Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

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

Vami IV[edit]

I don't know if people here are aware, but Vami IV died a few days ago (see User talk:Vami IV for further details). He has at least one nomination going through DYK at the moment. It would be appreciated by many if this and any other of his noms are moved through the process smoothly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vami IV was a good editor. I was sorry to hear about this. I noticed that I had a hold on a nomination for the hook. I just went back and learned that @Gerda Arendt: had submitted a new hook that I thought met the interesting component so I removed the stop. Bruxton (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's on the Main page now. A FAC is open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @Gerda Arendt:. Someday I would like to get involved with FAC. For now I am working in GAN and I very much enjoy the processes and the results. Bruxton (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For me it's the opposite. I don't do GA reviewing because one reviewer has to do the complete review, and as not a native speaker, I'm not sure enough of the prose. In a Fac, however, anybody can supply comments, short or lengthy. This is an extremely short article. Everybody: read it, and if you find something towards improvement, bring it to the FAC. It helps in FAC circles if you get known as a reviewer, on top of improving the article. WP:QAI person talking. Vami was a great member, much missed. - Different question: he didn't get DYK credit, - I did it manually. I don't understand why. He got FA credit after he died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about criteria[edit]

At WP:QPQ, it says "The consensus is that hook-for-hook reviewing is not acceptable in case of multiple nominations." What does this mean? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've always understood that to mean that if you make five noms, and i make five noms, we can't just review all of each others' five for QPQs. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I assume that's also applicable for two-for-two, but not one-for-one theleekycauldron? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, what this means is that you can't do only a single QPQ review for a multi-article nomination; you need to review one article for each article bold link in your nomination. Once upon a time, the requirement was for a single QPQ per nomination, no matter how many bold-linked articles in the nomination. Fortunately, a thing of the past. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So if it refers to archaic procedures, should it be removed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since the clause only appears to be causing confusion, and the rule is probably clear enough without it, it might make sense to remove it now. Gatoclass (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed. I agree that the rule is clear enough without it, and it's been a long time since we changed to article for article QPQs. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Format change[edit]

The current format isn't great and can be a little confusing to read. I propose instead of

Did you know ...[edit]

  • ... that Maruxa and Coralia Fandiño Ricart (statues pictured) became famous in Galicia because their bright, colourful outfits contrasted with the social repression of Francoist Spain?

we should do

Did you know?[edit]

  • Maruxa and Coralia Fandiño Ricart (statues pictured) became famous in Galicia because their bright, colourful outfits contrasted with the social repression of Francoist Spain.

The current format is a little confusing because as you read down the list, you aren't reading the "did you know" part over and over, but each entry ends with a question mark, so you're reading what feels like a statement but at the end has a question mark. Just something that has bugged me for a while.
eduardog3000 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong oppose. The current format works, is catchy, and is the whole point of Did you know. The proposal just directly gives a fact but doesn't encourage readers to read more, nor does it catch attention. It can work for other parts of the encyclopedia, but not Did you know itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK move request question[edit]

I've been holding off on doing a DYK nomination because Cupressus guadalupensis is still part of a (still not closed) move request. My own fault. I started the move request and then got really interested in improving the page. Will it screw things up if I nominate it? I've got four more days where the page is eligible since I started the expansion on 17th of February. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like there’s consensus for the move and it’s time for someone to close the discussion so you can move forward. Maybe request a close? Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Viriditas Thanks. I had not thought that I could goose the closing process for a requested move and that I just needed to wait. Posted a question and it was rapidly closed and moved. So now I've got my DYK in. Onwards to more reviews and edits! 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An article having an open move request is not disqualified from DYK. The important thing is that the nomination page is not moved, but the article itself can be moved even with an open discussion, and any links can just be fixed during the discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While it's true that moving an article isn't fatal, it is kind of annoying. My suggestion is that we give a bit of extra leeway on the 7-day window until the move request is sorted out. RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All queues are empty[edit]

I've done the admin reviews for the first couple of hooks in Prep 6 but don't have time to do the whole lot. New update is due in 21 hours. Schwede66 02:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe at one point there was a suggestion of letting non-admins do prep-to-queue?--Launchballer 08:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing entries from best of all time[edit]

Is it intentional that Hitler_teapot was excluded from Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/All-time DYK pageview leaders. I was looking at the stats and it looks like Hitler_teapot beat most of the items on the page when it was on DYK see stats. It got over 270k views? Was it intentionally excluded? is this a common occurrence? BrokenSegue 05:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That page isn't automatically updated, and is woefully out of date. First step is to standardize the templating, second step is to have GalliumBot take over updating. Wouldn't hold your breath, though :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

