Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:DYK)
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.

Queues are empty[edit]

Pinging @DYK admins: the queues are empty, and we have about ten hours before the next promotion to main page is scheduled to happen. Please promote whatever you can. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DYK admins: , the same again if you can. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked three hooks. The first one didn't pass muster (close paraphrasing) and I've sent it back to the unapproved area. I've plugged that gap. That's all I've got time for right now. Schwede66 05:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There probably should not be three sports or British hooks in that set. I've kicked back the one hook in that set which is both and replaced it. Someone else will have to check Al-Rushati and Karl Loewenstein (banker) (see #Prep 6 similiarity).--Launchballer 07:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, looks like Waggers already did.--Launchballer 07:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The queues are empty again, pinging @DYK admins: to promote more prep sets. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it's fine for now, but ideally more sets should be promoted as soon as possible so that we can reduce the DYK hook backlog a bit. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DYK admins: queues are empty again, twelve hours until the next update. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Todd Cunningham (nom) needs an end of sentence citation (@Ezlev, Cielquiparle, and Bruxton:), and I don't see Lynn Theatre (nom) in the source (@Sewageboy, Epicgenius, and Bruxton:). I promoted Silvio Hein (nom), so someone else should check that. And I don't see where "grammar school" is in the source for National Women's Basketball Association (nom) (@Sammi Brie, BeanieFan11, and Bruxton:) - these should probably be attended to.--Launchballer 13:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the National Women's Basketball Association hook Grammar school, it is on the second link in the citation because it was on page 4. Bruxton (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake.--Launchballer 13:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Sarah Todd Cunningham I moved the citation. Bruxton (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can place after the ones you've approved you've checked in prep Launchballer. Thanks for your work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer, I'm not sure if the Lynn Theatre issue was resolved yet, but the source says: Rivian’s experience center at 162 S. Coast Highway in Laguna Beach, which officially opens Saturday, Dec. 9, is 15 miles from the electric automaker’s headquarters in Irvine. The historic theater, which opened as the new Lynn Theater in 1935. This matches up with the opening date and address mentioned in the National Register of Historic Places nomination for the theater. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hook and article say showroom, which - and I may well be missing something as it's 12pm where I am - isn't the same as experience center.--Launchballer 23:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The showroom is mentioned in the sentence immediately before it. Electric vehicle maker Rivian dedicated its first Orange County showroom in downtown Laguna Beach’s historic movie theater on Friday, Dec. 8. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @DYK admins: to promote more sets as the queues are empty yet again. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beetle nominations, as well as WikiEdu nominations[edit]

Over the past month or so, several nominations have been made by student editors of articles about beetles. Several of them have already been rejected for not meeting the requirements, and in most cases the student editors have been unresponsive to reviews.

WikiEdu nominations have over the years been known for this, but given how there had already been discussions before with WikiEdu regarding article and DYK quality control, it's a bit surprising this continues to happen. The course handling these beetle nominations is [1]; can one of us contact the instructors and inform them of DYK standards to ensure the articles done by the students actually meet requirements, as well as to discuss concerns regarding responsiveness?

In addition, it might be a good idea to contact WikiEdu regarding this because the "WikiEdu nominations disproportionately being more likely to fail compared to other DYK nominations" thing has been a perennial issue for years. Discussions have taken place before where they promised to do something about it, but given these things still happen, it appears that hasn't been the case, and I'm wondering what else can we do regarding this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've noticed the same. I support that we contact WikiEdu. Schwede66 08:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've already contacted them multiple times in the past, and yet despite responses and even promises to change things, this still happens. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed) and Helaine (Wiki Ed), the two Wikipedian/WikiEdu people listed for this particular course. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We had an alert that told us when students nominated articles for DYK, but looking at my email archives it seems like it's been broken for a while.
I will contact the instructor for this class and remind them to remind their students that if they nominate an article for DYK they need to stick around and respond to feedback. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. But as this has been a recurring issue across years, I think a wider discussion about DYK's relationship with Wiki Edu also needs to be done to ensure this does not happen again, even with other courses. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would the wider discussion result in? I guess what I'm wondering is if it's unusual that new editors who nominate to DYK are more likely to not follow through than experienced editors, no matter how they got introduced to Wikipedia. Or said another way, what do we have to gain from establishing a formal rule or decision that treats nominations resulting from WikiEdu work in a particularly different way? If a nomination isn't fit for promotion and the nominator isn't responsive, we don't advance the nomination, and we in the end fail it, no matter what the nomination's origin is. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One argument could be that there is a WP:CIR issue with WikiEdu when this has become a recurring issue over the years. If it was just an isolated case, it may not be a problem, but WikiEdu nominations have been like this for a long time, across multiple nominations and courses. It's a project intended to teach Wikipedia editing, and if this is to be the case, it has to be done right.
One nuclear option would be a ban on WikiEdu nominations until the competence issues are sorted out. However, this would be unlikely to get any consensus and indeed even I would personally be against it. What DYK needs is more contributions, especially from new blood, not restricting it. The main reason I brought up the idea of a wider discussion is because this has been happening for years but the perennial issue has remained. Ideas probably need to happen on how to address this that isn't just simply "contacting the student and/or instructor" given the lack of success rate for the latter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the desire for a different means when clearer instruction to instructors and students has mixed results (though I'd muse that discerning the success rate seems difficult; DYK probably only notices that a nomination is from an editor introduced to Wikipedia via WikiEdu when something goes wrong; if a nomination goes well, would DYK have any reason to notice its origins with WikiEdu?). I guess what I'm wondering is what purported solutions would look like. Somehow persuading (requiring?) the WikiEdu nonprofit to add a DYK unit to their curriculum, or them requiring(?) teachers and professors to have such? I'm not sure what influence DYK could or should expect to exercise over disparate faculty's classrooms. But that might be me putting the conversation before the horse when there can be all kinds of ideas others may think of. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember Ian and the project talked before about perhaps requiring some level of quality control. Either discouraging instructors from requiring DYK as a class requirement, or ensuring that the instructors would themselves be familiar with how DYK works.
One possible idea I have in mind, one that perhaps could also be implemented on the WikiEdu side, is that if a course is planning to have DYK in the curriculum, the DYK project is already notified in advance and one of us could be used as a resource and contact person. In many cases, the instructors themselves are unfamiliar with DYK or even Wikipedia editing in general, which makes things hard. Having someone from the DYK project being involved if only as a consultant or in another role might help prevent such issues from happening. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, in the case of this Behavioral Ecology 2024 course (timeline here), it appears that while it has two more weeks to run, the Wikipedia component has no more activities (the final ones were last week), and that DYK was an optional assignment in the first full week of March, a full five weeks ago. Ian (Wiki Ed), what are your plans—or that of WikiEdu as a whole—to avoid this kind of blindsiding that those of us here at DYK have to deal with several times a year? I think it's time and past for WikiEdu to be proactive rather than reactive if DYK is to continue to be an involuntary participant in your activities. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most Wiki Education assignments get marked on the article's talk page as such. I wonder whether it's easy enough for a bot to mark Wiki Education assignment nominations to DYK? I suggest we put those nominations on hold until we have confirmation from the course coordinator that the students have been tasked with responding to reviews, and that their course timeline allows for that. Putting these nominations on hold automatically will stop a lot of reviewers from needlessly wasting their time. Schwede66 23:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Category:Wikipedia Did you know nominations by WikiEd students but it's barely been used and hasn't had new entries since 2021. If we could perhaps have a bot or otherwise require the associated template with it for WikiEdu courses, maybe that would raise attention towards them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this would only be useful if categorised by a bot. I didn't even know about the category! The bot could also place a template advising of the situation (e.g. the hold, if others agree with that approach). Schwede66 00:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The category is associated with {{Note DYK nominator WikiEd}}. I suggested before that it be made mandatory for WikiEdu DYK nominations and I still don't know why that never happened. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
an involuntary participant in your activities—are we? DYK participants choose what to review and what to ignore, what to pass and what to fail. I guess I'm struggling to see how we're being muscled into some sort of exploitative relationship with WikiEducation. Participation with nominations whose origins lie with WikiEducation seems as involuntary as participation with any nomination, or any nomination with a relatively new editor. I can sympathize with ill-prepared or unsuitable nominations being annoying, but they're annoying whether or not they have to do with WikiEducation. I can recognize there being some level of hassle hassle, but eventually it seems the injury to DYK amounts to—what? Commenting on a nomination that it's been prepared poorly, getting no response for a while, and then procedurally failing it? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If these were just isolated incidents, it wouldn't be an issue, but the fact that WikiEdu nominations have been like this for years, and despite efforts to do something about them things have not improved, it shows there is a fundamental issue going on here. It's true that nominations by very new editors tend to have a high chance of failing in general, not juts WikiEdu nominations, but when one point of WikiEdu is to teach people how Wikipedia works, what's going on means it's not meeting that goal well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do these professors even know there is such a thing as DYK to point their students at? Most of them aren't actually editors themselves. Ian (Wiki Ed)Is there a way to remove DYK from the teaching modules? Because this is burdening an already overburdened system, and frankly it's not doing a damn thing for the students. Valereee (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee Long ago it was an option, so some instructors who've been around a long time know of it. We removed that quite a few years ago (although we still have a help guide that gets emailed to students when they do nominate an article).
    As for how people find things beyond that...I've had some really strange questions over the years, like "I followed the instructions [here]", and they point to some ancient set of instructions somewhere on Commons, or a YouTube video. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes, the out-of-date instructions I just found today for enabling something on my phone...thanks, that's interesting history here. Valereee (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring Error in Submission[edit]

Have tried multiple times to nominate an article for DYK, and keep getting this message:

"Creating nomination page: Failed to save edit: The page you tried to create has been created already.

