Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 205
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Did you know. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 200 | ← | Archive 203 | Archive 204 | Archive 205 |
Special occasion hooks in Queue 7 need to be moved
@DYK admins: two hooks in Queue 7 need to be moved so that they run on March 16 as originally planned.
I'd like to suggest that they get split up and run in different sets, since the hooks are about different countries, and the idea is to run them during a 12-hour period when it's both March 16 UTC and also in the local country featured in the hook. Here are the destination queues:
- Queue 2: please move the Queue 7 final hook about the Japanese cat who is
lord of Bitchū Matsuyama Castle
here (it'll run 09:00 to 21:00 in Japan); suggest swapping final hooks since both are quirky - Queue 3: please move the Queue 7 fifth hook about the Mexican
emos and anti-emos
here (it'll run 06:00 to 18:00 in most of Mexico); not sure which hook it should swap with except that both sets have four bios so a bio shouldn't be involved
Whoever does the move should try to separate the two adjacent bios in Queue 7 (currently seventh and eighth hooks), while not ending up with two U.S. hooks adjacent (Jennison is U.S., as is 404 Fifth Avenue). Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset Damian Chong Qui is also a U.S. hook. I have made all of the fixes. SL93 (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
The hook on the tornadoes in Tallahassee should say that they merged over a golf course near downtown, or otherwise some variant of "after striking downtown", I wasn't fully paying attention when revising the hook. Here's the source. Departure– (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Done. SL93 (talk) 11:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- ... that the lead cast of Twilight of the Warriors: Walled In reunited to star in the unrelated film Hit N Fun?
@Prince of Erebor, Tenpop421, and AirshipJungleman29: I'm sorry, but I don't really see how this hook meets WP:DYKINT: if the reader is unfamiliar with the former film, I don't know why they would care that the cast reunited in a later film. I see that the reviewer's preference in the nomination was ALT1: maybe we can swap with that one instead? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- I find ALT1 far less interesting than this hook: a film cast reuniting for an entirely different film is interesting and unusual no matter the specific films. By comparison, one holiday film earning a different amount to another holiday film in one country is pretty normal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- As Airship mentioned, it is common for perhaps two or three actors to star together again, but it is rare for the ensemble cast to reunite in another film. Regarding ALT1, the gist is supposed to be the significantly lower box office, as the 2025 champion film grossed only about one-third of the 2024 champion, yet it has already claimed the title. But to be honest, I struggled to come up with hooks for this film, as nothing about it seems particularly special or interesting. I initially put ALT0 as ALT0 because I found it the most interesting of all (although it is a bit technical); films typically take years to produce, and four months is even shorter than the shoot for many projects. Perhaps we can consider this option if there are divided opinions on ALT1 and 5? —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 12:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- I actually thought ALT0 was the most interesting option, but I guess there's not much appetite for it. I'd like to hear from Tenpop or other uninvolved editors first. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- ALT0 is fine with me too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think it's awfully uncommon for an ensemble cast to reunite. I'm happy to compromise on ALT0. Tenpop421 (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Prince of Erebor, Tenpop421, and AirshipJungleman29: I'm sorry everyone! I actually meant to say that I thought ALT1 was the most interesting and not ALT0, I had my hooks mixed up. I understand that AJ29 objected to ALT1 though, so if others don't like it either then we can stick with ALT0. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think it's awfully uncommon for an ensemble cast to reunite. I'm happy to compromise on ALT0. Tenpop421 (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- ALT0 is fine with me too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- I actually thought ALT0 was the most interesting option, but I guess there's not much appetite for it. I'd like to hear from Tenpop or other uninvolved editors first. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:14, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- As Airship mentioned, it is common for perhaps two or three actors to star together again, but it is rare for the ensemble cast to reunite in another film. Regarding ALT1, the gist is supposed to be the significantly lower box office, as the 2025 champion film grossed only about one-third of the 2024 champion, yet it has already claimed the title. But to be honest, I struggled to come up with hooks for this film, as nothing about it seems particularly special or interesting. I initially put ALT0 as ALT0 because I found it the most interesting of all (although it is a bit technical); films typically take years to produce, and four months is even shorter than the shoot for many projects. Perhaps we can consider this option if there are divided opinions on ALT1 and 5? —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 12:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Date request