James Townsend (abolitionist) (nom)[edit]

@Chetsford, Paul 012, and AirshipJungleman29: As a matter of process, I've bumped this because I was involved in a discussion about it at the lower level. As a matter of principle, I'd note that the hook should be pulled entirely because there was no consensus to approve it based on the WT:DYK thread. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I remember, the WT:DYK thread found issues with the content of the article, which has since been significantly altered and refocused. I do not recall any issues with approving the hook, just whether the article was suitable. I might be misremembering, though. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I usually use "approving the hook" and "approving the nomination" synonymously; i think NLH5 and my concern about the article being full of holes remains, although I'm not wanting to fight particularly hard for it. I will say that the hook should attribute inline if the article does. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I interpreted NLH5's comment as saying that they thought these issues were resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eh, I guess I skated over it as being more of a deference, but I'll grant that I don't think there'd be procedural grounds to strike the approval in light of that comment. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to clarify, yes my concerns about the article not being primarily about Townsend had already been resolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Steven A. Shaw (nom)[edit]

@Thriley and BuySomeApples: article has bare URLs (on some level, I kinda don't care, but guideline is guideline) and could use a stiff copyedit to make it less of a hagiographical list. The bit of flowery prose ("truly enjoy"/"loved") is sourced to an article that similarly looks to be written by a friend, although a journalist as well. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this case, I think “loved” is truly sincere. I can probably back it with a bunch of other sourcing that describes his work as rooted in a love of food/restaurants. Seems to be a few just from a quick search. Thriley (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I Want You (SB19 song) (nom)[edit]

@Relayed, Gatoclass, and Queen of Hearts: Well, QoH, I'm sorry to ding you on one of your first promotions for this, but, like... aren't a lot of music videos very "out there" by nature? I'm not sure I'd classify as this as a DYKINT pass. (This is also partially me grumbling about how godawful music journalism is for highlighting anything interesting or encyclopedic about music qua music, but that's not your problem). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I rarely watch music videos anymore, so I don't know how "out there" they have become, but certainly I've never seen one shot underwater so I thought it was unusual enough to be interesting. Apart from that, finding an interesting fact from an article about adenoidal kids moaning about their lust would probably be a challenge, so I figured "music video shot underwater" was about as close to interesting as one was likely to get. Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1, unless music videos have gone crazy the last few years, I've never seen a underwater music video, and it seems interesting enough to me. Open to alts, of course. (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) Queen of Hearts (talkstalk • she/they) 15:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 Lightburst (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ping. As with others in this thread, this is my first seeing one shot underwater. But after searching, I realized there had been multiple music videos with similar themes, one notably being "Runnin' (Lose It All)", that featured Beyonce.
I'm open to switching the hook with something else if necessary; here are the alternative hooks I propose:
  • ALT1: ... that SB19's first collaboration with August Rigo on "Christmas Party" led to the release of "I Want You"? Severo, Jan Milo (January 2, 2023). "Filipino-Canadian International Producer Vows to Work with SB19 Again". The Philippine Star. Archived from the original on January 5, 2024. Retrieved January 6, 2024.
  • ALT2: ... that Billboard Philippines considered SB19's "I Want You" as among the best songs off their discography? "Every SB19 Song, Ranked". Billboard Philippines. December 6, 2023. ISSN 2984-9861. Archived from the original on December 15, 2023. Retrieved December 15, 2023.
Note that ALT2's information was just added in the latest revision of the article (so I'm not sure if we can use that, knowing that there is a 7-day policy). There are not a lot of other interesting things from the article in my POV, so hopefully, the alternatives would suffice, but if not, then I would be fine if the article would not run in DYK altogether. – Relayed( Abacusada) (t • c) 19:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm the approver but both of these look fine to me, although I'd prefer ALT1. Queen of Hearts (talkstalk • she/they) 00:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having never heard of Rigo before or knowing how well-known he is, I am skeptical about ALT1, while ALT2 seems pedestrian as it without context. I'd like to hear more views about ALT1 though. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gatoclass: cards on the table, my frame of reference is that it must be a common enough trope that Tom Scott's parody/deconstruction of music videos starts and ends with him underwater in a nice suit. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ALTs look okay-ish to me, but somebody will need to verify them. But it's as I said, you are unlikely to get a great hook out of a boy band single article, so it's probably just as well to stick with the original hook. Gatoclass (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wendell Steavenson (nom)[edit]