Arrgh :( Something bad happened. Your DYK template wikitext is provided below, which you can copy and use to create [[Template:Did you know nominations/]] manually."

This is despite me *not* making the page already.


Maximilian775 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you trying to nominate?--Launchballer 15:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of commenting it out. My guess is it had something to do with the numerous unclosed links (you'd used 'l' instead of ']' or '|' in a few places). I've created the nom for you.--Launchballer 02:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the fact that the error message incorrectly links to Template:Did you know nominations/ and that there is no DYKmake template in the commented-out wikitext, I'm gonna take a wild guess and say our friend here forgot to specify the article title in the relevant field. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Launchballer User:Narutolovehinata5, shouldn't we somehow enable the bot/tool to accommodate nth nominations, which would require a rule.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I addressed the wrong person.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good idea, but I don't know if having a fixed rule on the naming conventions should be since that would require consensus. It might be easy to do through the Wizard at least. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no, we don't need a community vote on precisely what convention to use. that would be silly. we just need it to be implemented in the code. if the author chooses something unworkable, we'll change it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that it would be silly to decide by ourselves and give them a directive, but it is acceptable for them to implement a reasonable code. In the mean time I have nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Hill (basketball)/DYK2, Template:Did you know nominations/Jordan Murphy (basketball)2 and Template:Did you know nominations/In a World...(2nd nomination), which is a bit silly.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My vote remains "(2nd nomination)".--Launchballer 12:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is OK, but is more characters (17) than any other similar archive syntaxes. WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FTC and WP:FLC use the shorter /archiven (9 characters). WP:GAN uses the much shorter /GAn (4 characters). Why don't we go with /archiven.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That shouldn't be a difficult thing to do, I imagine. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Tate nomination[edit]

I thought that this could use wider discussion. I had a chance to read the Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew Tate nomination. I was surprised to see editors ready to approve this hook ALT1: ... that one of the most-liked tweets of all time was Greta Thunberg's response to Andrew Tate (pictured) in December 2022?
The hook is less about this BLP article and more about the Greta Thunberg tweet which said, "yes, please do enlighten me. email me at [email protected]". When I read the hook I am more apt to be interested in the tweet than the featured article. I also think it violates our WP:DYKHOOKBLP.

Hooks must adopt a neutral point of view. Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided. Note that this is a stricter requirement than BLP as a whole: a sentence that might be due weight in the article can become undue if used in the hook, as all of the surrounding context of the individual's wider life is missing.

