Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 200

< Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Latest comment: 7 days ago by Chipmunkdavis in topic A modest proposal: vital-only BLP hooks
Archive 195 ← Archive 198 Archive 199 Archive 200

What makes a good DYK image?

Latest comment: 17 days ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I'm looking at WP:DYKIMG where it says The media must be suitable, attractive, and interesting; images in particular must display well in the small size of the {{Main page image/DYK}} template and find that description lacking. For sure, requiring it to be "suitable" is a tautology, and I'm not sure what it means for an image to be "interesting" in a DYK context. As for "display well", that is often a point of contention when I mention that an image isn't good. So, what do folks think would be more specific attributes that we should mention in DYKIMG to help improve our image selections? RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  • It's meant to be vague and subjective? --evrik (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
    Far be it from me to object to snark, as it's a style of discourse I often employ myself. But my intent here was to see if we could build consensus on a more practical guide to hook authors and reviewers regarding image selection. RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Given the current interminable RfC, I'm okay with the vagueness. --evrik (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Much of that is too nebulous to be useful, I'd be inclined to yeet everything between the two 'must's. Images shouldn't be gratuitous, but I think that's covered within WP:DYKGRAT, I don't think it warrants repetition.--Launchballer 19:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I would have thought the recent one on 3 June was too grainy and low quality and just another portrait. —Bagumba (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes we try to balance the availability. It's really easy to get a great shot of an existing building. Not so much an Indonesian doctor who died in 1983. That doesn't mean we should run lots of images of buildings. Valereee (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
yes. --evrik (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
If we go off that case, WP:DYKIMG would more accurately be The media must be suitable, attractive, and interesting. —Bagumba (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there should be any requirement to be attractive. But I do think they need to be recognizable. Most of the photos I object to fail on the recognizable aspect. RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
We need to refine our palates rather than write new recipes. --evrik (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kenneth Law

Latest comment: 16 days ago37 comments14 people in discussion

Considering we currently have an ongoing discussion about how to handle negative BLP hooks, this nomination may be of interest. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

An almost wholly negative article about a BLP subject who has ongoing criminal court proceedings? DYK shouldn't touch this with a bargepole. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I touched it. Now we'll see what happens. --evrik (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I failed the nomination per WP:DYKHOOKBLP. RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it fits the criteria you've cited. It's factual and relatively neutral. --evrik (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Factual or not, "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided" It also says "this is a stricter requirement than BLP as a whole". RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
The hook itself is relatively neutral. --evrik (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I've invited comments from WP:BLPN.[1] I don't see a neutral hook in the article. Everything is either about pending charges, or it's attributed to Law himself. Rjjiii (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
If you were to write on say ... Charles Manson, even a neutral hook may be perceived as somewhat negative. --evrik (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
... that the Beach Boys did a cover of a Charles Manson song? RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I'll approve that hook when you write the article. --evrik (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
The article is written, that's where the hook came from. I'll keep it in mind if it ever reaches GA. RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Saw this through the BLPN notification. Regardless of whether WP:DYKHOOKBLP applies, putting an article on the mainpage about someone who is currently on trial for fourteen counts of murder seems like a terrible idea. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I've rejected. This seems to be another Tate case. Almost identical: Law himself says he sold the stuff. Ping to Bremps. Valereee (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this is a terrible idea. People do bad things. If the person is notable for doing bad things, the hooks may be uncomfortable. Also, I don't think this should have been closed as it does a disservice to the author. --evrik (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Evrik, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that you think every borderline nomination should be accepted. You should be aware that this is a fringe viewpoint. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: I've never said that. What I've seen in the last month is a hyper focus on the negative BLPs. I think we've lost perspective. Also, I don't appreciate your negative personal attack. --evrik (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
"I've never said that." You are correct evrik, I said it. Can you point out that negative personal attack you refer to, perhaps keeping this nomination in mind? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not going down this rabbit hole. --evrik (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Excellent, so will you strike that WP:PA accusation? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
You strike your comment. I'll strike mine. --evrik (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Negative? I thought this was interesting. :D Valereee (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
you think every borderline nomination should be accepted. You should be aware that this is a fringe viewpoint. This comment steps away from the question of content ('should this nomination be approved?'; 'what sort of hooks should DYK approve?') and becomes an accusation of character ('the way evrik thinks about DYK is abnormal and implicitly bad'; 'evrik approves almost everything, implicitly thoughtlessly'. I would also encourage AirshipJungleman29 to withdraw this personal attack against evrik. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
If the person in question had been convicted of doing terrible things, I might have a less strong opinion, but until Law's trial is actually concluded he is notable for being accused of doing terrible things. The fact that people look at this hook an conclude "this man has done bad things" before the court has actually determined whether he did or not is precisely one of the main reason that this seems like a terrible idea. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Original article author here. I understand this is a very sensitive issue, but I want to clarify that Law has admitted to selling sodium nitrite. The only remaining question is whether he did so illegally, which has to do with interpretation of the law instead of facts. There's very little disagreement on what actually happened. Bremps... 17:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I am aware that Laws admits to selling sodium nitrite. That isn't really relevant to my objection. He is solely notable for being accused of 14 counts of murder and his suspected involvement in possibly hundreds of deaths. While those charges remain unresolved I cannot see how putting him on the front page of Wikipedia, especially on DYK, which is not at all set up for nuance, can possibly be a good idea. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The question of whether or not he actually did it is a separate question from if it is a good idea to highlight that on the main page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Didn't Andrew Tate get featured on DYK? I understand there are arguments to not featuring Law on DYK, but citing Tate isn't a good example because Tate got featured on DYK. Bremps... 17:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it ran, and there was concern among others in the community that the hook was too negative. Others are concerned that we shouldn't run a hook that normalizes what the person is mostly famous for. There's been a boatload of discussion about how to handle future similar cases, and I think this is a good example because it's a very similar case: in each case, the person said this about themself. Valereee (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
That was a case of running something up the flagpole, you see who salutes and you see who shoots. --evrik (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


Alexei Starobinsky

@TheSandDoctor, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, and Sgubaldo: The article says "his work remained unknown outside of the Soviet Union", but the hook says "remained unknown in the West" which isn't the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith, Piotrus, and Sgubaldo: Well, I guess that shows a misconception on my end. I thought of the Eastern Bloc. The source states "It was a very complicated model based on a quantum theory of gravity, but it caused a sensation among cosmologists in what was then the Soviet Union....Unfortunately, because of the difficulties Soviet scientists still had in travelling abroad or communicating with colleagues outside the Soviet sphere of influence at that time, the news did not spread outside their country.”, which seems to imply it is talking about the Bloc ("Soviet sphere of influence") yet then contradicts itself by talking of country in the singular. TheSandDoctor Talk 14:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith @TheSandDoctor I’m happy to change either the article or the hook if necessary. Let me know. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I updated the hook to say Soviet Union, so I think we're good now. RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, @RoySmith:! TheSandDoctor Talk 18:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
You are right the source is contradictory. I'd go with Soviet Union for the hook to be safe. Alexei Starobinsky does not have a pl wiki article, so I cannot (quickly) check Polish sources (since I am not 100% sure what would be the spelling of his name in Polish); and whatever I found would be ORish anyway (as in, whether he was cited or not). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Latest comment: 14 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Alexandru Talex

Nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Alexandru Talex

Minor point perhaps, but the bolded article does not say that the Crusade of Romanianism is a far-right organisation. In the body, on first mention, it doesn't really say about it other than that it was "founded by Stelescu in opposition to the Guard". In the lead, it's described as a "proletarian-fascist group", but that's not directly cited anywhere and while I suppose that implies far-right, it would be good to state and cite explicitly if it's in the hook. @Dahn, Gerda Arendt, and AirshipJungleman29: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

Latest comment: 11 days ago24 comments8 people in discussion

Note: Earwig is down right now, all of these are still pending the copyvio checks. RoySmith (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, Earwig is back up so I was able to complete the checks. No problems found. RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Durham (1006)

@AirshipJungleman29, CSJJ104, and WatkynBassett: I'm confused by the "seems to have" part. Was he alive or not? RoySmith (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

That is the phrasing used in the sources, which was copied into the nomination template if you wish to check. I suspect that, as with many things in that time period, it is impossible to say for certain. If it is an issue for appearing on the main page, then I would be happy for one of the alt hooks to be used instead. --CSJJ104 (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I was confused at first as well, but this is exactly how the source frames it. All the best! WatkynBassett (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I like ALT2 the best. SL93 (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it works well for a hook when it is impossible to say for certain. SL93 (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Given that this set is the next one due to be displayed, can I check if your concerns have been answered? Alternatively, are you able to update the queue, possibly using Alt2 as suggested by SL93? CSJJ104 (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
If that's the wording the source uses, then I guess I'm OK with it. As for ALT2, isn't that kind of in WP:DYKGRAT territory? I won't object if another admin wants to use it, but it wouldn't be my preference. RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Possibly. I was really just wanting to check no more work was needed before the article appears on the main page, and it sounds like there is not. CSJJ104 (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Izzy Scane

