Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


"Did you know...?"
Discussion WT:DYK
Rules WP:DYK
Supplementary rules WP:DYKSG
Noms (awaiting approval) WP:DYKN
Reviewing guide WP:DYKR
Noms (approved) WP:DYKNA
Preps & Queues T:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errors WP:ERRORS
Archive of DYKs WP:DYKA
Stats WP:DYKSTATS
April 1 hooks WP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talk  

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

Do you have a suggestion for improving DYK, or would like to comment on the suggestions of others? Have your say at Wikipedia:Did you know/2017 reform proposals.

RfC

A discussion is going on was previously at ERRORS (permalink to final version) about whether hooks reporting murders, riots, etc., should be featured on the main page. The hook in question, which was pulled, was:

  • ... that a newlywed man was killed and his wife seriously injured in February after opening a parcel bomb that looked like a wedding gift?
  • We need to build consensus on this point, rather than have administrators feel free to pull hooks they don't like. Please add your comments here. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • I proposed the hook in question, and I still stand by it. It is not "jokey" or "light", as another editor suggested. We have had plenty of hooks that reported murders, riots, etc., and we have printed even more grisly stuff that happened hundreds of years ago. We cannot make a blanket statement that we will never report murders and riots. Readers who are familiar with current events might even wonder why Wikipedia isn't featuring them on the main page. I feel that as long as we can write a non-sensational, straightforward hook, even about a gory subject, the hook should run. If we can't come up with something positive to say (which has happened in the past), the article shouldn't be featured. Yoninah (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • As I said at ERRORS, DYK is not a trivia section. If we can provide an interesting fact that is serious and educational, we should feature it. We've no reason to stay away from content that some readers might find upsetting just because this is DYK, when similar material is routinely featured elsewhere on the main page. That presupposes that DYK is for light-hearted material. I see no reason it should be that way, and no consensus for it either. We can extend basic courtesy to our readers in that we shouldn't use hooks for shock value (the N-word hooks from a while back come to mind) but this isn't one of those. Vanamonde (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
How is DYK not a trivia section? Some company building an organ in a random german town is not trivia? Or how is who performed the first heart transplant in a specific country not trivia either? To be honest, pretty much every hook on the main page right now is trivia. And going even further, isn't t he whole point of DYK being a trivia section by... pulling random trivia out of nominated articles? 91.96.210.216 (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Simply because we have always featured hooks of serious/significant import, and see no reason to stop simply because many other hooks are about interesting but less significant details. Vanamonde (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
So pulling random trivia out of articles does not make DYK a trivia section. Seems odd, but if you say so. 91.96.210.216 (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
If you wish to ignore the serious material DYK has previously featured, that is entirely your problem, not mine. Vanamonde (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
What does serious or lighthearted material have to do with it being trivia? There certainly are serious topics, the heart transplant for example. But who had first performed such an operation in a specific country, india in this case, is pure trivia. It is not about the subject matter but the nature of DYK. Highlighting articles by using trvia found in the article. 91.96.210.216 (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
From our sister project: Trivia, noun. "insignificant trifles of little importance, especially items of unimportant information." As I have now said three times, we have frequently featured items of significance. Vanamonde (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
trivia (ˈtrɪviə ; trivˈēə)2. little-known, insignificant facts Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition 91.96.210.216 (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
So we have each been using a different definition of the term. No wonder this did not go well, haha 91.96.210.216 (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. "our sister project" is not a reliable source, after all, I thought we all knew that. I would stick with the one which actual has some heritage. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Here just for convenience. Also to find there is "Definition of trivia for English Language Learners(not that anyone here is an english learner of course, but to illustrate my previous point): unimportant facts or details: facts about people, events, etc., that are not well-known". That describes DYK pretty good. Mind, those unimportant facts and details can of course be quite interesting nontheless. 91.96.210.216 (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
To expand a tiny bit, in the same link there also is a definition of trivia for kids which states ": interesting facts that are not well-known " which to me reads like the basic principle of finding an interesting hook in any given acticle. The hook then contains 'unimportant facts or details' and/or 'facts about people, events, etc., that are not well-known' like a company fulfilling a contract in a random location, that remains of an extinct animal were only found in one location, a military man being present in battles(in other words doing his job) or being the first in ones field to have done something locally, just as random examples from today(but could be expanded to the vast majority of hooks). So, i really cannot see any other way of describing DYK than trivia. Do you? I am genuinely curious. 91.96.210.216 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
@91.96.210.216: you are taking this RfC in a totally different direction than the way it's intended. If you have something specific to say about banning hooks about murders, deaths, riots, etc., please do so. If you'd like to discuss why DYK should be viewed as trivia, please start a different thread. Thank you. Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I was simply questioning a statement made by Vanamonde and pointing out, with a source, why believed that statement to not be true. But fair enough anyway, i will not take this any further. I would still be curious about an answer though, here or in another section.(by the way, pings do not work for IP's) 91.96.210.216 (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
It's important to establish that DYK is viewed by our readers as a trivia section, and to that end we should not expect to see hooks (which, after all, are entirely chosen and verified by a couple of people) that deliberately upset. You can select any number of hooks from any given article, why deliberately select one which is upsetting to brothers/sisters/mothers/fathers/sons/daughters of the subject? Is it for the pageviews I wonder? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with Vanamonde93. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, DYK should not reject hooks just because they may upset some readers, although we need to ensure that facts are presented in a straightforward, non-sensational manner. -Zanhe (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTCENSORED has to be king here. We cannot just pick and choose what we feature just because we may find the subject matter distasteful. IF it is making jokes about death, then possibly one could argue it may not be best to go but that needs to be decided on a case by case basis. But as long as the hook is factual and sourced inline in the article, we should not allow personal opinions to get in the way as I often find that controversial hooks always attract the extra-level of scrutiny that is never afforded to other hooks just because people don't like the subject matter. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • No, arguing WP:NOTCENSORED is utter bollocks when it comes to dealing with sensitive issues that can be completely avoided. DYK is a trivia section. It is recognised universally as such (regardless of what the DYK regulars assert) and we should therefore strive to avoid unnecessarily upsetting individuals or relatives of individuals. You can pick any hook you like from any article you like, it doesn't have to be the one with the least sensitivity and which generates the most anguish, just a for a handful of page views. Sometimes I wonder if any of you realise that human beings read Wikipedia and are directly affected by this kind of clickbait garbage. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm really unconvinced that we should be using any hook about a crime where the perpetrator hasn't been convicted yet, like this one. Ditto for the upcoming 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides one. Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I would be concerned too if the hook mentioned the suspect(s), but this hook only mentions the victims, and the facts about their death/injury are incontrovertible. -Zanhe (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Not really the point. The articles do mention the suspects. I'd be a lot happier if articles like this were highlighted after the legal process. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: I can see the argument you're making, but I can't see why it's DYK-specific. If we're comfortable featuring unresolved crimes at ITN, why not here? Conversely, if they're a problem here, surely we should do something about ITN, which has wider exposure anyway thanks to mobile view? Much of the controversy over the Toronto van attack blurb was about fidelity to sources vs BLP for a crime without a conviction. Vanamonde (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, I realize that, but obviously with ITN we are inevitably going to have to feature crimes that have just happened when they're world news. At DYK, we have the choice. I have absolutely no problem with DYK hooks about crimes, as long as they're not sensationalized or simply click-bait, but I'm uncomfortable with choosing to highlight ongoing cases. Black Kite (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Okay, I can respect that, even if I don't necessarily agree. Vanamonde (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • While Wikipedia may be uncensored, is it really worth it potentially offending real people that read Wikipedia just to highlight and get clicks on some article? For the hook in question, imagine the widow or other relatives of the man killed casually looking at Wikipedia and seeing their tragedy mentioned. Is showcasing any article really worth potentially causing real emotional pain to people involved or even victim of such situations? And before someone says that all of those things are also in the media, that is true(and they do make a right spectacle out of tragedy) that usually dies down very fast and in this case over i assume. For crimes in general it probably would be best until legal matters are resolved as Black Kite said. For riots... now that is hard to say in my opinion as severety, circumstance, damage etc. can wildly vary as well as there not being single criminal proceedings. This is not about censorship but common courtesy and common sense to a degree and simply being humane. 91.96.210.216 (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
