists, I guess that's probably OK). However, I'm not seeing it mention that it was "never indended to be" an influential album. It seems like we later learn that it was influential, in the "Legacy" section, but this is not connected with the "side project", not is it mentioned whether the band intended it to be influential or not.

I might suggest something like:

which removes the link between the two aspects. If we need more time to think this through before go-live at midnight UTC, I can swap with another hook. @LunaEclipse, Pbritti, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. SL93 (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
OK  Done. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Point the Finger

  • ... that "Point the Finger", a comic-book story written in 1989, is categorized as "Trump fiction"?

My issue with this is that by saying "is categorized as", stated in WP:WIKIVOICE, we make this sound like a wide-used category and that this is an absolute fact. In fact, though, the article mentions that this is simply a label given my one author, the professor Stephen Hock (who isn't notable enough for an article). It might be better to simply say that it has been "described as" this, which is something we often do when mentioning an attributed quote in a DYK hook... Again, if we don't get a quick solution to this then I can swap it out to a later queue. @Viriditas, Launchballer, Tenpop421, Narutolovehinata5, and Cielquiparle:  — Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Changing "is categorized as" to "has been described as" works for me. Tenpop421 (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Good solution. "Has been characterized as" could also work IMO. But is more characters. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Changed to "has been described as". Thanks all.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Prep 4

Jack Hobbs (publisher)

... that Jack Hobbs is remembered for a bout of explosive diarrhoea?

@SL93, Launchballer, and IanTEB: Can we please not run this attempt at infantile humor? Surely there's something more interesting we can say about him? RoySmith (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

No opinion on whether the hook should run or not, but for what it's worth the subject isn't a BLP and it appears that the subject did not consider the diarrhea thing offensive when he was still alive. Having said that, the article is relatively sparse on hooky material, though maybe a hook about the "special" kind of book could be an alternative? It's admittedly less eye-catchy than the diarrhea angle though (I don't think hooks that rely solely on Milligan's mention would work per WP:DYKINT). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
That's not an attempt at humour; so far as I can tell, that's almost entirely what he was best known for (it takes up more than half the main source), and it is (in my opinion) by far the most interesting thing about him. I have no opinion of the "special" hook.--Launchballer 11:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I think the hook is good. It points the reader towards a fun anecdote, and I don't think we could sum up the most notable thing that happened to Jack Smith in a less obscene way. Tenpop421 (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
If that's the best we can come up with to write about Hobbs, let's not run this at all. RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree. I promoted it because I did not see much difference between it and earlier hooks, but it does seem like it's almost insulting even to the dead to say that is the most interesting thing about him. That would be a key difference. SL93 (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
It is a pretty hilarious story, but I would not summarise it as "remembered for a bout of explosive diarrhoea". The mishap involved not just diarrhea, but also leaving a train station wearing a women's cardigan and a hat instead of trousers and underwear, and was made famous by comedian Spike Milligan. If we make a hook that isn't just about shit, perhaps it has potential. —Kusma (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

For example,

  • ... that a real life story involving Jack Hobbs walking home while wearing a woman's cardigan and a hat in place of trousers and underwear was utilised in comedy shows by his friend Spike Milligan?

tells the story without gratuitously smearing feces on the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I am very happy with Kusma's hook.--Launchballer 16:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I like that hook. SL93 (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I think its kind of wordy, but certainly better than the original, so I've put it in the queue. RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
The hook is okay but I wonder if there's a better way to make the hook flow better. Maybe:
  • ... that comedian Spike Milligan would often tell stories about his friend Jack Hobbs walking home while wearing a woman's cardigan and a hat in place of trousers and underwear?
The original wording is 193 characters, this new one is only 173 characters. My only concern is that the phrasing might make more people click Milligan's article than Hobbs, but I guess other editors can chime in. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith Are we still going with Kusma's version, or is the rephrasing better? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I prefer your shorter version, but I don't want to monopolize the decision. RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
The shorter version is slightly better. What is your opinion of the following:
... that a real life story in which Jack Hobbs walked home with a woman's cardigan and hat for bottomwear was deployed in his friend's comedy shows?
... that a real life story in which Jack Hobbs walked home with a woman's cardigan and hat for bottomwear was told in comedy shows by his friend Spike Milligan?
... that Jack Hobbs once walked home with a woman's cardigan and hat for bottomwear?
"Bottomwear" is a word the article uses, although "on his lower half" could work as well.--Launchballer 16:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm gonna be honest, I don't get why talk of diarrhea would be seen as uncouth for the front page when various sexual fetishes and pornstars are in DYK on the regular. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 04:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
We should have fewer of those as well. RoySmith (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Hear, hear. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 04:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I disagree that fetishes and pornstars are inherently taboo for DYK, in much the same way that we shouldn't be banning opera/sports/fossil/radio or TV station/etc. hooks from DYK wholesale. It's all about the hooks themselves, not the subject matter itself. Our guidelines already discourage against excessively gratuitous hooks, so individual cases can already be dealt with and hooks about such subjects can be written in such a way to meet the guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Slightly annoyed it took nearly a day and a quarter to remember that NOTCENSORED exists.--Launchballer 16:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Believe in Magic

@AirshipJungleman29: ALT0 is currently the hook put in this prep area, however, I personally prefer ALT1 as it's far more interesting. It isn't that big of a deal since both hooks are cited and work, but just thought I'd mention it and get your opinions. jolielover♥talk 13:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Jolielover, ALT1 is not verified by the article, which says "in order to meet with celebrities, particularly One Direction", or the corresponding source, which says even less certainly "partly driven by a desire to rub shoulders with celebrities", not mentioning a particular focus on meeting that band. I'd suggest that the sentence in the article be rephrased. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

About Queue 1

Hey AirshipJungleman29, about this edit: most of the de-linking seems good, but both Nintendo and the Grammys are proper nouns, which MOS:OVERLINK does not directly advise leaving unlinked. I don't know if either name is well-enough-known to presume that readers of the Main Page around the world should know what they are. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

TechnoSquirrel69 informal DYK practice is to err on the side of less links—the bolded articles are the main focus of hooks and readers can click through if they don't understand something. In this case, I think both Nintendo and the Grammy Awards have international recognition (the former immensely so) and links are definitely not required. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived several hours ago, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 23. We have a total of 282 nominations, of which 173 have been approved, a gap of 109 nominations that has decreased by 38 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Seven queues

@DYK admins: We're now at seven queues, and so we should go back to two-a-day. I kicked back all of the date requests.--Launchballer 12:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