@AirshipJungleman29, BeanieFan11, and Hameltion: The article talks about goals, but the hook says points. Are those the same thing? Any reason we can't use the same word in both places? RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  • I just edit-conflicted to say the same thing - my comment read "What does "led the country on points" mean? Which country (the hook does not identify one)? What points? This is jargon." Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Thanks for catching – my error. Hook should say goals (points are goals + assists). Could replace the first use of "the country" with "NCAA Division I" or "American college lacrosse" if needs elaboration. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Trust Machine: The Story of Blockchain

@AirshipJungleman29, TheSandDoctor, and SL93: The article says just "refugees" which got turned into "stateless refugees" in the hook. It's not clear those are the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It appears to just be "refugees". Even though I'm saying that now, I cannot read The New York Times source because it wants me to subscribe. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Guest link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/movies/trust-machine-review.html?unlocked_article_code=1.zE0.WJLP.k5QOsGhlogu6&smid=url-share RoySmith (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I see "We learn how, thanks to blockchain, neighbors in Brooklyn can trade solar electricity; how the technology might provide records for stateless refugees; and how it offers a way for fans to buy equity in an artist they like, without the middle men who come with sales on the internet." I'm not sure if "records" are the same as "identities". I'm hoping that the nominator knows. SL93 (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith, SL93, and AirshipJungleman29: NYT says they're stateless, Hollywood Reporter says the IDs are "official identities independent of the failed nations they’re fleeing". TheSandDoctor Talk 21:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I have added the word "stateless" to the article. SL93 (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Bernard Mellor

@AirshipJungleman29, Generalissima, and Mystery Merrivale: The article says Mellor worked in a unit which was headed by Fleming. To me, saying "alongside" implies they were the same rank. This sounds more like "worked for" rather than "worked alongside". RoySmith (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I would say that I worked alongside managers at my job, even though I'm just a regular employee. "If you work alongside other people, you all work together in the same place." SL93 (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The Last of Us season 1

@AirshipJungleman29, Rhain, and OlifanofmrTennant: Come on, folks. The article says "The New Yorker claimed the series budget exceeded..." which got turned into a statement of fact in wiki-voice in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:DYKHOOK, if the source is not willing to the say the fact in its own voice, the hook should attribute back to the original source as well. Since The New Yorker is willing to say the fact in its own voice, I figured the hook could safely do the same. The article attributed the information for consistency with surrounding sentences, but it was unnecessary so I've rephrased it anyway. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
To my ear, when I hear "X claimed", there's an implicit measure of doubt about the veracity of the claim, especially when it's paired with "sources suggested" as it was in the article. If you trust the source to be correct, then no need to equivocate with "claimed" and an attribution in the article. And if you feel the need to provide the attribution in the article, then it needs to be in the hook as well. RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 15 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list of older nominations was archived about twelve hours ago, so I've created a new list of 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 23. We have a total of 231 nominations, of which 86 have been approved, a gap of 145 nominations that has increased by 34 over the past 10 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Carrie Swain