That makes no sense. The article only sources facts from existing reports by respectable media outlets. The victims' relatives have surely already seen tons of coverage about their loss, and we all know how tabloids cover sensational crimes. As long as our article and DYK hook represent the known facts in a neutral, non-sensational manner, there's no reason to believe they would be offended. -Zanhe (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
As i said above, that media coverage is over and all this is is an uncomfortable reminder on their way back to every day life, as far as possible. And they perhaps would not be offended, but i am certain they would not be happy to see it either. A different example, living in Germany there currently is a murder of a young girl in the media. Do you think it would be ethical post that on the main page in six months? How do you think her relatives would react to seeing it here? And is anything that is achieved by posting it on the main page worth it? 91.96.210.216 (talk) 23:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • There is no compelling reason that DKY should be treated differently from any of the other 4 major sections of the Main Page, all of which have featured murders, deaths, and other "shocking" things any number of times. This feels like an attempt to castrate the project through a death of a thousand cuts.--Kevmin § 00:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    Of course there is. Hooks can be selected about any aspect of an article, why focus on those which would be unnecessarily upsetting for friends and families? Please demonstrate where TFA and OTD have featured articles about people who have been killed within the past three months? ITN is a news report and tends to fixate on the numbers, rather than "the newlyweds", and by its nature will feature some reference to disasters, deaths etc, but in a clinical, non-hyped, non-pageview-grabbing fashion. DYK is doing it for the clicks. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:ERRORS is for the reporting of errors; not a forum for censorship. It is especially unsuitable for discussions because it is so ephemeral. There is no general prohibition on having such items on the main page and ITN routinely lists deaths and disasters. DYK is a miscellany and we commonly expect there to be a mix of different types of item so as to provide variety. That item should not have been pulled. Andrew D. (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    No, it was a good pull, based on being sensitive those who would be close to those killed or injured. Sensationalising recent deaths is completely unnecessary at DYK. Just pick another hook. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • What is actually being gained by posting these types of hooks? I see the argument of censorship by several DYK regulars above... but is not posting stories like this really censorship? You could, if you wanted to, drape the main page in swastikas and celebrate Hitlers birthday by making a theme day. Would anyone who is against that also be censoring DYK? Or would it just be upsetting to people and simply not a good idea? To me, most of this just reads like pride and not wanting outsiders to interfere. By the way, as this RFC relates to the main page, was there any effort made to advertise this discussion anywhere as to get some 'neutral' input? 37.138.76.71 (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC) By the way, i am the same person as the IP above, just as an FYI 37.138.76.71 (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with all of this. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and in answer to your question "what is actually being gained by posting these types of hooks?", well it's that lurid quest for pageviews isn't it? It's an unashamed quest to provide clickbait. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • TRM stop with the disparaging and belittling broadbrush comments, eg "clickbait garbage peddler". YOUR personal venom against this project is not acceptable behavior.--Kevmin § 11:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Then please tell me Kevmin, what is being gained by posting these types of hooks? Or what would be lost by not doing so? Why is it so important to you that we post, as a potential example, the murder of a child a couple months after it happened? 37.138.76.71 (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I'll tell you what "unacceptable behaviour" is Kevmin, it's making light of the recent deaths of two specific individuals just for pageviews. It is, in fact, disgusting and despicable and completely avoidable. I'm struggling to see why so many people find these recent deaths so appealing that they want them featured on the main page of an encyclopedia. Sickening. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • NOTCENSORED is not king here. NOTCENSORED is never king, because NOTCENSORED is always contextual. What might be king, regarding this particular hook but also a more general guiding light, is WP:BLP. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC) {originally signed at 13:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC) with a dodgy number of tildes)
@User:The C of E, re ^^^ —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Last time I checked, NOTCENSORED was a Wikipedia policy which governs the rules under which we operate which is something we ought to be standing by, particuarly here where often the controversial hooks do get tampered with solely based on the whim of someone who disliked the subject matter despite the fact in accordance with DYK rules, the hook may be fully compliant. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The C of E, your persistent mention of NOTCENSORED with the relatively misguided interpretation needs to stop, especially when the second sentence of that very section explicitly mentions "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view)". "Compliance with DYK rules" has no bearings here; the argument here is about where do we draw the line on what should we feature at DYK that is consistent with the expectations of our readers. If you would like to argue that our readers should be interested to read about what could be potentially sensationalist hooks at DYK, then please make an argument about that. Like Black Kite said, it's getting tiresome to hear the non-argument of NOTCENSORED when the discussion has nothing to do with censorship. Alex Shih (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have asked on the talk page of Alex Shih if this could be added to 'centralized discussions' to perhaps get a broader perspective. Having dreadful hooks that may hurt real, living people in Wikipedias name should at least gain consensus by as broad a base as possible and not just by one single project. Just mentioning it for the sake of openness. 37.138.76.71 (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I am of the opinion that DYK needs to differentiate itself from ITN; Personally I think DYK should only feature murder, riots etc. hooks only when the subject has wider social impact/historical significance, but I would not support a blanket ban of all murder hooks outright. In any case though, can we start an actual RfC on this to garner wider community attention? Alex Shih (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Good pull, but I would not overall ban recent murders/riots etc from DYK. Had the hook had some distinguishable fact, perhaps involving the investigative work or the case's social significance, I would be more eager to include. But this version does not present any of that. It pointlessly highlights the deaths of two people. And for what? Pageviews? Aren't we a little better than that and can't we find another topic from the millions out there?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    Just to note, banning all murders makes no sense either. If a murder or other crime happened a long time ago and no one directly affected is still alive, there is no issue. In my opinion, there just is an issue when mother/father/daughter/son etc. can see their tragedy casually mentioned on Wikipedias main page while browsing the web. 37.138.76.71 (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    Indeed, and that's really the whole point. It has literally nothing to do with "NOTCENSORED", it has to do with sensitivity and encyclopedic values. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • And while were at it, those people who routinely trot out NOTCENSORED when at any time someone suggests that something might not be suitable for Wikipedia - it's really bloody tiresome. It's like watching Twitter, where the left are yelling "fascist" at anyone they disagree with, whilst the right are flinging back "libtard" and "SJW". It's completely pointless and it doesn't help your argument. Wikipedia is not a rulesocracy and sometimes there is a genuine reason why we don't look good if we're showing certain things, especially on the Main Page; indeed, there are probably occasional exceptions to nearly everything in WP:NOT. Give it a rest and use an actual argument, please. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • While there is absolutely nothing wrong with hooks about murder and other iniquities in my view, I am not at all keen on featuring hooks or articles about unsolved crimes that include information about suspects or people not yet convicted. Gatoclass (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    "While there is absolutely nothing wrong with hooks about murder and other iniquities" you condone featuring hooks about very recently murdered individuals in the pursuit of pageviews? Because I'm struggling to see any encyclopedic value in such hooks at all. As to your latter point, of course we don't feature hooks relating to individuals not convicted of crimes. That's already a principle encompassed by BLP and DYK's own rules. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't say I "condone" such hooks, but I think they are acceptable providing they don't, for example, include gratuitously grisly or sensational details. I haven't seen anything in BLP or the DYK ruleset that prohibits such hooks, perhaps you could quote the passage or passages you see as relevant? Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
