Index no archives yet (create) |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 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 processes can be discussed.
Queue 1: Train station
- ... that Blue and Red are proposed to meet at Charles/MGH station?
- @Pi.1415926535:@Cwmhiraeth:
- The hook seems obscure for some readers. A suggestion has been made on my talk page to change it to:
- ALT1: ... that Boston's Blue and Red Lines are proposed to meet at Charles/MGH station?
- Yoninah (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- The ambiguity was intentional on my part, and I would prefer to keep it. DYK has always been intended to intrigue the reader, often with hooks that are a little confusing until you click on the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but I wanted to bring this feedback. Yoninah (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe mention Boston somewhere in the hook? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's literally in Yoninah's alt! XD VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I was thinking going with ALT1 but without the word "Line". Not sure if it would fly, however. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that adding "Boston's" as in ALT1 does not take away from the "ambiguity" (it might even add), so it seems at worst a harmless addition if wanted. Adding "lines" clearly decreases ambiguity, if that is the goal, although I feel a properly ambiguous version would not include "station" either. CMD (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Or perhaps "that Blue and Red are proposed to meet at Charles/MGH in Boston?". That was the wording I had in mind, though I actually don't think this angle is a good idea (I've never been a fan of ambiguous hooks outside of AFD). Are there any other potential angles here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that adding "Boston's" as in ALT1 does not take away from the "ambiguity" (it might even add), so it seems at worst a harmless addition if wanted. Adding "lines" clearly decreases ambiguity, if that is the goal, although I feel a properly ambiguous version would not include "station" either. CMD (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I was thinking going with ALT1 but without the word "Line". Not sure if it would fly, however. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- That's literally in Yoninah's alt! XD VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe mention Boston somewhere in the hook? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with you, but I wanted to bring this feedback. Yoninah (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- The ambiguity was intentional on my part, and I would prefer to keep it. DYK has always been intended to intrigue the reader, often with hooks that are a little confusing until you click on the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Queue 3: The country J. Michael Lane trekked
Queue 3 says
- ... that epidemiologist J. Michael Lane, who played a leading role in the global eradication of smallpox, trekked across the country from Atlanta to Seattle at the age of 79?
Should "the country" be identified more explicitly? (I've changed the linked article to say "the United States" rather than "the country".) —2d37 (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- While it could be argued that both Atlanta and Seattle are well-known enough globally for the hook to be understood as referring to the US, having less ambiguous (or having more accurate hooks) is always good in my opinion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- It should be changed, going from "global" to "the country" is odd phrasing. CMD (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support change: "the country" is US-centric, especially as it appears before the names of the places. Hooks should be clear to readers from all countries. And there are many Atlantas, not all in US, so hook is not 100% clear without adding the name of the country. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- While it could be argued that both Atlanta and Seattle are well-known enough globally for the hook to be understood as referring to the US, having less ambiguous (or having more accurate hooks) is always good in my opinion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
preps need moved to queues
Pinging @Casliber:@Amakuru:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Guerillero:@Wugapodes:@Lee Vilenski: for queue promotions —valereee (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
prep builders needed?
What can we do to encourage more editors to start building preps? I'm worried we're going to burn out our current prep builders. —valereee (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- We're not burning out; we're just few and far between. But after promoting about 20 more hooks, we're going to reach 60 approved noms and be able to go back to one set a day. Yoninah (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- I once tried building prep sets. It was a thankless job with endless criticism that far outweighed any satisfaction gained from suggesting what should be on the main page. Flibirigit (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Help for Ruth Williams Cupp
I was interested in getting the new article Ruth Williams Cupp as a DYK for December 16. What is the best way to try to make that happen? Remember (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Remember: You would nominate your article by opening a template at WP:DYKN#Instructions for nominators and state your requested date under "Comment". Yoninah (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Brave (Joyryde album)
MicroPowerpoint, I'm sorry if I'm just missing it, I'm rushing because this is due on the front page in the morning, but where does it say this in the article? It needs to be stated with a citation so readers can find it. —valereee (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee It can be found in the "recording" subsection of the "Production and composition" section. It is supported by references 14 and 15. Micro (Talk)
Michelle Obama
Michelle Smith (fashion) - just an FYI link to the nomination — Maile (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for promoting my hook about the woman who designed the gown in Michelle Obama’s official portrait. It would be prime for illustration except that the portrait is a non-free image. By chance, instead the hook is currently in Prep 4 side by side with a picture of a dog. This is obviously inadvertent, but to err on the side of sensitivity (especially on Main Page), I would suggest we move it. Thank you again. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- As you like. Yoninah (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you kindly! Innisfree987 (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Wang Dang Sweet Poontang
- ... that a satirical website reported that Joe Biden was energizing donors with "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang"?