  • No thanks. I promoted two queues on the understanding that we're on one a day and I'll have time to review them. We only just exited a round of two a day and it's way too soon to do it again unless you want to burn out everyone on the project.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
    I agree with @Amakuru. The last couple of times we've gone to two-per-day mode, it's lasted for exactly one cycle. It's pretty obvious to me that we don't have the support to make it a going concern, so despite the prescriptive language in WP:DYKROTATE, I agree that we should hold off on the switch. RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
    I asked about it above, and no one responded so I take it that there is no interest and that is fine. SL93 (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
    Indeed. I'm not saying never, we can revisit in a few days if necessary, but it was literally two days ago that we switched back to one-a-day. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I'll admit, I was more than a bit surprised when we queued six sets in a day. I put the date requests back and suggest going back no earlier than the 10th, to allow them to run for 24 hours.--Launchballer 14:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I guess on the bright side, the issues that you pointed out for what is currently in prep 3 should be fixed before it moves to a queue again. SL93 (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I disagree with the decision to ignore DYKROTATE. The current language (originally proposed by RoySmith) was indeed prescriptive for a reason: it was a short run, the intent was that it would only run for one three-day cycle, and the reversion to one a day was automatic. There was never an expectation that we would have multiple sequential three-day runs. The obvious way to keep from going to two a day is to avoid promoting the seventh queue. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset When I wrote that, I was most concerned with finding a way to make going back to one-per-day better controlled. Previously, we were set up that making the change would require gaining consensus here and I had already done a couple of WP:IAR mode changes when we ran the queues empty. That made me uncomfortable. IAR is intended to give people the ability to deal with unexpected situations. Once taking an IAR action becomes habit, that's a sign that something needs to change.
Now that we have template editors able to fill queues, we've relieved the pressure somewhat on the admins, but I think we still need more people working on that. @BlueMoonset if you applied for TE, I would be happy to approve your request. You'd make an excellent addition to the group. RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I guess I never understood why someone who likes to keep DYK running correctly wouldn't want to update queues or preps. It's not like it has to be done all or most of the time. I encourage BlueMoonset to start doing that as they have the knowledge to do so. I'm sure BlueMoonset has more knowledge than me who wasn't aware of attribution templates for public domain sources and about Fox News as a usually bad reference (although that doesn't surprise me at all) until recently. SL93 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Not to defend Fox News, but to be fair Fox News outside of politics is a yellow source (and used to be a green source), which merely means its use on Wikipedia is a case-by-case thing rather than being outright discouraged. It's the same with other yellow sources like Insider. It's a bit of a misconception throughout Wikipedia that yellow means a source is not suitable, when in reality it's more of a caution. It can be used depending on the context, or it may not be appropriate also depending on the context. Maybe that has to be clarified somewhere in the rules, since while it already is the misconception remains widespread. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith, SL93, I appreciate the vote of confidence. If this change to allow template editors had been made even five years ago, I probably would have signed up for it. At present, I don't have the extra energy and time to do the necessary promotion checks to the quality needed. Very occasionally I will move hooks around within or between prep sets, but that's pretty much it these days, aside from the usual wikignoming on the Nominations and Approved pages and the list of Older noms needing reviewing. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I also disagree with the decision not to switch to two-a-day mode. I vaguely remember when creating the new DYKROTATE that it was very much intended for it to be able to run consecutively (that is, two back-to-back cycles) for cases where the backlog was high - and yeah, an entire week of approved hooks aren't even transcluding because there are so many of them DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
  • I am missing some context in this discussion. The point of the limited duration (3 days) and automatic end of the two-a-day rotation was to ensure that all admin pressure was front-loaded, and thus that there should not be burnout. What is risking the burnout in the current situation? CMD (talk) 01:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Limiting simultaneous reviews

Maybe DYK should have a limit on how many nominations an editor can have at a time. It's a drastic move, but the backlog isn't getting much better. SL93 (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. WP:DYK says The DYK section showcases new or expanded articles. It's not much of a leap to turn that into showcasing new contributors. Having something on the main page is a big thrill the first time it happens and a great way to encourage and thank our newest editors. I mean no disrespect to our highly experienced and prolific contributors, but given a choice between running somebody's first submission vs running somebody's one hundredth, I'd rather go with the new guy. WP:FAC has that exact rule; a given author can only have one article under review at a time. It seems to work well there. We should give it a shot here. RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind authors having one article for a review at a time. I just don't see any other viable idea that doesn't involve burnout. SL93 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
There are several unintended consequences I can foresee. For one, what is to stop a GA nom from timing out after seven days if we already have a separate nom waiting for a review? You would have to change the seven-day rule because we can't control when someone is going to complete a GAN, and it may have been in the queue for months already. Viriditas (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Another idea is for experienced editors to be forced to build preps, but that will never happen. SL93 (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of forced labor. We want people building preps (or whatever) because that's what they enjoy doing. If you force somebody to do something they don't want to do, quality will inevitably go down. RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I realize that which is why I said it will never happen. I only mentioned it to show the only other potential idea I can think of for perspective. SL93 (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
It’s definitely not my thing, but if it helps to bring the backlog down I can try to help. Do you have time to mentor me on this SL93? Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I can, but we would probably need a specific day because I have online college classes and physical therapy appointments at the moment. I could also type up what I do when I build preps and email it to you - on top of mentoring. SL93 (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, that would help immensely. Drop me a talk page note when you send it so that I know to check for it. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
WP:DYKPBR is also useful, along with the tool WP:PSHAW. PSHAW makes it so that hooks don't need to be promoted completely manually. SL93 (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I will look at it later tonight when I get home. I’m more concerned about 1) how to do it right, and 2) how to avoid mistakes. I’m not too concerned with the selection process as that sounds somewhat fun. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Ok. I will type up some things for you tomorrow. SL93 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
And check over it. I have all preps in my watchlist at all times. SL93 (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
@Viriditas I want to second using PSHAW. I think that's the clear first step. The manual process is so much more complicated.
PSHAW will add a "Promote (PSHAW)" button to your "Tools" menu. Go to Template talk:Did you know/Approved and click "view" for any hook and then click "Promote (PSHAW)". Don't worry; this does do anything yet. A box will pop up. It lets you select a prep #. You can go to Template:Did you know/Queue, to see what's open, but if you're just testing, pick any number and click "Load prep/queue". This allows you to choose which hook, which image, and which slot. Nothing will be saved until you click submit, so you can kind of explore the interface first. Rjjiii (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
In addition to all the good practical advice above, let me add a bit of more general advice. You will make mistakes. Don't sweat it. Everybody makes mistakes, it's part of the learning process. RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I did a little quick-and-dirty counting (HTML screen scraping plus grep/sed/sort hacking) to get an idea of how much difference this would make. Just looking at nominations marked "Created by", we've got in the pending review queue: 

  2 "User:Lajmmoore" 
  2 "User:Maximilian775" 
  2 "User:Prince_of_Erebor" 
  2 "User:Serial_Number_54129" class="mw-redirect" 
  2 "User:Thriley" 
  3 "User:Jeromi_Mikhael" class="mw-redirect" 
  3 "User:Makeandtoss" 
  3 "User:Soman"

and in the approved queue: 

  2 "User:4meter4" 
  2 "User:AlphaBetaGamma" 
  2 "User:Butterdiplomat" 
  2 "User:Cielquiparle" 
  2 "User:DMVHistorian" 
  2 "User:Elias_Ziade" 
  2 "User:Lajmmoore" 
  2 "User:Piotrus" 
  2 "User:Soman" 
  2 "User:Tenpop421" 
  2 "User:TheDoctorWho" 
  3 "User:BeanieFan11" 
  3 "User:JustJamie820" 
  3 "User:Kingoflettuce" 
  3 "User:Thriley" 
  3 "User:Vigilantcosmicpenguin" 
  4 "User:AmateurHi$torian" 
  4 "User:Jolielover"

RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Strong disagree on this one. Not only would it be impractical, but it would just open a whole can of worms and potentially exacerbate our existing systemic biases. Plus, if we only let editors have one nomination at a time, we would be running out of nominations before long since we only have a limited number of editors around. Imagine just one hook per editor and one active nomination per editor. We might not be able to fill in all Preps and Queues since DYK may not have that many nominators. I'm honestly surprised, even stunned, and admittedly disappointed, that the idea even has support and is even called an "excellent idea", because this frankly has to be one of the worst proposals ever made regarding DYK. It's just going to punish editors, both new and veteran, and cause more issues than it solves. I get that the backlog is a recurring issue, but there are already more practical ways to solve the backlog and we don't need to resort to such drastic measures. The one-nomination-at-a-time limit works for FAC because the barrier to entry for that one is much much higher. DYK is supposed to be the "chill" section, we don't need more bureaucracy than what we already need. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm with Narutolovehinata5 (and not just because I also have four at Approved). New editors don't do QPQs, so this would almost certainly exacerbate the problem.--Launchballer 09:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Can't we just encourage or incentivize reviewers to review articles despite not having open nominations?