What a strange thing to say. We wouldn't be having this conversation if it was already in there, would we? But your position is clear enough. The hook pulled was far too gratuitous and completely unnecessarily insensitive. I'm really saddened to see so many people who are completely missing the point. And all just for pageviews. Truly sickening. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm not responsible for what people choose to write about or nominate. We have a set of rules, and if a nomination conforms, it is eligible. I can't disqualify articles based on my own personal preferences. Gatoclass (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Well thankfully we have admins who have common sense and who can see past your approach to help reduce the truly negative impact these kind of lurid clickbait hooks have. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
"Anyone who defends their edits by citing WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't have the first clue." While that is somewhat exaggerated, I really don't see how NOTCENSORED is relevant here. DYK doesn't (or at least shouldn't) just reprint random facts from new articles. They should be carefully selected. At least that's how DYK used to work. Gatoclass is more involved with the project than I, so I'll have to defer to his judgement as to how it works now. But if DYK has devolved to the point that there is no editorial oversight and hooks are just added according to rules and process, it might be time to either make some changes or shut this thing down.
All of that isn't to say that I think it's simple. Recent murders are one thing, but what about wars and genocide? There have always been plenty of hooks about those. Recent wars (say, last 100 years) are just as likely to elicit heavy emotional responses as recent murders. I don't know where one would draw the line, but to say there is no line seems tantamount to abdicating any kind of responsibility for what is put on the main page.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say there shouldn't be editorial oversight. I already said we shouldn't feature hooks which highlight grisly or sensational details, and also said that I personally am uncomfortable with articles which touch upon ongoing criminal legal matters. I personally have vetoed substantial numbers of the former, and at least objected to some of the latter. My point was simply that one cannot arbitrarily impose one's personal preferences on the process, there has to be a consistent approach so that nominators understand in advance what is and is not acceptable. But at this point it seems in relation to this particular issue that there is no clear consensus on what that approach should be. Gatoclass (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • "Not yet convicted" is a nonissue, so long as the article is BLP compliant by making clear that any suspects are only suspects alleged to have committed the crime. Obviously if the article contains BLP violations we should never put it on the main page (and should for that matter fix it right away), but criminal suspects absolutely can be written about in a BLP-compliant way. As far as the rest, Wikipedia is not censored, even when people may dislike some of the content they see here. We should absolutely never keep something off the main page (or anything else) because we dislike the article content or some people might find it upsetting. I do agree that we should stay within reasonable bounds of good taste, however, and not use "jokey" hooks about recent serious crimes. (Ancient ones are different; we can use humorous hooks about those if we want.) But we should provide information about them to our readers. That's the entire point of writing this project. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
    I agree with you in general, although NOTCENSORED does not apply to DYK where hooks can be chosen at will from the article. NOTCENSORED applies in general to articles, and no-one is suggesting that articles linked from DYK should be censored, simply that hooks on the main page in the jokey section shouldn't be lurid and clickbaity to the point where it may cause offence to people actually involved. It's pretty straightforward, just apply some common sense and sensitivity, but from the looks of this discussion, those of us who wish to apply that approach are in the minority. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
  • This is a thing where people have different views of the mission of WP, and so have different views on hooks like this. I view WP as an educational resource - a place where people come, in order to learn. The goal is to provide them with "accepted knowledge", working in a community of pseudonymous people. I also hold very strongly to WP:NOTNEWS; i very much dislike the parts of WP that get turned into "breaking news" where people are here trying to record the events and to shape the meaning of those events... when the meaning is very, very very far from "accepted knowledge". Anyway. That's how I view WP.
In that view, DYK's should be "come hither" hooks beckoning people to go read the article and learn something. The goal is to spur learning. (If anything gets pulled out of this RfC, I hope it is clarification on what DYK is for - why the community has this section on the front page. Something clearly related to the mission of WP; hooks should be judged based on how well they accord with that.)
From my particular perspective this hook is basically trashy tabloid gossip. I do completely understand that for people who view WP as a newspaper, this is just one more grisly fact like many others shown on the TV news every night, and has every "right" to be featured on the front page. Unsurprisingly, I also don't think the article that is being "hooked" should be in WP; there is nothing there of enduring encyclopedic interest. It is a terrible story for sure. But the page seems to exist because the story "rivited" India for a while. So yeah, tabloid stuff. Not what we do here. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, fewer and fewer editors are following the NOTNEWS principle. That brief "riveting" in India, to enough editors, is all that is needed to keep such articles despite whatever policy or guideline is against it. And with plenty online news sources repeating the exact same story, the "easily passes GNG" excuse can be gotten away with at AFD.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes I know. The more important thing (to me) is that the hook should further WP's mission; DYK should not get tunnel vision and just be hook-y for the sake of being hooky. Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Exactly right. This kind of hook is of no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Those in the DYK project who deem this kind of hook acceptable need realise that they've diverged too far from the main principles of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the uncensored inclusion of murder and other serious topics at DYK. The purpose of DYK is not to provide innocuous entertainment, jokes, humor, or fun, it is to showcase good articles and to spur learning. DYK hooks are often lighthearted or humorous because they're hooks. They're meant to pique the reader's interest in the articles themselves. It is not because DYK is meant to be a joke. NOTCENSORED applies everywhere, and the point is literally that we don't care about being sensitive, or offending reader's sensibilities, we just care about whether the content policies are met. The fact that an admin, one I normally respect, has imposed their own morality/sensitivity to censor the main page of Wikipedia is nothing short of shocking and appalling. For shame. Swarm 03:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    Not at all. NOTCENSORED means we don't censor our articles. NOTCENSORED does not mean we deliberately cherry-pick insensitive and upsetting material for the quirky part of the main page. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
    I understand the point you are making, I'm just not sure what exactly you're basing it on. Is there some sort of precedent somewhere that DYK is to be treated differently than the rest of the project and that policies such as WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:SHIT don't apply there? Is there anything that mandates that DYK must maintain an air of purity and innocence? The most specific policy guidance I'm aware of on this issue is WP:GRATUITOUS, which essentially boils down to "offensive content shouldn't be included or excluded simply on the basis of it being offensive". So, I get it, it's offensive, but it's inclusion was based on its corresponding encyclopedic and educational value. It was not "deliberately cherry-picked" simply to offend readers. Its removal, on the other hand, was based solely on the fact that someone found it offensive, which, in my view, is a straightforward breach of policy guidance in order to censor a part of a project that is not censored as a matter of policy. Swarm 20:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Tense moments at the World Cup

