Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions
→PEIS limit at WP:DYKN: re: not concerned about approved list, but awaiting approval list still hiding latest noms |
→PEIS limit at WP:DYKN: now filled |
||
Line 920: | Line 920: | ||
::::::It appears to be because of the problematic special occasion hook at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Gibson (composer)]]. I'm thinking of skipping over it. [[User:SL93|SL93]] ([[User talk:SL93|talk]]) 23:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC) |
::::::It appears to be because of the problematic special occasion hook at [[Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Gibson (composer)]]. I'm thinking of skipping over it. [[User:SL93|SL93]] ([[User talk:SL93|talk]]) 23:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::::On the topic of being called out, I've been known to get grumpy once in a while, but mostly at old-timers who should know better. Folks who are thinking about getting involved at DYK should know what we expect that new folks will make mistakes. That's how you learn and it shouldn't be something to fear. Anybody who bites a DYK newbie can expect to get trouted. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 23:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC) |
::::::On the topic of being called out, I've been known to get grumpy once in a while, but mostly at old-timers who should know better. Folks who are thinking about getting involved at DYK should know what we expect that new folks will make mistakes. That's how you learn and it shouldn't be something to fear. Anybody who bites a DYK newbie can expect to get trouted. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 23:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::::::{{u|RoySmith}} The prep is now filled. [[User:SL93|SL93]] ([[User talk:SL93|talk]]) 00:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{outdent}}I am not concerned about the PEIS limit on the approved list: as I write this, there are two hooks that are not showing, but 4 queues and 3 preps are mostly empty. If all of them were filled, we would have roughly 80 approved noms left over, so nowhere near hitting the 120 criteria previously used to switch to 2-a-day. Also, as hooks are promoted the hidden hooks will soon appear. On the awaiting approval list, it is more problematic if reviews aren't showing because it means someone might not review them. Also, AFAIK the community did not establish clear criteria for when DYKN switches to backlog mode, which is why I bring up the issue here. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
{{outdent}}I am not concerned about the PEIS limit on the approved list: as I write this, there are two hooks that are not showing, but 4 queues and 3 preps are mostly empty. If all of them were filled, we would have roughly 80 approved noms left over, so nowhere near hitting the 120 criteria previously used to switch to 2-a-day. Also, as hooks are promoted the hidden hooks will soon appear. On the awaiting approval list, it is more problematic if reviews aren't showing because it means someone might not review them. Also, AFAIK the community did not establish clear criteria for when DYKN switches to backlog mode, which is why I bring up the issue here. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 00:36, 4 August 2024
Error reports Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you. |
DYK queue status
Current time: 08:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 8 hours ago() |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.
Special occasion idea: Olympics
Discussion on Olympics
Extended content
|
---|
Remembering that we did themed sets for the FIFA Women's World Cup last year, I thought of an idea for a themed set of hooks: the 2024 Summer Olympics take place from July 26 to August 11 this year (in a little over five weeks) and I think there will probably be a decent number of Olympics-related hooks; I at least plan to write a good number of them. I was thinking we might be able to do something like one Olympics hook per day for the duration of the event, similar to how we did for the FIFA World Cup. Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Some related considerations:
All the Olympic-related hooks that I could spot are in the table below. Schwede66 03:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Just noting here that Zhang Ziyu has been nominated. Whilst she does play basketball and China is competing in that discipline at in Paris, she's not (yet?) a member of the China women's national basketball team. Hence, we could use this as another warmup hook. Schwede66 05:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC) Could somebody please review Draft:Adam Maraana? The review could double as a QPQ, as the intention of the IP editor is to have this run as part of the Olympics. Schwede66 06:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Red-tailed hawk, is there a good reason why you pulled the Solomon Islands at the 2020 Summer Olympics hook out of the special occasion holding area (SOHA) and put it into prep 4? Because if there isn't a good reason, I'd like to see this reverted. Schwede66 00:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Some of the Olympic hooks need a bit more attention from reviewers, or nominators are dragging the chain with QPQs. For example, Prep 1 is already filled but there's still one hook that awaits its QPQ. Prep 2 is filling up but a review for this nomination hasn't even been started yet. I'd be happy to do some shuffling but there's nothing really to shuffle this with; further down, the hooks are all timed for particular occasions. Shifting items back into the Olympics proper is also tricky as almost all days have two or three items already. I'd most appreciate if those who can stand reviewing sports articles can give this some attention. Schwede66 09:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Here's a summary of how many hooks we've got, and when they are scheduled to run (note that the table has been shifted to the section "Help needed"): As can be seen:
Therefore, we have to agree whether we would be happy with three Olympic-related hooks per set. Delaying Olympic-related hooks that are already approved is definitely not helping. Schwede66 22:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
SL93, Lorrane Oliveira was for Prep6, not Prep5. Schwede66 00:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
We currently have four hooks for 29 July / Prep6; this is the next prep set that will become available. That sounds too many, however, only one of those hooks is currently at SOHA. One hook, a swimmer starting for Israel, hasn't had the review started yet. There may well be a reluctance to "touch" anything Israel, so this might not make it. The two other hooks are both awaiting BeanieFan11 to provide a QPQ. Thus, at this point in time, we only have one viable hook from four candidates. When Prep6 becomes available, I'll thus bring one of the "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics" hooks forward so that we've at least got two hooks to go. Schwede66 20:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
|
Proposal
Extended content
|
---|
The Paris Olympics will be kicking off on 26 July 2024 with an opening ceremony in the early evening. Event competitions start two days earlier on 24 July with association football and rugby sevens. The closing ceremony (article yet to be written!) is on 11 August. That's 19 days of Olympics and as suggested above, we could run Solomon Islands at the 2020 Summer Olympics as a warmup just before that period.