I'd like to run Template:Did you know nominations/Remember Monday on 17 May, which is just over two months away, as they are scheduled to perform at that day's Eurovision Song Contest and WP:DYKSO obliges me to ask here first.--Launchballer 10:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
@Lajmmoore: at 1541kb, this article is barely above the prose limit for DYK. I just wanted to check that you're sure you couldn't find any more detail on the article subject? Otherwise a copyeditor who happens to stumble across the article might well be able to inadvertently make it ineligible. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
@Yakikaki, Piotrus, and SL93: I don't think the hook is grammatically correct as it stands: the samples of mosaic are the subject of the sentence, but being non-sentient, they cannot "demonstrate" anything. Would we be fine with a rephrasing along the lines of "... that using samples provided by Johann Jacob Ferber, it was demonstrated that mosaics at Pompeii were made with glass paste, not stone?" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Fine with me Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Well spotted. I agree. Yakikaki (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
@WikiOriginal-9 and Sohom Datta: just notifying you (AndyGordon has already been notified on their talk page) that the article has been nominated for deletion and will be pulled shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Ack! Sohom (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
@Srnec, Elias Ziade, and SL93: unless I am misreading Nelson, she doesn't specifically comment on "bare breasts", just their reputed one-breast-ness. Personally, "one-breasted" seems more interesting than "bare-breasted" - could it just be changed to that? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me. SL93 (talk) 13:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 Also fine with me. el.ziade (talkallam) 13:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Stevenson says "bare-breasted" (here). A good image of the tapestry is here, but I am not sure if tapestries are sufficiently two-dimensional to meet Template:PD-art. Srnec (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Srnec: They do fall under PD-art, per this page on Commons. Tenpop421 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- I have uploaded the image. Srnec (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Srnec: They do fall under PD-art, per this page on Commons. Tenpop421 (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
The nomination page says "In addition to its well-known leaf flora, many of which preserve original colors and fragmentary genetic material" is in the reference Summer-Wet Hydrologic Cycle during the Middle Miocene of the United States: New Evidence from Fossil Fungi | Research, but I don't see that in the reference. SL93 (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging Kevmin. SL93 (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Its in the Supplementary section 1:Supplementary Information 1 – Stratigraphic Columns for the Clarkia Konservat-Lagerstätte, Alum Bluff, and Bouie River sites of Summer-Wet Hydrologic Cycle during the Middle Miocene of the United States which you can download at the bottom of the page you linked. "In addition to its well-known leaf flora, many of which preserve original colors and fragmentary genetic material".--Kevmin § 14:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- SL93 here is the specific quote.--Kevmin § 14:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Its in the Supplementary section 1:Supplementary Information 1 – Stratigraphic Columns for the Clarkia Konservat-Lagerstätte, Alum Bluff, and Bouie River sites of Summer-Wet Hydrologic Cycle during the Middle Miocene of the United States which you can download at the bottom of the page you linked. "In addition to its well-known leaf flora, many of which preserve original colors and fragmentary genetic material".--Kevmin § 14:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Pinging P199 "Ontario Highway 6 goes through Little Current." needs a citation. SL93 (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Done. Regards, -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 00:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@Cplakidas and Tenpop421 The hook says that the battle happened in a narrow strait, but I only see "narrows" in the lead with no citation. SL93 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Probably a nitpick since the Bosporus is a strait. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I see nitpicks brought up a lot on Errors. I'm just hoping to avoid that step. Wouldn't "narrow" be superfluous anyway?SL93 (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. Some straits are wider than others. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 19:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5 Then I don't get your point about how referencing "narrow" is nitpicking... SL93 (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- I mean I don't see why using the word "strait" in the hook is problematic even if it's not directly mentioned in the lede. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't mean that, nor did I mention it. The hook says, "narrow strait", but the article only mentions narrow in the lead with no reference. "Strait" is not problematic because that is referenced elsewhere. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- I mean I don't see why using the word "strait" in the hook is problematic even if it's not directly mentioned in the lede. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5 Then I don't get your point about how referencing "narrow" is nitpicking... SL93 (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Not all straits are the same; the Strait of Malacca is several tens of kilometres wide even at its narrowest. The Bosporus is much, much narrower, and the battle happened at its narrowest part, roughly where the Bosphorus Bridge is located now, where it is less than a kilometre wide. Constantine ✍ 19:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. Some straits are wider than others. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 19:55, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I see nitpicks brought up a lot on Errors. I'm just hoping to avoid that step. Wouldn't "narrow" be superfluous anyway?SL93 (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- @SL93: I've added a citation for this fact. Tenpop421 (talk) 22:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- I corrected the reference; the narrows are not where the original encounter took place, but where the actual battle began, namely inside the Bosporus. Constantine ✍ 22:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Tenpop421 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- I corrected the reference; the narrows are not where the original encounter took place, but where the actual battle began, namely inside the Bosporus. Constantine ✍ 22:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
@OpalYosutebito and Chetsford The hook says, "over 120,000 lines of code", but the article says, "ultimately had over 100,000 lines of code". SL93 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- I will change the article, then. Sorry for the confusion! - OpalYosutebito (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. SL93 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
About the Terry A. Davis blurb, wouldn't it be useful to add a link to TempleOS, as well? Oltrepier (talk) 10:07, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe, but we like to keep the focus on the bolded articles per WP:DYKAIM. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
I promoted this so I need someone to look it over. SL93 (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Looks good to me.--Launchballer 13:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking. SL93 (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Queue 1 (22 March, 12:00)
I reviewed this so another set of eyes is needed. SL93 (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging Kingoflettuce. I just thought of something. Is "reportedly" actually appropriate for the article and hook? It seems like those can be removed. SL93 (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- IIRC the source itself uses similar wording, and we only know of it through one of his aides, not Zhou himself (ditto Mao). KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you. I just thought I would bring it up because there have been a few recent cases where "reportedly" needed to be removed. SL93 (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- IIRC the source itself uses similar wording, and we only know of it through one of his aides, not Zhou himself (ditto Mao). KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:43, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
I would not have signed off on this bio. There is close to zero biographical information about him (apart from having two brothers) and as such, the article is incomplete / a work in progress. Others may be more lenient, of course, but to me, it fails WP:DYKCOMPLETE. Schwede66 16:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: pulled it, and I think quite rightly.--Launchballer 16:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Will have to go against the grain in the nom and agree that the article as currently written does not pass DYKCOMPLETE. If a good faith effort to locate biographical information was made, or perhaps even basic facts like a hometown or place of birth (not necessarily a birthdate) were provided, it would not be an issue. I tend to be lenient with DYKCOMPLETE for biographies and I don't always expect long sections about someone's personal life, but at the very least, basic facts should be included. It also doesn't help that the article is relatively short as it is: it would be less of a problem had the article been longer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Should the 2-per-day run be paused?
It's been five days now, I thought it was supposed to end after three... Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- Today is day six, and we review every three. We're at seven queues, so we go again for another three.--Launchballer 20:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- I would say yes if there was no one filling queues. SL93 (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- I thought the pause was automatic, to ensure people weren't overworked... I guess I misunderstood. IMHO it really should stop after three days, the whole point is to avoid fatigue setting in among those filling the queues and errors possibly creeping in. — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- I figured that editors can ignore filling queues if they feel overworked. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- The idea was to pre-load the work. If people feel like doing the work, they can run the queues up to full capacity every three days and we keep going. As soon as enough people don't feel like doing the extra work, we drop back to one-per-day at the next assessment point. Nobody is obligated to do more work than they feel like doing. At some point, I'll probably write a bot to fully automate the switchover process.
