Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Theleekycauldron (talk | contribs) at 21:52, 12 June 2023 (→‎Child abuse in association football: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

Queue 5/1987 Bullingdon Club photograph

At some point the hook for 1987 Bullingdon Club photograph was changed from (my emphasis) ...commissioned a painting of a 1987 Bullingdon Club photograph featuring... to ...commissioned a painting of the 1987 Bullingdon Club photograph featuring.... Is it possible to change back to "a 1987 Bullingdon Club photograph". Saying "the" makes it sound like this is the title of the photograph which it is not - it's just the name of the article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith @Ravenpuff @Lightburst This goes on the main page tomorrow so pinging those involved in the hook's promotion/editing to get someone to look at this. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vladimir.copic: Your change seems logical to me. You will need to ping the {{DYK admins}} Lightburst (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenpuff it looks like you made this change in Special:Diff/1158090978. Any objections to changing it back? BTW, the convention is to ping the hook author in the edit summary when making changes like this. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vladimir.copic  Done BorgQueen (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vladimir.copic and RoySmith: I'm happy for the change to have been made. But I think that either "the" or "a" would work here, since the article is clearly about a specific photo. Even if "1987 Bullingdon Club photograph" is not its title, it's still a correct description of it. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:10, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday. I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 8. We have a total of 211 nominations, of which 59 have been approved, a gap of 152 nominations that has increased by 5 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries 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) 05:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see this problem going away while the DYK page uses the unreadable format that it does. I can anecdotally say that I would almost certainly review more at DYK if the nominations page was clean and organized. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2: Gull egg

The quote should read "make smashing meringue", without the "a". But also, I don't think this hook meets the DYK guidelines. It's presenting an opinion rather than a fact, and the opinion in question comes from the owners of a store that sells gull eggs, who obviously aren't an independent source for that claim.

I'm sorry to be pouring cold water on this hook because the article is great, and exactly the kind of article that DYK was made for. However, I think there are plenty of alternative hooks to be found. For example:

  • ... that a gull egg will make an airier cake than a chicken egg? [to stick with the theme of the original hook]
  • ... that during World War I, the UK government advised citizens to harvest seagull eggs as a supplement to hens' eggs? [I can't access the source for this one so I haven't checked it myself]
  • ... that following the Second World War, seagull eggs were in such demand in the UK that they were imported from abroad? [found in this source but not currently in the article]
  • ... that there are fewer than 100 licensed gull eggers in the UK? [wouldn't work for a picture hook, but it amuses me how baffling that sentence is out of context]

Hope these ideas help. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jengod, Onegreatjoke, and Lightburst: Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My solution would be:
... that '''[[gull eggs|seagull eggs]]''' ''(examples pictured)'' are said to make a "smashing meringue"?
jengod (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added a failed verification tag in the second paragraph of the article, and a dubious tag in the section on North America. At this point I'm tempted to pull this from Queue 2 until various issues with the article and hook are addressed, but as I am the one who added the tags I don't think I should be the one to pull it. @DYK admins: ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:06, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination. jengod (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a shame to withdraw it over a couple of minor issues. I think the refs you've added resolve the concerns raised by ONUnicorn, and if none of my proposed hooks work I'm sure another can be found. Let's wait for a couple more outside observers to weigh in; the hook is still three days away from the main page, so there's time for calm discussion. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's a shame to withdraw it entirely - I do think the issues are fixable and already you've gone a long way towards fixing them. I'll try to look at it again later tonight. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last-minute ticking-clock fire alarms on DYK (and AfD, as well, even if it's not "your" article) are quite stressful. The information that there are three days left before launch is slightly reassuring. Sigh. I'm more or less around for whatever else needs addressing. Changing the hook is none of my business at this point. I hope you find something good. jengod (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the third one, it presents an unusual standalone fact and it's thought-provoking enough that, I don't know if the article would answer the questions, but I'd click through to find out - why did Brits like seagull eggs so much? why couldn't they get them at home? is the link with WW2 suggesting that maybe the Battle of Britain killed a lot of seagulls? I think it works well as a hook if the source is incorporated. Kingsif (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the source doesn't answer these questions (I've ony just got access to page 172 which GBooks wasn't showing me before). However, the author cites this article Closed access icon from the Dundee Courier, which mentions the importation of gull eggs in the context of rationing restrictions, so presumably the reason is that hens' eggs were still in short supply in 1947; but that doesn't explain why they couldn't get enough eggs from British gulls, or why they didn't import hens' eggs instead. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination David Gerard (author)