This is one of the easiest and most productive ways to clear the backlog and I'm surprised there isn't more support for this. I am aware that I've brought this up multiple times before, but the backlog issue has been such a recurring thing and people have made different proposals (including the, frankly, ridiculous "one-nomination-at-a-time" proposal above), yet people haven't even considered doing more practical and feasible ones first. We don't want to overburden our nominators, of course, we don't want to make stuff like prep building or reviewing too much of a burden that it burns them out. But maybe we could provide incentives of some kind to editors who review nominations and build up QPQs despite not having open nominations of their own? That's what I do: I don't always nominate articles, but I still review noms anyway. Many other nominators only review if they have an open nomination, and that practice should probably be discouraged since it only builds up the backlog further. Is there any reason why we don't encourage this practice more or even why it isn't suggested more? People want to throw the baby out of the bathwater and think of proposals like the above, when one obvious solution is already there. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I think having a DYK backlog reviewing month where you can get points – similarly to GAs – would encourage more people to review DYKs. I used to not like reviewing hooks but now I actually quite enjoy it, so maybe these backlog drives could help 🤗 DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Also, why aren't we considering upping to two QPQs per nomination? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 03:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
We already do that during backlog mode. I think it was proposed before to make the 2 QPQs after 20 noms thing permanent but it didn't gain consensus, so backlog mode was the compromise that was reached. At the rate things are going, maybe even three QPQs might be necessary for some editors since in practice, the two QPQ requirement's effectiveness wasn't 100%. Though that's a bit of an extreme, I still think encouraging a culture of reviewing despite not having open noms is more ideal and feasible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: Can someone please turn on the two QPQ requirement? And/or officially move us to backlog mode? Cielquiparle (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I think our efforts should be focused on moving Approved to prep.--Launchballer 09:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Anyone willing to hop on discord or something to walk me through the process/answer some questions and then I'll start doing that? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 12:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3 reviews per a single nomination is not EVER happening. Long standing contributors are again being actively punished for participation simply for existing. You talk about pushing away editors and yet you make this suggestion.--Kevmin § 17:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I've been trying to do three reviews per nom for the last year or two. The problem is that the nominator is not always available to fix things, so that slows the process down. I don't mind doing three per review when I can. Viriditas (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
User:BlueMoonset once had such a DYK backlog blitz proposal. Maybe it's time to dust it off. Flibirigit (talk) 06:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I think that would be a great idea! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
This sounds like a good idea, but let's hear from the creator first.--Launchballer 09:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I like the idea a lot! Tenpop421 (talk) 14:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
The backlog blitz idea was shot down very decisively at the time (back in 2020); we ultimately ended up with backlog mode to get the number of unapproved noms down. You can see the outlines of what my thinking was at the time at User:BlueMoonset/sandbox4: a short "blitz" (much like the Guild of Copy Editors does for a week every other month) to bring down the backlog of unreviewed nominations. (There was also discussion on the talk page.) The reason that it was a short period was because it seemed inadvisable to get the number of available nominations so low that there wasn't an adequate selection for people wanting to do QPQs, and there was no sense of how popular a blitz might be. A key point was that any review submitted for the drive would be ineligible to also be used for a QPQ. Right now we're down to 113 unapproved nominations, the lowest it's been since late January. I don't understand the call for backlog mode at the moment: we typically don't turn it on until the Nominations page can't transclude all of the unapproved nominations, and that certainly isn't the case now. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Switching tonight

To address Launchballer's initial request, we've been at 7 full queues for a couple of days now, so I plan to switch over to two-per-day after the 6 March 0000Z update. That's about 10 hours from now. Hopefully we can keep up enough momentum to run that way for at least a few cycles, to avoid the disruption of frequent switching. RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll need to move the date requests. I was actually hoping the #International Women's Day set (currently in queue 7) could run for 24, but no worries if not.--Launchballer 13:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
This is done. Thank you @Launchballer for shuffling the queues around. RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Launchballer, I think the lead hook of Queue 3 needs to be moved to Queue 4 so it hits the main page first thing on March 9, the special date requested. Right now, it's scheduled to hit the main page at noon on March 8. Maybe swap the two lead hooks in those queues? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. I fixed that.--Launchballer 22:59, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6

Yang Nien-hsi

I'm not really sure why this is an interesting hook or remarkable fact... Are baseball players from Taiwanese universities supposed to sign for American MLB teams? Is 2008 to 2024 an unusually long period of time? Without context, this doesn't sound particularly surprising at all but maybe because I'm not so familiar with the sport. @Butterdiplomat, Launchballer, Narutolovehinata5, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree, it seems rather uninteresting. Sadly, reading the full article, I can't find anything better. RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't know much about any sports. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
To be at least it seemed like a marginally interesting hook idea, but if consensus thinks is uninteresting we can pull. For what it's worth, baseball is the most popular sport in Taiwan but I don't know if it's considered unusual for Taiwanese players to sign in the MLB or not (I think it's a lot less common than with the NPB). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Um, this is almost off the main page now and in queue 6. How? SL93 (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Well, that certainly makes this all moot. I don't see any reason to pull it from the MP, but obviously we're not going to run it again in a few days. RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
That hook has been moved around a couple times ever since my promotion. It appears that a mover forgot to also remove it from an old prep. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, that was my fault. I swapped this and #Rutherford Chang so that I could queue a set, swapped that set with another because I thought we were heading into two-a-day (see #Seven queues) and then forgot I made the first edit when I hit 'rollback'. I must be more careful. I've put Chang back in this set.--Launchballer 23:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue promotions

@DYK admins: We have 3 filled queues, and we will have only 2 filled queues tomorrow morning. SL93 (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The switch to two per day was on March 6th. I'm assuming we're not going to get enough queues filled in the next seven hours to keep going so my plan is to revert back right after the next update. RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Maybe we should try to figure out why not that many editors are loading preps to queues. I thought we had enough help. SL93 (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 and Cielquiparle are both at WP:PERM/TE right now and I assume both will be approved, so we'll have some more help soon. RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
That's great news. SL93 (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Switch is done. RoySmith (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Newness?

