Jump to content

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
Holding areaWP:SOHA
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
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Tyromancy

[edit]

@Jonathan Deamer, Rlendog, and Hey man im josh: A version of the hook with the noun form (fortune-telling) instead of "to tell fortunes" would make it more clear that this article will not actually help readers to tell fortunes using cheese. Rjjiii (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Rjjiii, fair point! I personally don't think it's strictly necessary, but it doesn't do any harm or make the hook significantly less succinct. So, how about:
All that said, I can see it's been moved to a prep area now and I'm not sure what the policy is on changing hooks after that. If you know, please feel free to go ahead and change, otherwise perhaps @Rlendog or @Hey man im josh could kindly advise. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They can still be tweaked once in prep @Jonathan Deamer. Noting for you and @Rjjiii that I went ahead and did so. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that the change is necessary but I don't have a problem with it. Rlendog (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing do @Hey man im josh; I'll know about prep area changes for next time! Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all! Rjjiii (talk) 02:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czarodziejski okręt (nom): intriguing?

[edit]

I'm not sure this hook passes WP:DYKINT, but out of respect for the fact that it's made it through a nominator, reviewer, and promoter, I wanted to do a strawpoll here first. Do uninvolved people think this hook is likely to entice a reader into clicking on the article? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's interesting from the POV of someone like myself who is intrigued by the deep genre of SF, which doesn't seem to have a bottom; I also think Poland is on the map when it comes to the genre, given the status of Stanisław Lem. It's too bad more couldn't be said about the robinsonade in the hook, given how wildly popular this genre has become in film in just the last 20 years. So yes, I would be clicking on that as fast as I can, but I can't say the same for others. Could it be made more interesting? Yes. Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's too bad that WP:DYKFICTION applies, given that I think a hook based on the following quote is a much more interesting option:

The novel can also be categorized as science fiction because Umiński describes advanced, futuristic for his time wireless telegraphy with a range of 5,000 km, and what is effectively a radio, which he calls a "metatelephone".

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's quite interesting. I like the combination of Jules Verne, Poland, and 1914. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know what a robinsonade was, but as you all do I won't object to it on that basis. I do think that the hook should probably start "that the 1914 Polish robinsonade" for concision.--Launchballer 23:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

[edit]

Eddie Sheldrake

[edit]

@Theleekycauldron, Bagumba, and Tenpop421: The hook talks about selling chicken, which isn't mentioned in the article. Also, only somebody who understands basketball would get why it's unusual for somebody 5-foot-9-inch to be a top scorer (WP:DYKINT). RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: I think the fact that basketball players are tall is a minimal amount of knowledge to presume (I have never watched a game and am non-American, but I know that much). In the article, it talks about how he ran KFCs, and KFCs sell chicken. We could add this to the article, but the hook isn't a huge departure from the text. Tenpop421 (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: It's sourced that he owns KFCs (Kentucky Fried Chicken). I could source and explain the chicken connection explicitly, if needed, but it also seems WP:SKYISBLUE. The record-setting part of the hook is accessible to all, even if the height requires some domain awareness to identify the added significance. —Bagumba (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ontology

[edit]

@Crisco 1492, Phlsph7, and Paul2520: The hook feels kind of easter-eggy to me. In the context of numbers, the word "real" has a specific meaning, i.e. Real number and that's not what's meant here. RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it wasn't using scare quotes for real, it seemed like the typical ploy of multiple meanings of the same word that made it hooky. The original seemed OK. —Bagumba (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

[edit]

The Bear season 2 (nom)

[edit]

I previously raised a copyright issue about this article, which turned out to only be unattributed copying within Wikipedia. But I didn't realize until now that copying within Wikipedia has DYK implications beyond copyright. The prose of the article's first revision was split from The Bear (TV series), so per WP:DYKSPLIT the article can only qualify if it has been expanded fivefold from that revision. According to the DYKcheck script, the article was expanded from 2619 to 4835 characters of prose (not even a twofold expansion, let alone a fivefold expansion). I'm sorry to point this out just two days before the hook's scheduled to run, but I don't think it meets WP:DYKCRIT. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjks28, Lbal, and Theleekycauldron:. TSventon (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lede and the two short sections appear to be newish, but the Reception section is straight out of the mother article and come to 1361 (and is still there warts and all), so at most around a 3.55x expansion. With regret, I'm pulling this. Please seriously consider putting this through WP:GA.--Launchballer 16:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with Sheetz–Wawa rivalry from prep 3.--Launchballer 16:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

