Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Error reports Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

DYK queue status There are currently 5 filled queues – all good, for now! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC) Current time: 12:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 12 hours ago( verify reset purge )

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203

• 2011 reform proposals • 2020 RFC LT Solutions • All RfCs

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

The previous list was archived a while ago, so I've created a new list of all 26 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through the end of February. Including the 69 nominations on the Approved page that can’t transclude there due to length limits, we have a total of 305 nominations, of which 186 have been approved, a gap of 119 nominations that has decreased by 15 in the past couple of weeks. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than two months old

• December 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Woman to Woman (campaign)
• January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Yogie Suardi Memet
• January 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Untitled The Last of Us game

More than one month old

• January 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Jamie Beaton (entrepreneur)
• January 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Acorn System BASIC
• January 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Asman Boedisantoso Ranakusuma
• January 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Danielle Marcano
• January 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Barış Youth Symphony Orchestra
• January 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Ywet Nu Aung
• January 27: Template:Did you know nominations/AFL Women's season seven
• January 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Solo (concert residency)
• January 30: Template:Did you know nominations/E. A. Underwood
• January 31: Template:Did you know nominations/North Carolina Council of State

Other nominations

• February 9: Template:Did you know nominations/The Mafeje Affair
• February 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Henri Hekking
• February 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Mirtha Arce
• February 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Freedom (concert)
• February 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Aubri Esters
• February 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Bertha McNeill
• February 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Matt Hicks (basketball)
• February 23: Template:Did you know nominations/It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism
• February 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Cote
• February 24: Template:Did you know nominations/1Point3Acres
• February 25: Template:Did you know nominations/List of awards and nominations received by The White Lotus
• February 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Qnat
• February 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Mycobacterium
• February 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of Nathan Heidelberg
• February 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Torchlight: Infinite