There'll be some special date requests coming in and to avoid filling up individual hook sets with too much sport, I suggest we co-ordinate what will run when to spread things out in a logical fashion. I suspect that we'll stay in a 24-hour cycle for the duration of the event but if that changes, we can accommodate that as well. Time zone–wise, Paris is currently at UTC+02:00 (Central European Summer Time or CEST), hence there are no mental gymnastics necessary as long as we stay in the 24-hour cycle. Comments welcome. Helpers are welcome and essential; I certainly don't want to do this all by myself as this was quite a bit of work some three years ago for the Tokyo Olympics. And with regards to my own special interests, I shall tell you that the Kiwi rowers are in good shape; I can hear the medals clinking already! Schwede66 01:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
|
Help needed
Suggested date | Q / Prep | Hooks 18 Jul | Hooks 19 Jul | Hooks 21 Jul | Hooks 3 Aug |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
21-Jul | Queue5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
22-Jul | Queue6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
23-Jul | Queue7 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
24-Jul | Queue1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
25-Jul | Queue2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
26-Jul | Queue3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | |
27-Jul | Queue4 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
28-Jul | Queue5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
29-Jul | Queue6 | 2 | 4 | 3 | |
30-Jul | Queue7 | 3 | 3 | 5 | |
31-Jul | Queue1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | |
1-Aug | Queue2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | |
2-Aug | Queue3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
3-Aug | Queue4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
4-Aug | Queue5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
5-Aug | Queue6 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
6-Aug | Queue7 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
7-Aug | Prep1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
8-Aug | Prep2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
9-Aug | Prep3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
10-Aug | Prep4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Extended content
|
---|
Just a heads up that I've got a week of little available time coming up:
After that, things should be back to normal. Hence, it might be a good idea if others take the lead. Kingsif, you were asking whether there's something where you could help – here's your chance. Last time, Joseph2302 did a lot of good work – would you be interested to step up? What needs doing? Here's a hopefully complete list:
If I think of anything else, I'll add that to the list. It's reasonably late in the process (the first competitions will start tomorrow) and all the structural issues are sorted. It just needs some low-level maintenance at this point. Schwede66 23:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Hadi Tiranvalipour (nom) is supposed to be in prep 1, which is the next prep to be moved to queue. Problem is that the review hasn't been started yet. Any takers? Schwede66 00:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
Ada Korkhin (nom) is a rather late nomination. It's worth getting this one into the system because it comes with a stunner of a hook! Schwede66 11:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Now at SOHA – thanks, team! Schwede66 01:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Probably too short notice, but might as well ask: would it be possible to feature Template:Did you know nominations/Jamal Valizadeh on August 5? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, there are already three Olympics hooks in Queue 6, but 1964 Summer Olympics medal table doesn't have to run on that date and can be shifted back. All it needs at this point is a new reviewer for ALT1, as the reviewer suggested that hook, and then it's good to go. I'm happy to do the admin checks and promote it, BeanieFan11. Schwede66 01:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
And another late candidate for 7 August: Jesse Grupper (nom) Schwede66 09:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Olympic hooks table
On the "Approved" page, there is now a heading Olympics: Special occasion holding area.
Hooks that have been published, not including current MP
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Article (nom) | Requested | Suggested date | Prep set | Notes (all times in CEST) | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2022 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres and 2022 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres hurdles (nom) | none | 4 August | Queue 5 | This is the second hook that names Femke Bol. She is due to compete in 400 metres hurdles (heats on 4 August). | published |
Liechtenstein at the 1936 Summer Olympics (nom) | none | 4 August | Queue5 | One of the "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics" hooks; can run on any day during the Olympics | published |
Kim Ye-ji (sport shooter) (nom) | none | 4 August | Queue5 | Has already competed; can run anytime | published |
Piper Kelly (nom) | None | 5 August | Queue 6 | Qualifications for women's speed climbing are on 5 Aug. | in queue |
Aniya Holder (nom) | 5 August | 5 August | Queue6 | Qualifications for women's speed climbing are on 5 Aug. | in queue |
Jamal Valizadeh (nom) | 5 August | 5 August | Queue6 | A late request. Valizadeh is set to competed in the men's Greco-Roman 60 kg competition, with proceedings kicking off on 5 August. | Needs reviewer for ALT1 |
1964 Summer Olympics medal table (nom) | None | 5 August | Queue6 | Can run whenever. If Jamal Valizadeh gets signed off before Q6 goes live, we'll shift this backwards. | in queue |
Jenya Kazbekova (nom) | 6/8 August | 6 August | Queue 7 | Kazbekova is due to compete in women's combined sport climbing, with semifinals for the two competition elements (boulder and lead) split over two days: 6 & 8 August. Hence, this can run on either date. | in queue |
Zheng Haohao (nom) | none | 6 August | Queue7 | Zheng is due to compete in women's park skateboarding on 6 Aug. | in queue |
Ruby Remati (nom) | None | 7 August | Prep 1 | The team artistic swimming event will be held on 5, 6, and 7 August. The hook could run on any of those days. | In prep |
Hadi Tiranvalipour (nom) | none | 7 August | Prep 1 | Tiranvalipour is set to competed in the men's 58 kg taekwondo on 7 August. | In prep |
Jesse Grupper (nom) | 7 August | 7 August | Prep 1 | Grupper is going to compete in the lead semifinal of the men's combined rock climbing. That date is not far away but if we can get this reviewed in a hurry, it'll fit into that date alright as we've only got other other nominations (on most days, we have three). | Review not yet started |
Emmanuella Atora (nom) | 8 August | 8 August | Prep2 | Atora is due to compete in women's 57 kg taekwondo (assuming that she's still in this weight class). The competition is to be held on 8 August. | in prep |
Sarah Levy (rugby union) (nom) | None | 8 August | Prep2 | Can run whenever. | in prep |
Ada Korkhin (nom) | none | 8 August | Prep2 | The women's 25 metre pistol competition is already underway and will finish on 3 August. Hence, this can run whenever. | At SOHA |
Manizha Talash (nom) | none | 9 August | Prep 3 | Breaking or breakdancing is a new sport. Who would have known. The competition for females is on 9 August. | in prep |
Logan Edra (nom) | none | 9 August | Prep3 | Here's our second female breakdancer. Any chance of combining the two hooks? | in prep |
Sunny Choi (nom) | 9 August | 9 August | Prep3 | Well, that's our third female breakdancer. We really shouldn't have three individuals hooks for breakdancers on the same day. I've suggested a hook with this nomination and propose that we close the other two nominations and transfer the credits across. | in prep |
Iman Mahdavi (nom) | none | 9 August | Prep3 | Mahdavi is set to compete in the men's freestyle 74 kg wrestling, with the qualification round on 9 August. As we'll combine the breaker hooks, this is only the second hook for that day. | Review not yet started |
Gaku Akazawa (nom) | none | 10 August | Prep 4 | Akazawa is going to compete in the men's freestyle wrestling 65 kg, with the event scheduled to start on 10 August. | in prep |
Alasan Ann (nom) | none | 10 August | Prep4 | Ann is going to compete in the men's taekwondo +80 kg, with all events scheduled for 10 August. | in prep |
Kennedy Blades (nom) | none | 10 August | Prep4 | Blades is going to compete in the women's freestyle wrestling 76 kg, with the event scheduled to start on 10 August. | in prep |
[[]] (nom) |
- ... that some estimate that maintenance of existing software costs up to nine times as much as creating it in the first place?