@Thriley, Toobigtokale, and Rjjiii: I mean, I don't love that I'm suddenly starting to care quite a bit about the most subjective criteria, but this looks to me like a DYKINT fail and a DYKCOMPLETE fail. The article is basically a hagiographical timeline, and the hook seems to be just a literal description of the contents of one of the books she's written? Again, I don't love being a hardass for things that easy to complain about, hard to fix, and harder to define, but any kind of meaningful quality control would have to yellow-flag this one. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for giving it a look over, feedback is appreciated. I agree the article edges close to or is a WP:DYKCOMPLETE issue. Based on a few quick searches on Steavenson the article doesn't seem to be missing skeptical information about her, but it certainly is missing some easily-accessible biographical information. The hook I can see your point that it could use some improvement, although I personally initially thought an intellectual draw was that both those events happened around Tahrir Square. Maybe if the article is expanded I could brainstorm another with the nominators.
I think you're right that some work would be needed on the article before it should go to DYK. I'm not an expert on the process for what to do; should we fail it or should we offer time for improvement? toobigtokale (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should have some time today to flesh it out more. Definitely should have more on each one of her books. Thriley (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've seen the changes, but they seem a bit minor. But being fair to Thriley, I've now skimmed like 10-15 news articles about Steavenson, and the Wikipedia article seems to have most of the important information. Furthermore, the articles themselves are often overtly complimentary. Just seems like this is what's out there. Maybe some info from here can be included, but it's all minor details and still complimentary.
I'm willing to move towards approval of the article. For the hook, @Thriley and @Rjjiii do you have any ideas for alternates? toobigtokale (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Toobigtokale: Perhaps a tweak to the original hook that replaces "which were centered around Cairo's Tahrir Square" with something to note that the author lived through these events herself. My personal opinion of the original hook as passing may be based on my background growing up in the Deep South. Egypt is very well-known from scripture, but I've met many people with relatively little knowledge about the modern country. I will also take a look to see if I can find any additional biographical information later today. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other issue is that the reviewer approved their own hook, although it doesn’t seem like a big deal as it just improved the original wording of the nom’s hook. But it does raise a question that I’ve been grappling with as a reviewer: at what point do we cross the line from reviewer to hook writer needing a new reviewer? Viriditas (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hooks get reviewed at least one more time afterwards by at least one more person: people who actually prepare the hook for queues for the front page. Case in point, this talk page post is functionally an additional review of the hook. This is my opinion, but I feel like the admin overhead of requesting yet another reviewer each time the first reviewer proposes a modified hook may prolong most review processes. toobigtokale (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need to explain, I'm all for it. My question is at what point does the modified hook require a new reviewer? Is it when it deviates from the original format and topic of the nominator's hook and presents a novel formulation? I'm asking so that I can expedite more reviews without crossing the line. Viriditas (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Viriditas: as a general rule of thumb, if a new proposed hook has any parts that require reverification, then that'll need a new reviewer. but if all the facts have already been approved, that's fine. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Apologies for taking this discussion off topic. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK tools[edit]

Is there a list of tools useful for DYK somewhere on the DYK pages? Should there be? I have downloaded several, such as User:SD0001/DYK-helper, but there are probably more. TSventon (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yue: The list of principals is unsourced, both here and on zhwiki (where Cheng Hsiao-ming=程曉銘 has apparently been replaced by a caretaker principal). Suggest removal of the list unless it can be sourced before the article hits the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kusma: Let's remove it until I add a source. Yue🌙 21:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renominate Waluigi for DYK[edit]

I would like to renominate Waluigi for DYK now that it has passed GA. The previous nomination failed due to a poor GA review. I was told that once it was reassessed and passed to GA, the article could be renominated, but I'm not sure how to renominate it. Previous nom here Template:Did you know nominations/Waluigi. Fieryninja (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manually, is the short answer. I'd find an unreviewed previous revision of the nom, copy that over to (for example) Template:Did you know nominations/Waluigi (2nd nomination), and add it to T:TDYK.--Launchballer 09:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frankee Connolly[edit]

@Launchballer, Mach61, and AirshipJungleman29: There is a cite error for ref 8. This is the ref that is used to support the hook's claim, so this will need to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed.--Launchballer 22:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't get the hook:

As I don't know what Xenomania is, I have no idea why I should care. —Kusma (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems like an easy fix:
  • ... that singer Frankee Connolly (pictured) signed to songwriting team Xenomania and took her first singing lessons – in that order?
How unexpected that this singer took her first singing lessons after joining a team that made songs! (rather than having taken many singing lessons in the past.) Was there a natural talent at play? But then why did she need lessons? Did Xenomania think she was a subpar singer in need of improvement but still have her sign on for other reasons? I want to find out. Consider me intrigued and clicking to learn more about this Connolly. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd change 'singer' to either 'the singer' or leave 'singer' out altogether - context should make it clear what she is.--Launchballer 12:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Original hook looks fine to me - it should be clear from the context that Xenomania is a music production company. Gatoclass (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It really isn't. You have to either know that Connolly is a singer or use the meta-knowledge that this is supposed to be surprising, from which you can then infer that either Connolly or Xenomania might have something to do with music. —Kusma (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Signed to" is a phrase most commonly used for musicians signing to record labels, and the allusion is confirmed by the mention of her taking singing lessons, so it seems to me that all the necessary information is there, and in an admirably brief form. Certainly, I think it's going to be a struggle coming up with a different wording that isn't repetitive and ponderous, as the proposed alt indicates. So I would still prefer to see the original hook run as is. Gatoclass (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 I don’t think this should have passed a DYK review. The artist is not the primary subject of a single independent reference, and the article is mostly built from sources which are directly connected to the subject such as artist bios at places where she was employed or at schools she attended. The referencing as demonstrated in the article would not pass WP:GNG; although it’s certainly possible there are independent refs that are in existence that have not been cited. Further, I am not sure about the quality of seenandheard-international.com as a source. The Bachtrack review is really the only quality independent ref used, and it isn’t majorly about Ms. Hall. Regardless we shouldn’t be promoting articles built largely from non-independent sources. @Gerda Arendt as a seasoned DYK contributor and WP:WikiProject Opera member you should know better. This is the kind of mistake I would expect from someone new to Wikipedia. We don’t build articles from artist bios written by PR people for opera companies or talent agents. They lack independence, lack attributed authors, and may even be written by the subjects themselves if they have not been written by a paid PR rep. 4meter4 (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4meter4, a DYK review does not check for notability. Feel free to nominate the article for AfD; that is the easiest way to resolve the question. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 That’s a poor understanding of what I said. How is having WP:VERIFIABILITY issues not a DYK compliance issue? You can’t seriously be telling me that an article not built from independent sources meets the policy compliance requirement of a DYK review at WP:DYKCITE. This article should be pulled from prep immediately.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feel free to do so yourself 4meter4; I am now away from my computer and manipulating hooks is tricky. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t know how. I don’t get involved with moving items in preps and queues.4meter4 (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The hook has been pulled from prep; discussion could continue here on the article's notability or verifiability, or whether or not to take the article to AFD. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 Thank you. It wouldn't be my preference to take this to AFD, as I think it is highly likely that there will be reviews from the various orchestra and opera concerts in newspapers and magazines that could be used to verify the content. These are major orchestras and opera houses that regularly have their performances reviewed in the press. This is really more of a need to replace the non-independent bio references (written by the subject or their talent management agency) from the orchestra and opera company websites with independent secondary references, and the need to replace the one questionable ezine with a review from a better publication. It shouldn't be that hard to find independent critical reviews in high quality sources such as The New York Times, Opera News, and Süddeutsche Zeitung, etc. to verify the same content. We just need to give Gerda time to do it.4meter4 (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For example, it took me less than a minute to find a review of the opera production mentioned in the hook in Frankfurter Rundschau; which is far preferable over the current source which is basically a glorified blog. I could change out all the sources myself but I am in the middle of several of my own projects.4meter4 (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would say that an article in which the subject "is not the primary subject of a single independent reference" would deserve {{notability}}, which would disqualify it here.--Launchballer 23:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Launchballer You certainly could raise that issue at Talk:Cecelia Hall (mezzo-soprano) and place a notability tag on the article. I was hoping that by addressing the problem of over reliance on primary sources, which I have done in conversation with Gerda at Talk:Cecelia Hall (mezzo-soprano)#Sourcing issues, that the notability issue would resolve too. Gerda has agreed to add secondary sources, so it is possible that the potential notability problem will resolve as secondary sources are added.4meter4 (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As for the hook itself, the wording or flaw seem a bit awkward to me, like there are too many interruptions in thought. Is there a way to reword the hook to make the flow of thought better? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 I also didn't care for the hook. The content of the hook was more about the opera and Mozart than it was about the singer who is the subject of the article. It was awkwardly worded and essentially boiled down to opera singer sings lead part in Mozart opera with a bunch of asides on Mozart and the opera which isn't all that interesting and not at all focused on Hall. Most professional opera singers perform roles in Mozart operas because he is a standard part of the opera repertory. One reason the hook is bad is because the sourcing isn't great and there isn't much content to pull from to create a good hook. I'm hopeful that as sources are added, the article will improve and a better hook can be crafted (preferably something about Hall directly). Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... that American mezzo-soprano Cecelia Hall portrayed the lead male role in Mozart's Ascanio in Alba?
I'm not sure if this is the best wording, but the idea is to emphasize that Hall played a male role in the opera, which is probably the actual interesting part here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I see this thread only now. I have 5 or so better references in my sandbox, but have a life. Does anybody think Ascanio could be understood as the name of a woman??? Do you think that the information that Mozart wrote this at age 15 is not interesting? 4meter4 kindly added references, and I will now add mine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think 4meter4's main issue with the age 15 thing is that it's more about Ascanio in Alba rather than Hall herself. Ideally hooks should focus primarily on the bolded article and should avoid irrelevant information whenever possible. See WP:DYKG: avoid hooks that are primarily about an incident the subject is only tangentially related to. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I understand that, but still think that the word "male" in your proposal is redundant. If someone appeared as Madama Butterfly, you wouldn't add "female", or would you? She has played trouser roles a lot, also Cherubino, - that was actually the first role in which I saw her. - First ref added, FAZ, leading German daily. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    4meter4 removed the ref tags. I'll keep adding things in German. There's this for anybody who is questioning her notability, which could also be added. I suggest to discuss hook alternatives in the nomination. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Honestly Gerda as someone who isn't familiar with opera, I wouldn't assume that Ascanio was even a person's name, let alone knowing it's the name of the male lead, so I think it's fair to call out explicitly in the hook. We could reword to mention it's a trouser/breeches role rather than saying "male". So:
    PMC(talk) 13:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's a bit better, but will be another word the general reader doesn't know. Why not give them instead that this was an early work by Mozart? Anyway, I suggested to discuss hooks in the nomination. It would have been nice that when opening that again it would also have been put back into the noms needing a review. She performed many such roles, I just found Ascanio the most unusual, compared to Cherubino, Serse and the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ps: she'll be Carmen in May, for a change, for those questioning notability. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    What does the opera being an early work by Mozart have to do with Ms. Hall though? ♠PMC(talk) 14:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Can we please discuss hook matters in the nom? - 200 chars are too short to say that she can credible portray a male character (with a little beard) who is an adolescent going to get married because his mother (Venus) wants it so, with the music of an adolescent composer, all commissioned by the Empress for the actual wedding of one of her many sons. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's what the article is for, it doesn't have to be in the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Update. I took it upon myself to resource the article to secondary sources, and I expanded the article significantly. I also proposed a new hook. It's now in much better shape.4meter4 (talk) 13:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting third opinion[edit]