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the course of getting approval for my move-protection bot, the question came up as to whether there is broad enough consensus to do this at all. Please see WP:VPR#Move protection for WP:DYK articles?. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I downloaded the DYK tools and I added three hooks to prep 6. I thought it best to come here in case someone wants to check my work. Thank you all. Lightburst (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome @Lightburst to the wonderful world of DYK hook promotion! Cielquiparle (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Cielquiparle: ! I am sure I will need some help but I am checking the hooks and sources and doing a second review in the process. And wow - the tools for checking DYK eligibility and the promotion tool are super! Lightburst (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of Axl Rose "Welcome to the Jungle". Bruxton (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst Points for awe of the tools! We have @Shubinator to thank for DYK check and the multi-talented @Theleekycauldron for PSHAW, without which #visualeditors like me wouldn't participate in hook promotion. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and hoping it's the right place, this may be the first time I had to post any questions re. DYK. Two linked queries about understanding how well a hook did, no urgency, just when someone doing stats has a moment:
1) I had a nomination reach the Main Page for Women's Day yesterday, Template:Did you know nominations/Lisette Olivera, and it is now posted to STATS. But the link alongside it in the statistics table gives one number (21,211 views, I think), while the table shows another, is it 20,571. Just out of interest, is this because of some difference in time zones?
2) The nomination was approved as a text, non-leading, item, and appeared that way for the first 12.5 or 13.5 hours. Then, for some reason, it was moved up to the lead slot, and its picture brought into use for the remaining part of the day. In terms of long-term recording (which I see is split between Leading and Non-Leading hooks), how is it considered?
Thanks, SeoR (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hey there, SeoR! The difference between the two viewcounts is background views – some articles, particularly articles on popular topics, will attract some viewers to the page independently of the DYK spike. To adjust for that in determining the final viewcount, we look at how many views the article gets in the days surrounding its Main Page appearance, and subtract those out from the total. What's left is, presumably, roughly the number of views it gets as a function of DYK. The function that maintains the stats page, vandyke, only looks at the set as stored in the archives – so in this case, it'd be counted as a lead slot hook. There's not really any difference, except that lead hooks tend to have a much higher viewcount. Thanks for the question! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, theleekycauldron, that's a comprehensive answer, and now that you mention it, I remember something about this average background viewing deduction from when I restarted with DYK a year or two back, I just had not quite seen how it worked in reality (I don't always check my DYKs' views). And thanks for your advice on that nom; it had a good run, and it was a nice fit for the 8th of March. SeoR (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SeoR, the original picture hook had to be replaced as there were concerns about licensing of that image that only arose after it had been posted. Hence the swap partway through the day. Schwede66 22:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, good to know, and I certainly have no objection, the article I offered had a good image with a clean licence, so I am glad it was able to step in. The other image was striking but appeared to be a digital rendering of a photo or some such (it still showed the edge of some surface), so I guess it had some copyright complexities (that whole area is a nightmare I avoid, but I do know someone who works the image permissions queue, a tough gig, as even people willing to donate apparently don't always get it right). SeoR (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't jump to conclusions that might not be right (appeared to be a digital rendering of a photo or some such (it still showed the edge of some surface)), SeoR. The photo that appears to have been the basis for the painting (this was linked to in the discussion) does not have the edge that you are referring to. As it happens, I'll be staying at the artist's place over the weekend; I shall ask her what the backstory is. If I remember correctly, this artwork hangs in her living room; I've stayed with her before. Schwede66 00:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll strike out that speculation, not my business / area of knowledge. I was not aware of any discussion (nor who was involved), only that sometime late in the day things had changed with my submission, and when I looked back I saw the timing. When I first checked the main page, I noticed that rather striking image, but it was only an impression re. its nature, and again, all respect to the artist / contributor(s), I'm sure all was done in the best of faith. I know how thoroughly DYKs are checked, and so the action was precautionary, given the exacting standards of the main page, and not in any way conclusive. Thanks again, SeoR (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are supposed to switch DYK from one main-page set per day to two when we reach or exceed 120 approved nominations and also reach or exceed 10 filled queues and preps combined. At the moment, there are 6 filled queues and 5 filled preps, and the Count of DYK Hooks table shows 241 hooks, 124 of which are Verified/Approved.

In actuality, the Count is an undercount, since we have so many approved nominations on the Approved page that they are only being transcluded through February 26; the 58 approved nominations that can't be transcluded because doing so would exceed the maximum length of the page aren't counted by the bot. The Count should be 299 total hooks, 182 of which are approved.

The changeover needs to be done shortly after midnight UTC and not before—if you do it immediately, the bot will promote the next set immediately, which would be very bad. I haven't seen any special occasion hooks that need to be moved: we had a big batch of them on March 8, and the next ones in the special occasions section aren't for another two weeks. To do the changeover, an admin needs to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200. Thanks in advance to the admin who does this eight hours (or more) from now. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Please say if anything needs a reshuffle. Schwede66 00:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @BlueMoonset and Schwede66:. Is there any way of dealing with the impact of the maximum length of the Approved page? Could we increase the maximum length? Could a bot count all the approved hooks including untranscluded ones? Should the issue be mentioned at WP:DYKROTATE? TSventon (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a bit annoying when the page gets overloaded. It stops working beyond a set number of transclusions; that's hardcoded into the Wiki software, I believe. Schwede66 09:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the number of transclusions per se, but the "post-expand include size", which is indeed hardcoded. If we wanted to work around this, we'd probably need to stop putting everything inside {{DYKsubpage}}. —Kusma (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a tech expert, but it would probably help a lot to replace the call to {{category handler}} inside {{DYKsubpage}} by a direct if statement that places the category if and only if we are in the talk namespace. —Kusma (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith, BlueMoonset, Kusma, and Theleekycauldron: who were involved in a previous discussion of the transclusion problem in January at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 189#Update to rotation rules. TSventon (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this is that our process is sub-optimal in two distinct ways.