This hook was run yesterday. I logged a bunch of issues at WP:ERRORS but it scrolled off before they were resolved. They included:
- The hook is not a definite fact which is unlikely to change
- It is introduced by a weasel
- The hook was not clearly stated in the article
- The source which supposedly supported the hook did not pass verification
- The first hook suggested in the nomination didn't pass verification either
My impression is that this didn't go well because the source wasn't clearly identified, was behind a paywall and wasn't quoted. Note that the nomination was professional paid work and so one would expect a high standard. So it goes...
WP:ERRORS discussion
|
---|
This is another blatant weasel – who estimates this? And it's obviously not a "definite fact which is unlikely to change" as there are a range of estimates. The hook discussion started with the figure of "three times" and it appears that such estimates are unreliable because the article repeatedly says that the topic has not been well-studied. Other issues include:
Andrew🐉(talk) 06:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
|
Andrew🐉(talk) 14:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's not clear what you expect to happen here. If there's problems with the article, go fix them, or discuss them on the article's talk page. If you have a problem with the nom accepting money, take it up with them. They were totally up-front about it (which puts them ahead of like 99.9% of our paid editors) and sounds like it more or less falls under WP:GLAM. If you just want to complain about the fact that DYK's quality control isn't as good as it should be, I agree, but our energy would be better spent working on upcoming noms than wringing our hands about yesterday's. RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have considerable experience of software maintenance and, when this is done professionally, issues are normally logged when they arise. This provides an audit trail and record which then enables further action, lessons-learned and so forth. I gather there's some sort of DYK reform process underway per Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed/2023–24. And, in any case, there's an implicit continual improvement process and the first requirement for that is feedback. Such feedback is best done here because WP:ERRORS is ephemeral and keeps no records.
- As for the article in question, I was thinking of starting a good article reassessment but first I'll have to read through it again and mull over its issues. I can already see that it has some but it will take time and effort and nobody is paying me to do this.
- As for upcoming noms, I have one myself and there's no shortage of other things to do. "Excelsior!"
- Andrew🐉(talk) 17:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Browsing this talk page now I'm here, I notice that problems with this hook were noticed 6 days ago – see Prep_5 above. In that discussion, Black Kite says
"This hook doesn't work. Even if we assume that the book source is correct (which I can't check)..."
So, right there we see the problem of being unable to access the source upon which the hook depended. You can't conduct a sensible discussion if you can't see the details. Relevant quotations should be mandatory in such cases. - Another structural problem is the habit of naming such sections with names like "Prep 5" rather than with an article name. There are currently two sections on this page called "Prep 5" and this is both confusing and lacking in context about the actual topic(s). I named this current section "Software maintenance" because that is the name of the topic. How hard is that?
- Andrew🐉(talk) 19:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson, you reported somewhere a while back that every morning, you read the main page and dive into some of the topics to see what's written is actually correct. And you unearth numerous problems by doing so. I very much appreciate your efforts and applaud you for doing this good work.
- The only downside is that when you go through your breakfast routine, items are already live. How much more useful would it be if you offered your wonderful service before things appear on the main page? Are you aware that Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow offers you the main page a day in advance? I wonder whether if you could slightly adjust your routine and read that page instead? Your work is much appreciate, and having your feedback and thoughts 24 hours earlier would be immensely valuable. Schwede66 20:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of the Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow link and might give it a try, thanks. I'm not sure how accurate it is though. Most of my main page activity currently is for the WP:ITN section and that is updated continuously rather than on a daily schedule. And how does the tomorrow view deal with DYK when the hook sets only last for 12 hours?
- The actual main page is always likely to get the lion's share of attention because it's the default view when I go to the Wikipedia site or load the Wikipedia app. If one starts looking at other pages then one is literally not on the same page and that seems quite lonely. Is there a talk page or noticeboard associated with the tomorrow view? That might help in building a community of forward-looking reviewers.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 20:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
how does the tomorrow view deal with DYK when the hook sets only last for 12 hours?