Why did this this get approved for Did You Know? Its source is a satire piece. GamerPro64 01:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- The "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang" hook (submitted by me, approved by User:EchetusXe, promoted by User:Yoninah) was entirely appropriate and, indeed, an excellent hook. There was nothing misleading about it, and it is no way a "hit piece". To the contrary, it accurately reported on a satirical account about the song and accurately identified the source as satire in both the hook and the article. The intent of the hook was to intrigue the reader, prompt them to read the article, and perhaps elicit a chuckle.
- When User:GamerPro64's plea to remove the hook was not immediately accepted, they unilaterally (and in my view wrongfully) blanked the entire "In popular culture" section. See diff here. This caused the hook to be pulled from the Main Page after running for a couple of hours.
- All of this resulted in a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. GamerPro64 took the position that we may never cite a satire site, but the the hook/article do not rely on the satire site for the "truth" of the assertions (which are plainly identified as satire rather than fact). Instead, the hook and article reference the satire site for the satire itself. The discussion of the satire (published in a well-known satire publication, The Hard Times), and set forth in the "In popular culture and politics" section of the article, was appropriate.
- There is no prohibition on discussions of, or citations to, satirical treatments of a topic. To the contrary, satire is an important and protected form of expression, and satirical treatments of a topic (especially in prominent satire publications like The Onion, The Hard Times, Charlie Hebdo, or Mad magazine) are good indicia of the breadth of interest in, and relevance of, the topic being satired.
- Indeed, discussion and citation of satirical treatments of topics are quite common and appropriate. See, e.g., Better Homes and Gardens (magazine)#Reference in popular culture (discussing a satirical treatment of the publication in Mad magazine), Dungeons & Dragons#In popular culture (citing The Onion for its satire of the game), Killing of Harambe (discussing and citing The Onion for its satirical treatment of the incident), Black Sunday (1977 film)#Satire (discussing and citing a Mad magazine satire of the film).
- I do understand that the song's writer, Ted Nugent, is a controversial figure and that the song's sexual lyrics may not be everyone's musical preference, but those are not valid reasons to pull the hook.
- In sum, I object to GamerPro64's unilateral action in blanking the relevant section which has now been restored to the article and expanded. I ask that, if permissible, the hook be restored to a queue so that it may receive its fair time on the Main Page. Cbl62 (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- The hook seems contrary to the spirit of the following DYK guidelines for hooks:
- The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change, and should be relevant for more than just novelty or newness.
- The hook should be neutral.
- Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided.
- Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided...
- If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way.
- Andrew🐉(talk) 09:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry where is negativity and lack of neutrality coming from?.--EchetusXe 10:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think the main concern is whether a satire piece from a website is worth mentioning on the page, let alone in a hook, if the coverage from independent reliable sources are limited to a tweet and a Facebook post.—Bagumba (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I think that is the only real issue.--EchetusXe 11:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- The song has been controversial for years, as evidenced by the discussion in the "In popular culture and politics" section. The satire reflects that controversy. We ought not be pulling a perfectly good hook (frankly, I think a fantastic one, and one that was vetted through the DYK process) from the Main Page because people don't like it. The Hard Times is an established satire publication as evidenced by the content and citations at its Wikipedia article. Satire is an important form of communication, and satire directed at a song (or politician) is legitimately covered by our encyclopedia. As long as there's nothing misleading, inaccurate, non-neutral, or unduly negative about the hook (none of which are the case here), there is no prohibition, either site-wide or in the DYK rules, on content referencing satire. This hook should absolutely not have been pulled from the Main Page. Cbl62 (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes I think that is the only real issue.--EchetusXe 11:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think the main concern is whether a satire piece from a website is worth mentioning on the page, let alone in a hook, if the coverage from independent reliable sources are limited to a tweet and a Facebook post.—Bagumba (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry where is negativity and lack of neutrality coming from?.--EchetusXe 10:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Andrew🐉(talk) 09:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Earlier discussion For reference, the previous discussion at WP:ERRORS is here. @GamerPro64, Spicy, Yoninah, Pawnkingthree, Art LaPella, and EchetusXe: Courtesy ping as you all commented there earlier.—Bagumba (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support re-review I'd support the DYK going back for review for an agreeable hook, one way or another.—Bagumba (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I believe this is WP:UNDUE and agree with its removal from the article. The nomination should be re-opened with a different hook proposed. P-K3 (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- The section should be removed. And even then I'm wondering if the article works on its own, judging by how much the article relies on mostly Allmusic sources. GamerPro64 20:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- The notion of removing the "In popular culture and politics section", which is supported by multiple reliable sources (including Reason magazine, Salon, Billboard, Spin, and The Hard Times) dealing with the song's controversial history, is patently absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Proposal
The intent behind my proposed hook was to draw attention to the article and engender a bit of levity. Instead, it has engendered a shitstorm and stress. While I remain perturbed at GamerPro64 for his unilateral gutting of the article while it was on the Main Page, I have considerable respect for Bagumba and no reason to doubt the sincerity of P-K3's opinion. Accordingly, I wish to move on and withdraw the hook.
