Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to
Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the
queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.
DYK queue status
There are currently 4 filled
queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.
Special occasion idea: Olympics
Discussion on Olympics
Remembering that we did themed sets for the
FIFA Women's World Cup last year, I thought of an idea for a themed set of hooks: the
2024 Summer Olympics take place from July 26 to August 11 this year (in a little over five weeks) and I think there will probably be a decent number of Olympics-related hooks; I at least plan to write a good number of them. I was thinking we might be able to do something like one Olympics hook per day for the duration of the event, similar to how we did for the FIFA World Cup. Thoughts?
BeanieFan11 (
talk)
20:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Indeed. I coordinated something like that for the last Olympics and had been planning on offering that service once more. Schwede6621:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think this is a good idea. If I were to promote that set, I'd run all the checks anyway. Partly because I have a work flow, and partly because if I'm going to publish something over my signature, I'm going to satisfy myself that it's correct. So all you've done by adding this note would be to create additional work for me because I'd have to figure out what's going on and then edit the hook to get rid of the note.
RoySmith(talk)00:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
BeanieFan11: I'm still feeling pretty green at DYK so I'd prefer for someone else to take care of this if possible. I'm also out and won't be on PC tonight to take care of this. I have no objections to it though.
Hey man im josh (
talk)
21:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Note that this should be a subsection within the existing special occasion section, not a separate section. I have adjusted accordingly. I don't understand why the Solomon Islands hook—not shown above but in the section itself—is listed for the day before the Olympics starts; it looks like one that could run any time during the actual Olympics, which the article on the games lists as July 26 through August 11.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
15:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I’ll add it to the table. Things got somewhat crowded last time, hence my thinking of running everything that’s not 2024 Olympics as a warmup beforehand. Schwede6619:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Schwede66, in that case the lede of the article is wrong. It should be made clear there that while the opening ceremony is on 26 July, the competition itself begins on 24 July. No objection to the Solomon Islands hook running on 25 July if the Olympics themselves have already begun by then; I see no reason why it can't run during the Olympics themselves on a date where there isn't anything more appropriate. I don't think it should be a "warmup" hook, however.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
03:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I've put the line "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" into action and amended the lead of the
2024 Summer Olympics to spell out that some competitions start on 24 July. I'm easy about running "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics" during the Olympics if there's room if that's what others prefer; I note we have threefour five of those hooks. Schwede6603:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Ok, it's not too crowded this time (yet). I'll move the "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics" hooks to show during the Olympics. Schwede6605:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I shall eat my words. It's getting rather crowded; should have started running the warmup hooks earlier including the "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics". I don't think that we'll have a chance of limiting the sets to two Olympic hooks even if we shuffle things around; it seems we'll have more than two on average for the duration of the Olympics. Schwede6600:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Do others share that concern? I don't think that Summer versus Winter Olympics is a big stretch. I note that there are four Winter Olympics hooks in the table above. The other thought is that any hook will have to run at some point, so why not have Olympic-adjacent hooks run just before the Summer Olympics? Schwede6610:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Some of the Olympic hooks need a bit more attention from reviewers, or nominators are dragging the chain with QPQs. For example,
Prep 1 is already filled but there's still one hook that awaits its QPQ.
Prep 2 is filling up but a review for
this nomination hasn't even been started yet. I'd be happy to do some shuffling but there's nothing really to shuffle this with; further down, the hooks are all timed for particular occasions. Shifting items back into the Olympics proper is also tricky as almost all days have two or three items already. I'd most appreciate if those who can stand reviewing sports articles can give this some attention. Schwede6609:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No, you are all good, Launchballer. What isn't good is
the Zhang Ziyu nomination. I'm not sure why the reviewer isn't signing off on it. Could someone else please check that the remaining issue ("sources vary") has been dealt with to satisfaction? This should go into
Prep 1, and I've just made a hole for it (the prep set was already full). Schwede6621:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If I'm reading that correctly, your only contribution was to add in 'at least', which was BeanieFan's suggestion anyway, and to swap cm and inches, which adds no extra information. I wouldn't say you was involved.--Launchballer21:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, maybe I wasn't – I'm just trying to make sure to not even give the impression of INVOLVED. Either way,
Bruxton has filled that gap once more. Schwede6622:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have queried, at
Zhang Ziyu's nomination, why an article on an athlete who is not participating and has not participated in an Olympics is part of this "drive" and needs to run on 24 July. Looking at
this comment, it seems that the original expectation was for very few hooks to come in and lots of supplementary hooks to have to be used, but now we're overflowing with hooks! From the table below, it seems that some days are now scheduled to have three Olympics hooks run, which is over the
maximum of two per set. Why can't some of them be moved to run earlier?
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
22:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You appear to be keen to obstruct that Zhang Ziyu not be promoted to Prep1, therefore practically pushing it into later sets. How does that align with your desire to bring other Olympic-related hooks forward? Isn't that a contradiction? Schwede6622:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Zhang Ziyu is not Olympics-related, along with many other sports nominations which won't be run until after the Olympics are over because of
WP:DYKVAR (
1,
2,
34,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10). I have also noticed and tagged new Olympics-related nominations which aren't in the table yet, such as
Template:Did you know nominations/Lê Đức Phát, and more will surely appear shortly. It seems very foolish to prioritise including Zhang Ziyu, who will not compete at the Olympics, when this drive has nominations ready to be prepped on people who actually are competing! I can bet that by the end of this, we will be looking at an entire set of hooks for the final day.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
23:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Today's main page was significantly unbalanced and I've addressed that by removing one OTD hook and adding a tenth DYK hook, for which I chose Zhang Ziyu. I've issued the credits manually; I did all this some 15 minutes after midnight UTC. Schwede6601:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Here's a summary of how many hooks we've got, and when they are scheduled to run:
Suggested date
Q / Prep
Hooks 18 Jul
Hooks 19 Jul
Hooks 21 Jul
21-Jul
Queue5
2
2
2
22-Jul
Prep6
2
2
2
23-Jul
Prep7
2
2
2
24-Jul
Prep1
2
2
2
25-Jul
Prep2
2
2
2
26-Jul
Prep3
2
2
3
27-Jul
Prep4
2
2
2
28-Jul
Prep5
3
3
3
29-Jul
Prep6
2
4
3
30-Jul
Prep7
3
3
5
31-Jul
Prep1
3
3
2
1-Aug
Prep2
2
2
3
2-Aug
Prep3
2
2
2
3-Aug
Prep4
2
3
2
4-Aug
Prep5
1
2
2
5-Aug
Prep6
2
2
1
6-Aug
Prep7
2
2
1
7-Aug
Prep1
2
2
1
8-Aug
Prep2
1
1
1
9-Aug
Prep3
1
1
2
10-Aug
Prep4
3
3
3
As can be seen:
There are three days when we have three hooks.