I've nominated the article Milkrun for DYK and have provided two hooks that the reviewer doesn't believe is interesting, which I don't agree with. Granted that the first hook fails WP:DYKHFC, I would appreciate if another editor can decide if these hooks are interesting or not. —Panamitsu (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don’t sweat it my friend. That reviewer is like that with everyone. It’s an initiation of sorts. Just keep coming up with new hooks instead of holding the line. It will force you to come up with even better ones and the reviewer will have to accept it at a reasonable point in time. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth the original hook was okay but could be improved: P-Makoto's proposed ALTs are better, but I'm not sure about ALT3's "ran out of business" wording. Is that an Australian phrase? I've never heard "ran out" used in that sense, I've only ever seen "went out of business. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've never heard it either. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The phrase is often in the passive voice, as in "we got run out of business".
  • I kept encountering women-run businesses that were acquired by a bigger company owned by a man, or run out of business Time magazine
  • Galveston shrimpers being run out of business KHOU-11
  • With colleges staying shut, hostels, PGs across Kolkata run out of business Times of India
P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is an implication that some other entity was the cause of the closure with "run out of business" that is not there when you use a more neutral phrase like "went out of business". Based on the article, the problems leading to the closure seemed to be self-inflicted (not a sufficiently robust business plan combined with not enough revenue from people using the service in a market where there was plenty of competition), so "ran out of business" is not truly appropriate here, P-Makoto. Please change it. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's take it easy, please. As is visible on the nomination page, the recommendation to not use "ran out of business" was well taken, and the only hooks on the table for approval, ALT2 and ALT4, don't use any variation on the phrase "run out of business". P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sodankylä Old Church (nom)[edit]