If I had my druthers, we would take the whole idea of 12-hour updates and nuke it from orbit. It is antithetical to improving quality. Anybody can shovel manure twice as fast, but I'm not willing to play that game.- I also come from a software engineering background; bug trackers, post-mortems, standup meetings, OKRs, pagers, the whole smash. The advantage of my "job" at wikipedia is if I don't feel like working, I just don't, and I don't have to tell anybody why, nor do I have to justify that I didn't get done what I thought I would get done this quarter. RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- If I recall, at one time, it was set-times of six hours. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was before my time, but yes I remember back when DYK used to do four sets a day (and also had the "from Wikipedia's newest content" flavor text). Do we have the discussions that led to the retirement of both? By the time I started my DYK career in 2016 it was already down to two sets a day at most. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- If I recall, at one time, it was set-times of six hours. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- on WP:ERRORS, there are links to the current, next, and next-but-one DYK, regardless of cycle length :) also, yes, let's not do 12-hour sets anymore. Instead, we should do one set per day of eight to nine hooks and they should all be bangers. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think I've said this before, but I'd be in favour of going back to a standard eight-hook, 24-hour set. If WP:PEIS limits at WP:DYKNA become an issue, we can just reject some older nominations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
@DYK admins: Queue 1 is missing the {{DYKbotdo}}. Rather than attempt to fix it myself and possibly make it worse, could somebody who understands these page formats better than I do please take a look? Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think all that's needed is a {{DYKbotdo}} in the following format:
The hooks below have been approved by a human (Cwmhiraeth (talk)) and will be automatically added to the DYK template at the appropriate time. |
- as an inserted first line of file. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed I’ve also looked why it was missing and it’s step 2 of the admin instructions (Moving a prep to queue) that wasn’t done when manually moving a prep to queue. Cwmhiraeth, do you always promote manually? Using PSHAW prevents this from happening. Schwede66 18:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Tobey (song)
- ... that the music video for "Tobey", in which Eminem carves into his own alter ego with a chainsaw, was delayed by three days?
@Launchballer, @Dxneo, @Arconning, @AirshipJungleman29: The three-day delay does not seem all that interesting or hooky to me, and distracts from the main point of interest, which is Eminiem killing off Slim Shady. I see from the nom that there were DYKFICTION concerns, but I don't think adding an unrelated fact about a short delay as a fig leaf makes a difference in that respect, as the Slim Shady element is still the part of the hook that anybody cares about. (If the hook was "that the music video for "Tobey" was delayed by three days", are you interested? No.)
Personally, I'm inclined to say that there's not a DYKFICTION issue. Eminem is a real person, and Slim Shady is an alter ego that he uses in real life, so we're clearly tied into "the real world in some way". The point isn't that a fictional character got killed, the point is that Eminem is metaphorically leaving his childish persona behind to (theoretically) mature as an artist.
Would anybody object to a reword to something like:
- ... that the music video for "Tobey" features Eminem killing his alter ego Slim Shady with a chainsaw?
♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent idea.--Launchballer 08:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree. As I understand it, Slim Shady is an entirely fictional alter ego that Eminem uses within the context of songs to emphasise dark themes. He is entirely at liberty to do whatever he likes with the character, as explained in WP:DYKFICTION. The music video could equally hypothetically feature Slim Shady travelling to the Hundred Acre Wood and meeting Winnie the Pooh, or preventing World War One, or getting married to Barack Obama, or ... you get the point. It's fiction. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree as well. That is like saying something similar from a work such as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter wouldn't count as a DYK fiction hook, although it surely would.SL93 (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you're that opposed, Airship, I don't understand why you would promote the hook in that form. Is it your position that the unrelated factoid about a real-life three-day delay makes the Slim Shady element somehow acceptable, even though on its own you feel it would be unacceptable? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- How about either "that the music video for "Tobey", which had been delayed by three days, saw Eminem carve into his own alter ego with a chainsaw" or "that the belated music video for "Tobey" saw Eminem carve into his own alter ego with a chainsaw?".--Launchballer 10:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- My point is that it makes no sense to note the three-day delay at all. If the mention of Eminem "killing" Slim Shady is in violation of DKYFICTION, why is it suddenly not in violation as long as we say the video was delayed? What does that have to do with the rest of it? It would be different if the video was delayed because of the chainsaw imagery for some reason, but it wasn't, so as it stands, we've strapped this unrelated and boring little factoid to the interesting part of the hook as a nonsensical fig leaf to protect against DYKFICTION. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's a good point. I agree that the hook is unsuitable with or without the addition of the delay mention, and agree with NLH5's pull. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- My point is that it makes no sense to note the three-day delay at all. If the mention of Eminem "killing" Slim Shady is in violation of DKYFICTION, why is it suddenly not in violation as long as we say the video was delayed? What does that have to do with the rest of it? It would be different if the video was delayed because of the chainsaw imagery for some reason, but it wasn't, so as it stands, we've strapped this unrelated and boring little factoid to the interesting part of the hook as a nonsensical fig leaf to protect against DYKFICTION. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- How about either "that the music video for "Tobey", which had been delayed by three days, saw Eminem carve into his own alter ego with a chainsaw" or "that the belated music video for "Tobey" saw Eminem carve into his own alter ego with a chainsaw?".--Launchballer 10:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- If you're that opposed, Airship, I don't understand why you would promote the hook in that form. Is it your position that the unrelated factoid about a real-life three-day delay makes the Slim Shady element somehow acceptable, even though on its own you feel it would be unacceptable? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Given the concerns about DYKFICTION I've pulled the hook for now. Discussion about a new hook fact can continue on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Highest averages method
- "... that the 1876 United States presidential election was decided by Congress's failure to use the correct rounding procedure?