[edit]

Kaunas Carillon

[edit]

@Pofka, Thrakkx, and JuniperChill: Very minor concern: shouldn't the hook not use parentheses? WP:DYKMOS says not to use parentheses unless absolutely unavoidable, and this does not appear to be one of those cases. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at WP:ERRORS to that effect.--Launchballer 18:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, hadn't seen that guideline before. We can replace the parentheses with commas? Thrakkx (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had the bracketed part moved to the front and reworded slightly.--Launchballer 01:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 17. We have a total of 305 nominations, of which 143 125 have been approved, a gap of 162 180 nominations that has decreased by 24 6 over the past 7 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) 21:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies: I added the eighteen untranscluded nominations on the Nominations page to both the total noms and the approved noms, but should only have added it to the total noms, since none of them are approved yet. The totals have been corrected in the intro. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Successive NFL hooks

[edit]

Right now we have four NFL hooks in the Queue, which already doesn't meet the "try not to put topics in consecutive hooks" guideline for prep building. In addition to that, three of the hooks are "first NFL player from X" hooks. Can we space out the hooks somewhat to make DYK not look like an NFL fanzine, and/or modify the hooks so not all of them revolve around firsts? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped Roger Farmer in prep 1 with Benjamin Franklin Shumard in queue 5 so that they're all separated. The glut is caused by BeanieFan11 getting a bunch of them through GA at the last backlog drive, so I'm not too bothered for now, however we can always kick some more back so they're spaced further apart.--Launchballer 01:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just pinging BeanieFan11 informing them of this discussion since they may have been unaware of it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The glut certainly limits our choices, as the foosball is taking up a good portion of our BLPs, which we already try to limit. I think the last prep I populated got down to October 20th, just because the non-biographies are getting tapped.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

[edit]