- The old method was that the switch was driven entirely by how many approved hooks we had. We would get into situations where we had enough approved hooks that the rule said we should keep going, but nobody wanted to do the work so all the queues were empty. This is what the control system people call open loop That was untenable. If somebody wants to suggest a better algorithm, I'm willing to listen. My only requirement is that whatever process you propose has to have some kind of built-in feedback based on the number of filled queues. RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly, DYK goes to one set a day with under 120 approved nominations. If so, we are almost there. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yup. RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- I guess not per below. SL93 (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yup. RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- One advantage of a manual switch between 1/day and 2/day is that we can easily make exceptions for special occasion date requests without having to be afraid of bot interference. —Kusma (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- If I remember correctly, DYK goes to one set a day with under 120 approved nominations. If so, we are almost there. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- I figured that editors can ignore filling queues if they feel overworked. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
- I thought the pause was automatic, to ensure people weren't overworked... I guess I misunderstood. IMHO it really should stop after three days, the whole point is to avoid fatigue setting in among those filling the queues and errors possibly creeping in. — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
Not a massive deal or anything, but I was wondering why the Marilyn Fisher Lundy hook was last since it's not particularly funny or amusing. No funny hooks left? @SL93: jolielover♥talk 11:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging @LunaEclipse: as they moved mugging out of the quirky slot here. TSventon (talk) 11:53, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- I procedurally repromoted #Vibe coding (nom) above after snow keeping it and saw a quirky hook in that, so I put that there instead.--Launchballer 11:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, WP:QUIRKY states that the last slot is not required to have a quirky hook, and there's nothing wrong with including a regular hook if no quirky hooks are available. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a few minutes ago, so I've created a new list of all 14 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 10. We have a total of 203 nominations, of which 121 have been approved, a gap of 82 nominations that is the same size as it was 6 days ago. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
- March 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Betsy Arakawa
March 6: Template:Did you know nominations/FUFN (Fuck You for Now)- March 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Jules Rabin
March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Soséfo Makapé PapilioMarch 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Ano (singer)- March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Xiao Yedan
March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Couldn't Wait to Tell YouMarch 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Gannon Golden Knights football, 1949–1950- March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Sobrevivendo no Inferno
March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/El Alma al AireMarch 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Seraglio of BaabdaMarch 10: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 North Sea ship collisionMarch 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Detention of Mahmoud KhalilMarch 10: Template:Did you know nominations/The Three Worlds of Evangelicalism
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) 14:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Sock edits and DYK
User:Oddballeditor1997, recently banned as a sock, has one DYK nomination pending (waiting for a GAR to be resolved). Is there any rule against sock noms going forward on DYK? Tenpop421 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- I have been reviewing the GA but was waiting for a second opinion as I am not sure if it meets the criteria. I am not sure whether to close it now or to await a second opinion. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- I rejected both.--Launchballer 17:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- WP:G5 allows for edits made by socks to be speedy deleted. There's some caveats that must be met, and I'd have to dig into the edit histories of these to see if they qualify for G5, but keep it in mind for future cases like this. RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- I rejected both.--Launchballer 17:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Queue 7 (22 March 00:00)
@AirshipJungleman29 and Mason7512: I suggest changing "feminine" to "effeminate" in the hook; it's the word the source uses, and it's more accurate. RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- I was debating which of the two to use, and would be okay with using either. Mason7512 (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29, Epicgenius, and Uriahheep228: Could the hook be rephrased to avoid the awkward "that though executives thought"? RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
- @RoySmith, would "though executives believed" work? I have very limited internet while on vacation, so I didn't see this comment till just now, my apologies. Epicgenius (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- No worries, we've got a few days before this goes live. How about "while executives believed"? RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- @RoySmith, that sounds good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Done, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- @RoySmith, that sounds good to me. Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- No worries, we've got a few days before this goes live. How about "while executives believed"? RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Queue 4 (25 March 0:00)
The hook currently says ... that the Grand Husseini Mosque has served as a starting point for political demonstrations in Amman (example pictured) for nearly a century?
@Makeandtoss, Hassocks5489, and SL93: Do we actually have a source that refers to it as a "starting point" for protests or political demonstrations? I'm not able to access Protesting Jordan but what little I can see refers to the "centrality of the mosque to all manner of protests" which isn't necessarily the same thing as a "starting point". (I also see that the balcony next door to the mosque is used to address crowds *during* protests...but such an address could take place in the middle or toward the end of a demonstration, not necessarily at the beginning.) Cielquiparle (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Cielquiparle: Cited in the second next page of that reference in Protesting Jordan: “The area called King Faysal Plaza-really the wide King Faysal Street connecting the Grand Husseini Mosque to the east and the main municipal building to the west
- -developed its own spatial routine for protests: gathering at the mosque, listening to speeches, and then marching west to assert claims outside of the government offices.” Makeandtoss (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Per WP:DYKCRIT:
Articles must be neutral, reliably sourced with inline citations, and BLP- and copyright-compliant. The hook fact should be cited in the article, no later than the end of the sentence it appears in.