First, smashing all the nominations together into one big pile isn't the best way to present the menu of possible hooks to prep builders. When I'm building a prep, all I really want to see (at least for the initial pass) is a summary of each approved nomination. The article title, approved hooks, possibly an image, some filtering information (i.e. biography, US-centric, quirky), and any special information like "hold for a specific date". There should of course be a one-click way to see the full nomination if you want to dive into the detailed discussions.

Second, if we're going to adjust our publishing cadence, we should do it based on some logical editorial criteria. It would be reasonable, for example to aim for no nomination languishing for more than N weeks after being approved. What's not reasonable is having an arbitrary software limitation drive our editorial decisions; "We need to publish more because if we don't, transclusion breaks". That's like a newspaper deciding to increase the page count because they've run out of room on the loading dock to store newsprint. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there should be a separate "quarantine" area for nominations that have been approved once but still require additional work (on the hook, the article itself, or both). We currently clog up the "Approved" page with hooks that are essentially unusable for the time being. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they should definitely be filtered out. That's part of what I was heading towards with DYK Tools, but got distracted by the move-protect project. On the bright side, it's looking like that distraction will resolve itself soon. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't they be moved back to the unapproved nomination page? CMD (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chipmunkdavis Are we supposed to move them back to WP:DYKN manually if they were approved once but still require more work before they can be promoted? I've only ever noticed @BlueMoonset moving the templates back, so I wasn't sure. (There's a grey area as well, with some articles at "Approved" where issues are actively being addressed, where I definitely wouldn't bother moving back and forth.) Cielquiparle (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is my understanding. It makes life easier for the promoters, as it leaves DYKA with only the ready to go hooks as intended. CMD (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis, while it would definitely make life easier, I don't think there's any understanding, written or otherwise, that promoters or reviewers should be spending their time doing that manually. That's probably something that can be bot work. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wugapodes could add the moving back from Approved to WugBot, which currently does the moves to Approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I think we've floated that before, but Wug's pretty busy these days. The code is MIT licensed, I could always clone it and run it in reverse on GalliumBot? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it'd probably be easier if I forked the whole thing, but i dunno. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've been looking at implementing this. Turns out, my existing code has been mis-identifying approved nominations because I've been relying on pywikibot's Page.imagelinks(), which it turns out doesn't do what I thought it did. Looking at the WugBot code, I see Wug used a different strategy which seems to work better.

We really need to move towards having a standard library of reusable components which work on DYK objects such as nominations. Then we won't have each bot author needing to roll their own code to do stuff like parse nomination templates.

Anyway, I'm going to update my code to match Wug's strategy and take a whack at something that moves unapproved nominations out of WP:DYKNA back to WP:DYKN. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's not reasonable is having an arbitrary software limitation drive our editorial decisions. What a good thing that this wasn't the reason we changed at all: we went to two per day because we had exceeded the agreed-upon limit of 120 approved nominations while having ten or more full sets on the queues page, a situation that, by consensus, indicates that such a change takes place. And when we drop below 60 approved or six full sets, we'll change again, regardless of whether the transclusion issue on the Approved page has resolved itself. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe not. Removing the category handler didn't seem to do much, assuming my purges did indeed work. Strange. Any transclusion experts? —Kusma (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a sentence to WP:DYKROTATE: The approved nominations page (WP:DYKNA) has a maximum size limit so it will sometimes not display or count the latest nominations. Please improve (or remove) as necessary. TSventon (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please promote Judith Marquet-Krause to Prep 4? (The article was previously demoted after close paraphrasing was discovered with an article which turned out to have been translated into English from non-English Wikipedia, but has been since reworked and checked.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle:  Done Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please promote Private Peaceful to the last slot remaining at Prep 6? Cielquiparle (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle: Done Lightburst (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... ... it is deliberate use of the little-known "double ellipses" in the quirky hook slot, discussed in epic detail in Template:Did you know nominations/Millennial pause where @dying was pushing boundaries in exploring every typographical option available on wiki ... props to @Hameltion who suggested it, the sharp-eyed @BorgQueen for being the first proofreader to question it and to @Theleekycauldron for commenting it in so that we can minimize further proofing wars... which may very well start all over again when it hits the main page ... Cielquiparle (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gawd. It's a WP:ERRORS complaints magnet. BorgQueen (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

we'll leave a similar message at WP:ERRORS before anyone gets there, and I've left a comment in the wikitext. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, we should increase the protection level so that other admins can’t balls it up. Schwede66 15:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't wait to see what kind of hook we get for Gen Z shake. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

haha, yeah, i was trying to figure out how to get css text animation to work in a hook, but couldn't figure out how to define keyframes on wikipedia. hook alt1a was my attempt to emulate the gen z shake statically. dying (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced by the article itself, though. It could really be a dictionary definition for a bit of trivia, much of it is conjecture, half of it isn't actually about the subject, and it uses the phrase "zoomer" five times without defining it. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK to publish an article about a highway that is still under construction on the main page? Large public infrastructure projects that are "in planning" or "in development" seem like political footballs...and there is always the odd project that is either abandoned or isn't completed for decades. Or is it case by case? Anyway, I wasn't comfortable with the proposed hook for: Antananarivo–Toamasina toll highway about the benefits in terms of reduced travel times (without any qualification or hedging). Cc: @Red-tailed hawk @Juxlos Cielquiparle (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is. I don't see why the subject matter itself would not warrant the main page; this is something where ground has already been broken and construction is already underway. The shortening times are derived from the fact that the road will be paved (as opposed to the current dirt roads) and that there will be a relatively high speed limit; none of this seems particularly exceptional. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then at minimum it would need a hedge – "projected to be" "expected to be" - etc. It's not confirmed until it's confirmed and the reduced driving times shouldn't be guaranteed in wikivoice "will". Cielquiparle (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a new hook. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cielquiparle that we should change "will" to "expected to". After all, it's about 3 years until it opens, and things could change in that time. Expected to is consistent with how most articles on future events are written on Wiki. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Del Riley (clerk) has seen no action since February 22, and the nominator has not edited since. Hopefully someone is willing to help. It would be ashame to reject the nomination when it needs only minor work, and a citation for birth and death. Flibirigit (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption successful. Flibirigit (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please promote Gimix to Prep 1 if it looks ok? (Bruxton reviewed and then I wrote a new hook, which was approved by another editor.) Cielquiparle (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I will check it out. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated Seongsu Bridge disaster when it was seven days old (set to appear on DYK in 2 days) and its just gotten through GA review...would it be within reason for me to submit another hook or would that be against the spirit of DYK? :3 F4U (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DYKCRIT 1c, "An article is ineligible for DYK if it has previously appeared on the main page as bold link at DYK." Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oop thank you, I thought I read something about this somewhere before. Slightly embarrassed for asking now. :3 F4U (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! We're all learning here Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@dying, Hameltion, and Cielquiparle: Black Kite's comment about the issue with this page seems to be serious, but isn't getting page traction, so I'll repost it in a new section:

I'm not convinced by the article itself, though. It could really be a dictionary definition for a bit of trivia, much of it is conjecture, half of it isn't actually about the subject, and it uses the phrase "zoomer" five times without defining it. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a great article, but as far as I can see, it meets DYK standards. Many of the sources are marginal, but there are enough solid ones that I can't imagine this getting deleted at AfD. I added a link for zoomer. Many of the citations use {{cite web}} when they should be using {{cite news}}, but that's not a DYK fail. I tried to fix the citation to "The Times" to add location=London, but was stymied by the use of {{R}}; the documentation therein asserts that it makes the citations easier to read and maintain, which apparently uses a meaning of "easier" that I was previously unaware of. But that's also not a DYK fail. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

as a technicality, if the article is tagged with {{Content}}, that does constitute a DYK fail – if the article goes into excessively irrelevant detail, that would be something that needs to be fixed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? I'm not seeing a {{Content}} tag. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Reviewer here) There was a {{Coatrack section}} tag added by another editor during the review - I removed it because comments by the nominator, and my own rereading, seemed to address the concerns. I realize it may have been out of order for me to do both things, but the section seems harmless enough to me. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i am presuming that "conjecture" refers to the "Theory" section. from what i can tell, it's not much different from the explanations included in other wikipedia articles about phenomena, and the two theories i described are widely reported in reliable sources, so i thought it would be inappropriate to leave them out of the article. the "Millennials online" section, which is the section that previously had a coatrack tag, was added after i realized that virtually all reliable sources that discussed the millennial pause in depth also mentioned a number of other online behavioural habits associated with millennials, so not expanding on this seemed to be doing a disservice to our readers.

i originally had a footnote defining zoomers, but another editor removed it; following Black Kite's comment, i've restored it. dying (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Are there currently any outstanding concerns that should prevent Prep 3 (which includes this) from being promoted to Queue 3? - Aoidh (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh: in general, we don't hold up the whole queue when one of the hooks in prep has an issue – either it gets pulled, bumped to a later prep, or pushed on through to queue with faith that it'll be fixed before showtime. In this case, I'm not sure how this is going to play out yet, so I would recommend either the second or the last option. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Thanks, I looked at it and I didn't see anything super glaring so I've gone with the last option, but I don't mind if someone comes behind me and adjusts that. There were 2 empty queues and 0 empty preps but I wanted to check before acting on it. - Aoidh (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Just another thing - it says " The practice of including such a pause is generally ascribed to millennials, a group often defined to include people born in the 1980s or 1990s" and yet one of the two images is of Jennifer Coolidge, who was born in 1961! Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Black Kite, i'm glad you noticed! that was actually intentional, to quickly show readers that the term readily applies to pauses in videos by people other than millennials, and to emphasize that "generally ascribed to" does not mean "only exhibited by". did it have the intended effect? would you have done it differently? dying (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A review is needed at Template:Did you know nominations/Woman to Woman (campaign). The nomination is almost four months old, has a hook that has not had a review, and two sections were added to the article since the initial review. Flibirigit (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done - gtg. I will use the QPQ tomorrow. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3: Swivel weave (nom)

• @RAJIVVASUDEV, Mindmatrix, and Cielquiparle: I was checking through Queue 3 and noticed that the reference doesn't quite seem to match the hook. The hook is "... that the origins of swivel weaving can be traced back to the Ming dynasty of China?" but the reference just says The weavers of Ming times...mastered a swivel weaving method (zhuanghua) making use of... it doesn't say anything about the technique having originated from that area or time period, just that they mastered a version of the technique. Am I overlooking something in the reference? - Aoidh (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch @Aoidh. (And huge congratulations BTW to Wikipedia's newest admin!) Proposing as an alternative:

• ... that a swivel weaving technique was used by cloud brocade weavers in Ming Dynasty China?

User:Cielquiparle (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations @Aoidh, I agree with alternative hook suggested by @User:Cielquiparle. Thanks RV (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and thank you to both of you. - Aoidh (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Pete Sutherland § Photo. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have pinged the DYK admins to the discussion. Bruxton (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the main page currently, the hook for Larry Kennedy has two sets of "..." before the hook. This needs to be changed. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for the note. But probably better to report stuff like this at WP:ERRORS because more people are watching that. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you did that too :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please check the DYK "Approved" noms for Piri (singer) and No, Ma'am, That's Not History, and promote them to Prep 5 if they look ok?