My DYK nominations were closed due to a DYK timeout, simply because they weren’t reviewed within the required two months. Reviewers repeatedly apologized for the delayed review process, blaming it on being "too busy." This is not my problem; it's the reviewers' fault. They only got around to reviewing my nominations right at the last minute. So, what’s the issue, DYK review team? If you’re volunteering, shouldn’t you take your responsibilities seriously? I pinged multiple times, yet my nominations were still delayed and ignored. When they were finally reviewed, they were rejected—a truly frustrating move. Where can I report these DYK reviewers and promoters for intentionally delaying reviews and failing to do their jobs? Hteiktinhein (talk) 05:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them, @Theleekycauldron and @Launchballer are worsted. Shame on you. Hteiktinhein (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry your nomination wasn't successful. For what it's worth, I didn't receive your ping on November 12. Looks like it was because the original ping was malformed. I don't think it'd be unreasonable for the nomination to be reopened, but that's up to Launchballer :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the apology; I accept it. However, this situation has harmed my hard work, and I spent many weeks trying to promote these nominations, even during times when I had no internet access. In the end, my hopes were destroyed. I still want to report Launchballer at ANI for closing the case without proper research, as I believe his actions exceed his position. His actions were very rude, and he didn’t provide any explanation. It seems like he just wanted to show who’s the boss on DYK channel. Hteiktinhein (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, @Launchballer should have pinged you with something like, “@Theleekycauldron, do you have any questions on this DYK? I need to close it because it’s now two months old; this is marked for closure per WP:DYKTIMEOUT.” But he did nothing. The nomination had already been marked as a pass by @User:Crisco 1492. Then, you came and asked questions about the sources, and I responded, but you didn’t see my answer because my ping was malformed. That’s not my fault, and I feel that I’ve been treated unjustly. Hteiktinhein (talk) 06:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "DYK review team". If your nominations are interesting or worthwhile of being on DYK, they will get reviewed by other editors. This has been explained to you previously. If, on the other hand,
  • the nominations repeatedly show errors, or
  • if the nominator is frequently combative, demanding, condescending or obstructive, or
  • if they threaten to report failures of non-existent responsibility to non-existent forums without reflecting that three consecutive nominations have been timed out because of their problems,
then other editors (who, to repeat, are not part of any "DYK review team") will generally be less willing to review them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there’s no official "DYK review team," but I can see that you and a few related editors have a strong influence or dominate on the DYK forum, mostly because there are only a few volunteers on the DYK project. Yes...you are the boss. Please do whatever you want. Hteiktinhein (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, after I nominated Chrystal (musician), I took one look at the pile of untranscluded noms at the bottom of T:TDYK and literally skimmed off all of the noms that qualified. If I reopen this, I will do so at Approved.--Launchballer 11:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer, the reviewer was concerned about sourcing and UNDUE for this BLP. Valereee (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the 'if'.--Launchballer 18:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, my noms have either been reviewed within a week or after more than a month. My view is that noms shouldn't be closed if no one has reviewed it within two months time. Only if the nom has unresolved issues by that time (provided at at least a week notice was given), then a closure would be appropriate. I notice that the DYKTIMEOUT was only added quite recently so not all are aware of it. Take a look at WP:GAN. You'll notice articles at GAN for over four months. I've probably reviewed/promoted more DYK articles than I nominated at this stage. JuniperChill (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, one of the reasons the time out was implemented was because it was argued that uninteresting hooks were being passed over, so if they kept being passed over, they could be rejected on those grounds. It's also not mandatory and is under editor discretion, so just because a nomination is two months old does not necessarily mean it should be closed, especially if there's a good reason behind it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should have a system where first time nominators get some extra hand-holding. DYK has a crazy pile of rules, not all of which are written down. Offering some kind of mentorship to newbies might help them be more successful. I could imagine something in the nomination form which recognizes that this is your first submission and and adds Category:DYK first time nominations to it. Then people who are interested in helping could just watch that category. RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a fair point. Thanks for it. This is my first time, and all the articles are very interesting. Most of my nominations were already approved and then pulled down in the Preparation area, which is heartbreaking. If there were errors or problems with the articles, they should have been addressed during the review process, and the nominations shouldn’t have been approved so easily. There should also be a rule to penalize reviewers if articles they’ve reviewed are pulled down after being approved. I’m very frustrated that all my nominations were rejected after being approved and delayed by reviewers. Hteiktinhein (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
re: There should also be a rule to penalize reviewers if articles they’ve reviewed are pulled down after being approved -- that would make people unwilling to review unless forced to. It would be great if all reviewers were uniformly excellent, but many reviewers are nearly as inexperienced as you are. Valereee (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think the word "penalize" has any place in a collaborative project. We're all here for the same purpose. Some of us have different opinions, differing skill levels, or different amounts of time they can devote to this. If somebody's work wasn't as good as you'd hoped it would be, you should be thinking encouragement and education, not penalizing. RoySmith (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not explicit, but we already have the QPQ counter at the bottom of nominations saying if a nominator has less than five nominations or not. It could already work as an (unofficial?) way to tell which nominators are new or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Penalizing a first-time nominator because no one decided to review their articles for a month and a half – when they were then receptive and tried to fix the issues – strikes me as very unfair, especially since DYKTIMEOUT is not a requirement – it is a small bit on the guidelines page that "at the discretion of reviewers" they can be timed out (not required to be). When progress is being made, IMO I don't think they should be closed solely because a few editors want to keep strict compliance with a guideline that does not require it. I think these should be re-opened. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like there were multiple concerns expressed, and this is a BLP.
@Hteiktinhein, you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Threatening to take someone to ANI because they closed your DYK is not going to encourage volunteers to get involved with your future nominations. Your work isn't harmed and your hopes aren't destroyed; a simple "Hey, first time nom here...my nomination got rejected because I wasn't able to communicate effectively with the reviewer, can anyone help?" would probably have gotten someone to take a look. Valereee (talk) 18:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello all. I have not been active for some time on this project. But, this WP:DYKTIMEOUT -- is that a new policy? I see an edit to the rules in July of this year, did I miss an RFC on this topic? Also, the two month counter is it that a nomination times out when:
  1. No reviewer picks up the DYK review by two months after the nomination?
  2. DYK review is not completed within two months of the nomination?
  3. DYK review is not completed within two months AFTER the start of a review?
  4. DYK review has not had a response by the nominator for two months after a comment / feedback has been provided by the reviewer?
Scenarios 1, 2, and 3 are unfair. One could argue that scenario 3 might be indicative of a problem with the nomination. Scenario 4 is quite generous and I can see how that duration can be 15 days or so. Also, there are folks that mention that this is discretionary guideline, I think a rule has to be codified one way or the other. Leaving it to discretion is not right imo. Ktin (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who wants to make sure stuff doesn't time out can find a list of older nominations needing reviewers, which are posted regularly here on this page. Much like life, there's a lot that isn't fair about how DYK works, but in this case you are absolutely able to help make things fairer. Valereee (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure some DYK historians will remember the details better, but my recollection is that the timeout rule mostly grew out of frustration with some battleground nominations that were dragging on forever. This seemed like a way to cut off debate. I'm less excited about it being used in cases where nobody got around to reviewing it yet. RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The DYK link has disappeared from my tools list in article space pages. The link for DYK check in the nomination subpage DYK toolbox leads to User:Shubinator/DYKcheck rather than resulting in a check. Is there a new method to check DYKs?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed this as well. I have to go to the article I want to check, then choose Tools > DYK check from the menu. Wonder how long it's been like that? I'm assuming it only works for me because I have Shubinator's script installed? Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Viriditas, I had a script installed (i guess). However, now at tools, there is no DYK check like there use to be. Where do I find the script to reinstall this feature?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger, I don't know whether you had the script previously, but you can follow the instructions at User:Shubinator/DYKcheck#Using DYKcheck. TSventon (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding DYKNEW and undeletion