Prep 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Is This the Way to The World Cup @The C of E, Kingoflettuce, and Cwmhiraeth:

A few problems:

  • the hook is written as if the song predicts that England will win the 2018 World Cup (even though Belgium and Tunesia will eliminate England in the first round), when in reality the song was written for the 2006 World Cup and has nothing to do with the 2018 cup...
  • The song doesn't predict that England would win the WC, the song wants England to do this. The lyrics say "ENGLAND WIN THE WORLD CUP", but for the hook to be somewhat factual it should have been "ENGLAND WINs THE WORLD CUP"[1]
  • The article has some factual errors, e.g. the song was released on 29 May 2006, not 10 June 2006[2]. 10 June was the day it first appeared in the charts.
  • The title of the song is (Is This the Way to) The World Cup, with brackets.

The hook needs to be in the past tense, probably needs to mention that it is about the football WC, and should change to "wanted" or "wished" instead of "predicts". The page should be moved to the right title and the hook changed accordingly. Fram (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "predict" is not the right word. How about
I'll leave the title to someone else, but I think the tense is alright; the lyrics of the song are written in the present tense and exhort the England team to win, so the hook can use the present tense, even though it doesn't indicate that it is about a different World Cup that occurred in the past. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we can get the song title correct as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
That the lyrics of the song are in the present tense has little relevance to what we write about the song (in-universe vs. out-of-universe). The song wa sfor a previous world cup, and then it encouraged the team. We wouldn't write "...that the song spurs Beckham and Rooney to win the World Cup" (two players mentioned by name in the song), so why would we do it with "England" instead, if it isn't to mislead our readers? Fram (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Wouldn't a starting point here to be to actually correct the numerous factual errors in the article itself before worrying about what kind of corny hook can be pulled from it? And FWIW, I agree with Fram here, the song is set in the past. Once again we're looking to forgo truth and accuracy for quirk and clickbait. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this. Pull it. And writing it in the present tense is silly. It should be ... that "Is This the Way to The World Cup" suggested that England would win the 2006 World Cup? (or similar). After all, you wouldn't write "Barack Obama is president of the USA after winning the 2008 election", would you? (Edit: I can't pull this, am writing on a tablet, would almost certainly stuff something up.) Black Kite (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I left an open slot for this in Prep 5. Yoninah (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have approved the revised hook and this still has time to appear on the requested day. Could someone promote it to Prep 5 where there is a slot waiting for it? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 Done Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:08, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Prep area 2 (now Prep 5)

"... that Hilmar Hoffmann initiated the Frankfurt Museumsufer of 15 museums, including Germany's first Jewish Museum and its first museum for architecture?"