On Template:Did you know nominations/The Wizard of Oz (1939 album), the article was created from a redirect on 15:32, 27 February 2025, the expansion begun on 15:37, 27 February 2025 and it was nominated on 23:59, 6 March 2025 which is over the seven day mark and per WP:DYKNEW article is considered new if, within the last seven days, the article has been created in mainspace from a redlink or redirect; expanded at least fivefold in terms of its prose portion. Does this count as new or not? and should I fail this or not? Thanks Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

It's under the one-two day extension that's allowed per WP:DYKNEW. Even if it was late by a couple of days, in practice it could still have been allowed depending on the circumstances. However, I've closed the nomination due to a lack of QPQ: a QPQ should be provided at the time of the nomination, and none was added. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3

Natalia Maree Belting (nom)

@SL93, Makeandtoss, and Rjjiii: I don't think this hook meets WP:DYKINT; is there something I've missed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if you don't clarify. SL93 (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
I also suggest - ... that Natalia Maree Belting wrote a book based on over 6,000 documents, mostly of French records from their Illinois colony, that dates from 1708 to 1816? or ... that the language of Natalia Maree Belting was said to be "spare, rhythmic, and resonant." SL93 (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Both are much more interesting to my mind. If someone else approves them, I can swap one in. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Sounds good. SL93 (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
I don’t mind either. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
I like the second hook, see it the article, and can verify it in the cited source. Rjjiii (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
 Done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Invasive species in the United Arab Emirates (nom)

Jolielover there is a citation tag that needs addressing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I removed that sentence. jolielover♥talk 14:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! Rjjiii (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7

Emmett Barrett

The image was flagged at the nomination for being unsuitable, but it has now been used; any reason for this DimensionalFusion? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I share the concerns raised in the nom about both the quality of the image and the copyright status. The file page claims it was published without a copyright notice, but I find that difficult to accept on its face. It was in a newspaper, so I would expect the copyright notice covering the whole paper to be on the masthead, not directly attached to any individual photo. RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
(Also as I said nomination, the expression "American footballer" makes me cringe...what does it even mean...?) Cielquiparle (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Someone who plays American football. Normally I'd agree with "American football player" being vague, but given how it's a well-known fact that Americans call football "soccer", it's not actually that big of an issue. NFL player might have been a suitable alternative (though it wouldn't apply to players who've never played in the NFL). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 4

NGC 1700

@C messier, EF5, and Cielquiparle: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 22:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@C messier @EF5 I have added repeat footnotes citing the Chandra X-Ray Observatory at the end of each sentence relevant to the hook. However, I think it would be better if we explicitly state the "glowing in X-rays" part in the actual Wikipedia article for NGC 1700. (It's clear in the original source but not in the article.) Could you please fix this ASAP? Cielquiparle (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree. When I read over these, this was the one item that I pondered about. Ultimately I decided what we had was OK, but @Cielquiparle is correct that a more explicit statement would be better. RoySmith (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: Added the glowing in X-rays in the article and some more end-of-sentence citations. C messier (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Ed Storm

@BeanieFan11 and Sammi Brie: Not seeing where "after seeing" is in the article.--Launchballer 22:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

It should be implied. He was the coach. Of course he'd be seeing his team lose. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 22:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
It doesn't expressly rule out the possibility that Storm's intervention was preplanned.--Launchballer 12:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Rashid Israr

@JustJamie820 and Maximilian775: Hook's a bit bland, what else have you got?--Launchballer 22:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

My suggestion is something along the lines of
"... that Rashid Israr was born in India but played cricket for Pakistan?"
RoySmith (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
User:RoySmith and User:Launchballer:
To Roy: I'm not the biggest fan of the born in India/played for Pakistan hook. Also, as he didn't play cricket internationally, it would be "in Pakistan", not "for". (Wow, that's so pedantic on my part...yikes...)
To Launchballer and others: The reason I mentioned the 12 1/2 hours in the hook was that it was (and still is) one of the longest individual innings by time in cricket history. Is there a way we can spice that up to make it look more interesting? If it's not possible, maybe I will accept Roy's idea with the word change.
If it were useful, I'd add a source talking about how he has the highest score at a particular cricket venue (Gaddafi Stadium), but would that reset this process if I tried that? -- JustJamie820 (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
It was just an idea, it it's not to your liking, I'm fine with that. RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Elsewhere in that paragraph is the phrase "third-highest". There's a hook in that.--Launchballer 12:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Let's turn that into a hook then. Feel free to tinker with it as you will. Maybe:
"... that in 1977, cricketer Rashid Israr recorded the third-highest score ever recorded in Pakistan?
I do like that, though my own wording may need some spice.
Note that he is fourth-highest now...but that's only mentioned as a footnote. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Considering the "unlikely to change" criterion, that may need further revisions, or simply a new angle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
In that case, if something resembling the alternative hook that User:Launchballer inspired works well enough, we can keep the year in the hook. I think Pakistan's domestic season has concluded, so I don't believe someone else will pass Israr's score in the country for a few months, but third-best looks better for a hook than fourth-best. -- JustJamie820 (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I would suggest replacing "in 1977" before "cricketer Rashid Israr" with "once" after it - this should be enough disclaimer, I think.--Launchballer 10:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Andrew Cushin

@Jolielover and Epicgenius: This doesn't strike me as particularly unusual. What else have you got?--Launchballer 22:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

.... that singer Andrew Cushin used to play as a goalkeeper in Newcastle Benfield F.C.'s youth team? SL93 (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
I think it's pretty unusual for someone to have multiple celebrities backing their album release, but I don't mind SL93's hook. jolielover♥talk 03:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Swapped. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
My beef with the queued hook was that it isn't unusual for any amount of celebrities to back a career. SL93's hook is fine by me, although there probably shouldn't be two football hooks in the same set as a cricket hook and I may move it to a different set.--Launchballer 12:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Good catch. All queues are currently filled though so we'll need a swap, or perhaps a bumping off. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Bradley Smalley

@Jon698 and Grumpylawnchair: Two problems here; the refs Cheyenne 1890 and Caroline Obituary 1915 don't point anywhere, and the article says "was referred to as the political boss of the Vermont Democrats" and we've got that he was in wikivoice.--Launchballer 22:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Fixed the ref issues. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Launchballer I would just remove "referred to" from the article. The source doesn't say he was referred to as a political boss by anyone. It just flat out says that Smalley was "the active political boss." SL93 (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
I cut that.--Launchballer 12:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Djabal Club d'Iconi

@Cloudz679: This really ought to say "after a player was found guilty of witchcraft".--Launchballer 22:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Assume you refer to the article, fixed it there. C679 05:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
I meant in the hook, which I've now fixed.--Launchballer 12:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Prep 3

The Ethereal Rock (nom)

@Kingoflettuce, Munfarid1, and SL93: The current wording is rather wordy, and arguably as currently written may not be interesting to a broad non-specialist audience considering the abundance of names that are unfamiliar to general readers. Can the hook be tightened or perhaps an alternative be proposed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 ... that the inspiration for the short story The Ethereal Rock, about a man's friendship with a rock, was the painter Mi Fu? SL93 (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Not much of an improvement since it's reliant on knowing who Mi Fu is. I was actually wondering if a hook about the "whose obsession with rocks had become proverbial" quote would be better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
... that the short story The Ethereal Rock, which "details the reciprocal love between a collector of rocks and a prized rock", is related to the Chinese concept of obsession known as pi? SL93 (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
A bit on the wordy side, but I'd like to hear from the nominator and reviewer for more input. It's too bad we couldn't just focus on the reciprocal love quote since otherwise the hook would violate DYKFICTION. @Kingoflettuce and Munfarid1: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Amalthea (mythology) (nom)

Unless I've misunderstood, the goat in the version of the story mentioned is not actually Amalthea (even though in some other versions of the story Amalthea is the goat herself) but rather, Amalthea is a nymph who assigns a terrifying goat to raise Zeus. The text of the article says:

Zeus's mother Rhea gave him as a newborn child to Themis, who handed him over to the nymph Amalthea, who had the infant nursed by a she-goat. Pseudo-Eratosthenes goes on to relate that this goat was the daughter of Helios, and was so terrifying in appearance that the Titans, out of fear, asked Gaia to hide her in a cave on Crete; Gaia complied, entrusting the goat to Amalthea.