[edit]

Is a page's undeletion at WP:REFUND considered to be creation under WP:DYKNEW, or must it be expanded fivefold to be eligible for DYK? Apologies if this is the wrong talk page. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 17:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any rule that speaks to this exact point, but I'd be inclined to say not eligible. If you had a specific example in mind, that would help. RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ctrl+Fing WP:REFUND implies that @Dudhhr: is probably talking about Marie-Thérèse Eyquem, which was 619 characters and is now 1956. Judging by the size of the French article, getting this up to 3095 shouldn't be difficult, at which point this will become eligible.--Launchballer 17:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is the article I was talking about. :) – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 18:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @BD2412 as the undeleting admin. This was a page that had been deleted under WP:G5. I haven't kept up with the fine points of WP:REFUND, but I'm surprised REFUND applies to G5. Looking through the talk page archives, I see it's allowed, but somewhat controversial. I'm particularly concerned because it was a WP:CBAN, and now we're talking about showcasing this on the main page. I don't have a lot of enthusiasm for putting this on DYK with the G5 material intact.
I know we'd be into WP:IAR territory, but perhaps the best way forward would be to WP:REVDEL the original material and go with a clean rewrite. Treat it much the same as we might copyrighted material under WP:5X. There wasn't much there to begin with, so this shouldn't be too onerous. RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I have rewritten the lede to remove the last of the prose created by the banned sock; their infobox remains. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 19:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G5 is not a suicide pact. Material can be deleted under G5 as a shortcut if its introduction by a sockpuppet reasonably indicates that it is unreliable, COI, a copyvio, or the like, but we never permanently exclude reliably sourced material from the encyclopedia on these grounds. BD2412 T 20:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but after years in the SPI trenches, I'm more of a believer in WP:BMB. RoySmith (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a common view among admins, and people seeking G5 undeletions have historically had a hard time of it. They still happen, and there's nothing written to prevent them, AFAIK. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:G5 is not a firm rule. BD2412 T 20:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the original blocks were for creating poorly sourced dictionary entries, and poor copying within Wikipedia practices. That's not the worst ban issue, and may not need to be revdelled, and the article can be considered at x5 with the history intact. That said, looking at the original poorly written paragraph that was restored, and now has been completely replaced, it's an odd choice to undelete it instead of just writing the replacement text as a new article. That is not even considering the French article exists, with many edits seemingly translating that. Creating the new article would be less administrative work, and avoid the need for a DYK exception request. CMD (talk) 23:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