So I have added a footnote at the end of that sentence citing Protesting Jordan, even though that footnote also appears at the end of the paragraph. - Some reviewers will squirm because that sentence actually doesn't use the word "starting" or "starting point", but it's probably "ok". If you can think of a way to make the claim in the article body align a little more closely to the language in the lead section and in the hook, that would be great, even though I understand you're trying to avoid repetition. @Makeandtoss Cielquiparle (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Cielquiparle: changed lede to “gathering” instead of “starting” and the hook can be changed that way too for alignment. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- (Belatedly: sorry, just logged on) I would support the change to "gathering place" as acceptable. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 10:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Done Changed to "gathering point" per @Makeandtoss (as "gathering place" sounds too static). Cielquiparle (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. Per WP:DYKCRIT:
This looks like one of those situations where the review overindexed on matching the hook to the source provided within the nomination, but failed to verify that the claim was cited properly within the article itself. The hook says: ... that the FogCam is believed to be the world's longest-running public webcam?
The lede sentence clearly asserts, "FogCam is the longest-running webcam in the world, barring maintenance breaks and camera replacements" – a much stronger statement than "believed to be" – but where is this repeated and cited within the body of the article? If it is there, could we please make it more explicit and consistent with both the source and the hook, and provide a citation? @Jolielover, B33net, and Sohom Datta: Cielquiparle (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- The reception section right ? The exact string does not exist, but the information is there? Sohom (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Sohom Datta No, the Reception section says it's "one of the oldest websites still operational". It doesn't say anything about "longest-running public webcam" or "longest-running webcam in the world, barring maintenance breaks and camera replacements" (which might need to be struck from the lede if there is no citation for that fact anywhere in the body of the article). @EF5: Pinging you as the GA reviewer. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- It is true, although I must've missed that there wasn't a citation for that. — EF5 21:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @EF5. Sorry @Ca I missed off pinging you earlier but we really need you to fix the article before it can run on the main page. At minimum we need one or two sentences in the article body explaining the "longest running public webcam" and/or "oldest webcam still operational" claim(s), with appropriate citations. (I'm sure readers would love to know that the FogCam was recognized as "longest-running webcam" by Guinness World Records in 2008.) And whatever exact wording you decide upon in the article, cited appropriately, should match the wording in the hook as well. (Frankly one easy way to fix this would be to add citations directly into the lead paragraph. I know that many old-school editors don't like this, but I find it often leads to problems like this, where editors want to avoid repetition, so end up making claims in the lede that aren't re-explained in the article body with citations.) We can also choose a different hook or tweak the existing one as needed. Anyway please resolve this one way or another and if you need more time, let me know ASAP so that we can demote the hook and buy you more time to work on fixing the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- I believe I have fixed the issue Ca talk to me! 09:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @Ca. I've added the other refs from @EF5 to the end of the first sentence just to be sure, and also expanded the NPR sentence under "Reception" to make it extra explicit. (When we make "first" and "oldest" type claims like this, DYK readers often complain that the claim is sourced to "only one source" and therefore not properly vetted. But that shouldn't be an issue here.) We now have a situation where the claim in the hook hedges a bit with "believed to be" whereas the claim is made and backed up more confidently in the article as a statement of fact, but it's better this way and not vice versa. I think we're good to go here, unless anyone else takes a look and has any concerns. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- I believe I have fixed the issue Ca talk to me! 09:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @EF5. Sorry @Ca I missed off pinging you earlier but we really need you to fix the article before it can run on the main page. At minimum we need one or two sentences in the article body explaining the "longest running public webcam" and/or "oldest webcam still operational" claim(s), with appropriate citations. (I'm sure readers would love to know that the FogCam was recognized as "longest-running webcam" by Guinness World Records in 2008.) And whatever exact wording you decide upon in the article, cited appropriately, should match the wording in the hook as well. (Frankly one easy way to fix this would be to add citations directly into the lead paragraph. I know that many old-school editors don't like this, but I find it often leads to problems like this, where editors want to avoid repetition, so end up making claims in the lede that aren't re-explained in the article body with citations.) We can also choose a different hook or tweak the existing one as needed. Anyway please resolve this one way or another and if you need more time, let me know ASAP so that we can demote the hook and buy you more time to work on fixing the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- It is true, although I must've missed that there wasn't a citation for that. — EF5 21:21, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Sohom Datta No, the Reception section says it's "one of the oldest websites still operational". It doesn't say anything about "longest-running public webcam" or "longest-running webcam in the world, barring maintenance breaks and camera replacements" (which might need to be struck from the lede if there is no citation for that fact anywhere in the body of the article). @EF5: Pinging you as the GA reviewer. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
@RickyCourtney, Cyberlink420, NegativeMP1, and SL93: The hook says ... that the Mobile Adapter GB was an early, albeit unsuccessful, attempt at handheld online gaming for the Game Boy Color and Game Boy Advance?