Latest comment: 14 days ago48 comments12 people in discussion

It looks like this was pulled from the main page by Theleekycauldron at WP:ERRORS under a somewhat odd complaint raised by Andrew Davidson. The hook fact that was pulled comes from one of the few historians writing on Swain in a published history book (and the most detailed research in an academic publication on Swain currently in existence). That hook fact is probably the most significant thing about her as a performer. It's what makes her encyclopedic. If we can’t state the fact making the subject of primary interest to researchers/historians, and the fact that makes them principally encyclopedic I think we have lost our way at DYK. I think it was a bad choice, particularly since it’s a fact not likely to change given the age and subject matter. Since it was pulled, it needs to be re-opened and put back into the review process so a new hook can run at a different time. That should have been done at the time the hook was pulled from the main page. 4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that hook fails verification and have made edits to the article and posted an explanation and quote on the article talk page. (cross-post from WP:ERRORS) Levivich (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
No, hooks pulled from the front page are not put back into the review process. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Why not? Why can't this article get nom'd with a different hook? There are other possible hooks for this article. Levivich (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Don't know, but I suspect that it comes down to the fact that if it (or other pulled hooks) do run again, they'll have been on the main page for longer than others, because there was a mistake in them. That seems an odd course. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I left a note on the talk page. I disagree that the hook fails verification, and think the source is being misread by the other reviewer; particularly when one knows the timeline of women in minstrel shows (they were barred from appearing on the minstrel stage and did not appear at all until the 1870s, and even then usually not in blackface parts). Regardless, there should have been a good faith attempt to replace this with a suitable hook from something else in the article which was pointed out by others at the ERRORS discussion. @ AirshipJungleman29 I've seen hooks in the past get returned to review so I don't agree with that assertion that it doesn't happen. Is there a written policy to that effect? 4meter4 (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
There have been various cases (especially in similar ones where the pull is questionable) in which hooks pulled from the front page are added to the front page in the middle of a DYK cycle, at around the 'same time' they were pulled, as a last hook so that the ultimate total amount of time the hook spends on the front page is not more than that of other hooks. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I had the same thought about women not appearing in minstrel shows, 4meter4, but it looks to me like Anne of Denmark legitimately was cast in the minstrel show she devised at least once. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron That is not correct. Anne of Cleaves participated in masques which was a common form of entertainment in European courts of the 16th century and has nothing to do with either the European minstrel or the American minstrel show. Also, these are two completely different and unrelated art forms with two very different styles, formats, and repertoire. The European minstrel flourished during the medieval period, with the troubadour being the best known example of the minstrel of that period. The minstrel show being referred to here in the Carrie Swain article began in the United States in the early 19th century and is considered the first original form of theatre that arose specifically from American culture in the United States and which did not come from Europe. It was exported from America to Europe and elsewhere globally through traveling American minstrel troupes and through that some non-American groups adopted its style. However, it remained predominantly an American form of entertainment, that was not widely practiced outside of the United States. Anne of Denmark was long dead by the time the minstrel show first came into existence, and could not have possibly been involved with the American minstrel show, and she was born long after the decline of the European minstrel in the 14th century. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
What's all this kerfuffle about minstrels and their shows? The hook just refers to entertainers. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 It's tangentially related. The definition and origins of blackface is somewhat debated. Some scholars define blackface as not simply the practice of darkening ones skin through the use of makeup, burnt coal, etc. but also the accompanying racist caricatures that originated within the American minstrel show of the 19th century. The minstrel show had a whole set group of racist stock characters such as the Mammy stereotype (see Category:Blackface minstrel characters). They define blackface as being invented by lower class white men in America in the early 19th century and being a concept that came specifically from the minstrel show. Others however, take a broader view and argue the practice should be dated earlier to English Renaissance theatre to plays like Shakespeare's Othello where you had a white actor having his skin darkened to portray a black character. And of course there are racist statements in Othello. However, Othello was not a stock character, and its difficult to find patterns in blackface performance in Europe of the period, as opposed to the systematically racist structure of the American minstrel show where the majority of the cast was in blackface, there were set blackface parts consistent in the minstrel show format and structure in all of the afterpieces/plays from troupe to troupe, and it was intentionally parodying and denigrating African-Americans through racist tropes. Others date blackface even earlier to the mystery plays in Europe where religious plays were staged by the church in which actors playing demons and devils who were painted black. All of this to say, its impossible to separate blackface from the minstrel show. As for women in blackface, I think the writer was specifically defining blackface as practice within the minstrel show. The minstrel show barred women from performances until the mid 1850s, when a stock white woman character was added into the mix. No women appeared in blackface roles in the minstrel show until the 1870s when Swain began performing. Women were also barred from the stage in English Renaissance theatre. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich and AirshipJungleman29: if we catch it early, sometimes it goes back into circulation without a hitch. Otherwise, once a hook gets pulled, that's generally the end of its life. DYK has only so many editor-hours, and I don't think they're well-spent on articles that already have taken up a bunch of review time and then turn out to have even more holes. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I could see how a nom might feel that practice was punitive (although I'm sure nobody intends the practice to be punitive). But I also question whether re-running pulled hooks actually requires significantly more editor-hours. For example, if DYK re-ran every single pulled hook in May, that would only be 3 hooks, or 1% of the 276 hooks that ran in May; 1% is hardly a huge extra load on the pipeline. Further, aside from the hook mistakes, these 3 have already been vetted against other WP:DYKCRIT; basically all of WP:DYKCRIT#Articles is done, so a re-review, of just the new hook, would take less work than the first review or any average DYK review, meaning re-running all the May hooks would be less than 1% extra work. So I don't think conserving 1% or less editor hours is worth the cost in terms of discouraging noms, or the cost of not promoting (for the full duration anyway) articles on the main page that otherwise should be promoted, or the cost of not presenting the readers with a good DYK hook (on the second run). I would allow pulled hooks to be re-run, because they are so few and far between. Levivich (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Note to self: write an iffy hook with crap sourcing. Cross fingers that it doesn't get much scrutiny before hitting main page. At 400 hours, log into OutragedReader account to complain loudly at ERRORS about the idiots at DYK having done it again. At ~ 1200 hours, start insisting the hook be pulled. Next morning log back into main account. Apologize profusely; the source was in another language and the machine translation was at fault. Come up with an alternate, and this time brilliant, hook to run again. Cha-ching, probably three dozen editors have worked on the article because of the brouhaha, it appeared for a cumulative 40 hours on the MP, and the hook ends at the top of the month's stats. Win-win-win! :D Valereee (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
"I don't always WP:GAME the system, but when I do, it's 3D chess." 😂 Levivich (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
If we can’t state the fact making the subject of primary interest to researchers/historians, and the fact that makes them principally encyclopedic I think we have lost our way at DYK. I think it was a bad choice, particularly since it’s a fact not likely to change given the age and subject matter. I'm inclined to share OP's sense of things here. This matter feels kind of like straining at gnats (the couching of "possibly the first" not being good enough for DYK) while swallowing camels (perpetuating systemic misogyny in Wikipedia's biographical coverage of humans by reducing the visibility of biographical articles about women), howsoever inadvertently. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I do think it's bad when we have to reduce the visibility of women at DYK. But, to paraphrase Tamzin at a recent Signpost article, this problem can be avoided by not printing falsifiable statements about women. Someone can't be "possibly the first" if they weren't the first, and I don't really see a way around that. Now, would it be maybe more fair to have found a different hook in the article or from the nomination? Maybe. But the priority is trying not to get things wrong, and if we force admins to waste time coming up with a viable alternative on an article that has at least one problem, we're going to make more mistakes and get less done. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
if we force admins to waste time: While I suspect this in unintentional on your part, it seems unfortunate to frame 'helping improve the visibility of women's history content on Wikipedia by making a good faith effort to replace the hook' as 'wasting time', as if reducing systemic bias on Wikipedia isn't a worthy use of time and should only be done when absolutely convenient. Editors are, with narrow exceptions, volunteers, yes. Still, within that we make choices about to what we commit this voluntary time. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
That seems a very uncharitable reading of theleekycauldron's comment. No alternative hook was available, and they would not be able to propose and approve a new hook on their own. No other hook was presented at ERRORS, which is open to all volunteers, even non-admins. CMD (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A few months ago one of Piotrus hooks was pulled and we let it get a second life for the hours it missed - I think it was added on as a ninth?. I think if we can fashion a new hook it may be best to let this run again. 4m4 is a conscientious contributor here and it was an honest mistake missed by a reviewer, a promotor and an administrator. Lightburst (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments that this should not re-run. Sure, it wasn't an intentional error, but it would set a strange precedent to say you can get more than a full day at DYK by introducing hooks that don't comply with the rules...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The notion that someone would intentionally nom a bad hook in the hopes of getting the article more than a full day on DYK is, in my view, so preposterous that it's not something Wikipedia need worry about. Levivich (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • What was the issue here, at long last? That the source didn't state that she was probably the first, or that "probably the first" is not viewed as a "fact"? Dahn (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
    That the source didn't state that she was possibly the first. Levivich (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
What did it say? Because the nominator seems to be disputing your reading. Dahn (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
To clarify what I mean: a hook may summarize in three words info that the author can detail over three pages, without including the specific wording that the hook uses, but outlying the same idea to anyone reading it in good faith. Dahn (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Even clearer: does Shirley Staples, the expert authority on blackface, say something to the tune of Swain being "possibly the first" etc.? Or does she say something else? Because, if she does say that Swain was "possibly the first", and if wikipedian reviewers are "sure" that they know of earlier cases, if the hook was pulled on these grounds, then the problem is not one of hook and source, but on misinterpreting wikipedia guidelines at a reviewer level. Dahn (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
All of these questions about what the source says can be answered by reading the source, which is available for free online, or at least by reading the quote from the source on the article talk page. Again, in short, the source doesn't say she was the first, or possibly the first, female black face performer. It says one newspaper wrote that she was among the first. You can read the quote on the article talk page for yourself. Levivich (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes well I have since read the excerpt provided by Biruitorul above, and not only is this a claim advanced by the author (not a newspaper cited by the author, as you claim), but, in at least one reading of the claim, it also verifies the hook, as per the nominator. Others here may be right that the phrasing is not sufficiently clear, but that is certainly something else than the theatrical lamentations about how the hook is not verified etc. Dahn (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what words in that excerpt convey to you the idea of "possibly first female blackface performer" (as opposed to "among the first"), but I guess that means that even if you had attempted to verify the hook, you would have deemed it verified. Nevertheless, I think it'd be best if reviewers verified hooks. Levivich (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The "may have been the first" part, and what comes after, clearly rendering the author's opinion. Dahn (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
"may have been the first woman to attempt the acrobatic comedy typical of male blackface work" in absolutely no way means "may have been the first woman to perform in blackface," because "acrobatic comedy typical of male blackface work" is not the same thing as "blackface." Similarly, as to what comes after, "among the first women to put burnt cork on her face" does not mean "possibly the first woman to put burnt cork on her face." Levivich (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The phrasing preferred by the author is enough to make me, and I suppose the nominator as well, unsure about the meaning. If your interpretation is correct, neither me (even with full access to the book) nor the nominator should be expected to have replicated it. Dahn (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment In talking over the Staples source at the talk page on Swain, we came to the meeting of minds that the source language is not clear on the hook fact because of the way the writer made so many side remarks around the hook fact. It was confusing, and it’s better to err on the side of caution. Basically it came down to whether she was referring to blackface in general or a specific type of blackface role in which Swain was possibly the first, and it wasn’t clear which. So for that reason I agree that the hook fact was rightly pulled. We agreed that source could at least rightly say that she was among the first group of women to wear blackface. That could be be the modified version of the hook. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
That meeting of minds about ambiguities in the source is entirely different from an allegation that the nominator has produced WP:OR in creating the hook. Dahn (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
It seems that the original hook overlooked some qualifiers in the source, i.e. Carrie Swain may have been the first woman to attempt the acrobatic comedy typical of male blackface work The hook saying that she was "was possibly the first woman" is similar to "some people say" from MOS:WEASEL, when the source only said that the claim was from one newspaper: One newspaper described Carrie Swain as among the first women to put burnt cork on her face —Bagumba (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Inasmuch as the author believes that blackface acts required more than putting soot on one's face (as in: an acrobatic performance as well), and if this all that can be read in the text, Swain is, under that definition, "perhaps the first". If this is indeed the case, then anyone wanting to challenge that claim would have to come up with another author, using another definition of blackface, specifically saying that "the first blackface act by a woman was/may have been this" -- and not simply "look, I read it in another book that this lady living before also wore blackface". I wouldn't have imagined this would be under any sort of debate. As for the newspaper: that fragment clearly refers to another primacy there -- the painting method (not the act), and it is that claim that is attributed to "one newspaper". I feel that a lot of time is being wasted here to distract from the fact that, while the hook may have been questionable (under clearly AGF terms), its pulling out was justified by the reviewers' own OR, something which should absolutely not be allowed to proliferate. Dahn (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Firstly, nothing in WP:OR forbids the use of editorial discretion to omit a questionable claim, even if an otherwise-reliable source makes it. Nor does it forbid discussing on talkpages or project-pages whether or not a seemingly reliably-sourced claim is actually true: indeed it specifically says that This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards!
Secondly: Inasmuch as the author believes that blackface acts required more than putting soot on one's face (as in: an acrobatic performance as well), and if this all that can be read in the text, Swain is, under that definition, "perhaps the first". Is this just counterfactual speculation about how the source might have meant something completely different to what the parts Levivich quoted say, or can you actually quote where the source says that "acrobatic performance" is a "required" part of a blackface act? Because the natural reading of "typical" would be suggest that the author in fact thinks it's not required! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
It is a possible reading of the text, which the nominator made in good faith. It is perhaps correct to say that other parts of the source make the reading questionable, and therefore make the hook replacable; however, what apparently was done here is an interposing of reviewers between the claim, taken at face value by them as well, and what should go on mainpage, based on their OR. If the reviewers have been able to dig up other acts that precede Swain, they should also be able to come up with a source saying "another woman was probably the first to do blackface" (whatever the definition of the act); otherwise, it is them performing an editorial voice on wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Hopefully everything reported to WP:ERRORS was a good-faith mistake. That doesn't oblige us to keep it on the front page once there is reason to think it is a mistake.
If the reviewers have been able to dig up other acts that precede Swain, they should also be able to come up with a source saying "another woman was probably the first to do blackface" This is an absurd position to take. You cannot seriously be suggesting, for example, that if someone found a source saying "In 1836, Jane Doe performed a blackface act" you would consider it original research to conclude that as 1836 is before 1878 a blackface performance in 1878 cannot have been the first. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I am actuallysuggesting that, because: a) if the source says that, it should presumably also say something about the significance of that act, thereby satisfying the criterion; b) you may think it is not a big deal to do it in this case, but consider what precedent is created -- when users can argue with published sources by freely interpreting other sources. Dahn (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Also note that WP:WEASEL is an editorial guideline for editors, on wikipedia, not usable for invalidating critical judgements by the authors and the sources -- which we may use and render verbatim, or in paraphrase, without this being a problem. Dahn (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
"was possibly the first woman" was a poor paraphrase of what the source said—namely, that one newspaper made the claim. —Bagumba (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
No. It was a paraphrase, poor or not, of Swain being arguably the first woman to perform the "acrobatic" act that the author (not "a newspaper") apparently considered the actual definition of blackface. Dahn (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how "the acrobatic comedy typical of male blackface work" can mean that acrobatic comedy is the actual definition of, or even part of, blackface. (Similarly, I don't see how "among the first" can mean "possibly the first," to me it means not the first.) Although I'm starting to understand how this passage might be confusing to someone who isn't familiar with what blackface is (blackface is not acrobatics or comedy, even if acrobatic comedy was typical of male blackface performers at a certain place and time in history). Levivich (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The point is what blackface is to the (expert) source. Again: pull the hook because it is (arguably) ambiguous, but not because reviwers "know better". Dahn (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The point is what blackface is to the (expert) source. Despite your repeated assertions the expert source does not say that an "acrobatic act" is part of the "actual definition of blackface". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I get it that this your reading. I get it that another reading may be erroneous. The issue of it "not really saying what it was taken to mean" is legitimate, and may validate the hook being pulled (though not other proclamations about how other reviewers are necessarily wrong); but if did say or had said that, we do not argue with the expert source by substituting ourselves as experts. That is the main point I am making here, and which keeps getting danced around. Dahn (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"First" hooks