[edit]

Bunt sind schon die Wälder (nom)

[edit]

@Gerda Arendt, Storye book, and Crisco 1492: This sentence is a little hard to parse, and I'm not sure exactly what it means. jlwoodwa (talk) 11:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The hook was supposed to mean something like "that the German folk song "Bunt sind schon die Wälder has remained popular with a 1799 melody composed by Johann Friedrich Reichardt?" Essentially, that the song's melody was written in 1799, but continues to be performed with that melody to this day.
Having said that, I have reservations if the hook meets WP:DYKINT, as it seems marginally interesting at best (it's not that it doesn't meet WP:DYKINT, one could argue it does, it's just that it's not as eye-catching or appealing as other proposals). I suspect it will not do very well in terms of viewership (while it is semi-interesting that a song composed in the late 18th century remains popular today, that's not exactly unheard of). In addition, while this was brought up in the nomination, the use of the term "popular" here is vague and it's debatable if it actually is a popular song in Germany today (the discussion seemed to use a different definition of "popular" than what we typically think of "popular").
Actually, looking at the article right now, I think there's something else in the article that would make for a better hook:
@Crisco 1492 and Storye book: Would you be okay with this new angle? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer @Crisco 1492 As an aside, the hook will need to be bumped to a later prep anyway as there's already a Gerda/classical music hook in Prep 3. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've kicked this one back by a day.--Launchballer 17:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and pulled the hook given the need for a new wording and/or possibly a new angle. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6

[edit]

How You Get the Girl

[edit]

@Brachy0008, Wolverine X-eye, and Crisco 1492: I'm not crazy about this hook on WP:DYKINT grounds, it strikes me as needing knowledge of Singin' in the Rain. Got anything else?--Launchballer 12:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an image of Swift is surely going to divert readers to her article. Something else should get the picture slot.--Launchballer 14:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we delink Swift, the lazy factor will minimize distractions (fewer people are going to put her name in the search bar, and a Swift image is certainly going to draw eyes). Personally, I think Singin' in the Rain is known enough to pass WP:INT, but then we could also go:
ALT1: ... that the choreography of "How You Get the Girl" during the 1989 World Tour (pictured) resembled a 1952 musical? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was just about to change the hook to that (but with (performer pictured) instead), except I've just noticed that 1952 is in none of the five sources (which has annoyed me, since I should have caught it the first time!).--Launchballer 22:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, I did this one and the next one yesterday, but nodded off halfway through copyediting Nocturna (band), so must have forgotten to mention that when I posted here. I've queued this set; it'll be a while before I attempt another full set.--Launchballer 23:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Czarodziejski okręt

[edit]

@Piotrus, Oliwiasocz, Surtsicna, and Kimikel: I mentioned above that this hook should probably begin "that the 1914 Polish robinsonade", but I can't get on board with it being interesting - it strikes me as requiring knowledge of Jules Verne. What else have you got?--Launchballer 12:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Verne is a fairly well-known author, but I see where you're coming from. Maybe:
ALTa ... that the novel Czarodziejski okręt by Polish author Władysław Umiński was noted for its lack of Polish themes?
ALTb ... that Władysław Umiński's 1914 novel Czarodziejski okręt was described as having a "grotesque" treatment of the robinsonade?
ALTc ... that in contrast to other robinsonades, which negatively depict unplanned separations from civilization, the novel Czarodziejski okręt features a planned escape?
As I mentioned above, the best option would probably have been a hook about the wireless telegraphy/radio angle, but it would likely fail WP:DYKFICTION. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, I like ALTb. It checks out, I'll move it in if I don't see any objections before the end of the day.--Launchballer 12:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there will be two Poland-related hooks in consecutive sets, one or the other may need bumping as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I love all of these suggestions. Thanks, Narutolovehinata5! Surtsicna (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved ALTb to prep 5.--Launchballer 19:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Fripp