@Juustila, Ktin, and AirshipJungleman29: I don't think the sources the hook cites aren't reliable for the claim the hook is making. Something with peer review or an editorial process would be much better suited – pulled this one for now. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

theleekycauldron I disagree. There is no WP:EXCEPTIONALity which requires high-quality sources; it is a simple claim, and one backed up by other citations in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not about high-quality sources, it's about passing a bare minimum of reliability at all. Blogs, tourism websites, and other blocks of text that lie around aren't reliable, as WP:DYKHOOK requires they be. If other sources verify the hook, use those. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this was a US site, I wouldn't use it as a source for a hook. Such sites are notorious for errors. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with @Theleekycauldron:'s note in spirit. In fact I had noted that in my review. That said, the revised hook is a very basic one which is hard not to prove. The hook basically says, the church is one of the oldest preserved wooden churches. The fact is so-basic, that the mere existence of the church (in whatever active capacity) is sufficient to prove the hook. And, the tourism department website proves its existence, in my opinion. That said, if folks want to get a WP:RS source other than the tourism department website, and the nominator is willing, I will not stand in the way. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Another issue is that the final paragraph, from "The church does not have roof chairs" appears to be an uncredited machine translation of part of the Finnish article. TSventon (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks @TSventon. @Theleekycauldron has kindly reopened the nomination. Will take it up there with the nominator. Ktin (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

QPQ tool[edit]

The DYK Toolbox shown on noms lists this tool for checking QPQs. Is this still the best tool for this purpose? Does anyone have a better one they use that we might want to add to the DYK Toolbox? The tool doesn't help you verify whether the review linked in the nom has already been used as a QPQ in another nom (for some reviews, checking the nominator's contribution log is not easy). The tool sorts its results alphabetically which makes this more difficult. If there is no better tool, does anyone know who maintains this tool for improvements? Or, does anyone have any ideas for a bot that can post QPQ verification comments on noms? I'd be happy to develop such a bot, if I could get some input on how people would find it helpful for it to work. Mokadoshi (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If we want to go in this direction, this is the idea I had for the bot: when a nomination is posted, it would leave one of the following comments: "No QPQ needed" or "QPQ review needed" or "Linked QPQ looks good" (or something similar). This would not only be a convenience to the reviewer but would also solve a tiny problem some people have faced where an old nom get rejected for QPQ even though none was needed when the nom was first created.
I'd like to know if anyone would find this helpful before I actually start writing a specification for this and submitting this for bot approval. Mokadoshi (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The current QPQ tool only came into use pretty recently, after the old one broke. While kudos are due to whoever got a replacement working, the old one seemed markedly better.
I think this would be a great task for a bot, if we could get that working correctly. However, over time the QPQ tool transitioned for a lot of editors from purely something meant to check whether you needed to do a QPQ or not into something more like a log of one's DYK credits. If we go the direction of having a bot do the QPQ check, it'd be nice to also build out a better tool for listing one's credits (which would ideally include the hook used, pageviews garnered, etc.). Cheers, Sdkbtalk 23:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think for now I will focus on automation that directly assist DYK reviews. For listing credits, I think it makes sense to add that functionality to the current tool rather than making a whole new one. @Sohom Datta: Would you be interested in taking this on? I could potentially contribute some code to this when I have more time. Mokadoshi (talk) 02:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mokadoshi My intial tool was more a bandaid implementation given that the original tool had been taken offline by it's creator. I've gone implemented basic credits for the tool. (Can be accessed at https://qpqtool.toolforge.org/credits/<username>) and fixed the ordering to be cronological. I can work on this further to integrate page views (any maybe hooks) in a while (say a week?).
Regarding your idea of automating QPQs, while this is something I have considered looking into, I'm personally of the opinion that this probably isn't a good task for a bot, since judging if a QPQ meets the threshold of a proper review will probably need human intervention (for example, a simple tick with no comments might not be considered a adequate QPQ by some editors, especially if issues are discovered with the article at a later date). I'm however open to being convinced otherwise, and will be happy to help with any such automation. Sohom (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think, at the very least, a bot task that states whether or not the nominator requires a QPQ or not could work. Sure, we'd still need to manually check the QPQ reviews if needed. Still, it should least it should save us time if, for example, the QPQ field is left empty and we know from the start that a QPQ was not needed, instead of it being a case of a veteran forgetting to do a QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the reduced scope mentioned by Narutolovehinata5 would be a nice starting point for a bot. :) Sohom (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A lighter look at "the oldest ..." hooks[edit]