Is there a way this can be rephrased somehow? If you include the German words, that's four mentions of the word "museum" in the same sentence, which sounds a bit repetitive. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It also seems to be wrong. The museum for architecture was founded in 1984, if I understand the article correctly. However, the Architekturmuseum der Technischen Universität Berlin[3] was already founded in the late 19th century! I think (but feel free to correct me here) that the "Erste", used in the articles to source this, here doesn't mean "oldest" but "primary, most important". The same articles also claim that it had the "erste" German film museum, which is also not true when one takes it to mean "oldest". I don't know whether the Jewish Museum is the oldest or not, I haven't found confirmation or counterevidence so far. Fram (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Stop after the Jewish then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I also read that Architekturmuseum der Technischen Universität Berlin is a very specialized collection of design drawings, not what I would call a museum of architecture in a broader meaning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The architecture museum claims to fulfill ideas for a national such museum from the 1910s which didn't materialize because of World War I [4]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The Frankfurt Jewish Museum is not the first Jewish Museum in Germany either, it isn't even the oldest remaining Jewish museum in Germany. There were such museums before the Second World War, and new ones were opened before Frankfurt (1988). The Jüdisches Kulturmuseum Augsburg-Schwaben dates to 1985, the Raschi-Haus dates to 1982. Fram (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
What the sources seem to mean (more than one) is "first of nationwide importance" (not Augsburg-Swabia). We could carefully say "a Jewish museum" etc., because explaining would make it clumsy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Our article Jewish Museum Frankfurt says "oldest independent Jewish Museum in Germany", stress on independent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
This says "first independent Jewish museum ... in postwar Germany", - too complex for DYK. Can we say that Hoffmann is credited with, because he sure is? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I have moved the hook to Prep 5 so there's plenty of time to settle on the correct hook, since Prep 2 will be on the main page in eight hours, and the set could be promoted to queue at any time. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I found this, establishing notability without any first. His endavours were noticed in the 1980s already. How about the image of such a person, instead of another bird? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that Hilmar Hoffmann (pictured) initiated the Frankfurt Museumsufer of 15 museums along the river Main, including the Jewish Museum Frankfurt and the German Architecture Museum? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
That still wouldn't address my original concern of the word "museum" being repeated four times in the hook, though. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Narutolovehinata5 that the repetition isn't ideal. Hoffmann was active in many fields; perhaps that could be mentioned. Or perhaps something short and snappy:
ALT2: ... that Hilmar Hoffmann (pictured) is credited with making Frankfurt a city of culture, not just commerce? Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that's too general. Museumsufer is so unusual/unique that it deserves mentioning.
ALT3: ... that cultural politician Hilmar Hoffmann (pictured) initiated the Museumsufer, including the Jewish Museum Frankfurt? - I'd like to include "Kultur for alle" or "begnadeter Bettler", but the latter is hard to translate, "gifted" and "talented" are just to small, "blessed with the talent" is too long ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Yoninah and Gerda Arendt: What about combining ALT2 and ALT3 to make:
ALT4: that politician Hilmar Hoffmann (pictured) initiated the Museumsufer, thus being credited as making Frankfurt a city of culture, not just commerce?
In addition, something tells me that the lead picture in Museumsufer might work better as a hook image than Hoffman's image. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for trying, but I like the positive image of the Jewish Museum more than the negative of commerce (and crime, btw). It's also many of his other initiatives that helped earning him the credit, not only the museums. I don't like any of the images in Museumsufer, because they don't really show the museums. Will work on it. But right now there's RL, and then, sadly, another great person who died, and had just a stub of an article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
As this is in the next prep set to be promoted, I've returned it to the noms page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 00:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4

This isn't actually an issue with the article, but with the hook. It calls Rao India's prime minister. Except: 1. he's dead, and 2. he's no longer PM (he was many years ago, though). The hook might be confusing for those who are unfamiliar with Indian politics, as it might imply that Rao and not Modi is India's incumbent PM. Could there be a way to rephrase this hook to emphasize that Rao is not the incumbent? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah and The Rambling Man: In addition, I also have concerns about the hook interest: most people outside of India (including myself) are probably unaware of what the Jallianwala Bagh massacre is in the first place, so those who don't know it may not be able to appreciate the comparison. Perhaps a more internationally appropriate hook could be suggested here? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:54, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • ALT1 is better(former Indian Prime Minister). The concern of international audience is genuine but I am unable to think of a simple way to to explain Jallianwala Bagh massacre in that line. --Gian ❯❯ Talk 11:18, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with Narutolovehinata5. It's like comparing apples to oranges when you've never seen a fruit. The hook should be returned to the noms page and rewritten. Yoninah (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've pulled it from prep, discussion can continue on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
    The Prime Minister of the largest democracy compared [incident] to a massacre of a 1000 people by British troops? If that's not interesting to a broad audience, I'm a bit concerned about the audience. If it's just a question of making this factoid clear, we could add a descriptor to the massacre: ...the Jallianwallahbagh massacre, in which several hundred protesters were killed by British troops?" That just makes it wordier, though, and would require more not-directly-relevant material to be added to the article. Vanamonde (talk) 05:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
  • The Jallianwala Bagh massacre was previously referred to in Britain as the Amritsar massacre. However (as in yesterday's TheGuardian.com- "British government ordered to open Amritsar massacre files") the term now refers to the Golden Temple assault of 1984. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have added two alternative hooks now, please see if they are any better. Thanks! --Gian ❯❯ Talk 08:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived less than an hour ago; here is an updated list with all 31 older nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through June 8. Right now we have a total of 184 nominations, of which 55 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones from February and March and the six still remaining from April.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Pierre Boulez

Pierre Boulez is now in prep without image. Really, for an article of that quality (not by me)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I asked another editor to promote it, but s/he declined. I can't do it because I did the review. Could another editor promote this to an image slot? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay. I have moved him to Prep 3, and promoted another biographical article to re-fill Prep 1. I moved him so there would not be two head-and-shoulders images in a row. I would not normally select a black and white image of a man for the lead myself; I guess I should be paying more attention to the quality of the article and less to that of the image. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Hawkeye7. Yoninah (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I was not asked on this occasion, but I would not have acceded to this request as we have so many other worthy image-slot nominations. I would certainly not have given an image slot to US Navy Rear Admiral Alma M. Grocki, currently in Prep 6. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
When I build prep sets, I'm not looking to put the "worthiest" article in the image slot, but a clear, interesting image that shows up well at thumbnail size. Both Boulez and Grocki qualified, in my opinion. We had so few image nominations at the time, and especially person images, that that's why I was hoping Boulez would make the image slot too. Yoninah (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, all. Black and white, why not if it shows a person's period. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Unilateral hook change