Bruxton (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more than happy to never see an image of Tate on the Main page. And even a DYK hook with no image, would make me feel uneasy. How about changing "social media personality" to "alleged rapist, human trafficker and organised crime group member"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joking aside, it is odd how the facts are being downplayed and Tate is being portrayed as a "social media personality" instead. Although the relevant participants have repeatedly claimed otherwise, the DYK nom feels like an attempt at enabling some kind of image rehabilitation or public relations, which we should not be doing. I can't help but feel like we are all being played. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only just seen this discussion, but really don't understand how you could get this impression. ATL2 that was initially included was "that counter-terror police have expressed concern over influencer Andrew Tate (pictured), due to an increase in cases related to incel culture?", before being removed due to NPOV concerns.
As the DYK and GA nominee, as well as main contributor to the article, I recommend you actually read the article and judge for yourself if it paints Tate in a good light. My main contributions to the articles sections have been war room, views & influence, reception, criminal investigations, as well as lead. My main inspiration to improving the article was lack of detailed coverage of Tate's activities, views and influence, given he is such an well-known figure. Let me know if you think was good PR for Tate or not.
To reguritate what I said in the DYK nomination about including such a controversial DYK:
"It's a shame that there appears to be a "fear" of raising awareness over what I would broadly consider a "toxic influence" to young males. Notably the UK education system thought turning a blind eye to Tate's influence was also the solution,[5] but along with Australia,[6] have done a complete u-turn,[7] realising that ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, and instead worsened the problem.[8]. Lessons could be learnt here..."[2]
The real question is whether Wikipedia should be playing a role in highlighting how influential the likes of Tate is towards young males, with his brand of misogyny and toxic masculinity, or should we just ignore it and hope it goes away? I'll assume good faith here, but attempts to suppress such a DYK comes across as complicity, even if unknowingly, and survivors of sexual assault and harassment by perpetrators influenced by Tate deserve much better. At minimum acknowledging that Tate is part of the problem, rather than pretending he's not responsible for his influence. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize with the concerns and agree that Tate is a horrible person and should not be given a platform, but WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS might be relevant here. If not it specifically then the spirit of it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tate may be a horrible human being, but that proposal would very much fall afoul of BLP if not BLPCRIME. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that "social media personality" would be a prime candidate for WP:DYKTRIM. (As would the quotation marks, it has to be said.)--Launchballer 22:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's not that the editors are ready to approve the ALT1 hook: the entire nomination has been approved and could potentially be promoted at any time. The question is, should Andrew Tate be featured at DYK—because his article was recently listed as a GA—since due to BLP the only hooks that can be run will have neutral characterizations of him when he's not a neutral person? BlueMoonset (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not feature neutral people at DYK. Reminds me of the saying, "well-behaved women seldom make history". We should promote a hook that directs people to the GA instead of the gotcha tweet. ALT0 was a fact that causes me to want to learn more ... that social media personality Andrew Tate (pictured) was the third most 'googled' person in 2023? But AlT1 directs me to look up the tweet. That is not what we want and probably not what the nominator wants. The person is a social media personality so objecting to that fact also seems wrong. Bruxton (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As an aside, this entire section is faintly bewildering: you have editors openly advocating for WP:RGW bias and insinuating that trying to improve articles on bad people means you are running a PR campaign. I mean, ????? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a bit of a catch-22. Tate is a bad person, but a DYK hook can't present Tate in a bad way due to NPOV and BLP policies. But a neutral hook must present Tate in a bad way, but it can't because... Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a neutral hook must present Tate in a bad way Where does WP:DYKCRIT state a hook must serve as a representation of the whole article Viriditas? If it does, we'll have to remove Yuki Sakakihara, Battle of La Haye-du-Puits, Gendarmerie (Czechoslovakia) and CSL Plasma from the next queue because they focus on trivial details. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The crux of the issue is "unduly focus". Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided." is the only occurence on that page, and I do not see how that relates to a neutral hook must present Tate in a bad way above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It relates directly to this discussion and the nomination in several ways. The elimination of ALT2, for one example, which was eliminated due to its so-called negativity, however, it did not unduly focus on such negative features of the subject, but rather presented them in accordance with NPOV and BLP. I think this idea that we have to bend over backwards to avoid negativity is the problem. Tate is a negative character as his article illustrates, so a negative hook is not unreasonable. DYKHOOKBLP is being misinterpreted. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By way of aside, well behaved women seldom make history was an opening line in historian Laurel Ulrich's Vertuous Women Found: New England Ministerial Literature, 1668–1735, American Quarterly 28, no. 1 (Spring 1976): 20–40, here 20, and the full line is [w]ell-behaved women seldom make history; against Antinomians and witches, these pious matrons have had little chance at all. Most historians, considering the domestic by definition irrelevant, have simply assumed the pervasiveness of similar attitudes in the seventeenth century—a social history rebuke of the tendency to study the exceptional (and therefore rare) instead of the everyday (and therefore more commonly experienced), rather than an axiom endorsing controversy to get attention. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so she was just being factual. Did you know ...that Laurel Thatcher Ulrich was interested in Puritan funeral services and thought plural marriages empowered women?) I wonder, if Google had been around in 1933, how many hits Adolf might have got. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think ... that social media personality Andrew Tate was charged in June 2023 with rape, human trafficking, and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women would be a good option - given that coverage of Tate overwhelmingly mentions and focuses on this I don't think it would be undue focus. BilledMammal (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. (Did you know... that Adolf Hitler's wife Eva Braun, owned two Scottish Terrier dogs named Negus and Stasi?) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't sound compliant with WP:DYKHOOKBLP: Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided. The hook is focusing entirely and thus unduly on negative things. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that by far the most important word in that sentence is "unduly".--Launchballer 14:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We need to be stricter that WP:BLP, and in particular, stricter than WP:BLPCRIME. Our assumption must be that Tate is innocent until proven guilty.
I don't really know what a good hook would be. I was blissfully unaware of Tate until Greta Thunberg's tweet mentioned him. Maybe just mention his kickboxing career? —Kusma (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, kickboxing. Always comes in handy. For Wikipedia Main page, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Martinevans123: I know you are trying to be funny with your Hitler hook, but here is a hook we ran in January 2024. ... that Genghis Khan was extremely charismatic and renowned for his generosity towards his followers? Khan may have been responsible for the deaths of millions more people than Adolf. Bruxton (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I'm sure he was always good to his Mum. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can have a read of Hö'elün and decide for yourself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: Can you explain the nature of the perceived violation? A number of editors have pointed out that the key words there are "unduly focus" which this does not, but you didn't explain yourself so maybe you weren't mistaken and have an argument here... But you actually need to make that argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am approaching this subject dispassionately. But there are editors stating that Tate is objectively bad, and they suggest we need a hook that "takes him down a couple of pegs" or insults him with a WP:NEO tweet. Or an editor suggested a hook that accuses him of crimes in Wikivoice. I think it is a COI if an editor looks at a hook and thinks they need to fashion it to support a thesis. I think a hook should cause people to want to know more about the subject, Tate; and I think ALT0 does that. Readers can click on the article and see a rather comprehensive accounting of his life so far. Bruxton (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that Tate is objectively bad can be backed up with numerous reliable sources, are you saying that Tate isn't objectively a bad person? Because if so you need sources to support that BLP assertion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: I see this was promoted again, but I'm not seeing a consensus to do so with the used hook ("that Andrew Tate was the third most 'googled' person in 2023?") Can you revert the promotion to allow for addition discussion, including of the hook I proposed above? BilledMammal (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it is difficult to even write a neutral hook about Tate. ALT0 suggests he is "popular" rather than "infamous" (when in reality he was arrested in December 2022 in Romania and the vast majority of those Google searches are going to be people finding out about the story of his unpleasant alleged criminal exploits). Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, as per the body: "Tate became widely known in mid-2022 and was searched on Google more times than both Donald Trump and COVID-19 that July"[3]. So he was already very popular prior to his arrest, even if the latter amplified this further. Tate otherwise isn't infamous, there are no RS referencing this. He is an internet celebrity, not a celebrity. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be the same Andrew Tate who the British Government directed schoolteachers not to discuss with children? [4] [5] I'd say that's fairly infamous (actually, that might make a good hook were it in the article, but no doubt someone would claim it is too negative). Black Kite (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it wouldn't, as since then UK & Austrlian schools have done a u-turn realising they need to train teachers and create courses to combat's Tate's brand of misogyny, as well as allocate substantial funds to do so.[6][7][8]. But I've been too busy wasting my time with this nomination to update the article accordingly. He otherwise does sound infamous, and in hindsight there are two RS claiming this which I hadn't noticed.[9][10] CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled the hook for now. Discussion on whether the new hook is appropriate, and/or if the article can even on DYK, can continue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DYKHOOKBLP is a great reminder that the Main Page brings more eyeballs onto people than many lower-profile LPs could have ever dreamed of, and to be conscious of the damage you can do to a person's reputation by running a one-sided negative hook from a more mixed article.
Sorry, but that's not Andrew Tate. Let's not kid ourselves: anything we do or say about Tate is a drop in the bucket of all the media coverage he's received over the past few years. RS coverage of him these days is almost unanimously negative. If we decide to censor ourselves on a topic because we don't like that the moral wind of RSes is blowing slant, we're not doing our job correctly. This isn't a guy who made some off-kilter remark once and got cancelled for it (something that could reasonably merit protection), this is just his ideology and he's made no attempt to hide it or change it. I'd say we run a hook about the misogynistic garbage he spouts instead of trying to cover his ass. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 13:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is fine to run a hook about his misogynistic garbage. I oppose a hook about the crimes that he is accused of until he has been convicted. —Kusma (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more :) the kickboxing stuff is unduly positive, the charges too fresh- the misogyny is years-long, well documented, and squarely the median of RS coverage. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes ideally this sort of hook would be acceptable, as it is not unduly negative, it's very much due. Unfortunately others have pushed back against negative hooks since the onset. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a hook on his misogynistic garbage would be preferable to either the tweet or the crime alts. JoelleJay (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a clear no go per WP:DYKHOOKBLP. We can't feature a hook accusing a living person of misogyny, no matter how true it might be. It's too negative.4meter4 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's not what WP:DYKHOOKBLP says or means. It says "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided." There is nothing "unduly" about describing Tate as a misogynist. He self-identifies as one, as you must know. (BBC News, 12 March 2024) In fact, it's a violation of NPOV to focus on hooks that are "unduly" positive and ignore these negative facts, as difficult as it is for some people to believe. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, we aren't accusing anyone of anything with that hook. All we are saying that three organisations and Tate have described him that way.--Launchballer 21:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I realize that we are not making that accusation, but we are repeating an accusation which amounts to the same thing when evaluating the ethics of how we are using the DYK platform. I had never heard of Mr. Tate prior to seeing him at DYK. I wouldn’t consider myself particularly knowledgeable on this person. I personally would not recommend featuring negative hooks on any BLPs because they can’t be balanced with other non-negative material (or at least contextualized) as is done in an article on a BLP. I think it’s best we feature an interesting fact that avoids any sort of positive or negative assessment of this person. I would say that for any other controversial BLP as a matter of policy.4meter4 (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is a false balance. if you take the median "tone" of reliable sources and the article, it is negative. running a "neutral" hook would actually be unduly positive. News organizations don't hesitate to call something what it is, and we shouldn't either. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@theleekycauldron FALSEBALANCE specifically applies to articles and does not apply to hooks on BLPs for the simple reason that hooks have too small a footprint in terms of text length to provide balance and context. Our policy language at WP:DYKHOOKBLP specifically states the bar of using negative material is higher than elsewhere because hooks don't allow for space to provide information in context. It sets a bad precedent to allow any hook on a BLP to feature overly negative material. I further note that hooks are not article summaries but are merely isolated facts on a topic, so arguing false balance on an individual fact that is not disputed in RS anywhere is a distortion of that policy.4meter4 (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our policies apply everywhere; DYN guidelines do not, and have no such reach. "False balance" is a form of bias that we want to avoid in all circumstances, which the NPOV policy instructs us to avoid. To give you a borderline hypothetical example of an unduly case of hook negativity, if Winona Ryder was up for a nom (it’s not, this is just an example), and we had a hook that featured her shoplifting from two decades ago, that would be unduly negative. On the other hand, it would also meet the bar for interestingness. With that said, given that Ryder has not been in trouble with the law since 2001 or thereabouts, and has had a long career as a successful actor since that time, it wouldn’t be fair to focus on that one incident. We do not, however, see the same thing playing out here with Tate. One could make several counterarguments. Is the so-called negativity at work on the Tate hooks unrepresentative of his entire career? He is currently 37 years of age. Of that time, he has been in trouble with the law or otherwise known for controversy for eight of those years. His professional career could be said to have begun in 2005, so of the previous 19 years, eight of them have been involved in negative controversy, which is almost half. That means, in my opinion, that such a so-called "negative" hook meets the criteria for representation based on his overall biographical career. This is unlike Ryder in my above example, who only shoplifted once, more than several decades ago, and has not engaged in any controversy since that one event. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes, the bar for DYKHOOKBLP is higher. A hook on Tate's misogyny is due for the content of the article and due in the context of RSes. I know that because it's in the second sentence of his article, a sentence tens of thousands of people read at every day. Unless you think that is mistaken? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas and theleekycauldron It seems like both of you are calling the hook a false balance because it doesn't reflect the entire article. My response to that is that of course it doesn't reflect the entire article because it's a hook. Hooks aren't article summaries and they aren't meant to provide an overview of the article's topic. I recently had a hook I proposed rejected for reading too much like an article summary. Nowhere in Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines does it say that hooks need to represent an entire article or be written in such a way to reflect the balance in the article. This approach is a highly novel take on hook review that isn't applied elsewhere, and is further evidence of bias in this article's hook review. Indeed, most hooks pick out highly random bits of information that do not give the reader much of a heads up about what else is in the article. We can't start arbitrarily applying policies that are not typically enforced at DYK.