I've ranted from time to time about hooks that say "the first" or "the oldest", or whatever. I found this video amusing: https://youtube.com/shorts/aAiWTo2wUgk?si=UK_OVf-B42okn10a. If I'm lucky, that URL won't be blacklisted... RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cam across dendrochronology when working on Maison de Jeanne. Bruxton (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi all, I was hoping this would get picked in time to run during Black History Month which is now almost over. Any way we could swap an upcoming hook with this one so it can be featured during February? 4meter4 (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GAN backlog drive starting in March[edit]

In March, GAN is running a backlog drive. This can cause an influx of DYK nominations of recently promoted GAs and activate DYK's two-sets-a-day mode. @DYK admins: please monitor DYK and promote queues when you can. Editors, if you can review some noms now, this will help reduce the backlog at WP:DYKN Thanks everyone! Z1720 (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also encourage everybody to review GAs just as carefully as they would review any other submission. GA occasionally lets some sub-standard articles slip through, and that's especially true during backlog drives when there's lots of new reviewers. RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

It’s been over a week since Lowercase sigmabot III archived this DYK talk page, and since the previous list of older nominations is mostly used up, I’ve created a new list of the first 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 8. We have a total of 286 nominations, of which 105 have been approved, a gap of 181 nominations that has increased by 26 over the past 10 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it better to link articles before or after the interesting fact?[edit]

For many hooks about things like creative works, we have the option to use two different formats:

  1. ... that [interesting fact] in [creative work]?
  2. ... that in [creative work], [interesting fact]?

My current nom is an example (of #1), but there are many others in many different areas. I'm wondering, is there any accumulated wisdom about which option leads to better performance? If so, it might be good to record it in a hook tips document (if that hasn't already been done). If not, we might want to AB test it (although that'd require us to run the test hooks twice, given that pageview data is only available per-day). Sdkbtalk 19:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conventional wisdom says to put the boldlink as close to the beginning of the hook as you can, but I don't know that there'd be any hard data backing it up (someone comb through WP:DYKSTATS). RoySmith floated AB testing at DYK a while ago – I'd been turning it over in my head for a long time, and would really be interested in trying it, but i don't think we've ever come to a consensus on it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My personal opinion, without any evidence to support it, is that there should only be one link in the entire hook, and it should link only to the article. I realize that's going to be controversial, but from now on, that's how I'm going to construct all of my hooks. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is indeed how I construct my hooks as well :) it's not an unheard-of rule, we do it for DAB pages. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the goal was solely to get as many views on the hook article as possible, then yes, that would be the optimal approach. But see Goodhart's law (relevant xkcd) — driving views to other articles that readers end up finding interesting is perfectly alright. Sdkbtalk 19:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not solely that, but DYK exists to highlight new and interesting articles, which is best served by focusing reader traffic. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm pretty much a one-link-per-hook guy. I know I've told this story recently, but don't remember where... There's a truism in the software world; the more options you give the user, the more chances you give them to do the wrong thing. That's usually said with respect to configuration screens (the user will inevitably find some combination of options you never thought anybody would use). I think the same goes for hooks. If you want them to click on the bolded hook, don't give them any distractions. RoySmith (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we decided to run the A version of a hook set from noon to midnight and then the B version of the same hooks from midnight to noon of the next day, we could gather some imperfect data without giving an article more than 24 hours on the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kusma: There's a significant pageviews bias between the A and B sets, so this wouldn't be ideal. I'd prefer a {{random item}} where either just the B or both sets link to redirects, and then we measure the views of the redirects. Bonus: if we do the redirects strat, the pageviews will be much more reliable and we won't have to guess what the "background" views are. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's better. We should probably fully protect the redirects to avoid the WP:BEANS of WP:MPNOREDIRECT if we do that. —Kusma (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds like a very good approach, @Theleekycauldron. If anyone wants to compile a set that'd allow us to test, I'd offer my support. The additional effort it'd take seems worth it for the information we'd glean (so long as we bother to document that info — is there any page compiling advice about how to make a high-performing hook beyond the one FAQ answer I wrote?). Sdkbtalk 19:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:DYKSTATS and User: Theleekycauldron/Essays/Assessing DYK hooks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support that type of testing combined with the measures suggested by Kusma. Schwede66 21:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
is there a way to track views for a specific anchor? if so, i would suggest using links such as "[[example article#hook x|link text]]" to avoid having to use redirects. also, the main page is cached, so i think, in order for this to work with a decent amount of accuracy, the main page should be purged every t seconds, where t is small enough to generate reliable data, but large enough to avoid putting undue strain on the servers. dying (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@dying: specific anchor tracking doesn't work, no; data dumps are published by page and day. Good point about purging; I'd say 30 seconds? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Although it's often been suggested that putting the subject earlier at the front is better, I think it's more of a case-by-case thing and depends on the hook itself and the hook fact. Sometimes, it's better if it's at the front to immediately get attention, and other times it's better if the subject is a punchline. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
definitely true in certain circumstances – see Gay Jesus film hoax. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure I see the point of running different variations of the same hook to see whether or not they work better with the bolded link nearer the start, except as an academic exercise, because trying to engineer hooks that way would decrease set variety.