If permissible, I would like to have the nom page reopened so that I can propose alternative hooks such as:
- alt 1 ... that rock critic Greg Kot described Wang Dang Sweet Poontang as despicable misogyny, but also rated it among his five guilty pleasures due to its "rawwwk"? Cbl62 (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Is this hook hard to follow?
- ... that Stangl Pottery, under its earlier name of Fulper, produced a precursor to the modern water cooler named the Germ-Proof Filter?
@Yoninah: stated that the hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Stangl Pottery is hard to follow because it has three different names. I don't see how that alone makes it hard to follow. The reason why it has three names is because the company had a different name when the product was released. I thought that such a hook would be expected for that reason. SL93 (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I also said it has three clauses. It reads choppily. Why is it necessary to give its former name? Alternately, you could pipe the link as [[Stangl Pottery|Fulper Pottery]] But I see other, more interesting hook facts in the article that pertain to its actual business as a pottery maker. Yoninah (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Can some fix the templates in this nomination? Something is causing errors to happen here. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Fixed Needed the article name in the DYK header & DYK nompage links templates. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Time to return to one set a day?
The approved nominations are under 60 and hook submissions have slowed considerably. Pinging @BlueMoonset:. Yoninah (talk) 12:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- My - admittedly personal - indicator is the number of hooks I approved and not appeared yet, which is 19, which is still high. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- My suggestion (as a rough outline) would be 1 set up to Christmas (as its usually quite a quiet time) and then back to 2 in time for the New Year and start of the WikiCup. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- The C of E, we now have defined points of change: down to once a day when the number of approved nominations falls below 60, and up to two when the number of the approved hits 120 or above. So I'm afraid your suggestion is unlikely to occur unless we toss out our decision earlier this year to make the changes automatically by the numbers, which I hope does not happen. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, I feel like it's been a good solution, but I'd like to get input from prep builders, who are probably the most affected, about whether they think this is 1. working well and 2. could use a tweak in the numbers, which we specified at the RfC we were open to. —valereee (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- I think it's working great. When we get down to around 60 approved hooks it always feels like I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with a balanced prep set. And when it gets back to 120 it does feel like there's an overabundance of hooks to choose from, so it's time to go back to two sets a day. Yoninah (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, I feel like it's been a good solution, but I'd like to get input from prep builders, who are probably the most affected, about whether they think this is 1. working well and 2. could use a tweak in the numbers, which we specified at the RfC we were open to. —valereee (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- The C of E, we now have defined points of change: down to once a day when the number of approved nominations falls below 60, and up to two when the number of the approved hits 120 or above. So I'm afraid your suggestion is unlikely to occur unless we toss out our decision earlier this year to make the changes automatically by the numbers, which I hope does not happen. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Changing back tonight after midnight UTC (admin will be needed)
Yoninah, thanks for the ping. There's no reason I can see to delay the change back, so it should happen after midnight UTC, a bit over three hours from now. After that time (but not before!), an admin will need to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from "43200" to "86400".
- Pinging admins @Casliber:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Guerillero:@Valereee:@Wugapodes:@Lee Vilenski: in the hopes that one of them are around and can change the time between updates now. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, there is only one special occasion hook that will need to be moved, and it will also require an admin: the lead hook in Queue 4 (worship dogs), which should run on November 14, will need to be moved up to Queue 1 so it does run on the 14th. It will probably be easiest simply to swap the lead hooks in Queue 1 (due to social-media photographs) and Queue 4.