Two of those three-a-day sets occur when all prior sets have two hooks, i.e. there is nothing we can do about it (other than delaying for the third hook to run until after the scheduled day).
The third occasion of a three-a-day set is on 10 August, and there are currently three days (4, 8, and 9 Aug) when one of those hooks could run early.
Given how it's going, I would expect that we get more nominations, and those one-a-day sets may get busier.
Therefore, we have to agree whether we would be happy with three Olympic-related hooks per set. Delaying Olympic-related hooks that are already approved is definitely not helping. Schwede6622:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
For the record, and having thought about it overnight, I would be happy with three Olympic hooks so long as they are adequately separated, so long as they are all Olympic-related. I think two Olympic hooks and a non-Olympic sports hook is a tougher ask. The Zhang Ziyu nomination is less than two weeks old, I don't think there's any danger of it timing out. Happy to hear alternative perspectives on this.--Launchballer11:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
We currently have four hooks for 29 July / Prep6; this is the next prep set that will become available. That sounds too many, however, only one of those hooks is currently at SOHA. One hook, a
swimmer starting for Israel, hasn't had the review started yet. There may well be a reluctance to "touch" anything Israel, so this might not make it. The two other hooks are both awaiting
BeanieFan11 to provide a QPQ. Thus, at this point in time, we only have one viable hook from four candidates. When Prep6 becomes available, I'll thus bring one of the "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics" hooks forward so that we've at least got two hooks to go. Schwede6620:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Of the four hooks for 29 July, one of them is Suriname at the 1960 Summer Olympics, which can run on any day. I think that one should run on a different day.--Launchballer21:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
That is true, but it's currently the only hook that's ready. As it's a "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics" hook, it's not a good idea to bring another one of this type forward into that set, though. If the three hooks aren't ready, we can always run
Template:Did you know nominations/Zhang Ziyu as the second hook if someone wanted to sign that off. Schwede6623:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
July 30 will have two "first" hooks (Alyssa Mendoza is in prep 7, and Andy Barat is in SOHA). Do we really want two such hooks in the same prep, even if they are fully verified?
SL93 (
talk)
21:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your comment,
SL93. The bigger concern that I have is that we have way too many Olympic hooks for 30 July. Here's the two hooks in question:
If we were to do that, we'd get the nominations for 30 July from five to four. As I suggested the combined hook, I'd feel more comfortable if someone else copied it into Prep7.
Four Olympic hooks is still one too many. We have two nominations for triathlon (
Shachar Sagiv and
Matthew Wright) but I just cannot think of a good double hook for them. The two hooks that are signed off are those that we can combine into one. If the other three hooks all get signed off in time, I suggest we need to cull one of them. I suggest that be the
hook for Matthew Wright as it was nominated significantly later than
the one for Sagiv (20 July and 11 June, respectively). Just putting this out here for transparency; whilst I did not write the Sagiv article (an IP did), I did nominate it. Schwede6602:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
We have consensus for ALT1 or ALT1a. Could somebody who is uninvolved please do the honours and edit the Mendoza hook in Prep7 and add Barat to the mix? Schwede6606:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I promoted it. I am slightly involved, but I boldly acted on it because it doesn't seem worthwhile to wait because it might mess up other prep builders who haven't read this far into the discussion.
SL93 (
talk)
13:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for doing that,
SL93. Much appreciated. I've seen that you have since filled the last few spots in
Prep 6. Did you see that the Suriname hook is still in the SOHA for that set? Schwede6623:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah, I see. I didn't read that as there not being consensus; I thought we were just fine-tuning. I wonder whether
Arcahaeoindris as reviewer is equally unaware / mis-reading the situation that it requires a further sign off? Schwede6623:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Just noting here that I merged the Sagiv and Matthew Wright hooks into one - my merged hook used nothing but information from two approved hooks, so this should be okay.--Launchballer01:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I've made a space in prep for it. It's nearly five in the morning where I am so I'm probably too groggy to promote it properly, but that should tell a prep-to-queuer to back off for a few hours. (Does nominating on the IP's behalf make you involved? I don't think it does.)--Launchballer03:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
You can shuffle the "foo at the yyyy…" hooks around at will,
SL93. It doesn’t matter when they run. Looking at the table, there are currently two hooks for each of those days, so I would go with that. Schwede6622:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have updated the list here wrt prep/queue 6. If I was to make a personal call on the Philippines article, though I imagine the disparity doesn't need immediately addressing because prep builders won't get there for a few days, I would say August 2 as otherwise (per this list) those two days would be unbalanced in number of Olympics hooks.
Kingsif (
talk)
22:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The 1924 Philippines article seems a shoo-in for a non-that hook, like last month's most successful hook. Maybe something like "why the Philippines held two flags at the opening ceremony of the 1924 Summer Olympics?"--Launchballer13:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Would we rather that, or the
Liechtenstein hook to be "... why Liechtenstein decided to use a different flag in the opening ceremony of the 1936 Summer Olympics?" (would also mean more difference between it and the
previous Haiti one) If neither of Philippines/Liechtenstein is set to run soon, we could workshop it.