I was looking over this Nomination before promotion, and I wondered, what does everyone think about the article and image. About the image, I was specifically wondering if we should be showing the image of the pint in the image. The image is also not very clear. Lightburst (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is shown in his natural habitat; the quality is fine for the article, & just about ok for MP. A crop at the bottom would be good, & maybe a little straightening-up. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So long as drinking beer is legal in the jurisdiction where he was photographed, I think it's fine. jengod (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heathrow Terminal 5 apparently. I've done the bottom crop & substituted it. In fact there is a large choice in his commons category, nearly all in the vicinity of beer, plus often cigarettes. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much as I like David's contributions to Wikipedia, is there a single secondary source in there which talks about him (as opposed to his books)? I'm unconvinced this would pass an AfD. Black Kite (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Black Kite: In 2008, it didn't. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That was before both his books, to be fair. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant guideline here would be WP:AUTHOR. If anyone sent it to AFD it will end up coming down to subjective opinion on 1, 2 & 3. So whoever turns up on the day and argues significance the best or until people give up. #AFDlife Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't his books self-published? Apparently they have received reviews, but I don't know if that's enough to get over the fact that they're self-published. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No idea if self-published or not, but that isnt really relevant to this situation where they have subsequently been reviewed by reputable organisations. If anything you could make a credible argument that despite self-publishing those reviewers consider his work notable. The reason why 99% of self-published stuff doesnt get reviewed is because its just rubbish of no note. We rely on critics to filter out what is and isnt notable (good and bad) for both formally published and self-published. Self-publishing is more relevant to the 'is this factual' question where something hasnt had any reviews. We do explicitly allow self-published works by people who are recognised experts in their field for use as sources/references, the question is are they enough of an expert/notable - and reviews by quality papers etc are one way of demonstrating that. It would be a weird situation where we allowed a self-published work as a source then said the author wasnt notable enough to be included. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are there trademark issues with the WMF logo? I've been dinged in the past for including it in screenshots because the logo is not free content, and I would think putting it on a t-shirt doesn't make it so. And, yes, the image is of very poor quality. Surely we can find better images for the main page. Also, I agree with @Black Kite about the dubious notability of this subject. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked through the sources hence I can't comment on notability. But surely, we can find better photos for a picture hook, eh? Schwede66 05:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree there are often better image hook options than bios (and we just get through an awful lot of bio image hooks because there's a lot of them), I have also gone ahead and tweaked the image to bring David out of the shadows. Kingsif (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks! I had also cropped the bottom. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: de minimis, no? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It will need to be put on hold now as it is at AfD. Bruxton (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I picked this up on COMMONS:COM:Is a photo of a t-shirt with a non-free logo on it freely licensed?. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page move → redirect

Zakir Husain (politician) in Queue 4 has been moved, so it's now a redirect. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out -- RoySmith (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, can you please also fix the DYKmake template for that nom so it also doesn't use the redirect? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be more specific, please do not change the subpage parameter, but change the second parameter so it's "Zakir Husain" rather than "Zakir Husain (politician)". Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Special:Diff/1158736342. I hope I got it right :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating a 2x expansion: Charm quark

Hello,

I recently did a 2x expansion of charm quark, but the hooks I found are really interesting, and the article itself is a level-5 vital article, so I am nominating it for DYK. User:Onegreatjoke suggested that I bring this article to the discussion here.

The nomination can be found at Template:Did you know nominations/Charm quark.