There is a special occasion hook yet to be promoted that will need to be placed in Queue 3 so it runs on November 16 (admin needed here, too): Template:Did you know nominations/Floodland (album). So one of the hooks from Queue 3 will need to be moved to an open prep set to make room for the special occasion hook.
Pinging Cwmhiraeth in case she's around and wants to get a head start on the moves now, and might also be willing to be backup in case no one is available to change the time between updates right after midnight. Many thanks to whoever is able to take care of any of these. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: Thank you. But swapping the dog hook into Queue 1 will put it right next to a hook speaking of elephants. Perhaps the second hook in Queue 1 could be switched with the 1953 book hook. Pinging Cwmhiraeth. Yoninah (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've made the switch, I'm about to log off so I'll leave the hook moving for now; I'll check in again tomorrow. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- ... and I have made the hook changes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you both. Glad we're set. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
makes me late
I was planning for two sets per day, so would have had plenty of time for my annual tribute to BB and St. Cecilia's Day, 22 November. I wrote Children's Crusade (Britten), nominated today, but the prep is already in use, while it would need a review first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, I have begun the review in hope that helps the time table! Innisfree987 (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, lovely to wake to a great review! - Next question: Macht weit die Pforten in der Welt would be best that same day. Or should I expand and nominate it for later (although nobody would sing it later, but who cares?)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Very happy I could help! As to your question, my instinct is maybe save for another day, in the interest of varying subject matter on any given day, but it only overlaps a little, so if you feel motivated to do it in time, go for it! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- The article is approved now, but prep 2 (yesterday filled half) is now full. Any chance? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have inserted it into Prep 2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, Cwmhiraeth! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- I have inserted it into Prep 2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- The article is approved now, but prep 2 (yesterday filled half) is now full. Any chance? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Very happy I could help! As to your question, my instinct is maybe save for another day, in the interest of varying subject matter on any given day, but it only overlaps a little, so if you feel motivated to do it in time, go for it! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, lovely to wake to a great review! - Next question: Macht weit die Pforten in der Welt would be best that same day. Or should I expand and nominate it for later (although nobody would sing it later, but who cares?)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Date in Template:DYK talk is broken
Please join the discussion at Template talk:DYK talk § Date is broken. —andrybak (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Prep 2
Regarding the Hokersar hook in Prep 2, I think it might be a little WP:POV to use the phrase in India's Kashmir Valley
here – the region is certainly controlled by India, but still disputed. For better neutrality, I believe it would be preferable that the hook simply read "in the Kashmir Valley" or, if we want to go into some detail, "in the Indian-administered Kashmir Valley". Pinging: MeegsC, Mehrajmir13, Yoninah. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- There's no need to go into details. "in the Kashmir Valley." looks fair enough. MehrajMir (talk) 05:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Diffusion Inhibitor
- ... that the world's first fusion reactor was called the Diffusion Inhibitor so managers at NACA would not know what it was?
I'm seeing in the article To further disguise the actual purpose, they called it the "Diffusion Inhibitor"., but I don't see an earlier mention of disguising the purpose (except in the lead without a source), and it doesn't mention from whom. I feel like maybe there's an earlier sentence that was supposed to be included but wasn't? —valereee (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- One too many words. Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Prep 2: Mitchell Miller
Could someone change "was" to "earned"? Looking back at it, I feel like "was" is a weird verb to use for that hook. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls? 21:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Done — Maile (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Newness requirement
I just came across a new editor's nomination and now I am wondering if our rules are specific enough. Expansion on this article began on November 2 and ended on November 16, so the editor nominated it on November 16. The rule at WP:DYK says: A nominated article must be new (when nominated). For DYK purposes, a "new" article is no more than seven days old. Since the nominator nominated it on November 16, that would appear to qualify, right? But we have always counted expansion from the beginning of the expansion, not the end. Yoninah (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- The rule on expansion says it must be "expanded fivefold or more within the past seven days". So I guess technically, if there a 5x expansion from November 9 to November 16, it qualifies as "new". But if you must go all the way back to November 2, then it doesn't meet the strict language of the rule. MB 01:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
This DYK nomination of mine was reviewed, and has sat idle for a few weeks since its initial review. I checked to see what the status of the review is, but the original reviewer unfortunately has retired from Wikipedia. Can I manually mark this as needing a second review? epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
DYK is almost overdue
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
- Check the prep areas; if there are between 6 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
- Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
- Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)