Kingsif (
talk)
22:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There'll be some special date requests coming in and to avoid filling up individual hook sets with too much sport, I suggest we co-ordinate what will run when to spread things out in a logical fashion. I suspect that we'll stay in a 24-hour cycle for the duration of the event but if that changes, we can accommodate that as well. Time zone–wise, Paris is currently at UTC+02:00 (
Central European Summer Time or CEST), hence there are no mental gymnastics necessary as long as we stay in the 24-hour cycle. Comments welcome. Helpers are welcome and essential; I certainly don't want to do this all by myself as this was quite a bit of work some three years ago for the Tokyo Olympics. And with regards to my own special interests, I shall tell you that
the Kiwi rowers are in good shape; I can hear the medals clinking already! Schwede6601:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
For Weintraub, the best that I can come up with is: that after having been an unused alternate at the Tokyo Olympics, Maia Weintraub is now qualified for fencing at the Paris Olympics? That probably won't be seen as interesting enough. I'll deal with the other articles; thanks for your good work. Schwede6620:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks,
BeanieFan11. I've processed Hannesdóttir but can't think of a good hook for Nir'on. Chances are that his Danish grandparents had to leave Denmark during WWII and if so, that connection and him also being able to play for Denmark could yield a viable hook. But
SuperJew would have to do more work on that aspect. Schwede6603:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Tried to have a look. Can't find anything about his grandparents having to leave, and even added that his father played for a Danish club in 1996-97. It seems the main reason Denmark (national team and the Danish club) were interested in trialling him and offering a contract is because of his heritage and if he was a regular visa/foreigner they wouldn't have bothered. It's an interesting saying on how heritage (one might even say luck) can open up doors. I'm not sure about how to word it though as a DYK and I understand if it's a bit too vague for a viable hook. --
SuperJew (
talk)
09:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
BeanieFan11 and
Schwede66: Here's an interesting switch. Nir'on was promoted today from alternate player to the regular 18-player squad for the Olympics due to an injury to Daniel Peretz. It's also interesting that his first big chance in the U21 level was due to Peretz withdrawing (was called-up to the senior team). I think that could make an interesting hook if worded well. --
SuperJew (
talk)
19:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh dear. Things are getting really crowded!
BeanieFan11, I've noticed that many of your sports bios are flagbearers. Shall we go for a mass hook hook to get rid of many individual nominations as possible? Something like so:
If that sounds like a good idea, could you please identify the flagbearers, BeanieFan11? We would be aiming for
Prep 3, and
Camil Doua is in that set for the reason of being her country's flagbearer. Amended – have since figured who the flagbearers are and I think there's three of them. Two of them have yet to be reviewed; volunteers welcome. Schwede6602:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Reviewed, approved. I'll give it a few hours for the bot to move it to the approved page, then move it to SOHA if nobody beats me to it.
Kingsif (
talk)
23:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Schwede66: How about this: we put Doua as a standalone hook when he competes (I really like that hook), and merge all the other flagbearers into the hook to be featured at the opening ceremony date – that'd include Hannesdottir, Duc Phat, Nettasinghe, Grippoli, and Farro (and might write one or two more today – as well as get the QPQs). Alright?
BeanieFan11 (
talk)
14:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm ok with leaving Doua out of the mass hook as we have a rather cool ALT for him. I don't think it's a good idea at all you writing more bios for Prep3; that's already open, you have a ton out outstanding QPQs (please concentrate on those), and we need reviewers. I just can't see this all getting reviewed in time,
BeanieFan11. Schwede6619:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Just a heads up that I've got a week of little available time coming up:
I may be out for most of tomorrow (Wed, 24 Jul)
I will be out for all of Thu, 25 Jul
I will have limited availability on Fri, 26 Jul
I will be out for all of Sat and Sun, 27&28 Jul
I will have limited availability on Mon, 29 Jul
I will be out for all of Tue, 30 Jul
I may be out for most of Wed, 31 Jul
After that, things should be back to normal. Hence, it might be a good idea if others take the lead.
Kingsif, you were asking whether there's something where you could help – here's your chance. Last time,
Joseph2302 did a lot of good work – would you be interested to step up?
What needs doing? Here's a hopefully complete list:
Respond to new nominations if they come up and slot them into a logical spot in the table below, but it would also be fine to say "thanks, but no thanks – it's too late in the process". That's up to you.
Once a day, I update the status items in the table below:
items will go from prep to queue, or will have been published on the main page
items will go from "Review not yet started" to "under review" to "At SOHA"
in the column "prep set", add new preps as they become available
Keep an eye on nominations that move close to prep sets becoming available and encourage those who are involved in getting on with it. For example, there are about half a dozen QPQs outstanding and nudging usually results in action.
Shuffle things around in prep if needed; encourage promoters to put things into prep if you don't want to do it yourself.
Ping admins if things need to move around in queue.
If I think of anything else, I'll add that to the list. It's reasonably late in the process (the first competitions will start tomorrow) and all the structural issues are sorted. It just needs some low-level maintenance at this point. Schwede6623:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Wow, that's a lot of work, I'm impressed you've handled it all yourself so far. I can probably manage a daily check of new nominations and promoting hooks to newly available preps.
Kingsif (
talk)
23:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks,
Kingsif. Yes, that is a lot, but it's be much less work now than it was in the beginning. Anyway, if you haven't got time for everything, I suggest the following two priority items:
Place approved noms into the special occasion holding area
Update the table so that there's an overview for prep builders, yourself, etc
I'd say that new nominations is the least important part. As it stands, we have enough. To accommodate more, you'd have to look around which hooks can be merged, which requires thinking time, much reading, discussion, i.e. a lot of work is involved in that. Schwede6623:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Schwede66: Just nominated
Kim Ye-ji (sport shooter). I suspect it would be a mad dash to get her in for tomorrow (although there is a 'foo at the Olympic Games' hook that could be swapped out), but she might be useful to run on the date of the closing ceremony. (She literally went viral a couple of days ago.)--Launchballer10:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
This hook names
Femke Bol who is due to compete in Paris. We have a second (double-)hook that names here, hence I suggest we run this as the first warm-up hook to put as much time between the two appearance of Bol as possible. This would lend itself as the picture hook as we've got a good photo.
One of the warm-up hooks; can run on any date before the Olympics start (24 is in fact the first day of competitions but we haven't got anything for that day yet). This double-hook has already had its admin checks done (by
Cwmhiraeth)
Flagbearer – Doua is competing in the
men's 100 metre freestyle and the heats will be on 30 July. Problem is that we have two hooks for that date already. As Doua is flagbearer for
Mauritania, the opening ceremony date is a perfectly viable alternative. Agreed for this to be a standalone hook for its rather cool hook fact.
Flagbearer – part of the mass hook. Otherwise, Lê is going to compete in
men's singles badminton, with the preliminary round every day from 27 to 31 July inclusive. Any of those days would thus also work.