Cheers, --TheLonelyPather (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLonelyPather Maybe you could submit it for GA review now and either re-submit for DYK once it passes, or put a note on your current nomination that it's pending confirmation of GA status? Cielquiparle (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good idea. I am probably going to refine it and re-submit it for DYK once it gets GA. Thanks! -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Max Bielfeldt

Queue 1: Max Bielfeldt (nom) @Cielquiparle @Launchballer @Lightburst I can't verify the sourcing for the hook. Can you walk me through it? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cielquiparle it looks like you wrote this hook. Can you please help me understand the sourcing? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Propose rewording the hook as follows so it's clearer and aligns more with the article wording:
    The fact that the Wolverines released Max Bielfeldt from his athletic scholarship for his fifth and final season of NCAA eligibility is explained in the first sentence of the sub-section called "Transfer". (The sub-sections leading up to that explain that he redshirted his freshman year.) The fact that Bielfeldt was the first player in history to win Big Ten Conference men's basketball championships at two different schools is repeated twice in the article, with a citation the second time (the source is 247Sports published by CBS Sports Digital/CBS Interactive). Added a wikilink to the Big Ten Conference men's basketball regular season champions article as well. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith, TonyTheTiger, Lightburst, and Launchballer: Copying everyone in. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the explanation, and I've updated the hook to your suggested wording. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Urwa ibn al-Zubayr

Queue 1: Urwa ibn al-Zubayr (nom) @Onegreatjoke @BorgQueen @AhmadLX I see in the article that Alfred Guillaume calls him the "founder of Islamic history", some other authors made similar statements, and one argued the other way. I'm not seeing how that supports the hook statement in wiki voice that he is widely considered to be the founder of Islamic historiography. Maybe there's this handful of authors who feel this way, but there's also hundreds of others, not cited here, who feel differently? On the other hand, maybe I'm being overly picky; I'd like to hear what others think on this. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith I've rephrased it. Please check. BorgQueen (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a small change, but yeah, I think that's better. To be honest though, I was thinking more about the "widely" part. If we find N sources that say, "I think X is Y", when is it OK for us to say in wiki voice, "X is widely considered to be Y"? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith "Widely" in that context simply means that it is a majority opinion, yes? It does not deny that there are differing views. BorgQueen (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into this specific case, but generally I think that for an article (or a DYK hook) to say that X is widely known as Y, we need a reliable source that says exactly that. If we perform our own review of the literature and decide that a majority of scholars hold a certain opinion, that's original research. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you have invalid view of Original Research. OR is searching primary sources to draw new conclusions. Surveying secondary RS is exactly what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. How would you write an encyclopedic article? You serious? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. @AhmadLX: what do you think? BorgQueen (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest
... that Urwa ibn al-Zubayr has been called the founder of Islamic historiography?
as sticking to the spirit of the original while avoiding the OR aspects of "widely considered"? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith  Done BorgQueen (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith and BorgQueen: I've no issue with the new hook, but how would you know if something is "widely held"? By surveying people? Or seeing if an RS uses the phrase "widely held"? To me "widely held" means widely held by academics which you can see by surveying academic sources. I went milder by saying "widely held" instead of just stating that he "is" only because of Robinson's dissenting opinion, otherwise Encyclopedia of Islam and other sources state it as a matter of fact. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK closure issue

I think a reviewer is having difficulty closing Template:Did you know nominations/75/24 Split. I would help, but I'm not the most experienced here. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed :) Gnomingstuff, reviewers aren't supposed to close DYK nominations, that's for promoters to do. If you ever want to close a nomination (that you aren't the reviewer for), I suggest reading Template:Did you know/Queue#Instructions on how to promote a hook. To approve a DYK nomination, simply subst in {{DYKyes}} in your comment. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, another part of the problem here is that Bneu2013 actually does owe a QPQ review despite thinking they didn't. So this shouldn't be given a tick until that review has been completed. I've posted to that effect on the nomination page, not realizing that this section had commenced here. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already started a QPQ. But I have had some pass without this. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps your earlier nominations only total to 5? According to the guidelines, "As soon as a new nominator's hook includes articles beyond their fifth nomination of an article for DYK, each of those requires a separate QPQ review".Supplementary guidelines. — Maile (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, that's what I had thought previously, which is why I hadn't done it until I was asked. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe my memory is being incorrect but I could have sworn at some point the rules/guidelines said QPQ kicks in at the fifth nomination, not after. So confusing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From WP:DYKCRIT: If you have nominated five or more articles in the past, you must review one other nomination. See also Fencepost error :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, the QPQ rules were reformulated a couple of years ago in an RfC and the update clarified that it's five freebies; this was when we set up the possibility that two QPQs could be required per nomination for those with a great many prior DYK nominations whenever we have way too many unreviewed noms. While the now-obsolete instructions prior to that were ambiguous, over time it became the practice to allow five freebies rather than the four, rather than the fifth requiring a QPQ. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awkwardly worded P4 hook

"... that the San Diego Chargers suffered their worst margin of defeat during the 1964 San Diego Chargers season that would remain until an even worse loss 56 years later?"