So in the next queue, we have a hook which was variously discussed (at the nomination even above, on this very page) and consensus was formed around a specific hook. That hook was then changed, without discussion, by Gatoclass who has deemed it necessary to assert a personal preference (which has not been discussed anywhere I can see) over a general consensus of a number of editors, with a misleading edit summary of "tweak for accuracy" (instead of, say, "complete hook revision". I suggest the original hook be restored immediately and that Gatoclass be reminded to stop making such edits as they are disruptive and completely unbecoming of an admin who should not be making such unilateral late decisions and who, if changing the hook which had so much discussion here, should have at least pinged the various individuals involved before locking in his personal preference. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with TRM here @Gatoclass:, I'm not happy with this unilateral change and would rather the original (or the original original) be put back please. It does seem rather unacceptable to me to do it without even giving me the courtesy of a ping or dropping me a message. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I missed the above discussion when I promoted that set last night. Regardless, I still think a tweak was necessary. The original hook was ... that Tony Christie asked whether this was the way to The World Cup and then declared it "crap"? The problem with it is that it is inaccurate and misleading as it appears to state that Christie declared the World Cup crap, when in fact he was referring to the song he made about it (not directly mentioned in the hook). I'm fine with hooks that innocuously mislead with double meanings, so long as the hook can be read either way without grammatical contortions. I don't believe that is the case here as in order to extract the hidden meaning, you have to read the hook to mean - not that he declared the World Cup, or even the way to the Cup, crap - but that "he declared his asking crap", which is a very awkward construction at best. Other than that, I still think my tweak was an improvement, but if there's a consensus among independent users that the untweaked hook was better (I take TRM's opposition with a large grain of salt as he appears to reflexively oppose almost everything I do here) I have no objection to it being changed back. Paging Cwmhiraeth, Vanamonde93, BlueMoonset, Yoninah, Black Kite, Narutolovehinata5 who all participated in the earlier discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 04:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Gatoclass Put the original hook back. The point was it was hooky, and just fine, so fix it now, back to the consensus-based version, and if there's a consensus in favour of your own personal version, then you can change it back once again. In the mean time, stop the continual filibustering. And stop making unilateral decisions, locking your own decisions down, and then disappearing. Highly disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, and you can't take my opinion with a "large grain of salt" simply because you have abused your position here and I've called you out on it. As noted, where were you when the large discussion happened over the hook? The "independent users" you noted also didn't include the originator of the hook, your approach here is completely wrong. It will not continue. Fix the hook back now and wait for a consensus for your own personal version. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I think Gatoclass' version is better than the approved version and advocate leaving the hook as it is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that's realistically only an iota of the problem here. I will, in due course, be preparing a case against Gatoclass, and this misdemeanour alone contains a series of issues that can no longer be overlooked. The correct course of action, as we all know here, would have been to remove the hook back to noms where Gatoclass' personal choice could have been discussed. The incorrect course of action was to re-write it, load it into a queue where it became protected and then disappear until it'd been on the main page for several hours. All this without any notification of anyone involved, despite the lengthy discussion at both the nom and this talk page. Astonishing misuse of position. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I will, in due course, be preparing a case against Gatoclass ...
Make my day.
BTW, your "correct course of action" wasn't an option in this case as the hook was date sensitive, so it couldn't just be pulled, which is what I would normally have done in such a situation. Gatoclass (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Thankfully your illegitimate and rude actions have been undone. And yes, you'll get your time in lights in due course, don't you worry about that. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
I see that neither you nor the nominator had the courtesy in your posts at ERRORS to refer back to this discussion where they could read my rationale for the change, so little wonder you got the change you wanted. Regardless, it's of no consequence to me either way, so long as the hook is not going to get challenged or pulled for lacking the kind of mathematical precision that is often insisted upon at ERRORS these days. Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It wasn't the change I wanted, it was the right thing to do, and if you can't see that, things are even worse than I thought. Unlike your unilateral actions and abuse of the tools to protect your actions and then disappearing so nothing can be done. This is just the latest example of this kind of behaviour. For now, I'm done here as we have the correct result despite the tampering. For the future, good luck, you're going to need it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

"your "correct course of action" wasn't an option in this case as the hook was date sensitive, so it couldn't just be pulled, which is what I would normally have done in such a situation. Gatoclass (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2018 (UTC)" Really? If you would normally pull a hook, then it shouldn't matter if it was time-sensitive or not, especially if (like here) the same hook could be run at a "time-sensitive" slot again in a few days time at the second or third appearance of the English team at the WC. It's better to have the right hook at the wrong time, than to have the wrong hook at the right time. Fram (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with that Fram, I think the vast majority of supposed date-sensitive hooks are not very date-sensitive at all, but if I'd pulled the hook it probably would have started an even bigger shitstorm and I have limited tolerance for that kind of thing. Gatoclass (talk) 09:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Not doing the right thing because it would perhaps have started a shitstorm (in this case I can see at most one person trying to raise a fuss if it hadn't run on that specific date though) is not really the best way to proceed probably. Fram (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "not doing the right thing". In this case I saw a less disruptive option that I still considered legitimate and took that instead. Gatoclass (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Drift whale

This nomination has fallen into a crack and been forgotten. We are at a stalemate. Somebody bold and new needs to take a look. 7&6=thirteen 19:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe the issue has been a misunderstanding of the rules governing how hooks are to be cited. I've quoted the rules and re-green ticked the nomination as good to go. — Maile (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2018–19 RFU Championship

Requesting a second review here since the nomination's about two months old now and has been unable to progress. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:04, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Prep 2: Mette Ivie Harrison

... that Mormon novelist Mette Ivie Harrison attributes part of her success in writing to her autism, which forces her to closely analyze human behavior?

Gandhi (BYU), Rachel Helps (BYU), Nihonjoe Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth

This DYK has been discussed quite extensively in Template:Did you know nominations/Mette Ivie Harrison. The current hook reads fine and the article is in fair shape after the diligent work by the WiR editors from BYU and others; however, I still have a few concerns, so I've moved this article to Prep 2 for the time being to invite a few more looks from other editors. To highlight the relatively minor concerns:

  • I removed the mention of her podcast and Tumblr activities, as they are entirely based on self-published source and is within the scope of "unduly self-serving", I think. The usage of these self-published sources in the rest of the article should be policy compliant, but I'd like to double check.
  • While not explicitly required by WP:MOS-BIBLIO, I think it would be the better practice to provide where the information was compiled from for the bibliography section, as I don't think it is necessary that easy to find for this subject.
  • For the current hook, Rachel's addition about how her autism relates to her writing in the main article is certainly helpful, but I think this part can be trimmed as well. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Reading the hook without the context of the previous discussions, it seems to me that the "Mormon" qualifier is not ideal. I do not think a person's religion should be mentioned unless it is the subject of the hook, which it isn't in this case. Vanamonde (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
The Mormon qualifier was presumably added because the originally proposed hooks focused on her work as a Mormon writer, and it appears she's best known for that (full disclosure: I was the one who suggested the autism hook). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: The bibliographic information is quite easy to find if you enter the title of the work and the author's name. I've added some references to that section, but others may decide to add more. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @Alex Shih: Hi, I'm actually not sure when I can use WorldCat as a source, but it had the other books, so I added in-line citations to WorldCat for those. Regarding the autism section, I had added more detail so I could write a catchy hook. I removed the sentence about how she felt about not being able to cry. The "Mormon" qualifier isn't vital but it does provide some context for her writing. The Bishop's Wife received many reviews and is about a Mormon woman interacting with other Mormons to solve a murder. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4