Latest comment: 13 days ago87 comments19 people in discussion

We had yet another "first" hook shown to be wrong on WP:ERRORS today. Looking at the lineup right now, I see a bunch more "first" claims:

Queue 6 ... that the first model of cosmic inflation was formulated by a Soviet physicist but initially remained unknown outside the Soviet Union?

Queue 2: ... that Professor Layton and the New World of Steam is planned to be the first main entry since 2013 in the series Professor Layton, despite it being its developer's most popular media franchise?

Prep 3: ... that Pujol and Quintonil are the highest-rated restaurants in Mexico's first Michelin guide, with two Michelin stars each?

Prep 5: ... that George Kunkel (pictured) portrayed a mountaineer in The Chalice of Courage (1915), the first film to depict assisted suicide?

Prep 6: ... that the Henry Street salamander tunnels in Amherst, Massachusetts, were the first amphibian tunnels (example pictured) in the United States?

Prep 6:... that Joe Shield was the first person from Vermont to be drafted into the NFL and then make a team's roster?

Maybe we want to take a closer look at these before they go live? These kinds of hooks really are problematic and we should stay way from them. It's really hard to prove that something is the first of its kind, and all it takes is one earlier example to show that we're wrong. RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree about a blanket ban, but I do agree with a closer review. The recent problematic first hook was not a typical first hook because it included "possibly", and it should have not been promoted. SL93 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I just looked at the one in queue 6. If the hook is true, the article Starobinsky inflation should probably mention it. Sgubaldo. SL93 (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I would not mind having a blanket ban, with exceptions possible for rock-solid cases. Schwede66 18:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
For the one in prep 6 about the salamander tunnels, this journal article says "one of the first" and this environment organization says "possibly the first". Pinging nominator Bruxton SL93 (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I see sources which say these were the first, but I also see sources which equivocate and say things such as what @Bruxton quoted above. We should go with the more conservative bunch and not claim a "first" that we can't back up. RoySmith (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I think you mean SL93. I made it clearer. SL93 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith I see two alts. Maybe one of those could work. SL93 (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
ALT1 isn't bad, but how about a terser version of it:
ALT1a: ... that before the Henry Street tunnels (example pictured) were built, volunteers carried spotted salamanders across the street in buckets?
What I don't like about all of these, however, is that we're talking specifically about the Henry Street tunnels but the photo is of some other tunnel. That seems distinctly sub-optimal. RoySmith (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
It seems like this ought to be an extremely easy photo to get, too. Msact, Daderot, Ncnorie, Faolin42, Kithira have all taken photos in Amherst and have edited en.wiki recently. Valereee (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I got some pictures. Will upload tonight. Faolin42 (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@Faolin42 Awesome, dude! RoySmith (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I've added the images at Category:Henry Street salamander tunnels Faolin42 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Cool. File:Henry Street southern salamander tunnel west entrance, Cushman MA.jpg would be perfect, but for some reason when I try to add it to the article, the editor won't let me. I'm guessing it's just some kind of cache or index delay problem, so I'll just try again later. RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Wow @Faolin42:. excellent. I got interested in these tunnels last year when I saw a toad tunnel in a post office parking lot. I am excited to see the article run. So glad you have such great images of the HS tunnels. Bravo! I never even thought to see if a WP editor lived near. And sorry I have been MIA for a few days. Bruxton (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
That is awesome! Great photos, too! Valereee (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Glad I could help! Faolin42 (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
This is now in Prep 6 with the original "first" hook. I've recently edited the article to add that this emerging-traveling-mating is an event common among amphibians and known as a "Big Night" (sourced to Audubon). In addition to ALT1a, we could also use:
ALT2 ... that salamanders in Massachusetts use purpose-built tunnels under a road to get to their Big Night?
Ping to Bruxton. Valereee (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
According to WP:DYKMOS, we're not required to start hooks with "that". So, we could do:
ALT3: ... why salamanders cross the road? RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I like that one, too! Valereee (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I like that too but I'd suggest "how salamanders cross the road". Levivich (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh, even better! Valereee (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Valereee, I am ok with any hook - the buckets one interested me as well. Regarding the original "first" hook, I imagine that somewhere in the US, amphibians used culverts prior to the Henry tunnels. And if we cannot prove these were the first I am ok with other hooks. Also I uploaded my pics of that toad tunnel and it is decidedly less impressive than the pics by Faolin42 of the tunnels under Henry. Bruxton (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Bruxton, great. Can someone please approve:
ALT3a: ... how salamanders cross the road (pictured)?
It would also make a good quirky, but I like the image a lot. Valereee (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I've promoted ALT3a to Prep. Schwede66 21:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I liked your pictures, especially that there was a sign and a little house. I went back over the articles for the Henry Street tunnels and realized there is a salamander sculpture/path on the Cushman Common, inspired by the Henry Street salamanders. See https://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/wm115XV_Crossroads_Salamander_Amherst_Massachusetts and many other references. Cushman is the village in Amherst where the tunnels are located. I have good pictures of the installation that I took 11 years ago, similar to the above link, but probably can't upload them because of copyright :-(. Faolin42 (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@Faolin42, because the art is under copyright? I think we can upload images of US public art, like here? Valereee (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I will upload, and we'll see how it goes... Faolin42 (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I tried to upload an image of the Crossroads Salamander public sculpture, but the Upload Wizard stopped me because 'someone else's work is visible in the work' I'm submitting. I'll read through the FAQ's and take it to the Village Pump tomorrow to see if I can upload it. Faolin42 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I keep imagining a salamander traffic report: "Well, the Big Night is finally here, and traffic at the Henry Street Tunnel is backed up for yards. Tonight's forecast, coming up right after the news." Levivich (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich: Imagine the slippery creatures before the bucket-brigade and the tunnels... oh the humanity! By the look of Faolin42's pictures, the Salamanders got a lot more attention than the filthy wart-ridden toads. File:Toad tunnel entrance.jpg. They do have a playful sign and a mini toad-house at the site File:Davis Toad Tunnel entrance.jpg. "Toad Hollow". The salamander tunnels are more impressive than this toad tunnel - I do not even know how a toad would find it. As I remember it took me a while to locate it! And then media outlets mocked the effort. Checking now, it was the Daily Show in 1999. Bruxton (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Here's the source I used for my hook, which states that the 'first inflationary model was developed by Alexei Starobinsky'. It wasn't known as 'inflation' yet because the term was coined later and this is mentioned in the article. This other source present in the article also states that 'There had previously been suggestions by some theorists that the universe might have undergone a period of rapid expansion early in its life, but the first to come up with a convincing scenario was Russian cosmologist Alexei Starobinsky...' Sgubaldo (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the nominated article, but rather the wikilink Starobinsky inflation. SL93 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I realise that the Starobinsky inflation article should mention it. I was replying to the top comment since taking a closer look at each of the hooks was mentioned. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for not understanding. SL93 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
No worries at all, I should've been clearer. I've added a sentence about this to Starobinsky inflation. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The "there had previously" statements that you quote re Starobinsky make this too dubious to state definitively as a first in DYK. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I understood it as others had previously suggested such a possibility, but no one had ever formulated a proper model. The other source definitively states that it was the first model. If it's considered too dubious, then I won't object to its removal from the queue. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
W/r/t the Swain hook that was pulled today, I noticed the review says "hook verified AGF". I don't understand why a hook would be AGF and not verified when the hook source is available for free on the Internet Archive (courtesy ping reviewer Dahn). My two cents: DYK doesn't need a new rule about "firsts," it needs to actually verify hooks. I don't mean to brag here and I know it's kind of a jerk thing to say, but to drive the point home: y'all can look at my contribs and see that in 15 minutes I was able to google the title of the source book, find it for free on the archives, read the relevant page, see that the fact failed verification, make the appropriate edits to the article, and post an explanation with quotes and links on the article talk page. I only say this to point out that it doesn't necessarily take long to verify hooks. Levivich (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Btw here's an idea for a new rule: get rid of "AGF verification." If a hook can't be verified by at least two people (nom and reviewer), it doesn't go on the main page, period end of story. We have enough verifiable hooks in the pipeline that we don't need AGF verification. Levivich (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
And in doing so you enforce systematic bias on Wikipedia, for obvious reasons. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Nah, avoiding systemic bias does not require not verifying hooks. Take this Swain hook for example: the topic is an American woman and the source is written in English; no systemic bias here. Or, rather, despite not verifying the hook, this hook perpetuates systemic bias (it's about Americans). Levivich (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Systematic bias is rather larger than one hook. See e.g. Wikipedia:Systemic bias#Availability of sources may cause bias. Your proposal would see all hooks cited to offline references and most cited to non-Englih sources rejected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
(It's "systemic" bias, not "systematic.") As WP:SBEXT says, "Availability of sources may cause bias," emphasis mine. That doesn't mean that we must have inaccessible sources to fight systemic bias. And it doesn't mean that inaccessible sources that fight systemic bias must be sources that only one person can verify. It's possible to find two people who can both speak a foreign language or access an offline source. Of course, not AGFing verification makes it harder to fight systemic bias, but it doesn't mean we "enforce" (your word) systemic bias by requiring actual verification. It's about balance and trade-offs. I'll take verification over unverified when balancing the two, even if verification means more systemic bias. And there are third-way compromises, such as the one suggested by Bagumba below. Levivich (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The specific bias that this would cause (not just hypothetically) is Wikipedia:Recentism. I have on multiple occasions gone physically to a large academic library to find material for Wikipedia articles, or requested material from them by interlibrary loan, because that was the only way to find those sources. It is relatively easy for me to do so because I work at a university. It would be less easy to others. I don't think it's reasonable to expect DYK reviewers to do so, any more than it would be to turn Wikipedia or DYK into an encyclopedia of only things that can be found online. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Why not require the nominator to at least quote the relevant sentences that support the hook? —Bagumba (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
+1, it would make verification easier and faster, and buffer against systemic bias because the nom could quote otherwise-difficult-to-access sources (e.g., offline, in another language, etc.). Levivich (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
+1 to having the nom provide a translation. RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
When I nominate hooks, I nearly always include relevant quotations—or explanations if the relevant passage isn't particularly quotable—whether or not the source is online, offline, paywalled, etc., just for accessibility to the reviewer, so I would be supportive of an expectation that nominators include supporting quotations to verify hooks cited to sources the reviewer is not able to access because of a material or language barrier.
I would, however, oppose a blanket elimination of AGF verification. I'm inclined to share AirshipJungleman29's concerns on that matter, and I think Levivich understates or under-recognizes the potentially wide fallout such a change to DYK praxis would have. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I have nearly always included the quote and the translation in offline or paywalled sources I used for my hooks. Dahn (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I often see nominators just link the source without a quote, contrary to the nomination form instructions:

You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting the hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

—Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
DYK helper prompts for the source quote. Valereee (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
But its often not provided, and reviewers should ask for it as part of as AGF review. —Bagumba (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Levivich: Is the question here why I didn't go checking for a source online when there was no reason to assume it was free or archived? If there had been a link to in the text, I would have clicked it. That said, I don't really see what the problem was with the hook: an author arguing that someone gave probably the fist female blackface performance or the like is a definite fact, inasmuch as this is far as the process for identifying facts can take us. This whole section looks rather pedantic, and creating mountains out of molehills. Dahn (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that the author of the source did not argue that someone gave probably the first blackface performance. The claim to "probably first female performer in blackface" was the product of a simple misreading of a (confusingly-written) source. (See the article's talk page for details, and recent edits to the article for the solution.) I don't like to come down hard on any fellow editor for any single mistake -- I've made many myself -- but your response concerns me. "No reason to assume it was free or archived"? What? Why would you have to assume that? If I'm reading your response correctly, you're saying you did not even try to verify the hook simply because there was no link in the reference? Is that seriously the extent of your inquiry? No link = AGF it's fine? It doesn't appear you asked the nom if the source was available, nor for a quote from the source, nor did you google the title to see if you could get it. To me, googling something is like the minimum reasonable effort to find something; it takes seconds. People misread all the time, people make mistakes all the time, that's why it's important to have two sets of eyes on anything important, like on factual claims on the main page of one of the world's busiest websites. I haven't really participated in DYK in years, but it would be both alarming and disappointing if it turns out that DYK reviewers are doing nothing to verify hooks -- as in zero attempt to check the source, which unfortunately seems the have been the case here. Is that normal? Levivich (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich: I don't want to get dragged into this for too long, so here's the gist of it: 1) the original claim made against the hook was that it the phrasing was not about a definitive fact, but rather an indefinite fact (an objection I regard as frivolous); now that claim is that the source doesn't verify the hook, something which I could not verify myself, since I did not check the source; 2) why didn't I check the source? Because there was absolutely no reason to assume that a source published in 1984 is online -- the likelihood that it would've been uploaded on Internet Archive was zero, and the actual uplading there is a likely breach of copyrights. Dahn (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Clearly the likelihood that it would've been uploaded to Internet Archive was greater than zero, since it's uploaded to Internet Archive. FYI, along with many other books from the 1980s and other time periods. Also FYI, whether the Internet Archive's lending of books violates US copyright is the subject of an ongoing court appeal; they're under a court order, which they say they comply with. So for the moment, it appears they are under court supervision, complying with the court orders, and not doing anything illegal, at least pending the appeal. Levivich (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Clearly the expectation that I should explore all probabilities that are less than zero is ridiculous. Dahn (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich: Wait, I've just "checked" the IA version of the source. It doesn't break copyright, because it is subscription-walled, meaning that I cannot check it -- I can only read two pages of it. To take you up at your own game: Why didn't you bother checking if it was actually accessible or not before lecturing me on my mistakes as an editor? Dahn (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The "subscription" is free; yeah, you need to register an account to borrow the book. Levivich (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
OMG, why didn't I assume it was made available on some site, and then created an account on that site just to see if I can then verify a hook in a nom that should occupy no more than 0.0000001% percent of my time on wikipedia? Instead of assuming that the editor has access to the print source and has cited it properly? How could I possibly be this unreasonable? Dahn (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think you should have had to register an account at a website if you don't want to, even if it's free. But I think you should have asked for a quote or a link. I think reviewers should spend the time it takes to verify hooks whenever possible. Levivich (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
It is frankly illusory to assume the quote is worth more than the paraphrase. We may be asking editors to render quotes they copy by hand from print sources, when a hook may summarize a quote that goes over 2 or 3 pages. I know this to be the case, since I have volunteered immense quotes from print or paywalled sources, with translations, for my own DYKs, and I know how much of a hassle this is. Also, it is still unclear to me: was the claim in the hook actually not in the source, at all, or was this merely an objection to "perhaps" and "probably" not including a "definitive fact"? Dahn (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
To clarify what I mean: a hook may summarize in three words info that the author can detail over three pages, without including the specific wording that the hook uses, but outlying the same idea to anyone reading it in good faith. In that instance, while quotes are surely welcome, the very fact of having had access to the three pages in the original print counts as AGF verification. Dahn (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
At any rate, here is the source in question. Biruitorul Talk 07:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
At any rate, the problem is not that the source was inaccurately quoted in the hook; it was the usual problem with "first" hook sources, that they missed someone else who was firster. So the issue of AGF verification is a complete red herring. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
It is very typical to see things like this: an article about Carrie Swain mentioning she may have been the first woman to perform in blackface. The people writing that article cared about Carrie Swain and wanted to write something exciting about her, so they may not have done super extensive research that would have destroyed their thesis of her being the first. Generally, an article about "women in blackface" would be a much better source to confirm "first"ness than an article about one specific woman who may or may not have been the first woman in blackface.
We see this all the time, especially with things like local newspapers where the author wishes to promote their local hero and either exaggerates the claims or omits necessary context ("first woman to perform in blackface while on a unicycle"). "First" hooks should have sources that are more independent from the article subject than what we usually expect. —Kusma (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The claim that "there was an earlier case" should be based on a reliable source specifically stating the claim about someone else. It should not be based on wikipedians doing their own original research and arguing that they know of earlier cases (WP:SYNTH? WP:TRUTH?). In that sense, the hook was entirely valid, particularly under WP:AGF. "We see this all the time, especially with things like local newspapers" -- except this was an expert source, not a local newspaper. Dahn (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Strong claims require strong sources. When the source is shown to be weak or unreliable because editors turned up other evidence contradicting its claims, we should treat the source as unreliable and not run its claim. We should not bury our heads in the sand and insist that they are reliable, despite our external knowledge. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
There's absolutely no way in which this approach can degenerate into a college of self-appointed censors using only the sources/parts of the sources that they feel are reliable. Dahn (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
But thats what the guideline WP:CONTEXTFACTS expects:

The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another.

—Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
As compared to other sources, in some cases that are rather clearly defined there (and that do not make the claim in the source uncitable, just likely to be challenged by another source). The recommendation there is not to get stuck up on a source if another source contradicts it with another, opposite claim -- one can cite both, and the fact will become relative. It certainly doesn't meant that editors should perform OR to "factcheck" the source! Dahn (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I reviewed the Kunkel hook and I saw the "first" fact in the source. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The Q2 "... that Professor Layton and the New World of Steam is planned to be the first main entry since 2013 in the series Professor Layton, despite it being its developer's most popular media franchise?" is not really a "first" hook as we have under discussion, it's "first since 2013", a very different claim. Of course, it has "main entry" as a qualifier as well due to a 2017 game. Mostly not too excitingly worded but not untrue.
P3 "... that Pujol and Quintonil are the highest-rated restaurants in Mexico's first Michelin guide, with two Michelin stars each?" has its first being related not to the subjects but to the Michelin guide, and this claim seems to hold up with the source given and the relevant primary sourcing. CMD (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The Layton hook's verifiability is question at ERRORS, and nom says we can just pull. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • TLDR in full, but one cautious solution might be to add "claimed/said to be" before a "first" claim, taking it out of Wikipedia's voice. This would I think work for examples 5 & 6 above. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

... that the ancient Greek game polis is one of the world's oldest strategy games?

This is currently being discussed on WP:ERRORS. It's really another example of the "first" problem. Any kind of superlative (first, biggest, oldest, etc) is almost impossible to prove unless you're talking about something that comes from a finite, well-known set. I can be confident when I say that Neil Armstrong ws the first man to walk on the moon, because there's only been a small number of people who have done that and it's trivial to tell which of those was first. But the set of strategy games is open-ended, so there's no feasible way to list all such games that have ever existed and figure out which is the oldest. In this case, it's particularly embarrassing because we just ran the couter-example a few days ago. RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This is remarkably contrived. The hook is about the game being one of the oldest, not the oldest, and refers to it being oldest from among those known. It being "among the oldest" also covers the situation where it is together with other much older games (say, Sumerian), since they are not as new as the other ones. I'm not even a fan of the "first" hooks, but this is a fabricated outrage if I ever saw one. Dahn (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree. SL93 (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The "known" was only added after it was complained about at WP:ERRORS. RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
With or without that word, the meaning was already clear, as is any statement about "firsts" in the distant past. I wasn't even referring to it being present/added to the hook. Dahn (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Anything can be among the oldest, you just have the put the line for "oldest" at a convenient point in the timeline for the claim. I'm coming around to supporting a ban on superlatives (highest another one I've seen at DYK), it'll catch some probably good hooks but it might bring about more hooks which tell us more about the topic. "... that ancient Greek sources refer to a game called Polis, but the rules have been mostly lost?"? There are a few more hooks I'd try, but currently unsure due to situations like the article saying both "Many aspects of the game are unknown, such as the shape of the board" but also "the pieces moved in all directions on a square board". CMD (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Support. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose such an unnecessarily wide prohibition on using phrasing that appears in reliable and independent secondary sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
The point is not if "you put the word oldest etc.", but if the source does. That said, I am sure other, even better hooks can be found for all such situations, but any "ban on superlatives", particularly when they refer to phrasings that are not actually superlatives (but "seem" to be), risks creating more problems than it solves, by giving any overzealous reviewer a carte blanche to shoot down valid hooks. Dahn (talk)
Note that we are already dealing with the Q2 and P3 examples above, in which the supposed problem with the "firsts" isn't even present -- but they were cited anyway, as "bad examples". Imagine what a ban on phrasing would entail, when we're already on this level of overbearing callousness. Dahn (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I should clarify that I am not defending a personal agenda over here -- I don't recall ever submitting a "first" (or "most" or etc.) hook in my entire contribution. I am just speaking out against a trend that I see as an overreaction, and against attempts to elevate reviewers into a position of discretionary privilege, where pet peeves become written norm. Some "first" hooks are bad, some are not, and they should all be evaluated for their own merits, without prejudice. Dahn (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
If this is a reply to my comment, I noted that this would be a wide net but I don't see it being harmful at all. Other hooks are possible, and I'm not sure DYK has ever faced the issue of rejecting too many hooks. CMD (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Possibly one of the wildest weasels in Wikipedia history

Latest comment: 11 days ago19 comments13 people in discussion
 

Here's a superlative sighting from yesterday's main page:

  • ... that the ZX Spectrum is one of the best-selling British computers of all time?

This uses the popular weasel "one of the best..." which takes a superlative and weakens it with "one of" to make it fit any also-ran. The actual facts seem to be that the Spectrum was certainly outsold by the Amstrad PCW and the Raspberry Pi. And nowadays, general purpose computing devices such as the iPhone sell more every year in the UK than the ZX Spectrum sold in its entire history.

A good way to test these weasels is to see if they are more definite when the word NOT is attached. For example:

  • ... that the ZX Spectrum is NOT the best-selling British computer of all time?
  • ... that Carrie Swain was NOT the first woman entertainer to perform in blackface?
  • ... that the ancient Greek game polis is NOT the world's oldest strategy game?