Ugh. Just ugh. What happens when nominators believe, or are led to believe, they absolutely have to include the article title as is in the hook.

Can we reword this to: "... that the 1964 San Diego Chargers suffered the team's worst margin of defeat for 56 years?"

Much more elegant. Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also see WP:INTOTHEWOULDS. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this is more elegant, since it is easily misunderstood: to me the new hook is saying that it was their worst defeat since a previous drubbing 56 years ago (in 1908), not that it was the worst ever as a team until an even worse one 56 years later (in 2020). BlueMoonset (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this one seems difficult to reword well, but i agree with BlueMoonset, so i will try to suggest a couple of alternatives.

alt0b: ... that during their 1964 season, the San Diego Chargers suffered their worst margin of defeat, surpassed only 56 years later?

alt0c: ... that 1964 saw the San Diego Chargers suffer their worst margin of defeat, until 2020?

the 2020 season is linked to conform with the originally proposed hook, currently in the prep area. alt0c is admittedly reworded rather radically, but it is short, so i thought i might mention it too. (i am not sure if it reads better with or without the comma before "until".) dying (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like alt0c. Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
same with me Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently sitting in Q4 as: "... that the San Diego Chargers suffered their worst margin of defeat during the 1964 San Diego Chargers season, which stood until an even worse loss 56 years later?"Facepalm Facepalm This solved the lesser of the two problems, the one BlueMoonset found made my proposed replacement inelegant, but leaves the bigger one intact. Would we expect the Chargers to suffer a defeat during the 1964 New York Yankees season? Once we've mentioned the team, do we really need to clarify this in the linked wording? Why have we not used the wording of any alt suggested here?

Also, another issue occurs to me: If the 1964 defeat margin has since been eclipsed, it cannot be described as "the worst".

So, now I propose ALT 0D: "...that in 1964 the San Diego Chargers suffered what would be their worst margin of defeat for 56 years?"

Really compact, and unambiguous. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's still there and this will be on the Main Page in 2 days. Should I just fix it myself? Daniel Case (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm going to do it with ALT 0E, which strikes me as the 1964 best possible way to do this:
"... that the 1964 San Diego Chargers suffered what would be their worst margin of defeat for 56 years? Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Case, i think the wording "for 56 years" is problematic. both BlueMoonset and i think it qualifies "worst" to mean that it was the worst during a specific period of 56 years, while making no assertions regarding whether it was worse than that of any season outside of that specific period.
i had noticed that the 1964 season's margin of defeat was not their worst outright, but had interpreted the phrase at the end to effectively qualify "worst", in both alt0b and alt0c. if that is not sufficient, then perhaps the prefix "then-" could be added.

alt0bii: ... that during their 1964 season, the San Diego Chargers suffered their then-worst margin of defeat, surpassed only 56 years later?

alt0cii: ... that 1964 saw the San Diego Chargers suffer their then-worst margin of defeat, until 2020?