Pinging @Closed Limelike Curves, Sawyer777, and AirshipJungleman29: Unless I am missing something obvious, there is no explanation, either in the target article or in the 1876 election article (in which the word "rounding" isn't mentioned at all), as to why a faulty rounding procedure led to the result of the election. There's a source, but there's no explanation. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The explanation seems to be that "a pretext was found" to add 9 extra seats in addition to the numbers calculated and that was enough to change the result of the election. See page 37 of Fair representation. TSventon (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, indeed, but again (a) that isn't explained in either article, and (b) if I'm clicking on that hook I want to know why a rounding issue changed the result, and I would be disappointed. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Closed Limelike Curves: can you add some more detail to the article? TSventon (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to be a pain here, but unless I'm really missing something, the reference doesn't explain why the nine additional seats - which appear to be the cause of the problem - were produced by a rounding error. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Is the newest version clear enough? Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that's better. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Is the newest version clear enough? Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to be a pain here, but unless I'm really missing something, the reference doesn't explain why the nine additional seats - which appear to be the cause of the problem - were produced by a rounding error. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Closed Limelike Curves: can you add some more detail to the article? TSventon (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, indeed, but again (a) that isn't explained in either article, and (b) if I'm clicking on that hook I want to know why a rounding issue changed the result, and I would be disappointed. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the sourcing in our present article is in any way adequate for its heavy editorialization present in the article. The single line of text about this material in the source given in the article is "the malapportionment of the 1870s was directly responsible for the 1876 election of Rutherford B. Hayes, although his opponent enjoyed 51.6 percent of the vote". This is used to support claims that (1) the apportionment happened in 1870, (2) that it tilted the electors by 9 votes, (3) that these seats were given out in an arbitrary manner (rather than, say, by following a standard rule of apportionment and choosing the number of seats to be apportioned in an advantageous way, which might be unfair but is not arbitrary, (4) that the Webster method is unbiased, and (5) that the Webster method would have given 9 fewer votes to the Republicans. None of these article claims are present in the source. As for the hook, it claims that (1) the highest averages method is "correct" in some sense that other standard methods are not, (2) that the apportionment was made by Congress, (3) that the malapportionment was caused by Congress not rounding correctly (rather than, say, by rounding correctly but choosing numbers that caused the rounding to come out in favor of one party), and that (4) this determined the outcome of the presidential election; only (4) is supported by the source. We need much better sourcing before this hook can run. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- David Eppstein, I have added a reference to page 37, which has most of the information you are querying. Can you check again? TSventon (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think I agree with you on the implication/phrasing of this hook being a bit off, although really my comment on failing to use the correct rounding procedure is driven by the fact that, at the time, the law actually specified Hamilton's method, while convention suggested Webster's (used from 1840-1860). How about:
- ...that the results of the 1876 presidential race were swayed by the use of an unusual rounding procedure?
- But this might have the opposite suggestion, that highest averages are "unusual". Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- The fun fact I want this to be about is something like "the 1876 election was decided by a literal rounding error", but I'm not 100% sure where I'd link to the page. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- [dubious]. The source does not say they made a rounding error, which to me can only mean that they attempted a specific calculation but produced the incorrect result of the calculation. Instead your added page 37 states that they duly enacted into law Hamilton's method in 1850, rather than Webster's method, and then followed the enacted method for years afterward. There are strong arguments why Webster's method would have been more a more fair method, but enacting a method and then following it is not an error at all. So without much better sourcing we cannot use a hook calling this method or their calculations incorrect (rather than what it appears to be to me, merely a different opinion on how to prioritize the inevitable imprecisions that result from all rounding methods).
- Look, some allocation methods prioritize smaller groups, making sure that all get a seat at the table. Some prioritize getting all allocations as accurate as possible, or as fair as possible, both of which can be measured in different ways. Some penalize smaller groups and favor the larger groups, maybe to streamline the process by keeping fewer parties or maybe because the larger groups are the ones that set the policies. These are political decisions. They are not matters of mathematical correctness. Different methods have different advantages and disadvantages and different people at different times can reasonably disagree over which of those are most salient to their situation. We should not, in Wikipedia's voice, designate one of these methods as correct and the rest incorrect.
- Had Congress actually enacted a method, miscalculated the results of that same method, and then used their miscalculation in place of what the method said to do, then something like the present hook might be ok. But we do not have sourcing for that, not even after recent improvements to sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Closed Limelike Curves: et al there is a more detailed account of the 1876 allocation on pages 71 and 72 of a US Government report here. TSventon (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'll be sure to check it out in the morning. Thanks! Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The source does not say they made a rounding error, which to me can only mean that they attempted a specific calculation but produced the incorrect result of the calculation.
- Rounding error as in the error caused by approximating a real number (the seat entitlement) as an integer. Had the exact entitlement been used in allocating electoral votes, the result would have switched.
- The definite article "a" can be dropped to clarify this. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- By your definition, the error caused by approximating a real number by a low-denominator rational, every method other than direct democracy, including the highest-averages method, involves rounding errors. We cannot use that argument to say that one method is correct and others incorrect. If that is what you mean, your hook is extremely misleading. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying any method is correct or incorrect (right now), although I agree the original hook should be rewritten for clarification. My point is just that if the electoral college had used exact, rather than rounded, seat entitlements (or had used a different rounding method) the result would be different, which is interesting. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The only possible meaning of "exact, rather than rounded, seat entitlements" is direct democracy: every citizen gets a seat. Is that what you mean? Everything else involves rounding somehow. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- No, I mean the state's entitlement or seat quota. The correct number of seats for California in the House of Representatives, which would be exactly proportional to its population, is (so its electoral vote total would be that, plus 2 senators, to get 53.97). Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The only possible meaning of "exact, rather than rounded, seat entitlements" is direct democracy: every citizen gets a seat. Is that what you mean? Everything else involves rounding somehow. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying any method is correct or incorrect (right now), although I agree the original hook should be rewritten for clarification. My point is just that if the electoral college had used exact, rather than rounded, seat entitlements (or had used a different rounding method) the result would be different, which is interesting. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- By your definition, the error caused by approximating a real number by a low-denominator rational, every method other than direct democracy, including the highest-averages method, involves rounding errors. We cannot use that argument to say that one method is correct and others incorrect. If that is what you mean, your hook is extremely misleading. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Closed Limelike Curves: et al there is a more detailed account of the 1876 allocation on pages 71 and 72 of a US Government report here. TSventon (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The fun fact I want this to be about is something like "the 1876 election was decided by a literal rounding error", but I'm not 100% sure where I'd link to the page. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- pulled – further discussion can continue at the nomination page :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- since i've been pinged twice: no comment on the issue David Eppstein raises, as this is not my area of expertise or interest and not something i did catch or would've caught. seems like it will be resolved ... sawyer * he/they * talk 08:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
@Turini2, JuniperChill, and AirshipJungleman29:
There are several uncited statements, which I have marked with citation needed tags. These will need to be resovled before this appears on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Believe that is all resolved - one CN tag removed because it is backed up by (cited) information in a table, 4 references for one summary sentence would feel like overkill. Turini2 (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
@Arcahaeoindris, CanonNi, and Hey man im josh:
There is an uncited sentence in the article, which I have indicated with a cn tag. This should be resolved before it goes on the Main Page. Z1720 (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Z1720 It is still uncited, and this queue is next up. SL93 (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't have a WSJ subscription so I can't get to the full text, but the google search results suggest it should have been Vater, Tom (27 May 2010). "Modern Masterpieces". The Wall Street Journal, which is currently ref #6. RoySmith (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@Whispyhistory, Philafrenzy, Launchballer, and SL93:
- ... that after British Sikh physician Parvinder Shergill could not find a recent mainstream English film led by a woman that resembled her, she co-wrote and co-produced her own?