Flagbearer – part of the mass hook. Late addition to the set. The nomination page is already closed; if you'd like to review this, please use the nomination talk page to do so.
potential lead hookOliveira will compete in
women's artistic team all-around, with qualifications on 28 July. That's the third hook for that day. The nominator says that the team will most likely make it to the finals, to be held on 30 July, but we've got two hooks for that day already, so that's not a good alternative.
My preference would be for this hook to run on 28 July, when the heats and semi-finals in 100 m backstroke will be held. Problem is that we have three Olympic hooks for that date already. Given that he's quite good, there is a chance that he'll make the final on 29 July. Hence let's take the gamble and go for that day.
Submitted on 18 July hence this one might not make it in time. Alvares de Oliveira is going to compete in
men's foil fencing, with all competitions to be held on 29 July.
Barat is going to compete in the
men's slalom K-1, and that competition has its heats on 30 July. That's unfortunately the third article for this date. Before you promote to prep, please see the discussion above about combining this with the
Alyssa Mendoza hook.
Nominated to DYK late in the process. Wright is set to compete in the
men's triathlon, which is scheduled for 30 July starting at 8:00. Is there an opportunity to combine the two triathletes in this set into one hook if both nominations get reviewed in time?
The U.S. team plays in the preliminary round on 28 and 31 July and on 3 August. We already have too many hooks for 28 July, so any of the other two options will work better.
Walker is going to compete in the
women's 3x3 basketball competition and they are playing a round robin
round-robin tournament from 30 July to 3 August, playing every day. Hence, there's heaps of flexibility moving this hook around to suit.
Ausmus is competing in the
women's water polo tournament in Group B, with preliminary round games held on 27, 29, and 31 July, and a game on 2 August. Any of those dates are suitable.
Kazbekova is due to compete in
women's combined sport climbing, with semifinals for the two competition elements (boulder and lead) split over two days: 6 & 8 August. Hence, this can run on either date.
Well, that's our third female breakdancer. We really shouldn't have three individuals hooks for breakdancers on the same day. I've suggested a hook with this nomination and propose that we close the other two nominations and transfer the credits across.
Mahdavi is set to compete in the
men's freestyle 74 kg wrestling, with the qualification round on 9 August. As we'll combine the breaker hooks, this is only the second hook for that day.
@
Bruxton,
Ergo Sum, and
Sohom: substantial copying from press.vatican.va (
earwig report). It's not just the stuff that shows up in red in the report, but as you read through the text, it's obvious that this was just copied with a few words changed here and there. Needs a substantial rewrite, not just more minor sentence tweaks.
RoySmith(talk)14:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I did not copy and paste from the Vatican's website. The reality is that there are only so many ways to phrase basic, factual information. I wouldn't even know how else to convey the titles and years differently without adding needless extra verbiage.
Ergo Sum14:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SL93,
Kimikel, and
Lajmmoore: there's nothing wrong per-se, but the blow-my-socks-off story is that there was a German colony in Texas. As an American (albeit a neoyorquino), when I think of Texas history I think Mexican, and by extension Spanish. I was schocked to discover there was a German colony. If that could be emphasized more, it would make a much stronger hook.
RoySmith(talk)14:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
SL93,
Arconning, and
Flemmish Nietzsche: a particularly troublesome "first" hook. I'm willing to accept that the NFL or MLB keep detailed records which can back up these kinds of hooks, but a game played in the 1500s? The source, while nominally the Vatican newspaper, really looks like more of a blog, written in the first person ("He introduced me to many friends with whom I shared a passion for football"). I see lots of other mentions of this, but most don't give their source and those that do all point back to this one.
RoySmith(talk)14:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Also, "the first-ever match of calcio fiorentino" from the hook was in 1521 according to the article, but
Calcio storico fiorentino tells us that "a match was organized on the Arno River in 1490" for something believed to be at least a close variant. Perhaps the "first-ever match" was the first ever match using Vatican City's particular version of calcio storico rules. Unsurprisingly it was played in the Vatican.
I wanted to suggest to use the Popes who played calcio storico as a hook, but the source actually says they played calcio storico in their youth, before they became popes. —
Kusma (
talk)
19:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I mean, I would believe the Vatican keeps watertight records from the 1500s. To the point, is it perhaps referring to the first game of calcio played in the Vatican?
Kingsif (
talk)
21:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The catholic church kept great records about a lot of things. Marriages, births, deaths, who was a pope. I'd trust those things. Not ballgames.
RoySmith(talk)02:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
RoySmith The article is about an interview conducted to Sergio Valci, a prominent figure in Vatican football, that's why it's written in the first person. It was also conducted by Giampaolo Mattei, a prominent journalist in Vatican City. The hook is probably worded incorrectly, I'd say it should be worded as "with a match of calcio..."
Arconning (
talk)
04:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There are books with snippet view in Google books that mention the match. The source is apparently Benedetto Fantini, a diplomat who wrote about the match to his employer. Both teams came from Florence and Leo X, a
Medici, watched for four hours.
TSventon (
talk)
18:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It doesn't.
Arconning suggested replacing "the first-ever match of calcio fiorentino" with "a match of calcio fiorentino". I am also dubious about "that sport in Vatican City officially began in the 16th century", which is another way of saying "first".
TSventon (
talk)
23:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Or, looking one sentence beyond that in the article, we could do:
ALT5: ... that although Sport in Vatican City has been seen as a way to express Catholic spirituality and principles, the church opposed the participation of women?
The article doesn't quite say this, but it's based on a footnote in the cited source: "28 ... the intransigent hostility of the Church to women's participation in sport" so would require a little adjustment of the article text. Including the anti-woman sentiment would make this a much stronger hook.
RoySmith(talk)13:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not really rewriting. The article already says seemingly negative opinions towards the advancement of sport involving women, especially women's gymnastics. It just needs a little tweaking to better tie that to the source.
RoySmith(talk)14:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The main issue with ALT3 is it being based upon two events that occurred centuries before Vatican City was created, one almost two millennia before.
CMD (
talk)
13:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I googled "I or me after than" and the numerous hits suggest that both I and me are acceptable, so I would stick with the current version.