i think alt0bii could work, but also think alt0c was fine as is. i believe "until" tells the reader that a statement was true up to a certain point, and strongly suggests that it was not true after that point. in this case, the 1964 season's margin of defeat was actually their worst until 2020; qualifying "worst" with "then-" would suggest that, after 2020, the margin of defeat in the 1964 season was not their worst at the time.
i am not sure why this point had not been resolved earlier, but it might be because the section heading did not explicitly mention the article, or possibly because the editors involved with the hook's promotion had not been pinged. i don't think replacing the hook with your own is a good idea; i believe the processes established at dyk aim to prevent such conflicts of interest.
pinging Onegreatjoke (nominator), BeanieFan11 (reviewer), Bruxton (promoter), and BorgQueen (approver). courtesy pinging Harper J. Cole (ga nominator). linking to the nomination so that it can be more easily referenced. Onegreatjoke, thanks for your earlier input. i thought you might also be interested in offering your opinion on the more recently proposed hook alternatives. dying (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As this was purely a matter of the wording of the hook and not the substance, I thought there would be quick agreement on amendment. I didn't expect that no one would see what I saw as the worst problem with it, the needless repetition of "San Diego Chargers", and instead focused on the semantics of whether it implied that a worse defeat had occurred 56 years earlier or later (a rather picayune concern IMO). After a rather involved discussion, I pointed out that this issue had gone unaddressed, let it sit a day in the apparently naïve belief that someone would see it and respond, and after no one did, leading me to believe everyone would be OK with it, I took care of it so we would not have a poorly-worded hook on the Main Page.
I thought that would be the end of it. Apparently not ... there is still wrangling about the semantics of the last part of the sentence, to the extent that we have in serious contention the overly wordy alt 0bii with but a few hours till the hook hits the Main Page. It seems to me that everyone is 100% committed to missing the point here.
And regrettably this is not the first time in my recent memory that people here on this page seem to have cared more about checking a set of bureaucratic boxes than putting the best-quality content on the Main Page, and/or completely ignored a post here about a brewing issue which became more difficult to resolve when it reached, or was about to reach, the Main Page. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for alt0bii, though I'd suggest "only surpassed" rather than "surpassed only". The current wording suggests that 56 years isn't a long time for the record to stand. Whatever you think best, though. Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to bring up minor semantics, but the hook does now have two question marks, Daniel Case. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huntsville, Alabama

Queue 2: Huntsville, Alabama (nom) needs an end-of-sentence citation for Huntsville remains the center for rocket-propulsion research in NASA and the Army @Bruxton @Epicgenius @Onegreatjoke @MyCatIsAChonk -- RoySmith (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

believe i've added it Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at https://www.spacefoundation.org/company/nasa-marshall-space-flight-center/, right? That has all kinds of glowing language about NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, but I'm unconvinced it supports the statement Huntsville remains the center for rocket-propulsion research in NASA and the Army. Saying "the center" implies it's the only one. The source doesn't say that. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith, you raise a good point, the statement is difficult to support the and I'm not finding many sources that support it. I've rephrased it in the article to "Huntsville is a key city in rocket-propulsion research for NASA and various organizations run by the Army," and I think one of the ALT hooks should be swamped out. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about:
ALT4: ... that Huntsville, Alabama is nicknamed Rocket City?
That keeps with the space theme, and is supported by https://apnews.com/article/north-america-ap-top-news-mars-huntsville-moons-d4c8b31ad3d245d8b5a71b2b4eaa9a21 -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that's good enough Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J. Howard Crocker

Queue 2: J. Howard Crocker (nom) The cited source only talks about "introducing volley ball into the Chinese public schools", which isn't quite the same thing as introducing it "to China". But more than that, it's a letter written by the subject about his own activities. We shouldn't assert something in wiki voice based on a first-person account. @Bruxton @Flibirigit @Onegreatjoke -- RoySmith (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the other citation also listed at the end of the sentence. [1] It clearly mentions Crocker introducing volleyball to China. The letter from Crocker is only used to support the year, 1912. I will add a footnote later today, to bundle the citation. Flibirigit (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Micro Star v. FormGen Inc.

Queue 2: Micro Star v. FormGen Inc. (nom) The wording in the hook video game case is confusing. I read that as meaning Computer case, i.e. some legal notice was stamped into the plastic housing of the game. It took me a while to figure out it meant Legal case. Could this be reworded to avoid the ambiguity? @BorgQueen @Joraham @Onegreatjoke @Launchballer -- RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith I suggest removing "the video game case" altogether. BorgQueen (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That works, done. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So all readers need to presume/know British Empire units?