That said, even if we were to apply false balance to the individual fact (which is how false balance policy should be applied at DYK by looking at sources about individual hook facts) Can you point to a specific false balance in the hook that was pulled? I think if you were honest you couldn't because it's simply a matter of math based on google's collected data. There's really nothing controversial in the statement that he was 2023's third most googled person. That's a fact based in statistical evidence, and is entirely uncontroversial as a stand alone piece of information. We could even remove the descriptor "social media personality" if people prefer not to emphasize that one part of the subject's life over others and it would still be interesting as a fact. If you're saying that its a false balance because it doesn't reflect the whole article, then my response is that isn't what DYK is for and that isn't how we review hooks at DYK on a routine basis. Hooks aren't meant to present balanced pictures of the topics being featured. If they were, we would be rejecting 99.9% of all hooks for not giving a sufficient summary of the subject in the hook. Hooks are random and often present small random minutia of interest. The main issue here is that people don't want to follow WP:DYKHOOKBLP policy. Well tough. It's policy. We don't feature negative content on BLPS.4meter4 (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some hooks for you:
  • "... that the philosophy of Andrew Tate is regarded as the same as a pick-up artist?"
  • "... that Andrew Tate believes women are the property of men?"
  • "... that Andrew Tate self-identifies as a sexist and a misogynist?"
  • "... that Andrew Tate ran a webcam business that he described as a 'total scam'?"
  • "... that Andrew Tate called Alex Jones 'one of the greatest men on the planet'?"
  • "... that the BBC accused Andrew Tate's online courses of 'coercing women into sex work'?"
Tell me what policies and guidelines I'm breaking. Viriditas (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you had observed the conversation below, I think you will have noticed my opinion has shifted on this issue after being made aware of at least one negative hook that ran in the past on a BLP. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you are even able to do that makes me respect you even more. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do not think it is our role to craft a hook that fits a world view. Launchballer has already stated in an above thread that they wanted a hook that "takes him down a couple of pegs". That is exactly what their proposed hook does and that is not what DYK is for. People are far more complex than their labels and our readers can figure it out without us leading them by the nose. Bruxton (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not exactly sure what can be achieved by the objections being raised here which essentially boil down to 'we don't like Tate' and 'we don't want to promote a hook unless it signals our moral disapproval of Tate'. By definition that is WP:POV pushing and doesn't follow out guidelines for hooks on living people. We can't present a negative hook about a BLP per WP:DYKHOOKBLP and more broadly WP:BLP policy in general. The pulled hook "that social media personality Andrew Tate was the third most 'googled' person in 2023?" is neutral. It's a verified fact that he was the third most googled person in 2023, and he is, for better or worse, a social media personality. We aren't endorsing or promoting any of his negative bevhavior by stating so, and reframing it as somehow non-neutral is an over reach and mis-application of WP:NPOV policy as these two facts are not contradicted anywhere in reliable sources. Whether you like the man or not he will still be the third most googled person in 2023 and he will still be a social media personality. I don't think this one factual sentence could or should be misconstrued as an endorsement of Tate's actions. I also don't think it's a good precedent to censor DYK. I support promoting this hook a second time, because it is compliant with policy and probably the most neutrally worded hook possible on this particular individual.4meter4 (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am watching how others approach this BLP. It is interesting because it reminds me of a newsroom where editors try to shape a narrative. Leeky says this living person (LP) needs a negative hook because he has a "subpar moral compass". SN54129 says, "F Tate" Billedmammal supports listing "crimes he has been charged with" Kusma wants to "run a hook about his misogynistic garbage" Horse Eye's Back says that the LP is "objectively bad".
    This LP is clearly not liberal and is a sort of anti-woke figure so I am not surprised that some editors demand a hook which portrays the person as bad, it is like a virtue signal. Last year I was chided for opposing a BLP at DYK Sarah Jane Baker. The person was convicted of kidnapping and torturing her stepmother's brother. Also convicted of attempted murder and prison escape. But we did not highlight any of that, we highlighted the fact that they were trans. But people could go to the article and read about the person's crimes - we did not lead them to the crimes. When we make editorial choices they often involve identity politics – but should they? I read the puzzling words above, "running a neutral hook would actually be unduly positive"? Is that a Jedi mind trick? Because we have WP:DYKHOOKBLP for a good reason. So back to this LP... in reality I suppose that that the person would not care what hook we run because like the old proverb says, "There’s no such thing as bad publicity". Whatever we decide to run here will mean more clicks. We just might end up looking like partisan hacks if we shape the hook to reflect our moral outrage. Lightburst (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, you think people are "virtue-signalling" because Tate is "anti-woke" (whatever that nonsensical phrase means)? Have you actually read the article? This is not a left-versus-right issue, Tate is a nasty piece of work (as he admits himself). Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I have 33 cars. My Bugatti has a w16 8.0L quad turbo. My TWO Ferrari 812v competitizione have 6.5L v12s. This is just the start." Maybe some lovely whitewashing hook could be engineered from his boys' toys catalogue? Or how about "... that woman-hating thug Andrew Tate was banned from Twitter, Facebook, TikTok and YouTube in 2022, as a result of repellent outbursts"? [11] Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care what hook we run (and I object to the way Lightburst has misrepresented my comment in the above), I am mainly here to oppose accusing people of crimes on the Main Page. I am also generally pretty liberal with regards to "runnings hooks about X is advertising"; I think if we want to be neutral, we shouldn't exclude topics because we don't like them or because they might advertise the wrong thing. (We should have run a hook about Grimace Shake). There are plenty of things to say about Tate, using his name or not, some of them negative, some not. (Did you know that the son of a chess master became a kickboxer and internet celebrity?) Given Tate's usual page views, putting him on the Main Page without mentioning his name probably won't be a huge event in terms of views. —Kusma (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And this is why I would vastly prefer no Tate DYK entry to one that was negative. Yes, we are NOTCENSORED, but that doesn't mean we can't consider whether we need to give any oxygen of publicity to a man that has been described as a danger to - especially - women and children. Black Kite (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Perhaps we could mention something that isn't what Tate is usually known for, rather than go for a more controversial hook that's already likely to be known to a wide variety of people. E.g.
– Epicgenius (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the most on-its-own-merits interesting hook anyone's proposed so far, even if it'd probably get less clicks due to not using Tate's name. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/proposal. I think we only have two options here. One is to run a hook that isn't negative in compliance with WP:DYKHOOKBLP policy. The other is to reject the hook topic as a whole because the subject is too controversial and we don't want as a project to appear like we are promoting this person. We have not run hooks in the past for being too controversial, so it is not entirely unprecedented. What we can't do is run a negative hook on a BLP. Based on past experience, taking that road will only land us at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors and it will get pulled from the main page. I suggest presenting these two options and taking a formal vote to craft a WP:CONSENSUS opinion. If the majority consensus is to reject, we reject. If the consensus is to go forward with a non-negative hook then we can decide what that hook is after that.4meter4 (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • A vote? Seriously? No, just reject the nomination as too much effort. The nominator already sees this as a waste of time, so just close it and move on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see any WP:DYKHOOKBLP hook that is actually interesting to run. Therefore, this should be closed as rejected in my opinion. Not all articles have suitable hooks for DYK, and this one doesn't appear to. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree that BLPHOOKBIO bans negative hooks - it bans unduly negative hooks. In cases like this, where coverage is overwhelmingly - almost unanimously - negative, a negative hook is both allowed by BLPHOOKBIO and required by NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No that isn't how it works in practice BilledMammal. I have never seen a negative hook on a BLP successfully run at DYK. Why? Because it inevitably gets hauled into Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors and pulled for violating BLP policy. Practically speaking, it isn't feasible to run negative hooks on BLPs the way the system is actually run. I guarantee you, any negative hook we run on Tate won't last a half hour before it's pulled. There's a zero tolerance policy in practice at MPE for negative BLP hooks. 4meter4 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you call ... that Rasmus Paludan caused a global controversy by burning the Quran? a negative hook 4meter4? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. I'll have to reconsider my thoughts on BLP policy now that I've seen we've run that one. If we are going to run hooks like that it would be helpful to have a more detailed guide on how to determine when we can go negative on a BLP and what the limits are. As I recall, I approved a hook on Sarah Jane Baker which later got pulled at MPE; an experience which pushed my interpretation of policy towards an avoid negative hooks on BLPs view. It seems to me that we lack consistency over when we invoke BLPHOOKBIO policy.4meter4 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4, Sarah Jane Baker ran unchanged for 24 hours so was not "pulled at MPE". —Kusma (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must have been confusing that hook with another one I reviewed. I know I reviewed a hook at some point which got pulled at MPE for BLP concerns.4meter4 (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 and AirshipJungleman29: I woke up thinking about what was different about the hook AirshipJungleman29 presented ".. that Rasmus Paludan caused a global controversy by burning the Quran?" I think it is different because we are highlighting something he did and what happened. In the majority of hooks presented here about Tate others were calling him names, labeling him or alleging crimes. I think in the hook presented by @Guerillero and Valereee: below Tate accepts the label. So that is much different than someone said -. When we label people with someone said Tate has SDE. Someone accused Tate of X, I think it is much different. Lightburst (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, am extremely disappointed that no one mentioned the third option: run a very interesting, non-negative hook that doesn't mention him directly, That way, people don't know who the hook is referring to until they click on the page and see Tate's name. But seriously, has anyone considered this? – Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You always have great ideas EpicG. I agree! Editors like to invoke WP:NOTCENSORED but only when it suits them. The problem with the type of moderating suggested here is that it is based on the politics of whoever is active right now in DYK. That is in fact why we have guidelines and policies - because editors and editing patterns are in flux. Moderation of this kind is just censorship. The readers of the main page are smart enough to use google. They do not need you to protect them from this person or their opinions. Lightburst (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could get on board with the "a kickboxer started a university" hook above.--Launchballer 16:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius I saw it. I like it and if there is support for it, we should run it. I didn't say anything earlier becuae I was waiting to sort out whether there was support for any non-negative hook at all before expressing my support for it. However, now that I've seen the Paludan hook, I'm less inclined to be so adamant against a negative hook... It's going to be challenging to get a consensus behind a non-negative hook, particularly when it appears we have run at least one negative BLP hook in the past. Things aren't so cut and dry as I thought they were under policy.4meter4 (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're still peddling this political nonsense. This is not a political issue. And yes, easily-influenced children do need protecting from Tate's misogyny and bullshit - something even a right-wing British Government admitted. [12] [13] Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are in the UK or Europe? FWIW, as a bit of a backgrounder, for those who aren't aware of the regional phenomenon (not saying you aren't, but for the general reader) in the US, the "peddling of political nonsense", such that an apolitical position or policy is made political via rhetorical strategy, is one of the touchstones of post-1980 right-wing politics in America. Obviously, this is being done in the UK and Europe as well, but until very recently (aside from exceptions, which may in fact have US donors behind them) it was unique in some respects to US politics. By way of current example, the recent popular and viral video of Steven Bonnell interviewing Jordan B. Peterson is a master class in this rhetoric. Various critics have noticed that Peterson and Tate are all sharing the same or similar talking points which can be traced to right wing groups, foundations, and individuals who disseminate these ideas and then share them on social media and elsewhere. It's a fascinating topic and I won't say any more about it, but I did think it needed to be said as a balanced, indirect reply to accusations of "virtue signaling" and "wokness", which is part of the same, collective movement. Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am in the UK. I agree with you, but really the point I was making was that the issue isn't really "liberal/left-wing" editors wanting to make a "right-winger" look bad - after all, he does that job well enough himself. The bigger issue here is "should be be giving a misogynist a platform on the front page of Wikipedia?" regardless of whether the hook is positive, neutral or negative. Black Kite (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BK, I think that probably falls under WP not censored? I, too, hate to give this horrible person a platform. But the article was improved. There are reasonable hooks. Valereee (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think NOTCENSORED really applies here - after all, we are not suggesting removing Tate's article completely. However, a discussion of where material should be displayed is an editorial one, not a content one. Black Kite (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BK, that was my feeling entirely. Which is a kind of censoring, I guess. DKY... that lover of traditional Khmer music Pol Pot was described as "very likeable, a really nice person." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123
The pol pot example is not dissimilar to the recent ghengis khan dyk that shipped.
I offer this perspective: Wikipedia is not a platform. Wikipedia pages are not a platform. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that can be edited by anyone. Bome sall 1 (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's all true. The issue seems to be partly... Ghengis Khan is an historical figure, and some folks may remember the deeds Pol Pot. But at least he's dead. While Mr Tate is very much alive and kicking (and can even edit Wikipedia, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... that on a 2011 podcast Andrew Tate (pictured) described himself as "absolutely a misogynist"? is probably what I would go with due to his own statements. ... that Andrew Tate (pictured) is "absolutely a misogynist"? is snappier and something he would agree with, but might raise a fuss --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kind of agreeing with Guerillero...if Tate's describing himself that way, that's a good DYK hook. Did you know that? No, I didn't, and it's interesting, because there aren't actually that many men who would describe themselves that way publicly, at least if (self-censoring a joke in poor taste). Let's not give it the image slot, though. There are so many more interesting images. Valereee (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added an ALT3 to the nom, needs another reviewer. Valereee (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Guerillero and Valereee: It is certainly better if the person is saying it instead of a third party. Just might work even though I liked EpicG's idea as well. Now to find an uninvolved editor to review. Lightburst (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee
    Comment on alt 3
    If the words "social media influencer" were removed, it may still be an effective hook.
    Would instead read as follows:
    ALT3: ...that Andrew Tate described himself as "absolutely a misogynist"? Bome sall 1 (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you're right, it would still work, but for me providing context is helpful when the person isn't a household name. If it were Martha Stewart or Tiger Woods, we probably don't need to provide any context, but many English speakers will have no idea who Andrew Tate is and why the fact he describes himself as a misogynist is meaningful in any way. Telling them he's an influencer makes that bit of information relevant. Valereee (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee
    I concur. Makes sense. Even in context of your two examples... It would be totally acceptable, possibly preferred, to add a couple of words to describe their profession.
    Four example:
    , "dyk.... professional golfer tiger woods (insert factoid?)"
    Bome sall 1 (talk) Bome sall 1 (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But then some editors would demand that you insert an article as well: ... that the professional the golfer the tiger the woods (insert factoid). Otherwise it's "vaguely sensational", and somehow an unsupported editorialization. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Wikipedia:The problem with false titles. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7[edit]