Given this, having a link of the form goat who raised him seems like a MOS:EGG issue, the article links to Amalthea but Amalthea is not the goat. Also I'm not sure if this is a rule, but it seems like the hook should be directly about the subject linked, not about something else mentioned in the article. Thus if in this account Amalthea is not the goat, that's more of a tangential fact. @Michael Aurel, Queen of Hearts, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Another issue, although I'm not sure if this is relevant in this case, is the previous question on whether or not mythological stories meet WP:DYKFICTION or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
@Amakuru: The version in which Amalthea is the goat is mentioned in the next paragraph of the "Nurse of Zeus" section:
An account which is largely the same as that given by Pseudo-Eratosthenes is found in a scholium on the Iliad, though the scholiast describes Amalthea herself as the goat whose hide Zeus uses in his fight against the Titans (rather than the owner of the goat).
The only difference between the two accounts (other than Amalthea being the goat) is that the goddess Themis is specified as the source of the prophecy (so everything relevant to the hook is the same). That said, I had wondered if the hook could be slightly confusing, as – while everything in the hook is correct – the story is only told in full in the first version presented in the article (the one from Pseudo-Eratosthenes, where Amalthea is the nymph), as it of course wouldn't be necessary to retell the narrative again with minor differences. Let me know if you think the hook (or article) should be reworked. – Michael Aurel (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Ah, that's interesting @Michael Aurel:, a potential concern I might have with that is that the hook fact isn't directly stated in the article or (if I understand you correctly) the source. The story of the Titans being afraid of the goat is told in Pseudo-Eratosthenes, while we're told that a scholium on the Iliad gives "largely the same" story with Amalthea actually being the goat, but a bit of WP:SYNTH required to deduce that the Titans were afraid of the goat in that version of the story. WP:DYKHOOK states that "citations in the article that are used to support the hook fact must verify the hook", which I'm not sure is met here.
As for Narutolovehinata5's point about DYKFICTION, I'm probably neutral on that. I can see a case that this is effectively just a made-up story, but on the other hand mythology from antiquity does seem a somewhat separate class from modern fiction... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
@Amakuru: That's fair enough. It is directly stated in the primary source of course (which is cited), though the cited secondary source (Gantz) doesn't explicitly state that she was terrifying in appearance in the scholiast's version (that said, I'm not sure it would be particularly easy to come away with a different conclusion, as Zeus of course only uses the skin because the Titans are afraid of it). Perhaps it would help things if I made the article a little more explicit? For example, specifying that in the scholiast's version Amalthea is the "terrifying goat" whose hide Zeus uses in his fight might work? If not, I could expand on things a little more, retelling a bit of the story; I think I avoided this at the time because it felt repetitive (as the full story was just recounted in the previous paragraph), but if it'll avoid confusion I wouldn't have an issue with doing so. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Michael Aurel: sure, that sounds good. I think if it's clarified that this account has a terrifying goat and that goat is actually Amalthea then it's fine. Mainly because it's difficult for readers to read further and verify that claim otherwise (personally I didn't even spot the subsequent line that you mention above - my initial impression was that the hook was referring to Pseudo-Eratosthenes as that was the only mention of terrifying goats). As for it being a primary source, that's probably OK, that's not specifically against the rules I don't believe. If others watching this page have a different opinion on that and the DYKFICTION question, they can let us know here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth I personally disagree with the idea that mythology hooks violate DYKFICTION, but I know other editors subscribe to that idea and feel strongly about it. I wonder if an RfC might be in order at some point because it is a bit of an open question and one that has caused confusion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
I promoted the hook because I don't think DYKFICTION counts in this case. SL93 (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Great, thanks – I've hopefully rephrased things satisfactorily. The point about my initial impression was that the hook was referring to Pseudo-Eratosthenes as that was the only mention of terrifying goats was my initial concern with the hook. (Another solution would have been to swap the order in which the two versions are mentioned, though Gantz intimates that the scholiast was writing after Callimachus, which would imply that the scholium is, at a minimum, from the century after the Eumolpia was written, and the article is ordered roughly chronologically.) – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

It might be worth instituting a time limit with DYKFICTION—to allow hooks from when "human imagination" was much less "unbounded", and creative works which pushed the envelope are per se interesting. Something like "creative works published before 1900(?) can be allowed leeway", if anyone wants to make a formal proposal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

That cut-off wouldn't make sense because otherwise we'd just be having hooks solely about plot points from Shakespeare (as an example). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
1500, then? Or simply "stories that can be considered mythological or legendary"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
The latter is probably the better option, though it might be a good idea to have an RfC regarding that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Something along the lines of the second suggestion seems reasonable. I think most cutoff dates would inadvertently result in certain lesser-known mythological systems being excluded, while also allowing a number of works most would consider "fiction". An RfC seems a sensible idea to me. – Michael Aurel (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I've started an RfC below, see #Should WP:DYKFICTION apply to mythology, religious stories, and folklore? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:39, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Maybe the hook should be pulled, at least until the discussion below concludes. SL93 (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I really don't want to open up DYK to all of the stories from the Book of Mormon without putting them into real world context. —Kusma (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Prep 6

David D. Demarest (nom)

@Zeete, Phlsph7, and SL93: The hook isn't exactly a spectacular one, and while I can see the appeal of "sacred rhetoric", otherwise might not meet WP:DYKINT. Are there any alternative options? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

... that David D. Demarest was a professor of pastoral theology and sacred rhetoric for 33 years? SL93 (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
  • keeping the original, a "first", and adding the years of service:
... that David D. Demarest was the first professor of pastoral theology and sacred rhetoric at the New Brunswick Theological Seminary and served for 33 years? Thanks, Zeete (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Against the new proposal. It doesn't at all address the interestingness concern (not to mention it being too long and complex). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I disagree about both hooks not being interesting, so that leaves us with no consensus. SL93 (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
To make things clear, the "not interesting" response was meant for Zeete's proposal, not your proposal. Yours is better, but it feels marginally interesting at best. Is there a different angle that can be used there? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
The only other thing that I can think of is ... that David D. Demarest received an honorary degree while serving as a professor of pastoral theology and sacred rhetoric? SL93 (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I prefer the original version. If something happens for the first time, it is usually considered interesting. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
First hooks tend to be problematic on DYK because they often require high sourcing standards since being first is considered an exceptional claim. It's not an issue in this case since the claim has been verified, it's just something to keep in mind. I have to disagree though that first hooks are inherently interesting: being first in something does not automatically mean it's interesting, it has to be a notable or at least intriguing first.
To answer SL93's question, the new hook isn't that interesting either. Honorary degrees are dime-a-dozen. If we have to go with a hook, the 33-years angle might be the best option, but otherwise, we may have to reject and fail this nomination because even that hook seems marginally interesting at best. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I ended up having to reopen the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/David D. Demarest so that I could fix prep 6. It was hard to fix the too many US hook situation (and I already had it perfect). SL93 (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Anna's Archive