The article says, "According to British Sikh physician Parvinder Shergill, after Bend It Like Beckham, she could not find another mainstream English film led by a woman that looked like her so she made her own and titled it Kaur." If Shergill said that she found someone who looked like her in BILB, then the hook used for DYK needs to be modified. If the hook is referring to a struggle to find a depiction of a woman in a turban, then this should be specified in the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think the key word might be "recent". Bend It Like Beckham is from 22 years ago. SL93 (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Z1720 Would rewording the article to say "after Bend It Like Beckham in 2002" fix the issue? SL93 (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
PEIS limit at WP:DYKN
The latest nominations at WP:DYKN are no longer transcluding because it has reached its WP:PEIS limit. I have sent some pings to editors to try to get some nominations moving. Last time this happened, we activated the backlog mode where editors with over 20 noms had to QPQ an extra hook. Here's a link to that discussion.
Is it time to activate the backlog mode for DYKN? Z1720 (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think so. SL93 (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) We're in the unusual position of having reached the PEIS limit on both the Nominations and the Approved pages: two nominations aren't transcluding on Nominations, and five on Approved. We also have three and a half unfilled preps and three unfilled queues. If we can get a couple of additional preps filled, and some reviews completed, both pages would be under the PEIS limit. There's been an unusual spike in nominations over the past six days: we've gone from 253 to 303 total nominations, and 122 to 137 approved nominations (both numbers including the noms that aren't transcluding). Some of this is almost certainly due to the current GAN backlog drive and the increased number of new GAs eligible for nomination; the drive ends in a few hours, and as the last of the reviews are completed over the next week or so, the stream of DYK noms will slow. If things aren't better in a week or so—if the number of unapproved DYKs goes much higher than 166—then we might want to look into reactivating backlog mode. I think today is too soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hopefully more editors can chip in on promoting to bring it down. SL93 (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- And now we have only one full prep. SL93 (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- To inject a bit of mathematical reality here, WP:DYKN, WP:DYKNA and WP:DYK/Q collectively constitute a closed system with a finite capacity. Things like backlog mode only serve to shuffle the deck chairs around a bit faster, but don't change the fundamental capacity of the system. Noms come in at whatever rate they come in at. Noms go out by one of two routes; the main page or rejection.
- If the input rate exceeds the output rate long enough, we exhaust our storage capacity of ((2 x PIES) + (14 queues and preps x 9 hooks each) + whatever PIES overload we're willing to put up with). Rearranging deck chairs doesn't change that. We seem to have consensus that we don't want to go to a 12 hour cycle, so the only thing left is to get more ruthless about rejections per WP:DYKTIMEOUT. RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still hoping for more promoters. There are nominations that likely sit around not because they are problematic, but because we have barely any editors promoting. That work can be spread out, but I kept on hearing from editors that they are afraid of being called out for making mistakes. I see no problem in being called out. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Speaking of deck chairs, I was going to promote a prep area just now, but the next one is Prep 2 and it's not complete. Oddly enough Prep 3 is full, but I don't think it's possible to promote preps out of order. RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- It appears to be because of the problematic special occasion hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Gibson (composer). I'm thinking of skipping over it. SL93 (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- On the topic of being called out, I've been known to get grumpy once in a while, but mostly at old-timers who should know better. Folks who are thinking about getting involved at DYK should know what we expect that new folks will make mistakes. That's how you learn and it shouldn't be something to fear. Anybody who bites a DYK newbie can expect to get trouted. RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- RoySmith The prep is now filled. SL93 (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Speaking of deck chairs, I was going to promote a prep area just now, but the next one is Prep 2 and it's not complete. Oddly enough Prep 3 is full, but I don't think it's possible to promote preps out of order. RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm still hoping for more promoters. There are nominations that likely sit around not because they are problematic, but because we have barely any editors promoting. That work can be spread out, but I kept on hearing from editors that they are afraid of being called out for making mistakes. I see no problem in being called out. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I am not concerned about the PEIS limit on the approved list: as I write this, there are two hooks that are not showing, but 4 queues and 3 preps are mostly empty. If all of them were filled, we would have roughly 80 approved noms left over, so nowhere near hitting the 120 criteria previously used to switch to 2-a-day. Also, as hooks are promoted the hidden hooks will soon appear. On the awaiting approval list, it is more problematic if reviews aren't showing because it means someone might not review them. Also, AFAIK the community did not establish clear criteria for when DYKN switches to backlog mode, which is why I bring up the issue here. Z1720 (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a couple of days early, so I've created a new list of 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 14. We have a total of 303 nominations, of which 137 have been approved, a gap of 166 nominations that has increased by 35 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
More than one month old
- June 7:
Template:Did you know nominations/Better Off Dead? - June 19: Template:Did you know nominations/2025 Philippine general election
- June 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Chand Sifarish
- June 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Keegan Baker
- June 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Lahug Airport
- June 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Dus Bahane
- June 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Not in Love (Crystal Castles song)
- June 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Brandiose
- June 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Ling Nam
- June 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Ken Goldin
- June 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Jab Se Tere Naina
- June 28: Template:Did you know nominations/List of people who use their middle names as their first names
- June 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Liza 'N' Eliaz
Other nominations
- July 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Norman Hunter (footballer)
- July 3: Template:Did you know nominations/South West Norfolk in the 2024 United Kingdom general election
- July 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Iktara (song)
- July 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Hadriana in All My Dreams
- July 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Quintus Quincy Quigley
- July 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Grace Panvini
- July 5: Template:Did you know nominations/David B. Gillespie
- July 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Sam Carling
- July 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Motibai Kapadia
- July 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Huang Wenxiu
July 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Coe (colonist)- July 8: Template:Did you know nominations/1954 Busan Yongdusan fire
- July 9: Template:Did you know nominations/superseded combination
July 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Hey Sensei, Don't You Know?- July 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Amy Sawyer
- July 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Articulation (painting)
- July 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Leanne Mohamad
- July 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Mama (My Chemical Romance song)
- July 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Coe
- July 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Nathaniel Coe
- July 13: Template:Did you know nominations/1974 Speech of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman at the United Nations
July 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Jarrett Robertson- July 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Trump raised-fist photographs
- July 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Lisa M. Corrigan