History of Palestinian journalism[edit]

@Bruxton: as promoter chose not to include any pictures in what is now prep area 7; however, he has expressed his openness to see if any other promoters have a different opinion. In particular, I think this picture for the History of Palestinian journalism hook will be a great, aesthetic and interesting aspect of the DYK section; and would deservedly bring greater attention to the article, which was extensively (well-) written and has a much longer body than any of its peers in the prep area.

Female Palestinian street vendor selling copies of the Falastin newspaper in Jaffa, Mandatory Palestine in 1921

Makeandtoss (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makeandtoss, it is standard for prep makers to leave blank the lead (picture) hook and final (quirky) hook blank—and usually one or two others—in the final available prep, so if things need to be moved around, they have an empty slot available for use. If Bruxton was somehow implying that the set shouldn't have a lead hook, it isn't really up to them; the set will have a lead/picture hook eventually, when it's no longer the last prep in line. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My question is who is it up to? And when is that decided? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my comments to the OP. @Makeandtoss: It is up to individual promotors and I chose not to promote the image but someone is free to overrule me as I told the OP. Bruxton (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, the image is certainly aesthetically pleasing, but it isn't really that relevant to the hook itself: it's just the lead image of the associated article. I wouldn't put it in the image slot. If the hook was about the distribution of Falastin during the 1920s, by comparison, I'd be inclined to include it. Everything's a balance. That said, I really wouldn't recommend proclaiming that an article you wrote is "extensively (well-) written" and deserves greater attention than others without being really sure about that, Makeandtoss. A quick look at some of the paragraphs reveals significant issues with source-text integrity. Take the following example:
Wikipedia article Source (link)
"The Ottoman Press Law, which mandated licensing and the submission of translations to government authorities, was adopted by the British, but they rarely interfered until 1929. That year saw the 1929 Palestine riots, which included violent confrontations between Arabs and Jews, leading to a radicalization of Arab newspapers. Two outspoken newspapers were established in Jaffa...Al-Liwaa (The Banner) was published in Jerusalem in 1934 by Jamal al-Husayni, who was the leader of the Palestine Arab Party." "Although the British adopted the Ottoman Press Law, which required licensing and submitting translations of press extracts to government authorities, they rarely interfered until 1929. The Buraq Uprising of that year, which was followed by violent confrontations between Arabs and Zionists, brought a radicalisation of the Arabic language press. The most outspoken papers established in the 1930s in Jaffa...Al Liwa, representing the dominant Arab party, was established in Jerusalem in 1933."
It is clear that the first two sentences are a close paraphrasing of Kominko, while there is clearly WP:OR in attributing the foundation of Al-Liwaa to al-Husayni in 1934, which is not stated in the source. If these issues are not rectified, the hook should be pulled from the prep set: I recommend verifying the source-text integrity of all the paragraphs in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the concern and depromoted the hook as a precaution. I sent it back to approved. Maybe you can look it over to see if there are other concerns @AirshipJungleman29: Lightburst (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Perhaps the article needs closer scrutiny. Bruxton (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the CLOP is quite extensive. Further examples include in the paragraphs beginning "These early Arab Palestinian press..." and "During this period, the readership...", while the "Broadcast journalism" section is borderline. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: @Bruxton: @Lightburst: Thanks for expressing these concerns in the mentioned paragraphs and others ones that I just noticed as well, which I have taken into consideration by better paraphrasing them, restructuring the sentences, adding new sources, using different vocabulary, and splitting and reordering the content. This should be good to go unless there is something else I have not noticed. [14] Makeandtoss (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will need to be looked over again by a new reviewer at the nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The hook has been pulled by Lightburst. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Winterberg[edit]