@Red Phoenix: @Philroc:
This is a GA. Surely something more hooky could be found in it. Yoninah (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah try this:
... that Sega Technical Institute developed games involving a dick, a chameleon and a green dog? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Well if you're saying that STI didn't develop those games then the target article is wrong and should be fixed. Ordinarily, the non-bold links aren't subject to the same quality control (ahem) as the main article. But sure, bump it back to noms. Better that than run a shoddy hook and potentially incorrect article. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Will do. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • ... that Klinger is the namesake of the Klinger Award, given annually to a horse, individual or organization that best demonstrates the values of honor and service?
@Chetsford: @AHeneen:
Since this is not appearing in the image slot, it needs to be clearer that Klinger is a horse, and possibly that he is a US military horse. Yoninah (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
How about this ALT?
Chetsford (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Chetsford: I like the alt better, but the lack of links for Washington International Horse Show and the Klinger Award may be a problem for some DYK editors. Is it possible to expand the article a bit with his duties? Yoninah (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Yoninah - that makes sense, I can see it would be an issue. The article currently notes he works as a Wheel Horse and has even been given leadership responsibilities as the Section Horse, would that be sufficient for an alt? e.g. ...
I was also thinking this might work ...
LMK what you think. I don't mind taking a crack at expanding the article but it was a bit of effort to even get it this long as horses, despite their flamboyant reputation, tend to be media averse. Chetsford (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
How about:
That hook seems better for a general audience since I doubt most people (myself included) know what a Section Horse or a Wheel Horse are. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Works for me! Chetsford (talk) 15:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Prep 4 – Ivan the Terrible

@Violetriga: @Surtsicna: @Cwmhiraeth:
I'm surprised this article is being featured in the image slot. It is barely start-class. There's a nice lead and then a controversy section. No discussion of the painting itself. Certainly some description of paint or technique needs to be added here before it's featured on the main page. Surtsicna did mention this in the review, but gave it the tick anyway. (Why?) An IP added that there is more information on this painting in the articles on the Russian and French Wikipedias, but nothing was done about that either. I suggest moving this back to the noms page so the page creator can work on it more. Yoninah (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are inventing a rule for DYK that does not exist. Sure, the article could be expanded, but there is discussion of the painting itself in the first two, well-referenced paragraphs. If those paragraphs were made into a section, a short lead could be added. I would do it myself but I expect Violetriga will respond here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm referring to Rule D7: Articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are also likely to be rejected. The talk page has a stub-class rating, which should not be there in a promoted article. Yoninah (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I understand your POV and it would be lovely to expand it further. I'd give it a go translating from French sources but even FR wiki uses predominantly Russian source material which I'd struggle with. Biased me says that the article should be okay as is because it describes the painting and does give information about it. Importantly the controversy, the reason it is notable outside of Russia, is there and fully referenced. violet/riga [talk] 23:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the article is comprehensive enough; however, I think the layout is a little odd as the de facto lead section is not a summary of article content, but rather half the content itself, so I think something should probably be done about that. I might add that one or two statements in the article are a little puzzling and could use some clarification; it's in the queue now so I might do a little copyediting before it gets to the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 01:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's adequate. It's certainly a cracking painting, having seen the original, though not what you'd want on the living room wall. The studies and other version should be mentioned, and indeed shown - all in the French article. The subject & treatment rather speak for themselves, imo, & not too much needs to be said in a basic treatment. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to me whether we call this a problem of comprehensiveness or of structure, but this is weird. The painting is described only in the lead, and the body consists purely of controversy? If this was about a politician, this would be an NPOV fail, too. Let's just fix it instead. I'd do it myself if I knew the first thing about the subject. Vanamonde (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have pulled the article for now as in attempting to reorganize it I realized that it was probably going to require some research as to whether or not the event depicted is an actual historical event or a legend (as nationalists apparently claim). If the issue can be resolved quickly, it can be returned to the same queue, otherwise, it can be returned at a later time. In the meantime, I have removed the bot permission for that set. Gatoclass (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Birthday 25 June

Template:Did you know nominations/Volker David Kirchner - sorry for being late, I thought I'd just expand, got hooked, and it's now 5 times longer and fit for DYK, I hope. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Review done. Ready for promotion to Prep 6 for June 25. Yoninah (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Yoninah! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Now in prep, more thanks. Next with a birthday is Template:Did you know nominations/Claus Wisser, 30 June ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Ye Olde Stubbies

I was told eons ago by a veteran of this project, and many others projects all the way up to FA, that the article class is intended for the projects whose banners are on the article's talk page. And that each project has its own standards of what those ratings mean to those given projects. A-class, Good Article and Featured are specific review processes, and only GA has meaning here because it's a qualifier for nominations.

WP:STUB makes it very clear that deciding what is a stub is a matter of individual perspective. Just as any first-time editor can rate an article a stub, so they can also remove the stub rating. The DYK reviewing guide says In addition to at least 1,500 characters of readable prose, the article must not be a stub. This requires a judgement call, since there is no mechanical stub definition (see the Croughton-London rule). If an article is, in fact, a stub, you should temporarily reject the nomination; if the article is not a stub, ensure that it is correctly marked as a non-stub, by removing any stub template(s) in the article, and changing any talk-page assessments to start-class or higher.

But ... what is the definition of a stub: WP:STUBDEF Over the years, different editors have followed different rules of thumb to help them decide when an article is likely to be a stub. Editors may decide that an article with more than ten sentences is too big to be a stub, or that the threshold for another article may be 250 words. Others follow the Did you know? standard of 1,500 characters in the main text.

The DYK supplemental rules say D11: If there is a stub tag, it should normally be removed if the article is long enough for DYK Somebody a long time ago put that in the supplemental rules. Years ago, I asked on this talk page about how to handle stubs. Somebody said to just remove the stub.

Really and truly, that stub tag has no real-time meaning at DYK. If the nomination meets all the basic qualifications, that's the DYK priority. And quite frankly, I've seen a lot of nominations - a LOT - that have that stub rating, nobody says anything, and the nomination comes and goes on the main page without a big whoop.

Many projects are dead, or on their last legs. Why is DYK bothering about something that is those projects' responsibilities to assess?