- July 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Liber OZ
- July 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Upper Ivory Coast
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) 20:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Data about DYK article creation/expansion
I am looking to generate reports about articles created and expanded by specific users that were featured on Did You Know. While there are tables listing this data, the minimum cutoff seems to be 25, and I would like data on users that have fewer than 25 articles credited to them. Is there a database I could access with this information? Harej (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Queue 6: 5 Aug
Theleekycauldron, I see you pulled this hook out of Q6 and placed it into Prep3 instead. As it's a special occasion hook, don't you think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on this? For the record, I think it's a rather bad idea to not run Holder on 5 August, the day that she is going to compete in the Olympics. And yes, we've had two speed climbers in Q6, but as I say, should you not at least start a discussion instead of unilaterally undermining the efforts of running Olympic hooks on the day that competitions are held? Schwede66 22:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I noticed that two other hooks were pulled with no discussion. Why no discussion? SL93 (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- What? Which ones? Schwede66 22:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/Mariesa Crow and Template:Did you know nominations/National Coordination Committee Against Corruption and Crime from the same queue. SL93 (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. There is discussion about those at their nom pages, so that's perfectly in order. Schwede66 23:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I meant discussion prior to removing them. If that is acceptable, fine, but I haven't seen anyone else do it that way. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy to list them here beforehand – I just thought they might take a while to fix and didn't want to clutter up the noticeboard under time pressure, so I experimented with something else. Really, either way works for me :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Either way works for me too. I was just surprised. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- To check a full hook set is a huge job; there's no perfect way to go about it. I think this way of doing it is just fine; it reaches everyone who's had prior involvement (apart from the promoter to prep maybe). Schwede66 23:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I ping the promoter whenever there's an issue with the hook itself – article issues are things the promoter usually isn't responsible for checking, but if there's something they should've caught, I'll ping them. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm happy to list them here beforehand – I just thought they might take a while to fix and didn't want to clutter up the noticeboard under time pressure, so I experimented with something else. Really, either way works for me :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I meant discussion prior to removing them. If that is acceptable, fine, but I haven't seen anyone else do it that way. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. There is discussion about those at their nom pages, so that's perfectly in order. Schwede66 23:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Template:Did you know nominations/Mariesa Crow and Template:Did you know nominations/National Coordination Committee Against Corruption and Crime from the same queue. SL93 (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- What? Which ones? Schwede66 22:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: my bad, i checked for a special occasion marker on the nompage and didn't find one. I'm not the most comfortable with there being three Olympic athlete hooks in one set, it's contrary to guideline – is there another date it can go in? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, there isn't. We've had three per set on most days. It's simply a function of there being so many Olympic hooks. Please refer to the extensive discussions above. Schwede66 22:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:DYKVAR says
No topic should comprise more than two of the hooks in a given update
, but honestly, I'll just move it back. Thanks for letting me know :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)- Happened to check in on the Aniya Holder DYK just now – totally get why it might have been moved, but if it could be returned to Queue 6 I would be a very happy camper :) SunTunnels (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:DYKVAR says
- No, there isn't. We've had three per set on most days. It's simply a function of there being so many Olympic hooks. Please refer to the extensive discussions above. Schwede66 22:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Queue 7: 6 Aug
@SL93, TCMemoire, and B3251: the hook says "thousands of ... trees?" Shouldn't that be "thousand of acres of trees?" RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I guess. It would still be thousands either way so I'm fine with it being changed. SL93 (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest that the hook as written is wrong. Looking at Our world in data, the mid-point of tree density in the United States is 17,500 per square kilometre. As 84 square kilometre of forest burned, this equates to some 1.5 million trees. To call that "thousands of ... trees" is an underestimate to such an extent that it's wrong. Schwede66 22:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- And having now looked more closely, they did not replant the whole area burned, but just 16 square kilometres. Still, that's an estimated 280,000 trees at the above density. Schwede66 22:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would someone need to find a source or sources specifying all of that, or would it not be considered synthesis to reword the hook and article with that information? The current source for the hook says thousands of acres. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
...mid-point of tree density in the United States
, this doesn't work though, given the placement of the Dakotas in the Rocky Mountain Rain shadow#North American mainland. The Black hills are fire-climax Ponderosa forest land, which in 1939 whould have still been reflective of centuries of fire regime. Thus open forestland with wide spacing between trees rather then dense east coast or northwest coastal forests. Additionally areas of the Black Hills transition to open Savannah-land with limited scattered trees where the rain-shadow has full influence. This hook need to be sorted with the sources, which are all referencing thousands of acres, not trees.(The sources are also seemingly contradictory as reported in the article now. Source 10 (1940 news article) states the seeds were collected within the Black Hills, source 11 (2022 KOTA article) asserts they are NOT Black Hills Ponderosa, but doesnt really go into detail. I'd suggest updating with information from the Artemis Project page here that genetic testing at USDA laboratories determined the seeds were not of Black Hills Ponderosa.--Kevmin § 00:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)- I've updated the hook to add "of acres". RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would someone need to find a source or sources specifying all of that, or would it not be considered synthesis to reword the hook and article with that information? The current source for the hook says thousands of acres. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Withdraw DYK nomination
I have withdrawn my nomination of Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of Peace in Berlin. The creator was blocked for spamming a website in many articles, including the nominated article. I can replace the spammed link, but I don't feel like rewarding the editor. SL93 (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good call, SL93. Before I close this, you might want to remove your QPQ from this article to use it elsewhere. Given that nobody has started reviewing this, that would be a fair and reasonable thing to do. I say "remove" because I for one check whether a review has been used before... Schwede66 23:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron already closed it, but I have since then removed my QPQ per your suggestion. SL93 (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I just pulled this out of Q6 (see the nompage for reason) – we might need to clarify whether DYK incorporates the WP:V requirement that articles be based on independent sources, depending on how this discussion goes. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Potential Issues with DYK Image Process
Hi all, I am not closely involved with DYK, but I spoke to Sdkb who suggested this was worth bringing up. A few months ago a doctored image of Chopin was featured, see Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/January#9 January 2024. This image has been floating around the internet as a rare photograph of Chopin, but is instead an edited portion of a painting made in the 20th century (see The Chopin Institute).