Moved from WP:ERRORS
... that an illegal search engine for books and scholarly articles has been used to train large language models?
  • I'm not sure if it's really clear in the article that the site is illegal (problem per WP:DYKHOOKCITE); like, it probably is, but none of the cases in the legal issues section seem to have actually resulted in a decision that the site is, in fact, illegal. Maybe you could argue that the blocking in certain countries constitutes this, but I'm not sure. "illegal" as a adjective also seems a bit subjective; illegal where? Not a huge deal but thought I'd bring it up. Perhaps "questionably legal" would be better, but that is also not sourced explicitly either. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 22:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
    The article makes it clear that the website infringes on copyright which is illegal. SL93 (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
    Wikipedia infringes on copyright. We don't mean to, but it happens. That doesn't make Wikipedia illegal. RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
    Yes, but Anna's Archive's whole purpose is to do that. It's no accident. SL93 (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I was going to make the exact same point, Roy. Hosting copyrighted material (as WP no doubt does, despite our best efforts) does not make it an illegal website. I've minus Swapped this out to Prep 6 and we can continue the conversation at WT:DYK.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
    It does if it's the intent. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
    The rules at DYK are pretty clear. The hook must reflect what's in the article and the article must reflect what's in the source(s). We can call it an "illegal website" if you like, but that must be in the article and explicitly cited. It hosting copyrighted material doesn't count; that may or may not be obvious to us, but it's WP:SYNTH either way.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
    Ok, but it should be common sense that it is illegal to violate copyright law. SL93 (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
    I did more searches, and the owner admitted that it's illegal in certain jurisdictions. And again. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
    Courtesy ping to @BruschettaFan, Thriley, Bruce1ee, C messier, Rjjiii, Cielquiparle, Darth Stabro, SL93, RoySmith, and Cwmhiraeth: who were involved with this nom at one time or another.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
    Ars frames "illegal" as an unresolved allegation: "Until this question is settled by courts or lawmakers, companies training AI on the Books3 dataset will likely continue to face lawsuits from rights holders, particularly from those who see AI models as an extension of harms caused by these allegedly illegal shadow libraries."[12] Anna's Archives calls their service a "shadow library" but denies that is is illegal based on the premise that they are providing a link to copyright infringing material but not directly providing or hosting the infringing material. Vice frames the site as a search engine for pirated (illegal) books, rather than an illegal search engine.[13] Rjjiii (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
    But just linking to copyrighted material that was not added by the copyright holder, with the intent to do so, is against the law in the United States and other countries. The hook could just say that it is illegal in some countries. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
    Oh, it's almost certainly illegal. I'm noting that after looking at several sources, they are not yet saying it is illegal, and that "Anna" obviously will deny that it is illegal unless a court rules otherwise, Rjjiii (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
    Describing it as "allegedly illegal" seems supported by the article considering the various lawsuits from publishers. BruschettaFan (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
    The owner, in the second link, I provided above said - "Not too long ago, “shadow-libraries” were dying. Sci-Hub, the massive illegal archive of academic papers, had stopped taking in new works, due to lawsuits. “Z-Library”, the largest illegal library of books, saw its alleged creators arrested on criminal copyright charges. They incredibly managed to escape their arrest, but their library is no less under threat. When Z-Library faced shutdown, I had already backed up its entire library and was searching for a platform to house it. SL93 (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
An alternate description of the site could be something like "a search engine for so-called 'shadow libraries'". BruschettaFan (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Most of the cited sources use "shadow library" in some way, perhaps because it's not disputed by either side. Van der Sar (April 16, 2024) "Free ..." cited in the article would also support something like "a search engine for pirated books". Rjjiii (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I guess that works, although piracy is illegal as well. I remember the "You wouldn't steal a car" ads about film piracy. SL93 (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I would support this description since it's immediately understandable to a general audience. BruschettaFan (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree. SL93 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
This works and is hooky. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 02:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Agree. It is now more precise and more interesting. Well done @Rjjiii. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks all.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Margaret (song) (nom)

This is going to run in the next set, so asking for feedback on it since the queue is now cascaded-protected. Is this hook interesting to people who don't know who Antonoff or Qualley are? I'm not really sure. Pinging nominator Jolielover, reviewer Tenpop421, and proposer Viriditas. In the meantime, maybe the hook could be moved to another prep while discussion is ongoing? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@DYK admins: Apologies for the ping, but after some more thought it might be for the best to either pull this, or to put it into a prep to workshop a better hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
My reading of the hook (and I understand you see it differently) is that it is constructed in a way that maintains interest without having to know the song or the people. I realize that not everyone is going to be on the same page with this, but as a fan of music and its long history, the first thing you learn is that most songs are love songs, often in a fictional or detached mythological context full of archetypes and tropes (country music songs are famous for this, for example). Knowing this, from my POV, it is interesting that a popular song is a love song about how two real people met, and I don’t have to know who they are to find it interesting. Viriditas (talk) 03:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
That's really beautifully written, and I agree. jolielover♥talk 04:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I did an informal survey over on Discord and the responses were pretty much along the lines of "not interesting, even if you know who they are". I do think the hook is somewhat interesting to me, but it seems others may disagree. Maybe we don't need to throw out the hook fact entirely, but maybe a more "accessible" wording can be found? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Some alt hooks:
ALT2: ...that Margaret Qualley had to confirm Lana Del Rey did not leak her wedding date on a song?
Source: https://www.nme.com/news/music/jack-antonoffs-fiancee-confirms-lana-del-rey-did-not-leak-couples-wedding-date-on-margaret-3443313
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/lana-del-rey-jack-antonoff-margaret-qualley-wedding-date-1234734440/
ALT3: ...that there was speculation Lana Del Rey had leaked a celebrity couples' wedding date on a song?
Source: https://www.nme.com/news/music/jack-antonoffs-fiancee-confirms-lana-del-rey-did-not-leak-couples-wedding-date-on-margaret-3443313
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/lana-del-rey-jack-antonoff-margaret-qualley-wedding-date-1234734440/
ALT4: ...that Margaret was certified silver in the UK?
Source: https://www.bpi.co.uk/award/20840-3320-1 jolielover♥talk 08:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I actually think ALT2/ALT3 are better options, but I'm concerned that they might violate DYKHOOKBLP. If they don't, then either could be used. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: et al - I've swapped the Margaret hook out to Prep 6 to give more time for the above discussion to evolve; next change is only 20 mins away. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Given that this will be going to Queue soon and the concerns about ALT2/ALT3 remain unresolved, I've pulled the hook and replaced it with People Watching (Conan Gray song). That hook itself has a bit of a minor issue: the hook says "some of the lyrics", but the article and source do not support the "some" wording and even suggest all the lyrics were based on eavesdropping, but this might just be a nitpick. (Edit: I've gone ahead and removed "some" from the hook, please feel free to revert if you think this should not have been done). Discussion can continue on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7 (15 March 00:00)

Botetourt Medal

@AirshipJungleman29, Pbritti, and Tenpop421: It's not an issue for DYK, but per MOS:CONFORM, the long quotes from the inscriptions should be set in sentence case. RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Good to know! Done. Gave me a chance to fix a citation! ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Damian Chong Qui

@AirshipJungleman29, TNM101, and SL93: I have no clue what a triple-double is, nor do I suspect will many of our readers. RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I thought that having the wikilink for it will work, and I see no way to describe it in a hook without it being bloated. SL93 (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree with SL93. The only other way to say it would be that 'he scored at least 10 points, had at least 10 assists, and had at least 10 rebounds'; and will expand the hook far beyond the 200-character limit of DYK and would make it sound weird TNM101 (chat) 13:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I had no clue either, but the term is cool. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2 (12 March 12:00)

1932 Winter Olympics medal table

@SL93, Arconning, and Vacant0: The hook says "first man to win a Summer and Winter Olympic gold medal in different events". Are there any events that appear in both the summer and winter games? I suspect not, in which case "in different events" is extraneous. RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith What about "first man to win a Summer and Winter Olympic gold medal in two events". It seems like "different" was used as a poor way to say that they were not the same event. SL93 (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Now I get what you're saying. I would just remove "in different events" or say "in two different events." SL93 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith The 1920 Summer Olympics and 1924 Winter Olympics had figure skating as an event, where Gillis Grafström won both gold medals, making him the first man to win a Summer and Winter Olympic gold medal. Whereas Eagan won in boxing and bobsledding, making him the first person to win in different events. Arconning (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Bersey Electric Cab

Just bringing this up here to see if others think that it is referenced sufficiently for such a first. I think that it likely is. SL93 (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Domingo Chalá

Ping GanzKnusper. The hook says "most of his life" while the article says "much of his life" which isn't really the same thing. SL93 (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. The source says "gran parte de su vida", which literally translates to "large part of his life". My Spanish is not good enough to say whether "most" is implied. Feel free to change the hook. GanzKnusper (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. Done. SL93 (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Louafi Bouguera Olympic Bridge

Ping Hawkeye7. The hook information needs an end of sentence citation. SL93 (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 15:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 6

Jarrad Searby (nom)

I'd like additional opinions on whether this hook meets WP:DYKHOOKBLP and if the article is notable (personally, I think both are just about fine). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't have nominated the article myself, but I also think both are just about fine.--Launchballer 11:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Olympic Village (Paris) (nom)

I reviewed this, so another check is needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Doing.--Launchballer 11:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
@SL93, Hawkeye7, and Grumpylawnchair: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation and could probably take a trimming. What is your opinion of "... that the Paris Olympic Village's use of wood and concrete helped reduce its carbon footprint?"--Launchballer 11:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I consider it to be directly cited because the facts about the wood and concrete are right after each other, and then there are two citations after it. SL93 (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
The trimmed version is not correct. The use of concrete increases out the carbon footprint; it was the use of ultra-low carbon concrete that made the difference. Suggest the hook be trimmed to "... that the Paris Olympic Village's use of wood and ultra low carbon concrete helped reduce its carbon footprint?" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Mr. McMahon (miniseries) (nom)

@Royiswariii and 4meter4:, according to the article "McMahon has also expressed interest in purchasing the rights", which is much less certainly stated than the hook's "attempted to buy". By the look of it, the original Puck source by Matthew Belloni is much in favour of the latter, so the article needs to be adjusted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@DYK admins: The issue still remains. This should really be replaced, and it is the next set for the main page. SL93 (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1

Roland L. Bragg (nom)

I'm somewhat sceptical that the image attached to this hook, File:Pfc Bragg.png is actually correctly licensed. The file page says that it was sourced from the Bragg family via the Associated Press, which checks out, but it then also claims that "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties" with a stated author of "United States Army Center of Military History".

Where's the evidence that this phonograph was taken by a military officer or government employee? We ostensibly know little about it other than that it was supplied by the family. Perhaps they took it themselves, or it was taken by someone else and donated to the family later. Unless more evidence can be supplied of where exactly this photo came from, I'm not convinced we can run this on the main page. Pinging @DMVHistorian, Darth Stabro, Tenpop421, and AirshipJungleman29:  — Amakuru (talk) 14:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Per this SFGate article, the photo is featured in an unnamed book about the history of Nobleboro, Maine, which may contain more info on the photo if anyone can track it down. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
The article also refers to it as a "military photo", but that's a little ambiguous. Tenpop421 (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps in the Eisenhower book that talks about the ambulance incident? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
It does not appear to be in The Bitter Woods. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I've emailed the Nobleboro historical society about their book to see if it has a record of the provenance of the photo. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 17:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Amakuru et al - The current digital format of the image was sourced from the family via AP wire and has been denoted as a military photograph in the SFGate piece and other articles. It is currently published on the Airborne & Special Operations Museum website, with the copyright footer stating that it is "hosted by the United States Army Center of Military History" Army Museum Enterprise (official U.S. Army site for the museum).
I do not have a copy of the Nobleboro Historical Society's Nobleboro Maine - A History (published 1988), but that may be the earliest known publication which included the photograph, and it would be interesting to learn if it is also denoted as a military photograph in that book, too. Thank you @Darth Stabro for taking the initiative on that!
If there are significant concerns about the licensing of the image, I would suggest someone either 1) utilize a capture/screen grab of the colorized and digitally remastered military portrait of Bragg which was just released on DVIDS and produced/published by the Army. (Linked here: https://www.dvidshub.net/video/954583/fort-bragg-honor-private-first-class-roland-l-bragg) or 2) somehow utilize this image of the exhibit of Bragg (including his military portrait and uniform) which is now on display at the museum. The photographer of the image of the exhibit is listed as Pfc. Richard Morgan. DMVHistorian (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Guantanamo Migrant Operations Center

Moved to Template:Did you know nominations/Guantanamo Migrant Operations Center

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 17:49, 13 February 2025 edit (UTC)

Request for third opinion on hooks at Ana María Iriarte

Hi, could someone provide a third opinion on the interesting-ness of ALT0 (or ALT0a) and the interesting-ness of ALT1a (not necessarily which one is the more interesting) at Template:Did you know nominations/Ana María Iriarte. The discussion between myself, Gerda Arendt and Narutolovehinata5 seems to have reached an impasse. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I can try. Viriditas (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you Viriditas! That's what we need. Tenpop421 (talk) 23:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
More eyes would be nice --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
forget it --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

One away from seven queues

If someone queues a prep set we can move to two-per-day for 72 hours. I can't because I promoted a few hooks therein. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

It looks like Emos vs. Punks in prep 4 will likely need to be moved out. It's a special occasion hook for March 16. SL93 (talk) 15:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
I can take that this evening if no-one else gets to it before then.--Launchballer 15:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Doing.--Launchballer 20:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
There were two special occasion hooks in Prep 4, and Launchballer moved the one that wasn't Emos vs. Punks; I've now moved it, too, to Prep 7.