With regard to the question of number of links in a hook though, I am strongly in favour of multiple links where appropriate, because our primary purpose is education, which means allowing people to click on topics they are actually curious about, rather than trying to force them to contribute to DYK page hits. Gatoclass (talk) 10:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes. I think that links should be included for side topics that might be interesting to readers. If the purpose of DYK as a whole is to increase interaction of readers with the encyclopedia, that purpose is served when they click on a link, even if it is not the main link of a hook. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal: 9 hooks a set[edit]

This is a proposal to increase the number of hooks in each set from 8 to 9. If the consensus here is to increase the number, a formal RfC will be proposed and advertised in the appropriate places, including the other areas of the Main Page.

I think this increase would be a net-positive for a couple of reasons:

  • This will reduce the number of days that DYK runs two sets: With more hooks on the Main Page in every set, it will take longer to activate the 2-sets-a-day and will make it quicker to trigger the one-set-a-day criteria. Reducing the number of days DYK has 2-sets-a-day will reduce DYK admin burnout and more hooks will be on the Main Page for 24 hours instead of 12.
  • There is space to run an extra hook: During February, I have been tracking the length of the DYK vs OTD template on the Main Page, and published the results here. Out of 37 sets (because DYK was at 2-sets-a-day at the beginning of the month) 21 had an OTD hook removed, usually for Main Page balance, and the OTD template was longer than the DYK template for 28 sets. Adding an extra hook would help with Main Page balance, allowing OTD to run 5 hooks more often. There were only 3 sets during February where OTD ran 5 hooks and was still shorter than DYK, and in all these instances OTD was only a line or two shorter, which is negligible. There was one instance when OTD ran a sixth hook, and OTD was still shorter, but this shows that if there is an imbalance OTD can add hooks.
  • DYK can pull hooks without replacing them: Right now, if a hook is pulled last-minute, there is sometimes a scramble to replace it. If it is not replaced, OTD might have to drop to 3 hooks for Main Page balance, which is not ideal. With this proposal, if a DYK hook needs to be pulled from the set last minute an admin can pull a hook from OTD instead and still have 4 OTD hooks running.

Thanks for considering this and I look forward to your thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would support this, though I don't have much else to add. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually did some analysis at the start of the year which can be found at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 196#Hook duration dynamics. Ignoring the years when there was a pandemic on, we do (very roughly) between 433 and 456 sets per year, roughly 9.5-10 hooks per day. 9 hooks per set would help, but 10 per day minus pulled hooks should even it out.--Launchballer 22:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My immediate concern when I started reading this was about main page balance. But given that's addressed and my concern was unfounded, I can easily get behind this. Schwede66 00:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to hear from those who build prep sets and those who promote them to queues. If changing from eight to nine is the straw that breaks the camel's back, then it's not worth it. Otherwise, I have no feelings either way. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm fine with it (I've promoted over 60% of hooks this year). If it helps have less 12-hour periods, it's definitely preferable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYKHousekeepingBot[edit]

Is there a reason DYKHousekeepingBot randomly yeeted nearly 300 noms?--Launchballer 13:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BlueMoonset's query at User talk:Shubinator#Odd DYKHousekeepingBot issue: isn't including main nominations page may be related. TSventon (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]