TSventon (
talk)
16:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Requesting an
WP:IAR exemption for a nomination being older than 7 days
I am here to request that
Template:Did you know nominations/Babydog be given an exemption to the rule on being new enough, as the page was undergoing an AFD discussion after it was created. The nominator,
User:Thriley, still needs to do a Quid Pro Quo review, but once that's done I would like the page to have a chance. I think that this is a case where
WP:IAR is probably safe to invoke.
Di (they-them) (
talk)
19:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Fine by me. To be honest, I'm listening for a good reason why time at AfD should count as part of the seven days, given that nominations have to go on hold during that period anyway.--Launchballer10:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The page existed for one day before the AfD, and was nominated in the second day post AfD-closure. I also do not feel AfD time should count towards the limit, forcing nominations for pages that end up getting deleted is a potential waste of reviewer time.
CMD (
talk)
13:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
We explicitly allow an extra day or two beyond the seven on request; this is a third day, so no big stretch especially given the confusion around AfDs. It's best to nominate anyway, so there isn't a question; not all AfDs are settled so expeditiously, and I'd be reluctant to accept a three-week-old nomination. We automatically put nominations on hold when we know they're at AfD (usually with the "/" icon) so they aren't reviewed during the wait, which renders the "potential waste of reviewer time" argument moot.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
18:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I do kind of agree that there should be an explicit rule that time during an AfD is not counted toward the "newness" counter.
SilverserenC18:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It also prevents someone from trying to spuriously game the system against another editor by nominating their new article for AfD even if there's little chance for it being deleted. Since they could still delay things long enough with the AfD (especially with low participation rates in AfDs nowadays) that it goes past the time limit, particularly if the creator was nearer to the end of the 7 day period for nomination.
SilverserenC19:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think your scenario is much of an issue (I've never heard of such a case of gaming the system ever happening), the issue is really more of articles currently at AfD being nominated while at AfD to meet the requirement.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions)
01:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Please see
Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher Columbus (Zador). When I originally worked on this the special occasion date hadn't occurred to me. It wasn't until I got around to nominating it that I realized that the 85th anniversary of the opera was this year, and that it would also work for a
Columbus Day hook. We are currently 10 to 11 weeks away from those dates. Any objections to running this for a special occasion even though it is about a month early for the 6 week window period?
4meter4 (
talk)
17:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The source which supposedly supported the hook did not pass verification
The first hook suggested in the
nomination didn't pass verification either
My impression is that this didn't go well because the source wasn't clearly identified, was behind a paywall and wasn't quoted. Note that the nomination was professional paid work and so one would expect a high standard. So it goes...
WP:ERRORS discussion
This is another blatant
weasel – who estimates this? And it's obviously not a "
definite fact which is unlikely to change" as there are a range of estimates. The hook discussion started with the figure of "three times" and it appears that such estimates are unreliable because the article repeatedly says that the topic has not been well-studied. Other issues include:
The ceiling is obviously a lot higher than 9 and I reckon the sky's the limit. Consider the case of Wikipedia. This was developed on a shoestring using open source software. But now the WMF has a large staff and a huge budget. As I understand it, the staff headcount has gone from half a person to over 700 – that's a factor of about 1,400. And much of the code is still the same legacy stack.
Deciding what is development and what is maintenance is often an arbitrary accounting decision. For example, consider
Vector 2022. Is that new development or maintenance of the existing system? The article indicates that it would be considered "enhancement" and so classified as maintenance but it's all still a matter of subjective definition.
Changes are often incremental and so there's the
Ship of Theseus problem. At what point is a system a new creation?
The supposed hook fact does not seem to be clearly stated in the article. I've searched for "nine" and "9" and can't find it.
The idea that you can generalise in a definite way about such varied activity and systems is inherently suspect. See
all models are wrong.
0. "Who estimates this?" Ulziit, Bayarbuyan; Warraich, Zeeshan Akhtar; Gencel, Cigdem; Petersen, Kai. If you look closely, you'll realise that the definite fact is the estimation, not the costs.
"I reckon the sky's the limit. Consider the case of Wikipedia." Well, if you happen to note these considerations of yours in a
reliable source, we can take them into account. Until then, we prefer to avoid
original research.
"it's all still a matter of subjective definition" Yes, that's why we leave it to
reliable sources to do the research.
AirshipJungleman29 seems to be referring to this source:
Ulziit, Bayarbuyan; Warraich, Zeeshan Akhtar; Gencel, Cigdem; Petersen, Kai (2015). "A conceptual framework of challenges and solutions for managing global software maintenance". Journal of Software: Evolution and Process. 27 (10): 763–792.
doi:
10.1002/smr.1720..
On the cited page 764, this states
The maintenance phase is the longest part of software lifecycle and, in most cases, also the most expensive. For the last several decades, the cost of software maintenance is continuously growing. In the 1970s, the costs were around 60%, while in the 1990s and 2000s, the reported costs increased to about 90% and more.
Note that this says "90% and more" and so the hook is clearly inconsistent by stating "up to nine times". This hook should be pulled as the source does not verify it but instead contradicts it.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
18:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
i tried to fix this hook in a hurry (the previous one didn't verify at all) and came out with this one, my bad :) how about we change the wording so that the hook matches the source?
theleekycauldron (
talk • she/her)
19:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I noticed that theleekycauldron correctly
challenged the original hook which was "... that maintenance of existing software is estimated to cost more than three times as much as its development? ". The source for that wasn't quoted in the nomination and failed verification and we have the same problem with the version that's now on the main page. As I noted above, these generalisations are too fuzzy to be presented as definite facts and they are very subject to change as the technology and techniques move fast. Just pull it, please, and we should then start a post mortem.
Andrew🐉(
talk)
20:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not clear what you expect to happen here. If there's problems with the article, go fix them, or discuss them on the article's talk page. If you have a problem with
the nom accepting money, take it up with them. They were totally up-front about it (which puts them ahead of like 99.9% of our paid editors) and sounds like it more or less falls under
WP:GLAM. If you just want to complain about the fact that DYK's quality control isn't as good as it should be, I agree, but our energy would be better spent working on upcoming noms than wringing our hands about yesterday's.
RoySmith(talk)14:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I have considerable experience of software maintenance and, when this is done professionally, issues are normally logged when they arise. This provides an audit trail and record which then enables further action, lessons-learned and so forth. I gather there's some sort of DYK reform process underway per
Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed/2023–24. And, in any case, there's an implicit
continual improvement process and the first requirement for that is feedback. Such feedback is best done here because
WP:ERRORS is ephemeral and keeps no records.