[edit]

Note to Launchballer; when this set is queued, put Johnny Fripp back into prep 6 as you pulled this on WP:DYKVAR grounds.--Launchballer 12:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Launchballer 23:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the East in Sichuan

[edit]

@Uriel1022, Tenpop421, and Crisco 1492: Earwig shows significant overlap with at least http://www.soc-wus.org/2012News/11132012122317.htm. This and any others should be resolved before primetime. Also, I can't find the hook in the article. (Also, Crisco - is this one ping or two?)--Launchballer 12:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: Fixed the copyvio issues. Hook is in the Pearl Temple subsection He was unaware of the site being the ruins of a church, for he went on to write: "I suspect that in olden days these were tombs of a minister or grandee, they set the stones up as markers, and they still survive today." Tenpop421 (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, but it still needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 16:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Launchballer. All the information needed for fact checking is included in the two present sources, especially the second one in Japanese: "杜甫石筍行云、「[...] 雨多往往得瑟瑟、此事恍惚難明論、恐是昔時卿相墓、立石爲表今仍存」[...] 舊說、「昔爲大秦寺、其門樓十間、皆以眞珠翠碧貫之爲簾、後毀、此其遺跡、每雨後、人多拾得珠翠異物」." Translation: "Du Fu wrote in his poem 'The Stone Shoots: A Ballad': '[...] In heavy rains one often finds rare green gems—these things are a muddle and hard to explain clearly. I suspect that in olden days these were tombs of a minister or grandee, they set the stones up as markers, and they still survive today.' [...] But according to the old tradition, 'it was once a Daqin temple (i.e., an East Syriac church) which consisted of halls and towers totaling 10 spaces. Its doors and windows were decorated with curtains made of gold, pearls and green jasper. It was later destroyed, and here lies the ruins of the temple. Pearls and green gems were often found in the ruins after heavy rains.'"
  • Source: Enoki, Kazuo (1947). "成都の石筍と大秦寺" [Bamboo-shoot-like Menhir in Chêng-tu and Nestorian Church]. Journal of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko. p. 108, or p. 248 (written as 二四八 in Kanji) according to the pagination of the original publication.
Uriel1022 (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uriel1022: That's fine, but per WP:DYKHFC it needs a reference by no later than the end of the sentence.--Launchballer 22:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be able to queue this in an hour, so I've added it myself.--Launchballer 23:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I guess I get it. Thank you :) Uriel1022 (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm scratching my head now, Launchballer. Could you please explain it to me? Like, show me an example. Uriel1022 (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically what I've just added.--Launchballer 23:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Mihara

[edit]

@CurryTime7-24, Cielquiparle, and Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: The hook needs an end-of-sentence citation. I suppose you could work out that "yorikiri" and "hara-kiri" are sumo terms, so I'll cut it a DYKINT pass, but I think that some variant of "that Ross Mihara once auctioned himself off on a date for charity" would be even better (but would also need an end-of-sentence citation). Thoughts?--Launchballer 12:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have included the in-text citation on each. I think your proposed alternative is quite interesting, too, because this is one of those rare instances where a Japanese man is not disqualifying himself from the dating market (for context). The proposal should be fine as is. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, I think the sumo ALT may be more timely. The November tournament is ongoing and ends on the 24th. Mihara, of course, is one of the commentators for NHK's English language broadcast. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. Would you like me to put this in the prep for the 24th (prep 5)?--Launchballer 16:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Thank you! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Launchballer 16:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7

[edit]

KTSF

[edit]

@Rjjiii, Sammi Brie, and BeanieFan11: The hook talks about being on national television but that's not actually in the article. All the article says is it was on the Food Network. So that should be made clearer. Actually, it's a little worse than that. If you dig out the 2nd half of the newspapers.com clipping, it says, "San Francisco doesn't get the Food Network. In fact, lots of places don't". So it's a bit of WP:OR to say it's on national television. RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for my total unavailability... I'm on a trip. But I truly believe that a cable channel like this is national. Even if it wasn't carried out of the gate in every city, it was on satellite etc. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the hook to say "Food Network", which is what the article says. RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's OR; news sources often categorize Food Network as national television.[3][4][5] No objection though to using "Food Network" to match the article. Rjjiii (talk) 04:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Arslan