I just filled the last queue. No problems found, but earlier today I did upload a cropped version of the lead image which I think works better. RoySmith (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

And PS, I see that both @Narutolovehinata5 and @Cielquiparle were granted TemplateEditor earlier today, so we've got two more sets of hands to help out. Thank you to both of you for stepping up. RoySmith (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh, an I also see that @Launchballer did a more complete review than I did, so good job there. RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't believe anyone ever changed the update frequency; we have seven queues again, so if an admin can do that after 00:00 UTC that would be great. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
I'll handle it. RoySmith (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Done. RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, RoySmith. As it happens, starting a day later than planned does not affect the special occasion hooks in Prep 7; they'll still run on March 16, assuming that we fall back to one a day starting with at midnight March 14. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of all 17 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 4. We have a total of 263 nominations, of which 181 have been approved, a gap of 82 nominations that has decreased by 27 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Prep 4

(now promoted to Queue 4)

Sophie Rain

@AirshipJungleman29, Launchballer, and TarnishedPath: The quality of the sourcing seems well below what we need for a WP:BLP on a controversial subject. As far as I can tell, Evening Standard is a scandal sheet. WP:RSNP says about People Magazine the magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source and about VICE There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications. I don't see anything on https://www.complex.com/ which describes their editorial process, so I'm assuming they're not a WP:RS either. I strongly suggest this be pulled. RoySmith (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith, the most I was able to find on Complex's editorial process in a search I just performed was at the bottom of their pages: "COMPLEX participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means COMPLEX gets paid commissions on purchases made through our links to retailer sites. Our editorial content is not influenced by any commissions we receive. © Commerce Media Holdings, LLC All Rights Reserved". Given that Complex makes up about half of the sourcing of the article that doesn't really cut it. If it was only one reference it could just be removed and something else found. I agree with you. TarnishedPathtalk 12:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
While Evening Standard is not a scandal sheet (tabloid format =/= tabloid journalism) I agree with your points on the rest. NHL5 has pulled it, and I've promoted Mike Doherty (cricketer) in its place. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Not-deer

@AirshipJungleman29, ArtemisiaGentileschiFan, and AmateurHi$torian: questions were raised at the nom discussion about the quality of the sources, and supposedly the unreliable ones were removed, but I'm still seeing https://alittlebithuman.com/about-us/ (" founded in January 2021 with the mission of using entertainment as a catalyst for social progress"). There's a long thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 373 about Skeptical Enquirer which basically comes down to "maybe". The East Tennessean source appears to be a blog post. National Geographic is certainly a WP:RS but as far as I can tell, it's the only one in the entire article, and that's not enough. RoySmith (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how A Little Bit Human or Skeptical Enquirer are unreliable. A Little Bit Human being an entertainment news website does not automatically make it unreliable, many entertainment-focused news sites are reliable. The discussion on SE coming down to "maybe" does not mean "unreliable", it means "no consensus"; those are two different things. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
The WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate that these sources are reliable. RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
If there has been a discussion about SE that has no consensus, that's evident enough that it is not considered unreliable by consensus. As far as ALBH, I see nothing that indicates unreliability. It has multiple editors, indicating editorial oversight. I'm not really sure what objections you have to ALBH besides it saying that it focuses on entertainment-related news, which really means nothing considering IGN is considered a reliable source. I can't really address any concerns about unreliability if you haven't provided any specific concerns. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Usually, entertainment websites with an editing team are considered reliable. I'm not sure what the complaint is towards it. SL93 (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith When digging deeper, I did see that East Tennessean isn't a blog and it does have an editorial team, but I don't think it should be used because it is a student newspaper. I do agree with you about Skeptical Enquirer because anyone can submit their articles. Despite the editorial team, that along with the references at the bottom not being complete concerns me. I tried to look up those references to use those instead, but I had no luck. I suggest pulling it. SL93 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
I thought older discussions of the applicability of student newspapers came to the conclusion that they were reliable on a case by case basis. In my own personal experience, they tend to be highly reliable as they are under greater scrutiny than you might think. Viriditas (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Per WP:RSSM: Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community. They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available. However, given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions.
So yes they can be reliable, on a case by case basis, however given my experience reading Australian ones I'd say that most are crap and we're better of using other sources. TarnishedPathtalk 02:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the Skeptical Inquirer source:
Rjjiii (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
I think that the online popularity section is important to include because it provide context for why what was once a very niche story in a single town is suddenly now associated with Appalachia as a whole and why it's well-known outside of that town. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
If there are concerns about notability, an AFD could be started? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Not-deer RoySmith (talk) 12:02, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Pulled. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Institut Français d'Archéologie de Beyrouth (nom)

@Elias Ziade, Richard Nevell, and SL93: This hook is a bit on the long side: would you be fine with stopping the hook at "1970"? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:44, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Narutolovehinata5, I don't mind. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:30, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Since it's ok with el.ziad rthe suggested trim is fine by me. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2025 (UTC)


Queue 4

Cindy (singer)

The hook cites a blog called Mikiki by Tower Records. Is this a reliable source by English Wikipedia standards? @Miraclepine @Tenpop421 @SL93 Cielquiparle (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I would say so since it's operated by the notable music company Tower Records. SL93 (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
As the creator, seconded. ミラP@Miraclepine 14:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Kwek Leng Joo

I revised the sentence in the article about the collaboration between Kwek and Lin (which the hook refers to), to make it clearer, and added a source. See what you think. @Replicative Cloverleaf @Prince of Erebor @SL93 Cielquiparle (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I was quite a fool for forgetting my password (here I am with a new account), but I've changed that sentence so that it makes a bit more gramatical sense ("to modern photographs by Kwek" to "to modern photographs taken by Kwek"). Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Institut Français d'Archéologie de Beyrouth

Regarding the claim in both the hook and the article that that the library of the Institut Français d'Archéologie de Beyrouth contained over 24,000 volumes by 1970: The source actually says environ 24 000 en 1970 which would usually be translated to "approximately 24,000" or "around 24,000", which is not the same thing as "over 24,000". What if they were rounding up? I'm quite sure the hook can't run as is and needs to be fixed ASAP. Please advise. @Elias Ziade @Richard Nevell @SL93 Cielquiparle (talk) 02:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I can only read English so I will take your word for it. I have no suggestions. SL93 (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't feel that "Library has books" is an interesting hook, but in terms of accuracy Cielquiparle is correct. The source says "La bibliothèque comptait 16 000 ouvrages en 1962, 17 000 en 1964, 19 200 en 1967, et environ 24 000 en 1970", so it's just showing the increase of the library over time. "about 24,000" fixes the hook. CMD (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
The most interesting part of the hook was slashed for being too wordy. SL93 (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@SL93 thanks! that unhelpful comment of yours only tells so much about you. Your negativity doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the conversation.
@Cielquiparle you're absolutely right, it was a translation oversight. el.ziade (talkallam) 08:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
What unhelpful comment? I’m honestly confused. I just said that the second part was slashed for being too wordy which it was in an earlier discussion, and I found that part to be the most interesting. SL93 (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@SL93 omg this is embarrassing. I thought you meant you found the hook completely uninteresting. Sorry for the harsh comment. el.ziade (talkallam) 14:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Pinging Elias Ziade. SL93 (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
 Done Cielquiparle (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

First Treaty of London

A couple of issues with this article and hook:

  • Error in footnote 41: The citation is to "Rogers 1994, pp. 388–389" which can't be right because the 1994 journal article only goes from pp. 83–102.
Thank you. They should have been cited to Rogers 2014; I have no idea what I was thinking, but now fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
  • "More than a quarter of France": The claim in the hook is ... that by the First Treaty of London England was to gain more than a quarter of France? but the other source cited (Wagner 2006, p. 198) clearly says "about a quarter of the kingdom" which is not the same thing as "over a quarter of France". In fact, the article also doesn't say "more than a quarter of France"; it says "approximately a quarter of its territory" in the lead section and just "a quarter of France" in the body. The hook should be changed; the simplest solution might be to strike "more than" in the hook. Please advise. @Gog the Mild @Dahn @SL93 Cielquiparle (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree that the simplest solution would be to strike "more than". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
 Done Cielquiparle (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_204&oldid=1281571266"