As for the article in question, I was thinking of starting a
good article reassessment but first I'll have to read through it again and mull over its issues. I can already see that it has some but it will take time and effort and nobody is paying me to do this.
As for upcoming noms, I have one myself and there's no shortage of other things to do. "
Excelsior!"
Browsing this talk page now I'm here, I notice that problems with this hook were noticed 6 days ago – see
Prep_5 above. In that discussion,
Black Kite says "This hook doesn't work. Even if we assume that the book source is correct (which I can't check)..." So, right there we see the problem of being unable to access the source upon which the hook depended. You can't conduct a sensible discussion if you can't see the details. Relevant quotations should be mandatory in such cases.
Another structural problem is the habit of naming such sections with names like "Prep 5" rather than with an article name. There are currently two sections on this page called "Prep 5" and this is both confusing and lacking in context about the actual topic(s). I named this current section "Software maintenance" because that is the name of the topic. How hard is that?
Andrew Davidson, you reported somewhere a while back that every morning, you read the main page and dive into some of the topics to see what's written is actually correct. And you unearth numerous problems by doing so. I very much appreciate your efforts and applaud you for doing this good work.
The only downside is that when you go through your breakfast routine, items are already live. How much more useful would it be if you offered your wonderful service before things appear on the main page? Are you aware that
Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow offers you the main page a day in advance? I wonder whether if you could slightly adjust your routine and read that page instead? Your work is much appreciate, and having your feedback and thoughts 24 hours earlier would be immensely valuable. Schwede6620:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I wasn't aware of the
Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow link and might give it a try, thanks. I'm not sure how accurate it is though. Most of my main page activity currently is for the
WP:ITN section and that is updated continuously rather than on a daily schedule. And how does the tomorrow view deal with DYK when the hook sets only last for 12 hours?
The actual main page is always likely to get the lion's share of attention because it's the default view when I go to the Wikipedia site or load the Wikipedia app. If one starts looking at other pages then one is literally not on the same page and that seems quite lonely. Is there a talk page or noticeboard associated with the tomorrow view? That might help in building a community of forward-looking reviewers.
how does the tomorrow view deal with DYK when the hook sets only last for 12 hours? If I had my druthers, we would take the whole idea of 12-hour updates and nuke it from orbit. It is antithetical to improving quality. Anybody can shovel manure twice as fast, but I'm not willing to play that game.
I also come from a software engineering background; bug trackers, post-mortems, standup meetings, OKRs, pagers, the whole smash. The advantage of my "job" at wikipedia is if I don't feel like working, I just don't, and I don't have to tell anybody why, nor do I have to justify that I didn't get done what I thought I would get done this quarter.
RoySmith(talk)22:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
It was before my time, but yes I remember back when DYK used to do four sets a day (and also had the "from Wikipedia's newest content" flavor text). Do we have the discussions that led to the retirement of both? By the time I started my DYK career in 2016 it was already down to two sets a day at most.
Narutolovehinata5 (
talk ·
contributions)
01:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
on
WP:ERRORS, there are links to the current, next, and next-but-one DYK, regardless of cycle length :) also, yes, let's not do 12-hour sets anymore. Instead, we should do one set per day of eight to nine hooks and they should all be bangers.
theleekycauldron (
talk • she/her)
01:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
@
DYK admins:
Queue 1 is missing the {{DYKbotdo}}. Rather than attempt to fix it myself and possibly make it worse, could somebody who understands these page formats better than I do please take a look? Thanks.
RoySmith(talk)16:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think all that's needed is a {{DYKbotdo}} in the following format:
The hooks below have been approved by an administrator (
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)) and will be automatically added to the DYK template at the appropriate time.
Fixed I’ve also looked why it was missing and it’s step 2 of the admin instructions (Moving a prep to queue) that wasn’t done when manually moving a prep to queue.
Cwmhiraeth, do you always promote manually? Using PSHAW prevents this from happening. Schwede6618:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
... that the music video for "Tobey", in which
Eminem carves into his own alter ego with a chainsaw, was delayed by three days?
@
Launchballer, @
Dxneo, @
Arconning, @
AirshipJungleman29: The three-day delay does not seem all that interesting or hooky to me, and distracts from the main point of interest, which is Eminiem killing off Slim Shady. I see from the nom that there were DYKFICTION concerns, but I don't think adding an unrelated fact about a short delay as a fig leaf makes a difference in that respect, as the Slim Shady element is still the part of the hook that anybody cares about. (If the hook was "that the music video for "Tobey" was delayed by three days", are you interested? No.)
Personally, I'm inclined to say that there's not a DYKFICTION issue. Eminem is a real person, and Slim Shady is an alter ego that he uses in real life, so we're clearly tied into "the real world in some way". The point isn't that a fictional character got killed, the point is that Eminem is metaphorically leaving his childish persona behind to (theoretically) mature as an artist.
Would anybody object to a reword to something like:
... that the music video for "Tobey" features
Eminem killing his
alter ego Slim Shady with a chainsaw?
I disagree. As I understand it, Slim Shady is an entirely fictional alter ego that Eminem uses within the context of songs to emphasise dark themes. He is entirely at liberty to do whatever he likes with the character, as explained in
WP:DYKFICTION. The music video could equally hypothetically feature Slim Shady travelling to the Hundred Acre Wood and meeting Winnie the Pooh, or preventing World War One, or getting married to Barack Obama, or ... you get the point. It's fiction.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
10:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
If you're that opposed, Airship, I don't understand why you would promote the hook in that form. Is it your position that the unrelated factoid about a real-life three-day delay makes the Slim Shady element somehow acceptable, even though on its own you feel it would be unacceptable? ♠
PMC♠
(talk)10:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
How about either "that the music video for "Tobey", which had been delayed by three days, saw
Eminem carve into his own alter ego with a chainsaw" or "that the belated music video for "Tobey" saw
Eminem carve into his own alter ego with a chainsaw?".--Launchballer10:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
My point is that it makes no sense to note the three-day delay at all. If the mention of Eminem "killing" Slim Shady is in violation of DKYFICTION, why is it suddenly not in violation as long as we say the video was delayed? What does that have to do with the rest of it? It would be different if the video was delayed because of the chainsaw imagery for some reason, but it wasn't, so as it stands, we've strapped this unrelated and boring little factoid to the interesting part of the hook as a nonsensical
fig leaf to protect against DYKFICTION. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)11:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Pinging @
Closed Limelike Curves,
Sawyer777, and
AirshipJungleman29: Unless I am missing something obvious, there is no explanation, either in the target article or in the 1876 election article (in which the word "rounding" isn't mentioned at all), as to why a faulty rounding procedure led to the result of the election. There's a source, but there's no explanation.