@4meter4 and Makeandtoss: I'd like to hear opinions regarding this hook. Being featured on Broadway is undeniably impressive, but the hook not only doesn't focus much on Winterberg, but it seems to need some knowledge about plays to understand the importance of either Winterberg or Caldwell. It's okay if this hook is to run, but perhaps there are other possible hook suggestions, or perhaps a clearer rewording of the existing hook, that can be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5 In my opinion this is the best hook possible for a rather obscure composer outside Germany/Austria. Broadway is familiar to most people, and having one's work adapted for a Broadway staging is impressive and hooky. It's also one of Winterberg's more important works as a composer, so I don't think we can say it's not relevant to the article or not about Winterberg. It was undoubtedly a big moment in his career as a composer. Anne Caldwell was one of the few women playwrights of her era, which makes her of interest to theatre buffs and academics. I don't think a better hook is possible in terms of relevance as the Broadway connection is the only thing I can see that would connect to today's readers.4meter4 (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: some topics are not really made for DYK. So no, it is not interesting. Some of us have learned to sidestep these hooks about obscure characters who did their job. We end up repeating a message that some nominators are unwilling to hear. To 4meter4's credit the Broadway bit may make a few folks click this and it is variety for our sets to feature such content. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm speaking in a general sense here rather than about the specific nomination, but wouldn't it be better to push through with such messages even if they're unpleasant? DYK still has standards and not everything is a good fit for DYK no matter the nominator's good intentions. Allowing such hooks or articles to run even if they aren't appropriate, all to avoid hurt feelings, doesn't seem very fair especially to editors who are willing to accept such comments and rejected nominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 19:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel strongly about it you can reject it. I am sure that will produce quite a kerfuffle. This kind of hook regularly underperforms. This month we ran this similar hook "... that Tilmann Köhler directed Mozart's Le nozze di Figaro in 2023 with playful "serious games" in which the women win by "wit, cleverness and presence of mind"?" it managed 74 views per hour. Lightburst (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I were writing a hook for this, I would've gone for
  • ... that in 1906, composer Robert Winterberg gave a concert for the queen of Romania?
It may be that as a U. S. American I'm inclined to find royalty interesting and to think performing for a queen probably means being an impressive composer. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is more interesting @Hydrangeans: Lightburst (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the hook idea @Hydrangeans:. It is confirmed and cited in the article. @Narutolovehinata5: what do you think? Bruxton (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objections here if that's what you all want to run. I'm fine with it. Thanks @Hydrangeans: for seeing something I didn't. 4meter4 (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the new hook is better than the old one. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I swapped the hook. Template:Did you know/Preparation area 7 Bruxton (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Late to this: I saw the hook on the Main page, and found it plain boring. "a composer" - not saying of what kind of music - could be symphonies or songs or whatever - performing for some royalty: not interesting me the slightest. I looked it up because the name looks German and I'm behind the DYK section for Portal:Germany. I usually take what is on the main page, but not in this case. A Jewish Austrian-Hungarian composer has little success in Vienna, but much in Berlin, and ultimately even more on Broadway: that is more interesting to me than whatever royalty performance. By making a hook too general you may produce a higher view-count, but may have driven away those who really care about the content of an article. I know what kind of "performing" I prefer. Just my 2ct. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Gerda Arendt, I made the switch after all agreed above. I think we were all hoping for more engagement by swapping the hook. For myself, I hoped that non-specialists might check out the article; otherwise we are "preaching to the choir". Bruxton (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but I question if the approach is good. A composer plays for a queen. Who do you think finds that attractive or interesting? It leaves me cold. A piece called The Lady in Red, however, might win you all the women ;) - and then Broadway on top. - What's interesting to one, is boring for another, and if we exclude minority interests we practice a kind of censorship. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we leaving backlog mode yet?[edit]

Right now we only have 65 open nominations at WP:DYKN, which seems reasonably low compared to the past where we'd have so many nominations that transcluding would break. Maybe now would be the time to go back to regular mode? In addition, maybe we can also drop down to one set a day again? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should stop the QPQ backlog mode as soon as possible (but I have no idea how to do that). Dropping down to one set per day while we have 120+ approved nominations isn't really backed by our rules. Better reduce the approved backlog a little more. —Kusma (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once agreed, stopping the QPQ backlog mode will involve updating the DYK wizard. I think Mokadoshi did the last update, which was discussed here. TSventon (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it enough to edit {{Did you know/Backlog mode?}} or is there anything else that needs doing? —Kusma (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it's about time to remove the 2x WP:QPQ requirement, but not to leave 12-hour-sets just yet. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose keeping the requirement for any other nominations made today, but from tomorrow, let's get out of this.--Launchballer 16:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that we get out of the QPQ backlog mode as soon as someone can edit the wizard. Schwede66 16:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like editing {{Did you know/Backlog mode?}}, which is not protected, should work. Should we wait for midnight UTC so all nominations dated 12 April have the same QPQ requirement? TSventon (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose deleting the message from the wizard entirely. The message about how many QPQs is needed has proven very useful in determining if a QPQ is needed at all or not, regardless of how many nominations an editor has. My suggestion is once we leave backlog mode, we still keep that message but modify it to simply specify if a QPQ is needed or not. In fact, if anyone has the technical know-how, we could even have some kind of template or other switch where if a QPQ is needed but hasn't been provided within seven days, the notice about needing a QPQ would turn red or otherwise show a warning. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would the message be deleted from the wizard? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it, in any case editing {{Did you know/Backlog mode?}} should be reversible. TSventon (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will make it a great deal easier, when reviewing nominations going forward, to know that 12 April was the last day of backlog mode, and anything from 13 April doesn't require extra QPQs, just as it was very helpful to have a firm start of 8 March. Let's please do it on the midnight UTC date boundary; if the Backlog mode message gets it wrong, we can clean up afterward. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer, I have temporarily reverted your changes to the relevant pages because it is not yet midnight UTC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair cop, I'm in London so it's about twenty past midnight where I am and I forgot the clocks moved. Do any others need to be changed or just those three?--Launchballer 23:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've come back to my desk as it's midnight UTC. It seems you are doing it, though, Launchballer. I won't touch anything as to not cause an edit conflict. If you need a hand with anything that's protected, please say so. Schwede66 00:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a box at the top of Template talk:Did you know which I have commented out. I think I have adjusted everything? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I see you updated WP:DYKCRIT as well. TSventon (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do nominations nominated during the backlog mode still have to use two QPQs? —Panamitsu (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.--Launchballer 09:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That should be technically possible as multi-article hooks were handled correctly in backlog mode. Mokadoshi could you have a look? TSventon (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's true; see e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/David Raymond. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong, I remember checking a double nomination, but I didn't keep a note of which it was. TSventon (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1[edit]

Islamic vegetarianism (nom):

The article says "Basheer Ahmad Masri and several other faqih suggested replacing the animal sacrifice with charitable donations or fasting." This doesn't seem to be nearly as universal as the claim in the hook. Ping @Le Loy, @Alex2006, @Bruxton. —Kusma (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Alessandro57, who has a confusing signature. —Kusma (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I intended the hook to also represent the "Muslims who are practising veganism either donate money to have the slaughter done in their name without participating in it, or donate to other charitable purposes" claim, not just the faqih claim, but you're right. I support the change to "some faqih". Le Loy (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My current suggestion is to just replace this by

but I am happy to hear better suggestions. There is not much time until the set hits the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do pings work on redirects? If not, pinging Ле Лой.--Launchballer 14:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this hook modification, better to be on the safe side. Alex2006 (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented my suggestion, but would like to invite further tweaks or improvements. —Kusma (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable @Kusma: Bruxton (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2[edit]

Aiming stone (nom)[edit]

I'm inclined to pull this as it's likely to show up at Errors. We might as well sort this out before that happens. The problem is that the article uses the term gez, which is a unit of length that was used in the Ottoman empire and is today used in shooting sports. There isn't an article for this unit. All the conversions in the article have been done manually; gez is not defined in Template:Convert/list of units. The target article has a section 'Notable shooting stones' and there, four conversions are given from gez to metres. When you divide metres by gez, you get the following conversion factors: 0.607, 0.608, 0.660, 0.607. As you can see, three of them match and the fourth one is an outlier. And that outlier is what is used in DYK hook: ... that the Beşiktaş aiming stone in Istanbul (pictured) marks the spot where in 1810 Sultan Mahmud II hit an ostrich egg 735.9 metres (2,414 ft) away?

There is a journal paper attached to the article titled How Long Was a Gez? and the authors explain that in shooting sports, 66 cm (or 0.66 m) is used for one gez. The main point of that paper is that they did find the foot stone that belongs to the shooting stone that's the first example (1,215.5 gez, or 738.31 m). And that's where the 0.607 conversion factor comes from.

I suggest that ideally, gez is going to be added to Template:Convert/list of units, and the article then starts using the convert template. There are something like two dozen conversions in that article, I've only checked four of them, and there ought to be internal consistency. I appreciate that this process might take some time and suggest that we simply park the nomination until that's sorted. Schwede66 20:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind; forget about the above. The hook doesn't use gez; it can sort itself out via the normal editing processes. Schwede66 20:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kāneiolouma Complex (nom)[edit]

Caption text
Article Hawai'i Magazine
an aliʻi (noble) seating area on higher ground toward the center of the arena an alii (chief) seating area on higher ground toward the center of the arena
a general seating area on the far end a general seating area on the far end
The sacred nature of the space was denoted by the eighteen kiʻi that surrounded the edges of the arena Eighteen of those kii surrounded the edges of the arena, denoting the sacred nature of the space

That's a bit close, eh? I'll reopen the nomination. I've run out of time; could somebody please plug the gap that this leaves? Schwede66 21:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. I'll fill the gap now. Schwede66 00:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the comments have been addressed. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 02:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3[edit]

Imamate in Zaydi doctrine[edit]

  • ... that in Zaydi Shi'ism, the imamate was not inherited or appointed but had to be claimed by public summons for allegiance or even leadership of an armed revolt?