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I brought up concerns about the hook above at #ZX Spectrum but no one responded. Courtesy ping to nomination participants @Jaguar, Panamitsu, and AirshipJungleman29:, as well as to discussion commenters @Z1720 and SL93:. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
No, your concerns were that it wasn't surprising enough. I'm just confused as to why Andrew is so bamboozled by a fairly common phrase that isn't actually listed at WP:WTW and which any person who understands English is perfectly able to comprehend. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Frankly, the 'weasel word' guidance in the Manual of Style seems to encourage this kind of bamboozlement. Language that academic sources and other encyclopedias use to identify relative exceptionality without necessarily guaranteeing universal and total exceptionality gets treated on Wikipedia as a repugnant, disinforming injustice. But which phrasing is actually more confusing? that the ZX Spectrum is one of the best-selling British computer of all time? gives even a reader unfamiliar with the history of British computing a sense that ZX Spectrum is pretty up there and appears to have been an influential device. Meanwhile, Andrew's test, that the ZX Spectrum is NOT the best-selling British computer of all time? is confusing and gives the reader little sense of the ZX Spectrum's place in history. Did it not sell at all? Did it sell averagely? Did it sell pretty well but not the best ever? While one of the best gives a typical reader a good sense of general place in history, the 'test' communicates little of meaning.
All this to say—this seems like a lot of sound and fury from OP about a hook fact that is fine. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I feel like there are more interesting things to say than 'best-selling'.
... that Clive Sinclair did no market research before launching the ZX80 because he "simply had a hunch"? Valereee (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Andrew, have you read the hook properly? Are iPhones British computers? ♦ JAGUAR  12:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  • I don't think "one of the best" or similar phrases count as weasel words. I think it's interesting when something is one of the oldest/best/first/shiniest in its category, even if it doesn't quite take the superlative. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
    Everything is one of the best, best is an entirely arbitrary line. CMD (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Two other such devices were mentioned in this comment, and adding the DYK’s subject still makes it one of the best-selling British computers of all time. I fail to see the error. Interestingness could be a different issue with other such computers, but that isn’t what the complaint is about. SL93 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  • The hook seems fine. "The actual facts seem to be that the Spectrum was certainly outsold by the Amstrad PCW and the Raspberry Pi." So it's still in the top three. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    Which one of the top three? First best, second best, or third best? Be specific. If it's the third best selling British computer of all time, just say that, instead of a much more vague "one of the best". Just like it's better and more specific to say that someone won an Olympic bronze medal, rather than just describing them as an "Olympic medalist". The latter is not wrong, per se, it's just more vague. Be specific. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    "Avoid vague language" might be the answer to most of our problems on Wikipedia. Then again, there are stylistic choices editors make where vague language might be preferred (not saying I agree, but it is what it is), and this even crops up in the writing of guidelines and policies where vagueness is intentionally used. I recall reading somewhere that vagueness was a preferred writing style at one time, but my memory is hazy on this point. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    And there may be times it's actually the best we can do. If we know the first known examples of a widget were independently developed at A and B around 500 BC, but we don't have any more exact dating than that, then both the A widget and the B widget are "one of the first known widgets", but we really don't know for sure which actually is first. So, "one of" is as specific as we're able to be. But generally speaking, if we can be more specific, we should. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    There's been times when I've been deliberately vague in an article because the specific nature of a single point can go either way, beyond this or that, true or false, or first, second, or third. Perhaps this is because the point is challenged, controversial, or debatable (per the sources), so using a kind of directed, general vagueness in the main text (while giving specificity in a footnote or elsewhere) allows concision where otherwise using specificity would require a lengthy explanation or tangent. In this regard, I can see how vagueness can help keep a hook brief, which is why it is often used. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    EEng taught me that "an ounce of imprecision can save a pound of explanation." As for "one of the best," sometimes that's as precise as one can get. Is Oxford the best university in the world, or the second, or the third? I don't know, but it's definitely one of the best. Not everything is ranked like Olympic medals. "Best selling" is one of those things, it depends on what you mean exactly. Most gross revenue? Most units sold? Etc. Levivich (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    For the record, my usual formulation is: "An ounce of imprecision saves a ton of explanation." I plagiarized that somewhere, of course. While I'm pontificating, here's another favorite: "Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." EEng 00:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    Often shortened as "omit needless words". Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    But inappropriately, because it refers not just to words per se, but also points of argument, lists of examples, and so on. 03:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs)
    But, perhaps it is appropriate given the context? Saint-Exupéry was talking about engineering airplanes (I think?), while Strunk & White were talking about engineering language. Accurate or no? Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    Careful: that's possibly one of the wildest weasel in Wikipedia's history. Levivich (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Prep 7

Latest comment: 11 days ago7 comments5 people in discussion

George Webster (presenter)

@AirshipJungleman29, Valereee, and Launchballer: Do we have any WP:BLP issues putting his medical condition on the main page? RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't see any myself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Me neither. I don't think having a learning disability is a negative aspect of a living person (I have Asperger syndrome myself), and this is in most of the sources so isn't really undue. Was there another BLP concern you had in mind?--Launchballer 16:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Hm. Fair question. We could consider:
ALT1: that CBeebies presenter George Webster (pictured in video) was discovered by a Sky UK television crew while volunteering at his local Parkrun?
Valereee (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
It could work, although I find it less interesting.--Launchballer 16:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I do not see any BLP issues. In general, we should (in my opinion) avoid inspiration porn, so juxtaposing disability and achievements should be done with extra care. The original hook is probably OK here, but it is worth discussing. —Kusma (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think being an extrovert is an achievement.--Launchballer 18:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Admins: all queues are empty!

Latest comment: 10 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Pinging @DYK admins: as all queues are currently empty, in the hopes that we can get some preps promoted to queue. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I've promoted one set and am in-progress on checking them. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Once again, I encourage (goad, spur, exhort, beg) some of the DYK regulars who are not admins to get a mop. @BlueMoonset I would be happy to nominate you. RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Nabisco Shredded Wheat Factory

Latest comment: 10 days ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all, upon rereading the sources and consulting with RoySmith I no longer believe the Butterfield's reference supports the ALT0 hook. I made this change to the article in response.

Would it be possible to swap to a modified version of ALT1, "... that the Nabisco Shredded Wheat Factory was used as a marketing tool, with its image printed on cereal packets until 1960?" Perhaps even "... that the Nabisco Shredded Wheat Factory was used as a marketing tool?"

These ones are supported by p.136 of Butterfield. Pahunkat (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

For reference, p.135 talked about visitors being invited to the factory with in support of marketing on its cleanliness, but doesn't state they were tourists. Pahunkat (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for following up, Pahunkat. Where is the alt hook in the article? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Rjjiii, should be there now (diff). Pahunkat (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
@Pahunkat: It's supported by Butterfield 1999, pp. 135–137? That source should be at the end of the sentence containing the hook per WP:DYKHFC. Rjjiii (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Rjjiii Yes, specifically p.136, I've added the reference to the end of that sentence. Pahunkat (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
@Pahunkat: Awesome. I'm about to replace the hook fact. Would you be okay with "... that the Nabisco Shredded Wheat Factory was used as a marketing tool, with an image of the factory on every cereal packet until 1960?" The proposed wording "its image printed on cereal packets" seems a bit close to the source's wording "its image was printed on every packet of cereal" which isn't an issue with the wording in the article itself. Pinging SounderBruce as well, Rjjiii (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Rjjiii, thoughts on a slightly modified "... that the Nabisco Shredded Wheat Factory was used as a marketing tool, with an image of the factory on every cereal packet it produced until 1960?" Pahunkat (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
That's a bit clunky, but it's also closer to the hook that SounderBruce approved. I've put it into Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2. Are you all good with this hook, Pahunkat & SounderBruce? I see it present in the article, cited to a reliable source, and verified by the source, Rjjiii (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks for the help! Pahunkat (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Balance - Template:Did you know/Queue/6

Latest comment: 10 days ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Probably not a major concern; just a note to say the next set in the queue Template:Did you know/Queue/6 is less than 800 characters so even with nine hooks in the set, it will leave empty space. Bruxton (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm more worried about the fact that manganese nitride is a redirect. I do wonder if it's worth having some sort of character counter in each set for precisely this purpose. What is the optimum number of characters?--Launchballer 20:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Redirect bypassed. RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer: With the ellipsis 1000-1100 is near the right number. For reference, the set now is 1134 and seems to work well. Bruxton (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
When we had the 400+ character multihook last month, I promoted several very short hooks and I managed to get it down to 1100 characters, not including ellipses or (pictured). The April Fools' set had ten hooks. We shouldn't be afraid to adjust the number of hooks if they all happen to be very long or very short.--Launchballer 20:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Maybe we should stop counting hooks and start counting column-inches. As The New York Times says[citation needed], "All the hooks that fit, we print"" RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Typesetters! We can sell the extra space for ads. Bruxton (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
When the revenue starts rolling in, you guys will finally appreciate my copyediting, eh? RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
It's not a big problem either way. If the left column is too short, we'll nuke an OTD entry. If it's too long, we'll add an OTD entry. Simple! Schwede66 23:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Prep 6

Latest comment: 9 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

User:Bernanke's Crossbow, User:evrik, User:SL93 ... that making manganese nitride alloys requires a sponge? I don't think that claim is in the article, not stated that broadly. It says " A sponge is essential to Mn2N synthesis:", but the article also says there are other formulas besides Mn2N that can also be called manganese nitride. And the next paragraph appears to describe an alternate way to make manganese nitride that doesn't mention a sponge. Art LaPella (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, I added that word. Art LaPella (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
The words "sometimes" and "requires" are contradictory. The issue arises because the article's structure and title is confusing. The name "manganese nitride" is used here for a family of compounds with a variety of formulae, properties and methods of synthesis. The title of the article should be changed to "manganese nitrides" to make it clear that it's talking about a collection rather than a single compound. And whatever hook we end up with should make it clear exactly what compound it is talking about. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Prep 3 - bios

Latest comment: 9 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Prep 3 has five biographies, and three of them are in a row. This will need to be fixed. SL93 (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Kicked back the one in the middle.--Launchballer 07:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Is it too late to submit a DYK for the article "Gezer"?