Where is the source that specifically mentions the Game Boy Advance? Neither the IGN article (which you cite in the article) nor TheGamer article (which you cited in the DYK nomination only) mention the Game Boy Advance. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- https://kotaku.com/that-time-nintendo-took-the-game-boy-and-pokemon-onli-1836423946
- https://www.ign.com/articles/2001/03/30/low-numbers-for-mobile-adapter-gb RickyCourtney (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @RickyCourtney. Nearly there. Could you please resolve the {{failed verification}} tag I've just left in the article? It's the IGN 2000 article currently cited there that doesn't say anything about Game Boy Advance, whereas the IGN 2001 article clearly does. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Done Thanks for your help. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks @RickyCourtney. Nearly there. Could you please resolve the {{failed verification}} tag I've just left in the article? It's the IGN 2000 article currently cited there that doesn't say anything about Game Boy Advance, whereas the IGN 2001 article clearly does. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
DYKcheck bug?
Something weird is happening! I ran DYKcheck on 1966 United States House of Representatives election in Delaware (nom), and it says the article hasn't been expanded fivefold in the last seven days. It also says the article is 1505 characters long. But when I use the prosesize gadget, the post-expansion version is 1500 bytes exactly and the pre-expansion version is 278, so that should be a clear pass. Any idea what's going on? Pinging Shubinator. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- My experience is that DYK Check sometimes doesn't do a good job on the 5x calculation. Lookin at the history, I'd say if you start at Special:Permalink/1267240381 (302 prose) and go to the current version (1505), you're shy by a couple of characters. Either give it an IAR pass or add a word or two and then give it a pass. RoySmith (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- It might be something got to do with the fact that DYKcheck doesn't count lists or tables. Yeshivish613 (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds like an artifact of the binary search algorithm. See User:Shubinator/DYKcheck#Expansion. Shubinator (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- DYKcheck found the "Template:ElectionsDE" redlink from the December 2024 versions of the article and counted it as 20 prose characters (plus or minus), even though it isn't prose. The thing is, said template had been renamed twice, but was deleted under its final name on March 15, five days ago: it wouldn't have been counted as text before then since the resulting template wouldn't have been text, so the current DYKcheck counts of 301 or 302 would have been around 280 prior to the template deeltion. This nomination is safely a 5x expansion, though if a minor textual change is made, it could end up back below 1500 prose characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- I added a bit more to the page so it should be fine. Though I should scale back the amount of nominations to avoid further problems Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 06:29, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- DYKcheck found the "Template:ElectionsDE" redlink from the December 2024 versions of the article and counted it as 20 prose characters (plus or minus), even though it isn't prose. The thing is, said template had been renamed twice, but was deleted under its final name on March 15, five days ago: it wouldn't have been counted as text before then since the resulting template wouldn't have been text, so the current DYKcheck counts of 301 or 302 would have been around 280 prior to the template deeltion. This nomination is safely a 5x expansion, though if a minor textual change is made, it could end up back below 1500 prose characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Prep 6
I just received a reply to an email I sent to Herzog Wine Cellars, and they agreed to release the imageFile:Herzog Wine Cellars.jpg under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Would it be possible to move it to a new prep and add this image? Yeshivish613 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think generally with this sort of thing the emails are supposed to be verified by the Commons OTRS/VRT. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 19:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- How would I do that Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Direct the owner to WP:DONATEIMAGE. Tarlby (t) (c) 21:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- How would I do that Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi Tarlby, thanks for the hook promo. However, per WP:QUIRKY, wouldn't the Jeep hook fit better as the bottom listing than the cop hook? ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 16:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- In retrospect, yeah. It'd be better. Tarlby (t) (c) 16:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Switched Tenpop421 (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
* ... that the first Indian American mayor of Fremont, California succeeded the first female and first Asian American mayor?
@Moon motif: Can the bold text for both links be extended to include "the first" and everything until "mayor"? The position isn't the apparent hook here and the DYK isn't about Mayor of Fremont, California, as the hook apparently suggests now. Departure– (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- I should have spotted that, so I fixed it myself.--Launchballer 00:09, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
- Oh! Thank you so much! Moon motif (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2025 (UTC)