@Cplakidas, Sammi Brie, and PrimalMustelid:

I have read this hook a couple times and I am still unsure that I understand what it is trying to tell me, which has made it difficult to verify the hook. Also, the article doesn't mention that inheritance or appointment was not used to pick this position, so why is this information mentioned in the hook? Is there a simpler way to phrase this hook? Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 It is indeed in the article. In Zaydi doctrine, unlike the Imami Shi'a, the imamate is not hereditary, The point here is that instead of being a hereditary position as in other traditions, it was something that you kind of earned by having followers or leading people in battle. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: Thanks for the response. I still find this hook to be wordy and confusing. If I'm the only one that thinks this, I'll leave it as is, but I would like to read other editors' opinions first. Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's confusing, especially to those who might not be well-versed in Islamic politics. What is an "imamate", what are "public summons for allegiance"? I don't think the issue is the hook fact itself, just the way it's phrased. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also stated as "public call for allegiance" in the article. However, I'm more concerned by the last line of the lead paragraph As a result, the imamate often came to be passed down in hereditary fashion, especially as the Imams of Yemen abandoned Zaydi doctrines for Sunni ones in the 18th century. which sort of contradicts the hook... Black Kite (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Longlac[edit]

@P199, Coretheapple, and PrimalMustelid:

The hook says it was founded in 1800, but the article says circa 1800. Should the hook add circa to it, or should it be phrased as "around the year 1800"? Or something similar? Z1720 (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, add "circa". Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 01:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4[edit]

Jennifer Martz[edit]

@TonyTheTiger, Ktin, and PrimalMustelid:

Most of the honours are not cited, and while I could find the 1998 CoSIDA referenced earlier in the article, I could not find where the others awards were cited. Could all of the awards be cited, even if the information is cited earlier in the article? Z1720 (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • They are cited throughout the body. The LEAD mentions the following honors
  1. 1997 American Volleyball Coaches Association (AVCA) Division III Player of the Year-IC 26
  2. four-time AVCA All-American (three-time first team), IC 8, 19, 26, IC 36
  3. two-time NCAA Division III national champion, ICs 10 & 21
  4. 1998 second team Academic All-America selection, ICs 35 & 36
  5. three-time UAA Player of the Year IC 15, 26 & 31 (MVP and POY used interchangeably)
  6. 1999 NCAA Division III Missouri Woman Athlete of the Year IC 37

Not in LEAD but with WP:ICs.

  1. finalist for the NCAA 25th Anniversary (of NCAA Women's Championships) team. IC 40
  2. inducted into the Washington University Sports Hall of Fame IC 41

Finding unreviewed nominations[edit]

Template talk:Did you know includes nominations currently being reviewed which can make it difficult finding ones without a reviewer. Is there a tool or something to make this process easier? —Panamitsu (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scrolling down until I find something normally works, Panamitsu; right now, we have articles like Biodiversity Impact Credit, West Georgia Wolves football, First Shift (film), and Bayron Matos in and amongst the nominations under review. Otherwise, you can just go to the bottom and work up. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also typically a list of "Older nominations needing DYK reviewers" section on this page; some of them have never been reviewed at all, while others need a reviewer to finish up. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3[edit]

@PrimalMustelid and Bruxton: please note that WP:DYKVAR advises that not more than 50% of the hooks in a set should be American-related; at the moment, six out of nine in Prep 3 are. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like three editors built the set. Sometimes it happens when three prep builders contribute. So we can move hooks to the open Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 - anyone is free to move hooks for balance. Bruxton (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know, it's just something to keep an eye on when building sets together. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just moved an American Football hook from the set, and added a Liechtenstein hook. Bruxton (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1[edit]

Ivanka Trump[edit]

The current hook for Ivanka Trump says "...that Ivanka Trump (pictured) was the first Jewish member of a U.S. first family?"

However, that appears to be inaccurate; according to reliable sources her husband, Jared Kushner, was also a member of the first family. Perhaps the hook should read "...that Ivanka Trump (pictured) was the joint-first Jewish member of a U.S. first family alongside her husband?" BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term "first family" usually refers to a leading politician, their spouse, and their children (sometimes grandchildren). In-laws are rarely counted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is identity politics. I see us doing this type of hook often. Is her religion the most notable part of her bio? But I digress, she was first family and and I do not think "joint-first Jewish member" is needed here. Lightburst (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Is her religion the most notable part of her bio?" How many of our recent hooks, or for that matter older hooks, cover only the most notable part of the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that there's no a rule that a hook must cover "the most notable part" of a topic. At the same time, I'm sympathetic to the concern expressed. There's been many times when I click on a DYK article and am disappointed to find out that there is nothing more about what was mentioned in the hook than what was mentioned in the hook. It's disappointing to be gotten curious about something and to find out there's not really anything else to say about it. I don't try to distill an article into a hook, but especially for the last handful of DYKs I've nominated, I try to write a hook that captures some substantive element of the article (e. g. divergent assessments of a character, or a book's protracted publication process) so that a reader isn't disappointed after clicking.
That sympathy expressed, this specific matter doesn't seem to be the case with this specific article, as there isn't just one sentence about it; there are a few paragraphs about this aspect of the subject's life. It may not be the "most notable" element, but it's also not a non-element. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
couldn't agree more – i have no problem with these "identity politics", but we couldn't find a better hook in such a detailed article? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider an adult child with their own family to be part of the "first family". And would definitely not understand the term to include the spouse of said adult child. -- User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Holidays and hooks[edit]

I notice that the recent holidays (main articles) received many views on their respective days and the days before and after.

Easter views and Eid al-Fitr views More than one quarter million each on the day of.
We went all out for Halloween and the main article got significantly more views. 439,669. From what I have read Halloween is not even celebrated worldwide - it is very popular in the states and Canada.
I thought about finding an article for Memorial day May 27, 2024, but that is a US holiday only.

Bruxton (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a holiday in the UK, though it's not called Memorial Day (Spring Bank Holiday, last Monday in May). This is just speculation, but I wonder if Wikipedia views go up on public holidays anyway, because people aren't at school or at work. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: Interesting I did not know. I was just looking at the Memorial Day article and wondering if it could get through GA. It looks like a lot of work right now. Seems low, only 2k views on Memorial day 2023? Bruxton (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queues empty[edit]

@DYK admins: Hi there – sorry for the mass ping but we're in emergency mode again :/ Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reset User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates to one-per-day mode. RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, we still had six full sets after the midnight promotion; we are not supposed to go to one-per-day mode unless we're below six. Obviously, if there aren't any queues at 12:00 UTC, no promotion will happen, and we won't have any choice but to extend to 24 hours, but the changeover should not have been made yet. If an admin is able to promote one or more preps to queues in the next ten hours, can we go back to two-a-day where we're supposed to be? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We keep hitting zero queues. This is not working. If another admin wants to put it back to two per day, I won't revert that, but I'm not going to do it. RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse that move wholeheartedly. I'm sorry that I've lost my fire for doing the grunt work at DYK – being thorough is tiring and I just don't have the fixation right now – but if we keep having to beg admins to keep the project running at the bare minimum, we're not doing it right. Nominators can sit tight. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. No offence, and I understand where you're coming from - the community decided to implement fixed rules for when to do two a day - but if it isn't possible it isn't possible. We're all volunteers here, nobody is obliged to do DYK, and if we're having to constantly rush in sets at the last minute then we end up with errors creeping in. I'll try to do some sets myself in the next couple of days where I find time, but I think stick to one a day until we're sure we have the capacity to ramp up.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We just need a few more admins. Happy to discuss and potentially nominate if anyone wants to have a go. —Kusma (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of self harm scars. dyk 16 April 2024[edit]

Hello,

Are there any methods available to mark the image with a content warning?

Are there any alternate pictures available?

I recommend taking some action to mitigate the risk of widespread negative reactions.

The reason I am posting this is because the picture of self harm scars on today's dyk was unexpected for me to see. I experienced a mild negative reaction upon viewing the image. I feel that there is a potential for other readers to have strong negative reactions to viewing this image unexpectedly. My understanding is that, broadly speaking, pictures of self harm scars are sometimes marked with content warnings to mitigate this risk.

I am not sure if I'm in the correct place to initiate this discussion.