Latest comment: 9 days ago6 comments6 people in discussion

@DYK admins: In March of this year, I worked extensively to improve/expand the article Gezer, but for reasons unbeknownst to me - perhaps even because of the vicissitudes of work on other topics, I downright forgot to submit a DYK on this article. Is it possible for me to receive a waiver to submit a belated DYK on this article, even though 3 months have now passed?Davidbena (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say no, three months is a fair bit too long. Perhaps the article could pass GA? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree; GA is the route to DYK for you. Schwede66 00:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
It's also got significant referencing issues, so is not oven ready for a DYK run...  — Amakuru (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Plus issues with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Summary style, both of which are part of the Good Article criteria. GA would be the path to DYK, but the article needs a bit of work. Davidbena, if you do the GA route, it may be wise to request peer review first, and to leave a link to the peer review request at WT:GAN. Rjjiii (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Personally I'm in favour of removing the time restriction on DYKs altogether but until then, rules are rules WaggersTALK 11:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Latest comment: 9 days ago12 comments6 people in discussion

List of historic places in Gore District

@Hey man im josh, Generalissima, and SL93: The cited source[2] doesn't appear to verify any of the facts in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith It's there. Clicking Detailed List Entry will show the information. SL93 (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Click on "Detailed List entry" near the bottom of that page. There's no way to link to just the entry, sadly. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Had I not already been on that site for a related featured list nomination I wouldn't have known the exact spot to find that information either. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Ugh. I suggest you use the "at=" parameter (see Template:cite web#In-source locations) to describe how to find it and/or quote=. RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay, added. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I Am Human (film)

@Hey man im josh, TheSandDoctor, and Chris Woodrich: I don't see where the article says anything about a "conversation starter". RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I can work that in but I thought that was just a more concise way of saying "The documentary film has subsequently become the topic of screenings and expert panel discussion". The film was screened and then the panels would discuss the science/technology, ethical issues, answer questions from the audience etc. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
That's how I interpreted it as well. If this is not acceptable then I'll keep this in mind in the future when adding hooks to the prep area (new to it and dipping my toes in). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Not to worry, we appreciate the help. RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Seconding SandDoctor, though I missed the ping. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    The problem is, your signature doesn't match your user name, so when I copy-pasted your signature to ping you, it failed. The rules give you wide latitude to pick a signature that pleases you, but if it doesn't match your user name and you miss pings because of that, it's on you :-) RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Can't renominate for DYK after the article was improved for GA

Latest comment: 9 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I tried to renominate Joy (dog) for DYK with the status "Improved for GA" but got an error that the duplicate nomination can't be created. Please advise how to resolve this issue. Thanks, Jacob0790 (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

You should have got an error message saying 'please copy the following substituted template'. I've created it for you at Template:Did you know nominations/Joy (dog) (2nd nomination). I'll leave it to you to add it to T:TDYK.--Launchballer 19:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, Launchballer! Jacob0790 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK bingo?

Latest comment: 9 days ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Is there some special award we get if every hook in a set gets dragged to WP:ERRORS? I think we're in the running today. RoySmith (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I award you with this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
You're winner! In all seriousness, of the five that made ERRORS today, I count one courtesy ping, two non-errors, and one typo. Only one of them actually resulted in a pull. We ought to be more careful than that, but this isn't as bad as it looks.--Launchballer 20:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
We've still got almost 4 hours to reach our goal :-) RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I am doubtful about the source for the Alexandru Talex hook, but it is a bit late to do anything about it. TSventon (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

We are in the running for it today as well! Schwede66 07:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The various discussions at Errors about today's DYKs come to 2585 words. Surely, that must be a record! Schwede66 22:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 8 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list of older nominations is now a week old and could be archived at any moment, so I've created a new list of 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 29. We have a total of 225 nominations, of which 73 have been approved, a gap of 152 nominations that has increased by 7 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

A modest proposal: vital-only BLP hooks

Latest comment: 7 days ago15 comments10 people in discussion
Feedback given to this temperature check. CMD (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Just a temperature check: what would people think of limiting BLPs on DYK to vital-class articles only? I just feel a lot of the books we get about living persons are relatively boring about people with general notability but not an established history—so their hooks often involve evaluative quotes that aren’t exactly facts (like did you know that American soprano Samantha Adams was called "one of the finest talents under twenty?") and really routine facts that wouldn’t exactly raise any eyebrows (like did you know that Quincy Smith holds the record for fastest lacrosse faceoff in a nationally-ranked tournament qualifier?—someone has to hold that record, I guess). The hooks and articles relating to BLPs also often have the problem of seeming quite promotional, especially as recentism means that a contemporary figure may receive lots of contemporary praise that would not be repeated in a historical source representing their legacy twenty years later.

I know this isn’t exactly a prepared proposal, and if the response isn’t an immediate “hell no”, I’ll put together some examples and evidence to support my thinking. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Without examining the overarching merits, on a practical level this would effectively ban most BLPs by limiting BLP DYKs to GAs and x5s, as the vital article wikiproject juggles existing articles. CMD (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
There is no snowball's hell in chance of such a proposal ever happening, but regardless, for the record I'd be opposed to this. For one thing, it would be deeply unfair to our contributors, many of whom are interested in improving BLPs and want to be acknowledged for their efforts. A blanket or even limited ban on DYK would likely discourage a not-insignificant number of our editors from contributing. I've said this multiple times already in discussions here: the issue isn't BLPs inherently being difficult or problematic, but rather our enforcement of rules and quality control are lacking.
Another issue is systemic bias. Requiring BLP nominations to be vital articles would likely cut off much of the world's people from DYK. We already have an issue with systemic bias (i.e. a focus on the Anglosphere), and doing such a thing would only increase said bias rather than counter it. Most of the world's people would never reach vital article status especially outside the Anglosphere or Europe, which means our already limited pool will become even more limited.
I get where the proposal is coming from, but these efforts to restrict or limit BLP nominations all have their own issues and would arguably do far more harm than good. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
really routine facts that wouldn’t exactly raise any eyebrows (like did you know that Quincy Smith holds the record for fastest lacrosse faceoff in a nationally-ranked tournament qualifier?: Maybe we're operating under different senses of routine, but that doesn't seem that routine. I certainly don't hold that record, and most people don't. "Routine" seems like, "Quincy Smith was in a nationally-ranked tournament qualifier" (so was everyone else in that qualifier) or "Quincy Smith went to secondary school" (so did I). Sure, someone has to hold that record but that seems like saying 'someone'/'something has to be any particular hook fact since otherwise it wouldn't be a fact. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The issue with these qualifier hooks isn't necessarily their interest or how routine they are but rather their factual accuracy. One of our recurring issues is how our "first" hooks can be misleading or inaccurate. Just see how often "first" hooks end up here on WT:DYK or WP:ERRORS. I don't think requiring BLPs to be vital articles would solve that issue, and in any case BDPs would still be vulnerable to the same issues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
My impression from the semi-recent threads (one thread and another thread) about "first" and "among the best" and other superlative or qualified superlative hooks is that a lot of the objections have been excessively fastidious. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 14:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
But you’ve never heard of Quincy Smith before. It’s as good to you as “someone holds this record”. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
you’ve never heard of Quincy Smith before: That seems like it's sort of the point of WP:DYK: DYK aims to [...] highlight the variety of information on Wikipedia and to present facts about a range of topics. Now I know who holds the record, and I can opt into learning more about that person by clicking the link. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 14:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Narutolovehinata5 the proposal will not pass. Lightburst (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Strong oppose given all the points Narutolovehinata5 raised about the severe chaotic consequences of the proposal. ミラP@Miraclepine 13:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, and hope to heck and back that this modest proposal was just as tongue-in-cheek as Swift's. "Vital" articles are extremely limited in number, biased toward a Western worldview, and generally at a point where they would not qualify for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 says it all a lot more eloquently than I could. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
For the record, a quick petscan shows that there are around 4,000 vital BLPs; you can probably do further checks to see if any countries are overrepresented. However, bear in mind that 300 are GAs and 100 are FAs, meaning only around 3,600 are realistically eligible (through GA only) for DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
In order for that to happen the rating system would actually have to be meaningful and well applied... currently it is not. Let me be clear: if this were possible and we had a fully fucntional rating system I would be a strong oppose, but I don't see the point of opposing an unborn infant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose for three reasons.
  1. This would basically invite people to abuse the vital article system. Since anyone can edit the vital articles list, they can merely add any articles to the vital-article list that they want to nominate for DYK.
  2. It kind of defeats the purpose of DYK, which is to showcase lesser-known articles.
  3. If the issue is that a hook isn't interesting, the solution is to reject the hook during the nomination process for this reason. The solution should not be to add restrictions on what types of articles should be nominated.
– Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_200&oldid=1231111071"