Black Kite (talk)12:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The explanation seems to be that "a pretext was found" to add 9 extra seats in addition to the numbers calculated and that was enough to change the result of the election. See page 37 of Fair representation.
TSventon (
talk)
13:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, indeed, but again (a) that isn't explained in either article, and (b) if I'm clicking on that hook I want to know why a rounding issue changed the result, and I would be disappointed.
Black Kite (talk)14:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry to be a pain here, but unless I'm really missing something, the reference doesn't explain why the nine additional seats - which appear to be the cause of the problem - were produced by a rounding error.
Black Kite (talk)15:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't think the sourcing in our present article is in any way adequate for its heavy editorialization present in the article. The single line of text about this material in the source given in the article is "the malapportionment of the 1870s was directly responsible for the 1876 election of Rutherford B. Hayes, although his opponent enjoyed 51.6 percent of the vote". This is used to support claims that (1) the apportionment happened in 1870, (2) that it tilted the electors by 9 votes, (3) that these seats were given out in an arbitrary manner (rather than, say, by following a standard rule of apportionment and choosing the number of seats to be apportioned in an advantageous way, which might be unfair but is not arbitrary, (4) that the Webster method is unbiased, and (5) that the Webster method would have given 9 fewer votes to the Republicans. None of these article claims are present in the source. As for the hook, it claims that (1) the highest averages method is "correct" in some sense that other standard methods are not, (2) that the apportionment was made by Congress, (3) that the malapportionment was caused by Congress not rounding correctly (rather than, say, by rounding correctly but choosing numbers that caused the rounding to come out in favor of one party), and that (4) this determined the outcome of the presidential election; only (4) is supported by the source. We need much better sourcing before this hook can run. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
20:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I think I agree with you on the implication/phrasing of this hook being a bit off, although really my comment on failing to use the correct rounding procedure is driven by the fact that, at the time, the law actually specified Hamilton's method, while convention suggested Webster's (used from 1840-1860). How about:
The fun fact I want this to be about is something like "the 1876 election was decided by a literal rounding error", but I'm not 100% sure where I'd link to the page.
Closed Limelike Curves (
talk)
22:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
[dubious]. The source does not say they made a rounding error, which to me can only mean that they attempted a specific calculation but produced the incorrect result of the calculation. Instead your added page 37 states that they duly enacted into law Hamilton's method in 1850, rather than Webster's method, and then followed the enacted method for years afterward. There are strong arguments why Webster's method would have been more a more fair method, but enacting a method and then following it is not an error at all. So without much better sourcing we cannot use a hook calling this method or their calculations incorrect (rather than what it appears to be to me, merely a different opinion on how to prioritize the inevitable imprecisions that result from all rounding methods).
Look, some allocation methods prioritize smaller groups, making sure that all get a seat at the table. Some prioritize getting all allocations as accurate as possible, or as fair as possible, both of which can be measured in different ways. Some penalize smaller groups and favor the larger groups, maybe to streamline the process by keeping fewer parties or maybe because the larger groups are the ones that set the policies. These are political decisions. They are not matters of mathematical correctness. Different methods have different advantages and disadvantages and different people at different times can reasonably disagree over which of those are most salient to their situation. We should not, in Wikipedia's voice, designate one of these methods as correct and the rest incorrect.
Had Congress actually enacted a method, miscalculated the results of that same method, and then used their miscalculation in place of what the method said to do, then something like the present hook might be ok. But we do not have sourcing for that, not even after recent improvements to sourcing. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
23:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The source does not say they made a rounding error, which to me can only mean that they attempted a specific calculation but produced the incorrect result of the calculation.
Rounding error as in the error caused by approximating a real number (the seat entitlement) as an integer. Had the exact entitlement been used in allocating electoral votes, the result would have switched.
By your definition, the error caused by approximating a real number by a low-denominator rational, every method other than direct democracy, including the highest-averages method, involves rounding errors. We cannot use that argument to say that one method is correct and others incorrect. If that is what you mean, your hook is extremely misleading. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
07:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not saying any method is correct or incorrect (right now), although I agree the original hook should be rewritten for clarification. My point is just that if the electoral college had used exact, rather than rounded, seat entitlements (or had used a different rounding method) the result would be different, which is interesting.
Closed Limelike Curves (
talk)
14:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
No, I mean the state's entitlement or seat quota. The correct number of seats for California in the House of Representatives, which would be exactly proportional to its population, is (so its electoral vote total would be that, plus 2 senators, to get 53.97).
Closed Limelike Curves (
talk)
21:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
since i've been pinged twice: no comment on the issue David Eppstein raises, as this is not my area of expertise or interest and not something i did catch or would've caught. seems like it will be resolved ...
sawyer * he/they *
talk08:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
There are several uncited statements, which I have marked with citation needed tags. These will need to be resovled before this appears on the main page.
Z1720 (
talk)
18:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Believe that is all resolved - one CN tag removed because it is backed up by (cited) information in a table, 4 references for one summary sentence would feel like overkill.
Turini2 (
talk)
09:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
There is an uncited sentence in the article, which I have indicated with a cn tag. This should be resolved before it goes on the Main Page.
Z1720 (
talk)
19:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
... that after British Sikh physician Parvinder Shergill could not find a recent mainstream English film led by a woman that resembled her, she co-wrote and co-produced her own?
The article says, "According to British Sikh physician Parvinder Shergill, after Bend It Like Beckham, she could not find another mainstream English film led by a woman that looked like her so she made her own and titled it Kaur." If Shergill said that she found someone who looked like her in BILB, then the hook used for DYK needs to be modified. If the hook is referring to a struggle to find a depiction of a woman in a turban, then this should be specified in the article.