[edit]

@Rjjiii, Aintabli, and Thriley: I'm having trouble tracing the hook facts to where they are stated in the article. Could you walk me through that, please? RoySmith (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in Malik Arslan#Assassination and succession (first several sentences) at length. Aintabli (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to piece this together, but it's slow reading. It took some research to figure out that a "Beg" is a "ruler". And I'm guessing "Dulkadirid" is the adjectival form of "Dulkadir"? Somebody else should look this over to see if it really makes sense. RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can remove those parts if they cause confusion. Actually, in an earlier thread, I proposed
Alt1 ...that Malik Arslan was assassinated on the orders of the Mamluk Sultan of Egypt due to his ties with the Ottomans?
Hope this works out. Aintabli (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith Feel free to let me know if you want me to edit the article or the hook in a specific way. Aintabli (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've gone with that, thanks. It's certainly easier to get your head around. RoySmith (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Gust of Wind (Renoir)

[edit]

@Rjjiii, Viriditas, and Randy Kryn: The article has Art historian Jane Munro suggests... which gets turned into a statement in wiki voice in the hook. It needs to be attributed. RoySmith (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is it an opinion that Renoir painted air, or a fact? The title of the painting is The Gust of Wind. Wind is defined as "the perceptible natural movement of the air, especially in the form of a current of air blowing from a particular direction". The subject of the painting is "the perceptible natural movement of the air". Do we need attribution here? Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith & Viriditas: Rather than attribute it in the hook, why not state the hook fact it in wikivoice in the article? Rjjiii (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That simple question basically short-circuited my brain with cascading failures so I don't have an answer. I'll wait for Roy or anyone else to comment. I did leave an ALT1 below if anyone wants to use it instead. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 ... that the blurriness in The Gust of Wind is likened by writers to that of an image produced by a camera with a slow shutter speed or the view from a moving train?

Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites (song)

[edit]

@Rjjiii, Skyshifter, and Skyshifter: The article doesn't say that the song scares the mosquitos. I get the tie-in to the song title, but I think it might be a stretched a bit thin even for a quirky hook. RoySmith (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that my objection from the nompage wasn't addressed, either :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the BBC source now. Skyshiftertalk 03:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fine as a quirky hook... Skyshiftertalk 03:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyshifter: If the quirky hook is not accepted, what do you think about just stating the results of the study in a way that is more straightforward? Something like:
Rjjiii (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, I'd like to have one of the hooks that I initially proposed in Template:Did you know nominations/Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites (song), these being:
Skyshiftertalk 09:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second hook is a clear MEDRS violation, the first is more ambiguous, but I'd still be nervous about making wikivoice claims from a single study. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about:
Source: https://au.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/200-greatest-dance-songs-of-all-time-41563/skrillex-scary-monsters-and-nice-sprites-2010-41701/
TarnishedPathtalk 10:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of the suggestions I've seen so far, this seems the best. RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It checks out. Add a couple of quote marks either side of "Scary ... Sprites" and this seems swappable.--Launchballer 17:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rjjiii's sex hook would require an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 10:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One queue left

[edit]

Just going to note here that I populated a lot of Preps 1 through 5, and thus I cannot promote.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that the next six preps contain five hooks on Polish literature, in addition to one that ran a couple of days ago? Did no-one think to space them out? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I actually reviewed the first hook last night as it was three in the morning and I couldn't sleep. From memory, the article seems fine, though both it and another exceeds 200 characters, and that Nazi hook definitely fails WP:DYKINT (and there probably shouldn't be two train hooks). I'll do a deep dive in the evening if no-one else does by then - and I think I'll pull every other Polish hook while I'm at it.--Launchballer 13:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pulled Krzyż i półksiężyc and kicked back Kazimierz Sakowicz.--Launchballer 17:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While we're here, just noting that the currently-running image hook shouldn't be there per the "diversion" part of WP:DYKIMG (@ promoter Crisco 1492). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also #How You Get the Girl.--Launchballer 13:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1258193570"