(And if for some reason they don't look ok, please add your comments/concerns to the nomination template(s). The Piri ALT1 hook mentions her OnlyFans account but I think it is ok as it doesn't mention what content she is selling there, cites a source appropriately, etc. The critique of the Mormon biography is dense to read but I believe my initial concerns have been sufficiently addressed.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer and Cielquiparle: I'm significantly uncomfortable with the British tabloid known as the Daily Mirror being used to supplement risqué information on a BLP. Could that source be cut? Also, there's a good many primary sources in here, and we should be checking for WP:PRIMARY vios... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@theleekycauldron @Launchballer I've removed the paragraph citing the Daily Mirror. It was all extraneous detail anyway. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

okay, we're gonna have to see about how Lballer feels about that many cuts – I think they're probably a good call, but always good to check back in. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer @AviationFreak @Theleekycauldron I've made significant cuts to the article to reduce reliance on primary sources, which were mainly supplying extraneous detail (this is Wikipedia after all, not Fandom, etc.). (I think probably the article ballooned because it went through AfD, survived, and then sat around for so long... Even though I think all that detail doesn't belong here, I am seriously impressed with Launchballer's meticulousness in citing everything so carefully.) Anyway I'm sure it might have come as a shock at first, but I do think the article is a lot more readable and stronger now, and hope we can still get this on a path to promotion. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to contest the removal of anything based on it being extraneous (certainly not this side of DYK). I do eventually have designs on putting it through WP:GA and WP:FA and it's only going to get more and more of a shock.

I would argue, however, that per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources "may be used on Wikipedia […] to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts"; for example, I fail to see anything wrong with using her TikTok to cite her master's degree. My rule of thumb is that if the account is blue ticked or otherwise verified (she isn't blue ticked on Twitter but did use her appearance on "The Helping Musicians Podcast" to say that piri_io_ was her account), then anything in there is fair game. I would also argue that The Daily Mirror is acceptable for what I've used it for, i.e. a paraphrased quote.--Launchballer 12:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a page mover but I believe that Rancho Obi Wan Obi Wan should have a hyphen. Rancho Obi-Wan is now a redirect so we need a page mover in order to preserve the history. I pinged a few editors/admins to the nomination talk page without success. Can anyone here help? Bruxton (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Launballer. Bruxton, presumably the link in the hook should also be hyphenated. TSventon (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should! Thanks. Bruxton (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's an ongoing issue with generation of image thumbnails. I'm guessing it'll be seen a lot on DYK nominations because our use of {{main page image/DYK}} forces generation of a thumbnail in an unusual size, which tickles the bug. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting on this, I noticed issues the past few days. Bruxton (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7: John A. Hilger (nom)

• @Toadboy123, Jon698, and Bruxton: When checking through this queue I noticed there's a lot that seems to be copied from this source. That wording was in that website in January 2021 and this article was not created until April 2022, so it's not an instance of the website copying the Wikipedia article. Statements like bailing out of his aircraft, Hilger was jolted from the opening of his parachute and suffered some sprains and minor injuries and [He] ...took part in the training operations for the men and planes assembled at Eglin Field...A high priority was given to pilots practicing short takeoffs are not WP:LIMITED situations, that seems like a wholesale copy-paste of the website in question, and the article appears to have a history of copyvio issues previously. @BorgQueen, RoySmith, and Theleekycauldron: what's the best way to address this? - Aoidh (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh: I think the hook may have to be pulled while the issues are addressed. Seems like parts could easily be rewritten and I could start working on that now. You could check back in one hour after I get into it. Bruxton (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: Thanks, I appreciate it. I won't pull it yet, since we've got a couple of days. - Aoidh (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed, Toadboy123, Bruxton, Jon698, and Aoidh:. I have pulled it. The initial copyright issue was noted on Talk:John A. Hilger 10 months ago. It looks like somebody made some vague attempt to clean it up, but if you look carefully at the Earwig report, it's worse than the raw "64.1%" number would lead you to believe. Most of the passages that Earwig doesn't flag because they're not exact matches are just close paraphrases. Honestly, I think this stands a good chance of failing WP:G12. I'm flabbergasted that this passed a GA review, and then three more reviews at DYK to make it as far as the queue. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]