While not a major issue, it is certainly not ideal, and I highly doubt the image would have been featured if this context was known ahead of time. In any case, the image's source even said that the "original daguerreotype needs to be found to allow experts to confirm whether it is an image of Chopin"; so I'm not sure we should be using "possible likenesses" anyways (although now understood to be an incorrect likeness). I understand there was a major image misidentification in 2021 as well.
This leads me to wonder: are more stringent requirements for the DYK image necessary? Perhaps the image link can be featured and reviewed in the nomination (like how the hook link is done?) Aza24 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Rotten tomatoes
- ... that many enthusiasts say that a good tomato sandwich is so messy, it should be eaten over the kitchen sink?
The opening to this triggered my weasel watch.
Looking at the nomination, this started with a more definite hook, "... that the best tomato sandwiches are so messy they may need to be eaten over the kitchen sink?" Someone decided that we couldn't say this in Wikipedia's voice because it's not actually a definite fact; it's just an opinion. Instead of finding an actual definite fact, a weasel was found to introduce the debatable opinion. But who are these enthusiasts and are they notable or reliable?
You see, every time I see this weasel wording, I imagine it to be said in the voice of Jeremy Clarkson who would always introduce The Stig like this. Here's a compilation of "Some say..." examples. Delivering absurd facts in this way is a good joke but that's not what we're about, is it?
Andrew🐉(talk) 15:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging the involved, @Valereee, CurryTime7-24, and Theleekycauldron: Understand your point. Not sure if it is a weasel but it is probably true of any sandwich. When I saw the article I thought back to my own sandwich article with the hook Did you know... that the bondiola sandwich (example pictured) is a popular street food in Argentina? I enjoyed the tomato sandwich article but I see your point about who the "enthusiasts" are. Myself, I am a sandwich enthusiast but I would need more than just tomato to satiate myself. Bruxton (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Anybody who has ever grown tomatoes of their own will understand that a tomato sandwich is a waste of perfectly good bread and mayo. Nothing beats a good vine-ripened tomato, still warm from the sun, eaten just as it is, with the juice dribbling down your shirt. You want some heirloom variety, not the modern hybrids, genetically engineered to have smooth skin and a spherical shape, strong enough to stand up to bouncing around in a truck for a couple of days, and a flavor more akin to cardboard than anything else.
- An acceptable variation is thickly slabbed, with a slice of mozzarella on top (the good stuff, freshly made by the deli, not that horrible crap that comes wrapped in plastic), topped with a fresh basil leaf (also from your garden) and some balsamic vinegar. RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: Myself I spent 150 bucks on supplies and I grew $4.00 worth of tomatoes. They were good and I made a BLT (minus the L) last night. It was superb and not messy at all. I imagine the bacon held the tomato from slipping around in the mayo and the bread was toasted so it had some grit. Bruxton (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's true that many enthusiasts make this recommendation. The article supports that assertion. I think the hook is fine as is. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Enthusiasts are, by definition, fanatically in favour of their enthusiasm. You can run anything as a supposed definite fact by using enthusiasts as your weasels. For example:
- ... that enthusiasts say that the Earth is flat?
- ... that enthusiasts say that Donald Trump won the 2020 United States presidential election?
- ... that enthusiasts say that people are really powerful aliens trapped in a human body?
- Andrew🐉(talk) 19:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well not "anything", but yes, interesting statements by enthusiasts can make good hooks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Enthusiasts are, by definition, fanatically in favour of their enthusiasm. You can run anything as a supposed definite fact by using enthusiasts as your weasels. For example:
Moving hooks between preps
I recently moved the hook for Ahhotep I from Prep 2 to Prep 3 with the intention of promoting Jamal Valizadeh to fill the gap in line with the special occasion request. I'm finding though that when promoting the latter using PSHAW though that the task is failing to complete. I can promote the hook manually if needed, but would appreciate someone checking if I may have left something behind in prep 2 which might cause other issues down the road. CSJJ104 (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- CSJJ104, notice the format used in e.g. prep area 7 for unused slots? "... that ...", not simply "..." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- You also used the improper credit template. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @CSJJ104: Welcome to prep building and thank you for your work here! It can get complicated at times so ask questions. Bruxton (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks AirshipJungleman29, that is working now :) CSJJ104 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @CSJJ104: Welcome to prep building and thank you for your work here! It can get complicated at times so ask questions. Bruxton (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- You also used the improper credit template. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)