Sleep in the NBA: "between 68 and 70 degrees"—what does that mean? Doesn't anyone check before DYKs go on the main page? Tony (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: Thank you for finding the issue. It was an easy fix, I added templates, {{convert|68|F|C}} and {{convert|70|F|C}}. Bruxton (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Agree, they should be using conversions, as per MOS:CONVERT. Though 68 to 70 degrees is in Fahrenheit, which used mostly by Americans, so not a British empire thing. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, "between 68 and 70 degrees" is a quote from the article, not the hook. DYK reviewers won't spot every error in every article. Secondly, I believe the article refers to United States customary units rather than Imperial units. TSventon (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
US units are mostly British imperial units. Tony (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion problem

In this edit, PSHAW (used by Bruxton) erroneously replaced a hook in Prep 4 with another, while leaving behind the credits from the hook which was removed. I'm assuming this was a PSHAW error; theleekycauldron, was it because, prior to that edit, the credits were not in the same order as the hooks? (I've removed the stray credits, and added the hook and credits to Prep 5.) Promoters and others should be aware of this issue, and check for it happening again. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandarax: Thank you. I remember last night Pshaw froze and I had to manually move the last one I promoted. It looks like I promoted one over the top of another and that is my error. Bruxton (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, even though the edit summary said "PSHAW", you had made the edit manually. It's good that it wasn't an automated problem. I only brought this here to alert people that PSHAW might be misbehaving; sorry, leeky, for mistakenly blaming your baby. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
honestly, user-side error was my first guess :) would've been happy to dig into it, but, no trouble. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Preps and Queues

Only three queues are filled. As soon as Prep 4 is emptied there is something from the special occasion holding are for it. --evrik (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Evrik, I will keep an eye out. @DYK admins: Lightburst (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to help, but one of mine is in Prep 3 so I can't promote it. —Kusma (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither can I, as I'm the primary builder of the set. BorgQueen (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Roy looks left. Looks right. Doesn't see anything. Sighs. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I've verified the hooks, but earwig is down so I'll have to come back later and do some copyvio screening. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, earwig is back up and says everything is clean. But, so clean that I have a sneaky suspicion it might not be running at full strength; it's rare for earwig to find as little as it did. So might be worth doing another earwig run before this hits the main page. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-BLP biographies

I've finally finished Marie Sophie Hingst and moved the article to mainspace only took 1.5 years. This article is not a BLP -- its subject has been dead for nearly half a decade -- and is a tragic but fascinating story I feel worthy of main page attention. Nonetheless, while BLP has hard cutoffs that this has crossed even by the most lenient of them, there's a complicated sliding scale from "articles where BLP policy applies" to "long-dead historical figures", and everywhere in the middle is sometimes a mess. (I remember fielding ERRORS complaints about BLP for subjects who died in the 1980s.)

While Hingst has been dead for some time now, there are many people who've been dead much longer than her, and the whole article is a sensitive one. I feel that 'being on the main page at all' is completely viable for this article (I'd be happy to put it in OTD, for instance, or TFA if I take it through FAC), but I'm drawing up some blanks with the specific 'interesting <200 character snippet' context. I don't know whether this is Skill Issue on my behalf, or if there just isn't anything that can treat the whole complex story right while simplifying it that far. I'd be interested in sparking some discussion on this -- what possibilities exist, whether possibilities exist, how to handle that sliding scale. It wouldn't be the first complex BDP I've seen at DYK (we get more than a few gruesome murders, for instance), but it might be the most, and I really want to get a sense of the community here. Vaticidalprophet 16:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article, I had somehow completely missed this. Can you use the differences between German and Irish reporting as the basis for a hook? That should be possible without being unduly negative, and I found that part especially interesting. —Kusma (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh there's certainly enough to work with here "interesting" wise... How about something along the lines of "... won x, y, and z awards while pretending to be a descendent of holocaust survivors." ? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure is a lot to work with on interestingness. I do like Kusma's suggestion, and my first shot at a hook is working with it, but it's probably going to be very iterative. I've made a nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Sophie Hingst to get a feel for the possibilities. Vaticidalprophet 13:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Child abuse in association football

Queue 6: Child abuse in association football (nom) @BorgQueen, FuzzyMagma, and Gonzo fan2007: There's a lot of copy-paste going on here. I'd like to get a 2O on how bad it is, but my initial impression is that this would fail our close paraphrasing rule and possibly WP:Copyvio. The Earwig report doesn't look too bad on the surface, but it's the same story with a half dozen different sources. For example:

  • The president of the Gabonese Football Federation (Fegafoot), Pierre-Alain Mounguengui, was held in preventive custody for six months and faced charges of "failure to report crimes of paedophilia," with a report alleged sexual abuse of hundreds of children within the football system.[57] Despite awaiting trial, Mounguengui travelled to Qatar and attended the opening match of the 2022 FIFA World Cup. This action was criticised by Fifpro, the international football players' union. -->
  • The president of the Gabonese Football Federation, Pierre-Alain Mounguengui, spent six months in preventive custody and was charged with “failure to report crimes of paedophilia”. Despite the fact he was awaiting trial, Mounguengui went to Qatar and attended the opening match of the 2022 Fifa World Cup – a move denounced by the international football players’ union, Fifpro.

-- RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's disappointing... I'll pull it. BorgQueen (talk) 02:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with one from a Prep. BorgQueen (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me have a look maybe I can fix the close paraphrasing. I must admit I resorted to close paraphrasing to avoid mis/represent any fact, especially when writing about a contentious topic, while avoiding Earwig .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma To be honest, I think you're looking at nearly a total rewrite. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are exaggerating, very. I’m going for a light copy edit (which I was going to do anyway for the GA nom) done fixing but feel free to tag it for copyvio and apply procedure if you disagree. Also listing what you think need to be changed will be super helpful because I will I want to proceed with the nom once the close paraphrasing problem is solved please FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria some input please? BorgQueen (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007, BorgQueen, and RoySmith: I saw this nomination in the preps – I didn't have the energy at the time to raise any issues, but now that this appears to be in the limbo of post-approval reworking and rechecking, I gotta put in my two cents: I feel that this nomination should be closed without action. The fact that FuzzyMagma admitted to deliberately 1. breaching copyvio policy and 2. attempting to cover it up, combined with the fact that article remains riddled with prose and neutrality issues, should signal that the amount of combined volunteer time and effort needed to bring such an important article to an acceptable standard outweighs the time it would take to simply draftify the article and have someone else rewrite it from the ground up. AirshipJungleman29 made this edit removing quite a bit of non-neutral and poorly sourced prose, but I don't think that even finishes it up. Remaining issues include:

  • § Childern safeguarding in football [sic]: Nearly entirely sourced to the clubs themselves, but draws conclusions in wikivoice. The language around the first paragraph, about the FA, is particularly promotional.
  • § Research:
    • more space than I'd argue a single research finding merits, especially if we're only citing one newspaper and the inquiry itself as due weight
    • The research, funded by the European Union, highlighted that abuse is common in non-school sports was psychological, such as a lack of recognition to humiliating treatment but lack of recognition was defined as "negligence" in an earlier section? Abuse might be an umbrella term, though
  • § Afghanistan: emphasising the need for comprehensive understanding and effective interventions to address this serious issue opinion in wikivoice
  • § Brazil: The power of football in Brazil is significant, and speaking out about abuse in the sport requires immense courage, as getting a break in football is often a dream for many families some opinion in wikivoice
  • § Democratic Republic of the Congo: WP:BLPCRIME problem from start to finish
  • § Scotland: There are documented historic sex abuse cases in Scotland especially at Celtic Boys Club and Rangers F.C.. undue singling out
  • § Zimbabwe: first sentence has nothing to do with football
  • Some sections have sources for the purported severity of their child abuse problems, others don't – and i don't think that it's always due weight to include these high-profile examples. I'm not sure what purpose that serves. Some sections are PR faff from the clubs.