Z1720 (
talk)
19:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The latest nominations at
WP:DYKN are no longer transcluding because it has reached its
WP:PEIS limit. I have sent some pings to editors to try to get some nominations moving. Last time this happened, we activated the backlog mode where editors with over 20 noms had to QPQ an extra hook.
Here's a link to that discussion.
(
edit conflict) We're in the unusual position of having reached the PEIS limit on both the Nominations and the Approved pages: two nominations aren't transcluding on Nominations, and five on Approved. We also have three and a half unfilled preps and three unfilled queues. If we can get a couple of additional preps filled, and some reviews completed, both pages would be under the PEIS limit. There's been an unusual spike in nominations over the past six days: we've gone from 253 to 303 total nominations, and 122 to 137 approved nominations (both numbers including the noms that aren't transcluding). Some of this is almost certainly due to the current GAN backlog drive and the increased number of new GAs eligible for nomination; the drive ends in a few hours, and as the last of the reviews are completed over the next week or so, the stream of DYK noms will slow. If things aren't better in a week or so—if the number of unapproved DYKs goes much higher than 166—then we might want to look into reactivating backlog mode. I think today is too soon.
BlueMoonset (
talk)
20:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
The previous list was archived a couple of days early, so I've created a new list of 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 14. We have a total of 303 nominations, of which 137 have been approved, a gap of 166 nominations that has increased by 35 over the past 6 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)
20:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Data about DYK article creation/expansion
I am looking to generate reports about articles created and expanded by specific users that were featured on Did You Know. While there are tables listing this data, the minimum cutoff seems to be 25, and I would like data on users that have fewer than 25 articles credited to them. Is there a database I could access with this information?
Harej (
talk)
20:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Theleekycauldron, I see you pulled this hook out of Q6 and placed it into Prep3 instead. As it's a special occasion hook, don't you think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on this? For the record, I think it's a rather bad idea to not run Holder on 5 August, the day that she is going to compete in the Olympics. And yes, we've had two speed climbers in Q6, but as I say, should you not at least start a discussion instead of unilaterally undermining the efforts of running Olympic hooks on the day that competitions are held? Schwede6622:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
I meant discussion prior to removing them. If that is acceptable, fine, but I haven't seen anyone else do it that way.
SL93 (
talk)
23:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm happy to list them here beforehand – I just thought they might take a while to fix and didn't want to clutter up the noticeboard under time pressure, so I experimented with something else. Really, either way works for me :)
theleekycauldron (
talk • she/her)
23:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
To check a full hook set is a huge job; there's no perfect way to go about it. I think this way of doing it is just fine; it reaches everyone who's had prior involvement (apart from the promoter to prep maybe). Schwede6623:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
I ping the promoter whenever there's an issue with the hook itself – article issues are things the promoter usually isn't responsible for checking, but if there's something they should've caught, I'll ping them.
theleekycauldron (
talk • she/her)
23:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Schwede66: my bad, i checked for a special occasion marker on the nompage and didn't find one. I'm not the most comfortable with there being three Olympic athlete hooks in one set, it's contrary to guideline – is there another date it can go in?
theleekycauldron (
talk • she/her)
22:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
No, there isn't. We've had three per set on most days. It's simply a function of there being so many Olympic hooks. Please refer to the extensive discussions above. Schwede6622:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Happened to check in on the Aniya Holder DYK just now – totally get why it might have been moved, but if it could be returned to Queue 6 I would be a very happy camper :)
SunTunnels (
talk)
00:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)reply
I suggest that the hook as written is wrong. Looking at
Our world in data, the mid-point of tree density in the United States is 17,500 per square kilometre. As 84 square kilometre of forest burned, this equates to some 1.5 million trees. To call that "thousands of ... trees" is an underestimate to such an extent that it's wrong. Schwede6622:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
And having now looked more closely, they did not replant the whole area burned, but just 16 square kilometres. Still, that's an estimated 280,000 trees at the above density. Schwede6622:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Would someone need to find a source or sources specifying all of that, or would it not be considered synthesis to reword the hook and article with that information? The current source for the hook says thousands of acres.
SL93 (
talk)
23:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
...mid-point of tree density in the United States, this doesn't work though, given the placement of the Dakotas in the Rocky Mountain
Rain shadow#North American mainland. The Black hills are fire-climax Ponderosa forest land, which in 1939 whould have still been reflective of centuries of fire regime. Thus open forestland with wide spacing between trees rather then dense east coast or northwest coastal forests. Additionally areas of the Black Hills transition to open Savannah-land with limited scattered trees where the rain-shadow has full influence. This hook need to be sorted with the sources, which are all referencing thousands of acres, not trees.(The sources are also seemingly contradictory as reported in the article now. Source 10 (1940 news article) states the seeds were collected within the Black Hills, source 11 (2022 KOTA article) asserts they are NOT Black Hills Ponderosa, but doesnt really go into detail. I'd suggest updating with information from the Artemis Project page
here that genetic testing at USDA laboratories determined the seeds were not of Black Hills Ponderosa.--
Kevmin§00:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Good call,
SL93. Before I close this, you might want to remove your QPQ from this article to use it elsewhere. Given that nobody has started reviewing this, that would be a fair and reasonable thing to do. I say "remove" because I for one check whether a review has been used before... Schwede6623:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
I just pulled this out of Q6 (see the nompage for reason) – we might need to clarify whether DYK incorporates the
WP:V requirement that articles be based on independent sources, depending on how this discussion goes.
theleekycauldron (
talk • she/her)
23:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
Potential Issues with DYK Image Process
Hi all, I am not closely involved with DYK, but I spoke to
Sdkb who suggested this was worth bringing up. A few months ago a doctored image of Chopin was featured, see
Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/January#9 January 2024. This image has been floating around the internet as a rare photograph of Chopin, but is instead an edited portion of a painting made in the 20th century (see
The Chopin Institute).
While not a major issue, it is certainly not ideal, and I highly doubt the image would have been featured if this context was known ahead of time. In any case, the image's source even said that the "original daguerreotype needs to be found to allow experts to confirm whether it is an image of Chopin"; so I'm not sure we should be using "possible likenesses" anyways (although now understood to be an incorrect likeness). I understand there was a major image misidentification
in 2021 as well.
This leads me to wonder: are more stringent requirements for the DYK image necessary? Perhaps the image link can be featured and reviewed in the nomination (like how the hook link is done?) Aza24 (talk)03:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)reply