Please do let me know if I am posting this comment in an in appropriate forum,and where would be better Bome sall 1 (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please treat newcomers with gentleness and respect. It's true that Wikipedia isn't censored; it's probably also true that an editor whose first contribution was this past January and whose first DYK interaction was this thread may have been both unfamiliar with that rule and/or with why that means Wikipedia eschews disclaimers that other uncensored spaces nevertheless use. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my earlier tone, I understand I could have worded that response better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5
I did appreciate your direct to the point response, with a helpful link. I didn't reply to say as much, not entirely sure why.
@Hydrangeans
Thank you for standing up for me/advocating for being kind to newbies. I personally appreciate it. Plus, it's nice to know that people like you are out there. Bome sall 1 (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bome sall 1. I wrote much of the cover-up tattoo article and took the photo you're concerned about. I could respond to this from a few angles, but I'm about to go to sleep so I'll just point out one detail: The person in that photo, a good friend of mine, goes out in the world every day with her forearms visible. Of course, she doesn't go around broadcasting "these are self-harm scars," but neither does the hook as written, and I was careful about exactly that. The article does of course explain the scars' provenance, because it's of encyclopedic relevance in that context, but for the Main Page I felt it would be gratuitous to get into that detail. I don't actually believe that WP:NOTCENSORED applies unqualified to the Main Page, but I also don't think it's fair to say that the Main Page should be more censorious of people's self-harm scars than society at large is for how people present those scars in their daily life. And again, in daily life, across a variety of cultural contexts, my friend does not cover her forearms (weather permitting).
I appreciate the desire here to, essentially, protect people who struggle with self-harm, but there is another way to look at this attitude, which is as stigmatizing self-harm, telling people with visible self-harm scars that we must obscure them. For me, as someone who has self-harmed and has spent a lot of time listening to others speak for me about how I should feel about my scars, it was really liberating for me to see my friend's tattoo and see that she was turning this pain into an artistic message, owning that part of her past. I'm not saying that that's what the image on the Main Page right now need convey—to most people, I reckon, it's just an image of scars and they aren't thinking much about where they came from—but I just want to counter the assumption that removing the image would be compassionate to self-harmers, rather than reënforcing shame. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 06:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin hi Tamzin,
Noted, rescind my original questions.
Thank you for taking time to write such a thoughtful comment. Your patience and courtesy towards me is sincerely appreciated. I had not considered the perspective you shared. My worldview is expanded. This has certainly eroded my personal aversion to images of self harm scars.
Your friend should count themselves lucky to have a compassionate friend like you. Being kind to a stranger on the internet is a green flag, full stop...Let alone your thoughtful discourse. I won't go on.
I'll leave it at this: thank you for being bold, vulnerable even, by sharing your perspective.
As an aside.. When I posted my comment, I wondered if I was throwing a paper airplane off the empire state building. What would the chances be of the comment being seen by anyone involved in the dyk, or anyone involved in the article editing at all?
Turns out I was found by someone who personally knows the photo subject. What are the odds! Bome sall 1 (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bome sall 1, re: What would the chances be of the comment being seen by anyone involved in the dyk, -- just for future reference, it always is a good idea to let people know you're discussing their nomination. To find out who was involved in a nomination here, go to the article's talk page, where you'll find the DYK nomination. The nominator's username is near the top of that section, and everyone who commented on it will have also signed it. You can WP:PING them to your comments or questions.
In general, comments here will be seen by multiple people who work here regularly. Even without pinging Tamzin, who was the person who took it to Good Article status and nominated it here, it's not highly unusual that she saw your question anyway. Valereee (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee noted. Appreciate the pointer and insight into the Wikipedia dyk editing culture! Bome sall 1 (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1: Ivanka Trump[edit]

  • that Ivanka Trump was the first Jewish member of a U.S. first family?

Minor point perhaps, but the was carries the slight suggestion that she is no longer alive. However, for other reasons we also can't say she is the first, since her father has now left office. Perhaps we could amend to something like "that in 2016, Ivanka Trump became the first..." or similar? @AirshipJungleman29, Grnrchst, and MSincccc:  — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I agree with the amended hook proposal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shall I make the required changes then being the nominator or will one of the DYK admins do it? I am not against the proposal. Let it be known. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A DYK admin will do so MSincccc; you cannot edit queues. Also, please start ending every comment with "Let it be known". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @AirshipJungleman29. Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, I think you meant "please stop". TSventon (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the "please start" as a tongue in cheek indication that this was quite a humorous thing to have put at the end of the comment, rather than am order to desist from doing so, but I might be wrong 🤔😏 Anyway, the above change is  Done. It was of course 2017 though, rather than 2016, due to inauguration dates.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let it be known. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let it be known. I like that! I feel like someone might say that when they have the conch in Lord of the Flies. Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3: request for move to other queue/day[edit]

Hi

I recently nominated two related articles which both got approved Mirna El Helbawi and Connecting Humanity, currently they are in the same queue right next to each other. Please can I request they are posted on different days? The hooks are quite different but it may be confusing for readers to have two related hooks next to each other.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You sure about that? I see Connecting Humanity in prep 5 and Mirna El Helbawi in prep 3, five days apart.--Launchballer 16:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer thanks very much, I saw them both listed on the same page and assumed they'd be on the same day (I don't really understand the system :) Can you tell me what days they'll be published? Thanks for your help, John Cummings (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@John Cummings, see Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Local_update_times. —Kusma (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma, thanks so much. John Cummings (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triggering QPQ backlog mode[edit]

Would it make sense to start QPQ backlog mode once unapproved nominations exceed 120, rather than 200 as we did the first time? Obviously a discussion here would still be needed at the time. With a lower limit of 60, that would mean moving a net 60 nominations from unapproved over the backlog period rather than 140 and make the knock on effects on publishing one or two sets a day more manageable. TSventon (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6[edit]

2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot[edit]

a pretty picture
a pretty picture

The hook was rather verbose; I've shortened it. RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also uploaded a better version of the image; this is the kind of photo for which spot-metering was invented :-) It's still not great, and I don't see any other images in the article that are much better. Perhaps we want to use another hook for the lead in this set. RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at the other articles in this set, I think Albert Gumble would make a great lead image. RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find the image which is now in the slot much more dramatic. I might vote to leave it. The one you presented could certainly be used in another set. Lightburst (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for sure, it's a more dramatic subject. But technically it's a terrible image; poorly exposed and out of focus. All you can tell is that there's a person in front of something that's burning. It's not until you look at the full size image that you can tell it's somebody wearing a hockey helmet and a "Vancouver" shirt, that the fire is a burning car, or that there's a crowd of people. It fails the "suitable, attractive, and interesting; images in particular must display well in the small size" requirement of WP:DYKIMG. RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick check - can an article by DYKed twice?[edit]

I just passed Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Hill (basketball)/DYK2 (GA). But then I noticed it was DYKed previously. Is this ok? I could not find a section in DYK rules covering this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeats are allowed after five years, and that one was 2011.--Launchballer 07:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DYKNEW: An article is ineligible for DYK if it has in the past five years appeared on the Main Page as a bold link at DYK, unless the article was then deleted as a copyright violation. It is also ineligible if it has, within the year prior to nomination or between nomination and appearance on the Main Page, appeared as a boldlink at In the news (ITN) or in the prose section of Selected anniversaries (OTD), or as Today's featured article (TFA). A nomination must go on hold if the article has pending nominations to appear at any of the same. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of OTD are not disqualified, nor are names listed in "Recent deaths" section of ITN.— Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship by copyright pulled[edit]

There was a report at Errors concerning the Censorship by copyright hook. The article had been orange-tagged (Template:Globalize), with Dilettante reporting this to Errors. Whilst the long list of examples is spread around the world, the prose deals mainly with North American issues. Posting this here rather than at Errors as this discussion gets archived, whilst Errors gets nuked when the main page changes at midnight UTC. I offer the pre-emptive comment that issues relating to this particular tag are hard to detect by the checking processes in place beyond the original review, as you have to critically read the whole article to detect it. If the original reviewer doesn't pick up on it, there's every chance that it slips through. For example, the admin instructions have read article and copyedit as an optional component. Schwede66 19:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just letting you know that I'm about to go tramping (aka hiking); back in 36 hours or so. Schwede66 19:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is deeply unfair on several levels; first, it allows one to spuriously tag an article about to be DYKed or just DYKed and demand it to be pulled, likely not eligible for re-DYKing. Second, I don't agree with this being called in need of significant globalization - as Schwede notes, the list of examples is globalized. And the concern about the prose being focused on NA issues is highly debatable. DMCA and American copyright legislation have wide-ranging international application. Besides, prose mentions non-NA legislation like European Union's Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (Copyright Directive), and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Later, the prose discusses European history (ex. Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers to suppress texts it deemed problematic, such as anti-Cromwellian and anti-Caroline satirical writings) as well as the concept of the Global South. This is something to be discussed on the talk page, not something that should lead to emergency DYKpull, but bottom line, IMHO the article was incorrectly orange tagged and should not have been pulled from the main page. Last but not least, best practices when tagging articles require that the tagger starts a discussion on the talk page - this was not done. Nor was the globalize template even explained in the edit summary. So we have bad templating followed by a bad pull. Ironically, this seems like some sort of "censorship by tagging". I request that this is restored for the main page. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth I would WP:IAR support it being added to a later set of hooks because it was pulled early. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be opposed to another run on the main page. The hook was up for over 19 hours, which is significantly more than hooks get when we're running two sets a day. It's too bad that it didn't get the full 24 hours, but it got over 80% of the time—and 160% of what a 12-hour hook gets. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm broadly of the view that pulled hooks should resume where they left off, as a tenth hook.--Launchballer 22:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

The previous list of older nominations was archived several hours ago, so I’ve created a new list of all 10 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 11. Because this list is so short after the backlog drive—which is great news!—I plan to add to it every couple of days. We have a total of 167 nominations, of which 95 have been approved, a gap of 72 nominations that has decreased by 42 over the past 15 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any 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) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1219803793"