I think the best thing to do right now is draftify the article, it's a long way from meeting Wikipedia's standards and such an important article needs more attention from a variety of contributors. It's certainly not going to be fit for the Main Page any time soon, and a rush job to patch this up is not – in my humble opinion – a worthwhile endeavour. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed in my (very superficial) run-through instances of quotes being misused and of seeming WP:SYNTH-like issues. I too don't think FuzzyMagma fully grasps the issues here: they assert they were being careful when taking a difficult topic to GA, but it's hard to imagine the article being any laxer in quality. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently FuzzyMagma has a couple of other articles in Template:Did you know/Queue/4 and Template:Did you know/Queue/5. Can someone double-check them please? I don't have the energy at the moment. BorgQueen (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s then wise to move the article to the draft space. I have issues with what @AirshipJungleman29 removed especially Oman section but will discuss that in the article talk. Again, I must admit, I am always wary when it to come to these topics and I am yet to get it right, even when I follow the structure of the BBC for example.
anyway, Let’s move the page to the draft space, at least it will give me a chance to learn if @AirshipJungleman29 has the patience. Sorry for quality of the work, I was too confident that I did a good job but it’s a process.
PS: don’t bre deluded by my edit count, I started - emphatically- about 6 months ago and still feeling my way by making mistakes and hopefully learning from them.
@Theleekycauldron thanks for the detailed analysis FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's very gracious of you, FuzzyMagma :) I don't know many contributors who freely admit their limits – credit to you for that. Let's wrap this nomination up for now, and shall we say we reconvene after the article has reached GA status? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential picture spot for Kushner hook

Greetings, DYK. Hope everyone is doing well. This David Kushner hook was recently promoted to Prep 2 after two months of waiting, which I am grateful for. However, I was really trying to achieve the picture spot for the Switch challenge. Two Kushner articles are nominated, with his bio one of them, and there are two quality pictures available. I followed all of theleekycauldron's suggestions. Just wanted to ask politely if the picture spot was possible, after two months of waiting. I was extremely hopeful this time. Ping Evrik as promotor. Thank you very much for the help. It is fine if it is not possible, please be kind while replying. Regards.--NØ 05:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We get about four times as many picture nominations than we have picture slots available. Hence, the chances are around 1 in 4. Most pictures thus miss out. It is entirely up to the prep builders which images are chosen for lead hooks. Nobody here will mess with their choices. Whether a nomination gets promoted within a day or after months has no bearing on that choice. Sorry for being the bearer of bad news, MaranoFan. Schwede66 06:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t like the picture. If you want, I will remove it from the prep set, or if someone else wants to use the picture for another prep set they are welcome to take it. --evrik (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies. evrik, there's another one that has more standard dimensions for DYK usage. Since the nomination has already waited quite a bit, I would be nervous about it being removed from the prep set unless another promotor following this discussion wants to use it with the picture. Best, NØ 12:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not going to work with this prep set so I can remove it and you can pitch the idea to another promoter. --evrik (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

In the fourth hook of Queue 5, "Bahsahwahbee" should not be in italics. It was italicized in the article until I changed it. (Courtesy ping to Reywas92.) According to WP:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Foreign terms, italics are used for foreign words, but an exception to this is that proper names should not be italicized unless referring to the name itself. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done BorgQueen (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7: 715 Harrison

I wanted to promote this prep to queue, but I am not satisfied with this hook.

  • ... that the San Francisco nightclub City Nights was the target of a foiled terrorist attack by supporters of the Islamic State?

The article states that "In 2018, City Nights became one of the many targets of threats made by a terrorist allegedly supporting the Islamic State. The ISIS supporter, named Amer Alhaggagi, suggested hitting nightclubs and other popular places in San Francisco and while suggesting that all San Francisco nightclubs were crowded, City Nights was the club which the news reported Alhaggagi planned to bomb." and the linked source has him pleading guilty but a forensic psychiatrist saying he was a troll instead of a terrorist, and just says that he talked about bombing the club, and there is no evidence that he actually had the means to do so. Not quite good enough for the claim in the hook, I think. Pinging nom @InvadingInvader, reviewer @Evrik, promoter @BorgQueen. Any ideas how to fix this (or source the statement in the hook?) —Kusma (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh I see how it could possibly be misleading, though the wording is similar to how the venue describes the incident on its San Francisco Legacy Business Filing Documents (see under Criterion 2). Consider maybe rewriting as "DYK that the San Francisco nightclub City Nights was the target of bombing threats by an alleged supporter of the Islamic State?" InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether the conviction itself overrules the forensic psych InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 21:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better (and supported by the source given), I'll change to that. —Kusma (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now in Queue 7. —Kusma (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay by me. --evrik (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1159842390"