What matters is if a DYK nomination meets the guidelines set out. A stub tag is virtually meaningless to this project, since the stub guidelines themselves are vague. Why don't we just eliminate the stub references in the DYK guidelines? Why are we going through the motions on something that has no value to us in practical terms?— Maile (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I would support removing the reference to stubs in the rules. The stub tag is very subjective and the 1500 B limit is quite sufficient for DYK purposes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes, eliminate it. If we need any rule of that sort it should be "articles need to have a lead", but that's also very rarely a problem. Vanamonde (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Support removal per above. -Zanhe (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
There are two ways an article can be denoted a stub. One is indeed the rating at a WikiProject, which has been discussed above. The other is when a stub template (or more than one) is placed on the article page, and there I think it is clearly problematic. Per WP:DYKSG#D7, an article should be reasonably complete, and a stub template on the article page itself militates against that. I always thought that D11 made the article tagging as a stub an explicit thing that should be looked on with askance, much like other templates that indicate an article still needs work. I think an article with a valid stub template on the article page should probably not be appearing on the main page through DYK, and if it isn't valid, it should be removed. I'm not particularly exercised about talk-page stub class. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
I also agree it should be removed. I've seen many a nomination get delayed on the technicality that the talk page has a stub tag on it (which frankly, the nominator could remove themselves but do not). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
BlueMoonset thank you for mentioning the other way an article gets tagged as a stub, with that little template on article. But there again, it's often placed there by somebody who created the article at inception, or somebody comes along later in time and decides to stick one on there (whether they know what they're doing or not). If somebody later is improving the article, that front-page template should come off in the process. But its being on there is not in itself an indication the article has not met DYK criteria. It's just one more tag littering Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
  • When I see a stub tag where it was just forgotten to change when expanding (9 of 10 cases that I see such a thing), I simpy change it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2018 (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:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6-10 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.
  2. Once completed edit queue #2 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. 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) 22:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

question about review process

I realize this is not a fast-moving process and no matter what it will take some time for a nomination to make it to the main page, but I have a question about what to do when someone doing a QPQ review does a review where they identify an issue they feel should be fixed, and the nominator attempts to fix the problem as says as much at the nomination, waits three days for a reply, tries pinging the reviewing user (who is otherwise active) and waits another two days with no reply of any kind? And does this still count a them satisfying QPQ when they apparently won’t follow up on their review? Asking for a friend.... Beeblebrox (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I would not personally accept as a QPQ a review which raised issues but did not follow through on them. I don't know if it's in the rules, but I don't think it needs to be; this is common sense. I would be quite willing to disallow the user's nomination until the review is completed. Vanamonde (talk) 06:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I count a review for qpq that looks at all criteria, regardless if the issues will get fixed or not. I don't count a review that - for example - just says it's too short, but nothing else. - I need a review for Kirchner, see above ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
"regardless if the issues will get fixed or not" That depends on why they're not fixed, right? If the nominator ignores them, sure, that's a complete review; but if the nominator fixes issues raised by a reviewer, and a reviewer then disappears, that's a problem. Vanamonde (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I went to where they were claiming QPQ based on their review of my nom and mentioned that I felt they only half did it, that finally got their attention. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

#3 on the all-time non-lead hook list!

  • ... that Oregon rancher Bill Brown, known as the "Horse King of the West", often wrote checks on newspaper margins and soup can labels—which bankers would cash without question?
Can you believe this got 184,000 hits in a 24-hour cycle? What's your secret, Orygun? Yoninah (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
It was featured in a few popular Reddit threads. Fram (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

A DYK liaison for WikiJournals

Hello, Would anyone be interested in helping out with writing the occasional DYK for newly-published WikiJournal articles? They are externally peer-reviewed articles that are dual published as both a version or record in the journal, and used to update the Wikipedia page. The page is sometimes entirely new (e.g. pfemp1 or gene structure) or sometimes an update of an existing article (e.g. Lysine or Radiocarbon dating). It would be amazing if we could have some help in writing DYKs for them when they are published and integrated into Wikipedia. Any interest from this group? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 09:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not how DYK works; its purpose is to draw attention to the expansion of Wikipedia, and as such only includes new articles, articles newly-promoted to GA status and articles expanded by a factor of 5, not for general "articles I find interesting", so something like this expansion from 1202 to 1709 words would never qualify. For the new articles which do qualify, I'm not sure what the point of some help in writing DYKs for them would be, since the author of the article is almost always the best placed person to find a potential hook; if even the person who wrote the article, who presumably is interested in the topic, can't find something interesting to say about it, then it's not reasonable for them to expect anybody else to. (If this request is an elliptical way of requesting that Wikijournal contributors be exempted from the usual QPQ requirements because they're So Damn Important, then needless to say I oppose that. Our wiki, our rules, and those particular rules are there for a reason.) ‑ Iridescent 08:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Queue 4

Right now Queue 4 has only seven hooks and no image. I know the intended hook was pulled, but is the seven-hook no-image set on purpose? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I'm confused: all the queues seem to be empty (I'll try to fill one, BTW) and all of the preps have images...what am I not seeing here? Vanamonde (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I was referring to Queue 4 (not Queue 5 as I originally said, my mistake). I just checked and it only has seven prepared hooks instead of the usual eight. And I just purged it too. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Got it. I'm going to leave that to Gatoclass, since they pulled the image hook, but if they're not back online in a few hours feel free to ping me. Vanamonde (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Prep 6 – No hook here

@GreenMeansGo: @Kosack: @Narutolovehinata5:
Who is Tommy Orange? Without having a link to his name, this hook is totally out of context. It would be better to add more description to increase hook interest:
ALT1: ... that the title of There There, a novel about Native American life in Oakland, California, mirrors Gertrude Stein's description of the city as "There is no there there"? Yoninah (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Orange is only non-notable because he hasn't published his second book yet. Once he has overcome BLP1E he's a slam dunk with the coverage that's already out there on him. This hook is fine also. (I just really like the book and figured I'd get it on the main page.) I would maybe substitute a novel about urban Indians in Oakland, since that's the more particular cultural experience the book is exploring, as distinct from those who have strong ties to reservation life. GMGtalk 13:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'll make the change in prep. Yoninah (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for your input. Often hard to tell how something comes off to the unfamiliar when you've become thoroughly familiar yourself. GMGtalk 15:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the new hook is better, but I also think we do our readers a disservice by imagining that they can't figure out that from the first hook that Tommy Orange is a first-time novelist. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=847178382"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:Did you know"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA