Misplaced Pages

talk:Did you know - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.
DYK queue status

There are currently 6 filled queues. Humans, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Current time: 21:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 12 hours

Last updated: 9 hours ago( )
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main PageT:DYK
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut
Archiving icon
Archives
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203

• 2011 reform proposals
• 2020 RFC LT Solutions
• All RfCs
• Removed hooks: 2023–24


This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

New Year

As announced in an archived thread, I expanded a cantata article to GA to hopefully be presented on 1 January. Template:Did you know nominations/Jesu, nun sei gepreiset, BWV 41 is ready for review and consideration. We talk again about a 300 years anniversary. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Prep 2 is already filled up and ready to go, so I don't think it likely that the nom will get approval and be swapped in on such short notice, unfortunately. ~Darth Stabro 17:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
The miracle happened for yesterday, and I announced this to come when I announced the other on 20 December, so it's not really short notice. I felt I was already pushing the GA reviewer, and I didn't want to make the same mistake as in the other case, nominate for DYK before GA was through. - You and anybody willing: you could simply review this, and then discuss if we should present a New Years cantata perhaps some day in February. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Please reserve a space for 6 January. No, not another chorale cantata, just a 290 years anniversary of a famous piece, and I don't know yet if I'll manage expanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
These short notice requests can be impractical and a hassle to prep builders, especially now that we're approaching two-sets a day and special occasion requests can become even more of a hassle (see #12-hour sets? above) . There is a reason why it's usually recommended not to request a special occasion request if it's less than a week out. The suggestion would be, if you want to have a special occasion hook, to nominate the articles far in advance, to give time for reviewers to check and double-check. After all, it's not uncommon for noms to be brought up here for re-checking, and very tight time requirements could affect article/hook/set quality. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
There are holidays, there's real life. Reviewing a fresh GA should be easier than something that nobody reviewed before. I requested a free slot - no more because I couldn't know if I'd manage GA at all - on 21 December which is 11 days in advance in my math. Forget 6 January. I won't get to it. There's real life. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
In this case, nobody needs to sacrifice a hook, because I have one in that set (Q1, by User:Crisco 1492) that I don't want there: Bunt sind schon die Wälder, for several reasons:
  1. The date is wrong. It's a fall song, with a little melancholy that summer is over, not a starting point, - the sentiment is wrong for the start of the year, on top of the season.
  2. I don't like the hook, as explained at length in the nom more than once. I won't repeat it here.
Can we please try to review the cantata article, to have instead something related to the date and the spirit? Perhaps we should archive the other because the next time it would fit will be in September. I had already unwatched, having given it up, - sorry about that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Nevermind, happy new year to all loking here! - We have the fall hook on the Main page right now (which looks thoughtless to me, sorry), and 24 hours on OTD will be better for the cantata than twelve on DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Tellus (app)

  • ... that while Tellus packages together cash from multiple consumer depositors to make real-estate loans, and is not FDIC-insured, it states that it does not offer mortgage-backed securities to consumers?

I understand the reviewer overturned the objections I raised at the nomination page, but the hook as currently written is probably not suitable. It is 199 characters long (just one character under the limit), and while the nominator said trimming was difficult and the reviewer said one was not needed, the hook is probably still too complicated and long. In addition, the hook is also US-centric (most readers outside the US do not know what the FDIC means, let alone what "FDIC-insured" means). The hook also arguably fails WP:DYKINT due to being reliant on somewhat specialist information (specifically finance-related information that can be rather complicated). This does not mean the article can't be featured on DYK, of course, just that the promoted hook was not the best option.

Given that Prep 5 is going to be promoted to Queue in a few days, I've bumped it for now to Prep 2 to buy more time for discussion and workshopping. If this isn't resolved soon this may need to be pulled back to DYKN for more work.

Courtesy pings to the nom Red-tailed hawk, reviewer Storye book, and promoter AirshipJungleman29. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I looked, knowing nothing about financial companies. The hook makes me want to know more because I don't understand it exactly, - isn't that what is demanded from a good hook? I see that the nominator gave a detailed explanation of why the FDIC clause is relevant, and while I have no time to read it all, I would simply respect it. Can we have a link there, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are times when it is prudent to list verifiable facts (which the hook does) and not replace those facts with your own opinions (which a simplification would have to be), otherwise you would find yourself on the wrong end of a legal situation. So that hook has been very carefully worded in terms which have a clear meaning in financial and legal terms, which makes the hook clear, concise and to the point. If you were to rephrase any of those terms for purposes of explanation, that rephrasing would of necessity be longer than the original financial terms.
Tellus loans money to real-estate buyers, who pay back the loans with extra cash called interest. At the same time, Tellus gets its loaning-out money by using people's savings. Tellus gets its hands on those savings because people deposit their savings with Tellus in return for extra money called interest. And so it goes round and round. So, in that arrangement, everybody should get richer, so long as the real-estate buyers remain rich enough to (1) repay their loans and (2) pay interest to Tellus on the loans. Now, can you see where the hitch might be?
In a national financial crash (Wall Street being subject to booms, busts, panics and all) Tellus would be caught like a juggler of Ming vases, with all its treasure in the air and no safety net. That is to say, Tellus has no appropriate insurance because, not being a bank, it is not allowed to have FDIC insurance, and it does not back its dealings with assets like mortgage-backed securities. (A security is something that you give people potential access to if they don't trust you). Therefore Tellus is based on risk, like the uninsured teenager who borrows his dad's car, or the gym teacher who has kids doing tightrope walking over a hard floor without a safety net. The risk being run by Tellus is a run on its assets (a "run" is people queueing around the block to get their investment money back, but the doors being locked because the money is gone). But it hasn't got much in the way of assets because it has all its balls in the air, so to speak. And it hasn't got insurance. This one could be interesting, come the next crash. Well, that is how I see it as an ordinary layman. Though no doubt Red-tailed hawk will correct my wilder assumptions, I suspect that a wise investor would not invest in Tellus.
Now - do you see just how clear, concise and to-the-point that hook is? The phrase, "is not FDIC-insured" should start the alarm bells ringing, and our readers can look up the rest. Storye book (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
The issue is probably hard to explain on my end, but it basically boils down to "the hook is not easily understandable to people who may not be that well-versed in finance", whether in real-life or on Misplaced Pages. The explanation you give is actually pretty hard to parse for a layperson, and I imagine many readers would feel the same. There's a solution of course: go with a different angle (there were other proposed hooks in the nomination).
In any case, the real-life activities of Tellus are not relevant to the discussion here: the question is if the hook as currently written meets WP:DYKINT or not (i.e. if it is a hook that is "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest"). The answer here is, with some exceptions, likely to be no. The primary concern is DYKINT, with conciseness being a secondary issue that contributes to DYKINT but is not necessarily the main issue itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree that it is too hard to understand - I still don't understand how the first and second facts pertain to the third after reading it several times. Surely a less technical hook could be found? Gatoclass (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
What part of "is not ... insured" do you not understand? Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean that the millions of real-estate purchasers (i.e. anyone purchasing a house or land by taking a loan) out there will not understand it. For anyone who takes a quick glance at the above hook, having invested in Tellus, that uninsured bit will jump out.at them. If part of a hook rings alarm bells, you don't need to understand the rest (bearing in mind that the article will explain it if you click).
Firstly, only Americans, and probably only Americans with financial nous, will know what "FDIC insurance" even is. Secondly, there are lots of investments that are not insured - otherwise my share portfolio would look a lot healthier. Thirdly, as I said, there is no clear connection between the first two facts and the third, so the hook is basically just a puzzle,
There are several other hooks on the nomination page that look viable, why not go with one of them instead? Gatoclass (talk) 14:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think there's a fundamental difference in understanding here regarding the issue. The issue is if a broad audience, in this case a layperson, will understand the hook or not. The hook, as Gatoclass brought up above, is very technical (or in DYK-speak, specialist), and is probably not going to be easily understood by the average reader. It doesn't matter if it will "ring alarm bells". DYK is not meant to be a warning, or the place to post such warmings. You seem well-versed in the topic but you need to understand that not everyone else is, and the understanding needed to get the hook and find it interesting is probably only a small minority of readers. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
If part of the issue is that the FDIC is relatively unknown outside of the United States, then one could modify the hook to have FDIC. But I do appreciate the perspective from Gerda (a non-U.S. person) and Storye book that this would be more broadly interesting and understandable to a global audience than NLH5 has argued. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

How about:

That includes all the significant bits in fewer words. RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Or if there is a way of rephrasing "FDIC-insured" to a less US-specific description. I think the term mortgage-backed securities have been sufficiently enshrined in the worldwide consciousness, more so than the countless hooks we run with obscure US sport terminology, at least. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
To be honest, a lot of people may not even know what "mortgage" or "security" means, so while removing the mention of FDIC might help, I still have concerns that we should be running this angle at all. It also doesn't seem to address Gatoclass's concern regarding how it's not that clear that one leads to another. Can't we just go with another a completely different angle rather than trying to workshop this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
You've dropped it three preps so we have time for "discussion and workshopping" Narutolovehinata5, now you say that we shouldn't bother? If people have forgotten a key element of the greatest economic crisis since WWII in 15 years, I have concerns for the human race. I'd bet that awareness of the term is much higher than whatever "transmitter tubes" (Queue 7), a "Final Four team", or "a report from AT&T" (Queue 1) mean, none of which I personally understand. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Frankly, I am a bit upset by the use of WP:ROLLBACK in Special:Diff/1265975666, since it doesn't appear to meet WP:ROLLBACKUSE and it appears to be using the tool in furtherance of a content dispute. I'd strongly urge Narutolovehinata5 to self-revert as this discussion continues. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Meh. Rollback is the easiest way to revert multiple edits in one click. Yes, there's societal norms about when it's appropriate to use the rollback link (as detailed in WP:ROLLBACKUSE, and yes, N5 violated those norms, but in the scheme of things, that's always struck me as a rather petty thing to worry about. RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
The lack of an edit summary is the issue. —Bagumba (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
In hindsight, I probably should have just used Twinkle rather than vanilla RB. I completely forgot that RB doesn't have edit summaries. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
"Discussion and workshopping" was referring to the hook, and if it doesn't work out, it can be replaced. Maybe I just worded my thoughts badly, but the point is I'm not convinced that said angle is the best option among the possible options in the article. If consensus decides to go with it, so be it, I just personally don't think it's the best option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I can see somebody not understanding what "security" means in this context, but I think the vast majority of readers will know what a mortgage is. They may not understand the details, but certainly they should get "it's how you borrow money to buy a house". RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
A link to deposit insurance, perhaps? But that page is a bit of a disaster sourcing-wise. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
ALT2 from the nom is still available. It isn't the greatest hook out there, but among the choices offered it probably is the one that was the most accessible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:49, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree that ALT2 would be fine. I can't imagine anyone not understanding ALT2.
I should add that my above interpretation of ALT3 does not come from specialist knowledge. I'm just intelligent. Intelligence doesn't mean having a better brain than anyone else (I don't believe that anyone has that), or having a privileged education or background. Intelligence is about being curious for knowledge, and about making an effort to understand things. .If there are people among our readers who can't be bothered to click on a hook to find out what a word means, then those people are in the minority. Our readers are looking at Misplaced Pages, aren't they. That means they are curious to know things. Being curious to know things means you are intelligent. So please give our readers some credit for not being lazy fools. Storye book (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Some people seem very attached to the FDIC hook, evidently because they believe it will serve as a warning to potential investors. I'm inclined to think that anybody needing investment advice from DYK hooks has money management issues well beyond anything a DYK hook can fix.
Regardless, I still think the FDIC hook doesn't manage to get the "risk" aspect across terribly well - ALT1 seems better in that regard to me, ie:
* ALT1: ... that 68% of funds lent by Tellus between April and December 2023 were given to affiliates of one real estate investment firm to invest in Silicon Valley housing?
Having said that, the RoySmith version at least has the virtue of being concise, even if the point of it is still lost on me (and therefore, presumably, many others). But given my general disinterest in the topic, I'm not going to insist that I am right and others are wrong. I've had my say along with the others in this thread, so perhaps it's time to stand aside and let somebody uninvolved make the choice. Gatoclass (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't have particular attachment to the FDIC hook, beyond my dismay at how we are assessing the general public's knowledge of the most important organization in the global banking system (save, say, the Federal Reserve). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Given how no consensus has been reached regarding what hook to use, I've gone ahead and pulled it back to DYKN to allow an uninvolved editor to decide. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
If you would like to—as an involved editor—state your objections here, that is fine. But I do think that you should self-revert; both the bumping and the pulling are objected to, and you should not have done so unilaterally. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

While it won't be 2025 yet in Misplaced Pages time for another 8 hours, I'd like to wish the community a happy new year. Cheers to great hooks and great nominations! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy new year also from me. On the Main page: what I think was a good hook to start the year, but it didn't make it to DYK (but OTD). I hope for a little broader approach for topics off the main stream, to provide a wider field of information. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year everyone! Shubinator (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Page warring

Influencer was recently moved to Social Media Influencer (12/28) and back to Influencer (12/31). It was promoted to prep 3 in the middle of the changes. The content is not too dynamic, but should we maybe let this settle for a week or so before running it?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

If the moving continues, then perhaps it should be pulled until the instability subsides. Right now, it isn't scheduled to be promoted to the main page until 7 January, so we have time to see what happens. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
User:BlueMoonset, unless you are aware of a return to 24-hour sets, it will appear on January 5 at 0:00. There seems to be a little bit of back and forth about content. I'd be comfortable if we could pull this for a week or so. It seems that more than the page name is under contention at this hour. I am fairly confident that it will settle down, but can't necessarily say that it has. This would give us time to make sure it is buffed up to an agreed final form for a main page run.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Per #12-hour mode, we're running 12-hour sets for a fixed three days. We go back to 24-hour sets on 3 January.--Launchballer 20:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
User:Launchballer, thx. The schedule on the queue page does not reflect this expectation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger I assume you're talking about the table at WP:DYKQ#Local update times? Yeah, that's a problem, but I don't know that there's a good fix. In theory, comes 0000 UTC Jan 3, we go back to 24 hour sets, but for all anybody knows, we could still have enough backlog and filled queues to immediately qualify for another 3 day sprint, so we keep going. Nobody can predict the future, so it's hard to see how that table could ever be anything more than a best guess. RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
per the nominator's request, I've pulled the hook for now. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The page title doesn't really affect the hook. At this point, undiscussed moves should no longer be happening with the page. Any more in the short term would warrant move protection. —Bagumba (talk) 16:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Taylor Swift hooks

Right now, we have Taylor Swift hooks in Prep 1, Prep 3, and Prep 5. Given how we were once criticized for that (people joked we were turning into a Taylor Swift fansite), would it be a good idea to delay some of the hooks to spread them out a bit more? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Once preps 1 and 2 have been promoted I plan on kicking back But Daddy I Love Him from prep 3 to the next prep 2.--Launchballer 04:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Question: should we drop or modify the disqualification for articles that have featured on OTD within the past year?

For example, an article is nominated for both DYK and for an OTD blurb. It ultimately runs on OTD first, but is otherwise also eligible for DYK. Is it really fair to disqualify said article from DYK just because it has already appeared on OTD? After all, unlike ITN (where such disqualifications make more sense), OTD features are only for one day, and theoretically, by the time an article would have featured on DYK as well, its appearance on OTD would have already passed and not be remembered. We already have people suggesting that it's not necessarily an issue for similar topics to run on DYK in a short span of time unless it's too much, so I can't imagine allowing an article to run on both OTD and DYK would harm much either.

Essentially, instead of the "articles that have appeared as an OTD blurb (excluding births and deaths) within the last year are disqualified from running on DYK, and any already-promoted noms must be pulled and failed" rule, maybe we can relax the rule and allow articles to run on both, provided there's a time gap between the two? Like at least a week? I can't imagine this adding much to the backlog or to editor workload as few DYK regulars are also OTD regulars, and both Main Page sections appeal to different audiences. I also can't imagine such cases of articles running on both DYK and OTD being all-too-common anyway since presumably many would actually go for DYK since it's more likely to attract an audience. This would just give editors the option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know. One example was a recent cantata for New Year's Day. It was ready (GA) and could have simply appeared, but see the discussion. As I thought it would be silly to have it any other day, I went to OTD, and it even got a blurb close to the suggested DYK hook. Almost 3,000 views, - I doubt that it would have gotten as much attention within half a day on DYK. I don't want this piece on DYK on top, - people might wonder why we feature a New Year's fact (a 300 years anniversary, to make it worse) any other day. I didn't want the fall fact that we had instead either, but didn't watch it, preoccupied with health issues in the family. At least, due to the two-sets-per-day, it appeared the day before. - I am sorry that I had to deal with 4 of those 300 years anniversaries on dates between 25 Dec and 1 Jan. It will happen one more time, in the next Christmas season. I hope I'll get to the articles sooner, but if not, I'd hope for a bit more flexibility. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
DYK slots are a finite resource, and we're already oversubscribed, which is why we need to run two sets per day sometimes. It was just a couple of days ago that you were complaining that you were going to get short-changed if your hook only ran for 12 hours instead of the full 24. So, given that we have more material than we can handle, why would we want to make more exceptions to our rules do allow somebody to double-dip at OTD and DYK for the same article? RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
It was just a thought I had since sometimes it would feel unfair if an article wasn't rewarded for its improvement. Besides, this wouldn't just apply to those nominated for both OTD and DYK within a short amount of time, but even say articles that were nominated days apart. We already allow Recent Deaths and non-blurb OTD entries to appear on DYK even if it was within a year of their appearances, I can't see any harm in allowing OTD blurb articles to also be allowed to run on DYK as long as the time in between isn't too short (like maybe a week at least, if not more). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The harm is that for every additional article we run, some other article has to be delayed, or only run for 12 hours, or not run at all. It's a zero sum game. RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
This is probably rare enough that it does not matter much either way, but in general, I agree with RoySmith and see little reason to expand the pool of DYK-eligible articles. OTD worthy anniversaries make more sense at OTD than they do at DYK anyway. —Kusma (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, OTD has standards too (they won't run poor articles) -- so, article improvement is recognized, it just does not have to be recent improvement, unlike DYK. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Back to 24 hours?

@DYK admins: As of this moment, we've got five filled queues. If we can fill another two queues before midnight UTC (eight hours from now), we'll keep running 12 hour updates for another three days. Otherwise we're back to 24. RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I've promoted one more, but don't think I'll have time for the last one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm working on Queue 5 right now, so we're good to keep going until 0000 6 Jan UTC. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
And somebody needs to back-fill the holes that got left in Queue 3 after various yankings. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: just to make sure everybody is aware, we're going to extend 12-hour mode (at least) another 3 days now that we have 7 full queues. We do have quite a backlog to dig out of. By my count, we've got 165 approved hooks, and there's another GAN review drive that just started so I expect another big influx of nominations. I expect it'll take us several more 3-day sprints to get back to normal and it'll be less disruptive to keep them going back-to-back vs flitting back and forth between modes. RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
So long as queue 3 is filled by midnight and the two date requests in queues 4 and 5 are suitably kicked back, I have no valid objections.--Launchballer 22:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I filled one of the holes in queue 3. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm getting confused as to where the SOHA hooks need to go; anyone able to get their head around it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
5 and 6 January, but they're already there. Brain fog is brain fogging, clearly.--Launchballer 13:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
As a reminder, WP:DYKSO says The reviewer must approve the special occasion request, but prep builders and admins are not bound by the reviewer's approval. The relevance to this discussion is that keeping the queues running smoothly is a higher priority than satisfying special date requests. I'm all for people putting in the extra effort shuffling hooks around to satisfy SOHA requests, but we can't let "perfect" get in the way of "good enough". It would have been a mistake to force a change to the update schedule because of SOHA. RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

5 January

We need one more queue to get filled in the next 8 hours to keep going with 12 hour mode RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I can take the next one if no-one else does in the next five hours. I'd need more eyes on the Tyler hook though.--Launchballer 16:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Doing, although Glucoboy in prep 6 looks interesting and I might swap it and Tyler to avoid outsourcing. I'll make that decision after in nine articles' time.--Launchballer 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Throwing out an idea I've had for a long time

How would people feel about some version of A/B testing at DYK? We spend a lot of time talking about which hooks are interesting and which aren't, and while we have a lot of data on how our hooks ultimately perform on the Main Page, we have an apples-to-oranges comparison problem in that different hooks run on different days, sometimes at different times, different slots, etc., which makes it hard to really suss out why a hook performs well or doesn't.

So what if, instead of trying to decide between two hooks based on which one's more interesting, we run both at the same time, in the same slot? We would use {{random item}} or some other template to make sure both have an equal amount of airtime, and we could track the pageviews each hook gets by piping them through specially-made fully-protected redirects. My hope is that we'd get really good information, beyond the conventional wisdom, on what kinds of hooks viewers are more drawn to. For example, right now Template:Did you know nominations/Dune (Kenshi Yonezu song) is sitting at the top of DYKNA because the reviewers are trying to figure out whether this song hook should talk about the production or reception. If we ran both, we'd get some really valuable data on what readers tend to focus on. We could track whether we lose or gain pageviews by including non-bolded links, how much hook length makes a difference. Would people be open to some kind of trial run? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

... and right as I say that, Airship promotes the Dune hook. nuts! 😄 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
See Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 197#A/B testing RoySmith (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
At one point, there seemed to be a simpler culture of deferring to the nominator's preference when all things are otherwise equal. I sense less of that now. —Bagumba (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Simpler is always best. Complicating matters has deterred my participation on this project. Flibirigit (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Or we could just make it voluntary for those who want to participate, alleviating the stress on those who don't. Viriditas (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
I like that idea. We could allow a nominator to provide up to N hooks (maybe best to start with N == 2) and if they're both approved, we run them as a randomized pair. Then people who want to try this out can do so, and people who want to keep it simple can continue to do things as they always have.
Of course, this assumes somebody is willing to step up and build the infrastructure to support it. It's not just the randomizer at display time, but tools need to know about it, the statistics gathering machinery needs to be able keep track of how many page views were a result of which hook, etc. We'd need to be able to handle edge cases like one hook getting pulled because of WP:ERRORS but the other one continuing to run, etc. Not a trivial amount of work, but it doesn't seem insurmountable either. RoySmith (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Speaking of ERRORS, we need to make sure that there is an easy way to see both hooks at the same time (and the fact that the two hooks are deliberate) essentially everywhere except on the Main Page. We need to avoid the situation where people report an issue at ERRORS but nobody else sees it because of non-obvious randomisation. —Kusma (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
While in many cases it's a good idea to defer to the nominator, there are times when the nominator's preference is simply unsuitable for various reasons (usually interest). At most, deference to that should be a case-by-case thing and not a general rule. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Agreed, which I attempted to convey by prefacing with "when all things are otherwise equal". —Bagumba (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
If the nom is happy with it, you could try it. But if you want to know how significant any difference in pageviews is, you need to also run the experiment where both hooks are the same (except for the tracking redirect) a couple of times. And you need to make sure the archives are non-random and make sense. —Kusma (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Sure, just check with Shubinator that the bot can handle randomiser templates. Last time around it couldn't. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Let's ping Shubinator, then. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
WP:ERRORS: It would make for a new wrinkle when someone reports something there, and the reaction is "What are you even talking about?", if everyone is looking at a different hook. As it is already today, reports often don't provide specifics, and can take some time to reverse engineer what is being referred to.—Bagumba (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what such a change is supposed to achieve, apart perhaps from settling arguments about which of two hooks was of more interest to readers? Gatoclass (talk) 07:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not so much "settling arguments", but "helping us learn what works best". All good content producers try out multiple versions in live experiments to see which ones work best. For sure, the people who write advertising copy do it. Software developers do it too; when they make a U/I change, for example, they roll it out to a fraction of their user base first to see if it performs better or worse than the old way. This is no different. I'm not entirely convinced it's worth the effort to to implement, but don't dismiss the idea out of hand. RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
"Best", there's that word again. Why is there such a fascination with trying to turn this project from a venue to allow anyone to show what they have recently added to the Wiki into a shoddy parody of a highschool newspaper popularity contest. "Intersting to a broad audience" creep is rules creep in any form and forcing nominators only provide what the 5 o'clock news audience wants is exceptionally bad for the direction of the project. If any change should be made that would better the project and reduce acrimony, it would be the removal of the "Interesting to a broad audience" criterion entirely from DYK rules.--Kevmin § 16:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Data driven engagement metrics can be used to help us provided we are using them for education. Not sure why anyone would be against a trial run as we could learn a great deal. Viriditas (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Data is only as good as the measurement tools you are using and the parameters used within that measurement. The proposed AB design model above has so many variables that any data derived from it would be inconclusive and therefore useless. If we are looking to measure the interestingness of a particular hook we have to measure that in a meaningful way, and page views method frankly isn't a good indicator of "interestingness" because most editors who read DYK only choose to read one or maybe two articles, and generally those are towards the top of the set. Theoretically, we could have all interesting hooks in a perfectly crafted set, but only one or two will do well. In order to really determine whether an individual hook is boring, one would have to isolate audience response to that individual hook and get direct audience feedback through a survey model designed to measure audience response to that individual hook. Otherwise, all we can say is that in this set, competing against these other hooks, and in this placement a particular hook got this many page views. It doesn't tell you why it got that many page views. I get that the AB model is trying to limit the variable by playing around with hook language or order, but it doesn't account for sampling issues as well as the competitive nature of a DYK set. A model like this only works if we were to re-run the hooks across multiple periods and create multiple data sets of comparison to account for sampling issues. I don't think any one us want to see a hook repeated across several days for the purposes of data collection. The research design here is bad, and therefore the data will be bad.4meter4 (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not so much "settling arguments", but "helping us learn what works best".
What useful generalizations can be drawn from a pageview comparison of any two hooks? Take the Dune example above for instance. The two hooks in contention were:
ALT7: that a controversy surrounding the Kenshi Yonezu song "Dune" made it reach number one in Twitter mentions on the Billboard Japan chart?
ALT3: ... that the 2017 Vocaloid song "Dune" by Kenshi Yonezu describes what he considers the "desert-like atmosphere" that existed in Nico Nico at the time?
Can you draw a generalization from a comparison of the two which might be applied to a different pair of hooks? I certainly can't imagine one. Gatoclass (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. This seems like a lot of work without much potential for value. There are so many variables at play that any data that is collected is not likely to be easily interpreted. The type of feedback we really need is survey work where readers actually tell us whether they perceive a hook as interesting or not; but that isn’t what this does. We aren’t directly measuring audience response only page views which isn’t the same thing. Many people will only read a few or just one of the DYK hooks for example, and then may only select one of the articles to read. They may do this because they don’t have time to read every article, not because they find a specific hook boring. Others may read multiple articles. There can be all sorts of reasons why certain pages get more views, and not all of them hook design/language or even content area. I imagine certain hooks fair better or worse because of the set they are in and the other hooks they are competing with. Further, as Gatoclass wisely pointed out, the example provided above doesn’t give us much to go on in terms of extrapolating out valuable truths/lessons on attracting readers or writing better hooks which we could apply elsewhere. I think what we’ll find is that hooks are too content specific to be able to extrapolate out general truths other than things that are already fairly obvious. All of this to say, I would not support doing this because I think implementing it is too much work for our volunteers and I am not optimistic that it will give us any new data that can easily be interpreted into something useful. Best to leave things as they are.4meter4 (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 5

Jorts

@AirshipJungleman29, Vigilantcosmicpenguin, and Soulbust: I'm not seeing where the article says anything about queer. RoySmith (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The statement was removed from the article on the grounds that it wasn't supported by the article. That part of the hook should be removed. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Done, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

QPQ: per-nomination or per-article?

At User talk:Reidgreg, User:Reidgreg is arguing that the QPQ they previously used for a failed DYK nomination should remain valid for a new nomination for the same article (newly re-eligible after a GA pass). My impression is that a QPQ is per-nomination: once you use one on a nomination, even one that fails, you have used it up and need another one for any future nominations, even of the same article. (I also think that doing a QPQ should be no big deal, so why not just do another one rather than insisting on not doing one.) Can anyone clarify this point in the rules, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The rules aren't 100% clear on this, but based on previous precedent, it is indeed per nomination. For example, if user Example nominates Foo, uses Bar as their QPQ, and Foo's nomination fails, then the QPQ for Bar is already used up. The spirit of this is suggested by WP:QPQ: A review does not need to be successful to count as a QPQ. The corollary of that would be that a nomination does not need to be successful for the QPQ to be used up. There may be exceptions for when a QPQ is vacated or pulled for reasons, for example the nominator deciding to withdraw their nomination before it is reviewed, or the QPQ being a donation anyway only for them to take away the donation, but those are the exceptions and not the rule. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Actually, if there aren't any objections, I'm going to add that clarification to WP:QPQ later today (a QPQ is used up regardless if a nomination is successful or not). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
There's no caveat at WP:QPQ that it's only tor successful nominations:

... you must complete a full review of one other nomination (unrelated to you) for every subsequent article you nominate‍

The failed nomination still required someone's time to review it, so that old QPQ was burned. I don't think we necessarily need a special rule for this wikilawyer case. —Bagumba (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think we need to clarify this in the rules. In the case at hand (first nomination failed because it did not quite satisfy the 5x expansion rule) I think it is acceptable to leave it to the reviewer's discretion whether to require a new QPQ (basically the question is how much extra work still needs to be done by the reviewer). But indeed a QPQ should be no big deal, so asking for an extra one (especially given our backlog) should usually be fine. —Kusma (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me for the hijack, but I just noticed the guideline now says "Your QPQ review should be made before or at the time of your nomination". Last time I checked, one could complete the QPQ requirement within a week of listing a nomination. When was the change made, and why? I fail to see any good reason why QPQ's should have to be done prior to nominating rather than within a few days of doing so. Gatoclass (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

There was a discussion about it a few months ago, and the consensus was to discontinue the old practice of allowing QPQs to be provided up to a week after the nomination, in favor of requiring QPQs at the time of the nomination. This was because, in practice, many nominators would be very late in providing QPQs, but due to backlogs, this lateness would not be noticed by reviewers even if over a week had already passed. This coincided with a fairly long backlog at the time and was also implemented around the time DYKTIMEOUT became a thing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
See Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 201 § QPQ timeouts. —Bagumba (talk) 11:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, Bagumba. I'm not seeing a clear consensus for the change in that discussion, but rather a number of different proposals, so I'm not sure how the conclusion was arrived at that there was a consensus for this.
The guideline as it currently stands doesn't even make sense. What does it mean to provide the QPQ "before or at the time of the nomination"? What does "at the time" mean exactly? Within an hour? Two hours? 24 hours? Who decides? If the requirement is for providing a QPQ at the same time as the nomination, then clearly it would have to be done before the nomination, in which case "at the time" is redundant.
Part of my objection to this change is that it was apparently made because some users found it irritating to have to chase up people who didn't get their QPQ's done within the required week. But that could have been addressed simply by adding the clause that the nomination will be failed without warning if the QPQ is not provided within the alloted time. There was no need to require the QPQ before the nomination to solve this issue, at all. Gatoclass (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm just the messenger.—Bagumba (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
In practice, I think there is still some leeway. But really, for our veterans, best practice is just doing a few reviews when you have time and saving them up so you do not run out of QPQs when you need them. Too many veterans provided their QPQs late, some very late, so we changed the rules to reduce friction. —Kusma (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Again, if the problem is that veterans are providing their QPQ's late, then the solution would be simply to add the clause that nominations which fail to provide their QPQ's within the alloted 7 days will be failed. There was no reason to remove the 7-day grace period as well - that just penalizes the users who find it more convenient to add their QPQ's after getting the other aspects of their nominations in order. Gatoclass (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Is it not difficult to just simply do the QPQs before making nominations? As Kusma said above, it should be encouraged for nominators to review noms ahead of time and to build up a stash of QPQs, instead of waiting until nominating an article before QPQ. The change was done because, as I mentioned above, even reviewers would themselves forget to fail or remind nominators that their QPQs were late. For example, a nomination that had a pending QPQ several weeks after nominating, but no reviewer noticed until it was too late. The removal of the grace period was regrettable, but it was a response to a situation that had become untenable, to prevent such cases from happening again.
As Kusma said, in practice there is still some leeway given. Nominators are often still given a reminder about their QPQs. The change merely allows discretion in immediately failing a nomination if a QPQ is provided, which can be a big issue especially for veterans who, frankly, should have known better regarding the requirement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Well if in practice, there is still "some leeway given", why does the guideline say that nominations without QPQs may be closed "without warning"? The one contradicts the other - either there is "leeway" or there is not.
I don't think it fair to leave closures of this type to the whim of reviewers. Either provide clearly defined "leeway", say in the form of a compulsory warning before closure, or just state outright that nominations without QPQs will be closed immediately "without warning" and with no do-overs. Gatoclass (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Leeway is already implicitly stated by the wording "may". It's not "must". It's left to reviewer discretion. For example, if the editor is unfamiliar with the rule, they can be given a notice or warning, but if they're a DYK regular and do not give a QPQ within, say a few days, then it can be closed without warning. In practice, it's usually not a good idea to close a nomination a day or two after it is created without a QPQ. Three days is probably enough time, one week is too long. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Our most valuable (and limited) resource is the time volunteers put into the project. When you ask somebody to review your work, you are consuming some of that resource, so it's only fair that you pay the project back by contributing your own review. If you keep that basic concept in mind, then all the wikilawyering goes away. RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
There's also the argument that a strict implementation without a grace period would also discourage tardy QPQ reviews. If nominators were aware that they have to provide a QPQ at the time of the nomination, and know that their nominations can be closed at any time without a QPQ, they may become more likely to do the QPQ instead of putting it off. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
For example, if the editor is unfamiliar with the rule, they can be given a notice or warning, but if they're a DYK regular and do not give a QPQ within, say a few days, then it can be closed without warning.
Well, that's your interpretation, but who's to say anybody shares it? That's the problem with inadequately defined guidelines.
But if you want to argue that users should have three days to add their QPQs or have their nominations tossed without warning, I could get behind that. But then, why not codify that in the guideline so that everybody knows exactly where they stand? Gatoclass (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
The point here is that whether to immediately close a nomination for lack of a QPQ, or to warn the nominator first, is left to editor discretion. It really depends on the case in question. That's the reason for the "may" wording. There's no firm rule. The only rule is that there should be a QPQ provided at the time of the nomination, and a nomination without one provided can be closed at any time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Well then, if your nomination can be closed without warning at the whim of a reviewer, then in effect, there is no leeway, is there? If your nomination can be closed without warning if it doesn't include a QPQ, who is going to risk that?
But if that's how you want to play it, what's the difference between closure without warning at the time of the nomination, or closure without warning three days after? The only difference is that the latter puts those who prefer to do their QPQs after their nominations on the same footing as those who like to "bank" their QPQs beforehand.
For the record, I have never "banked" a QPQ. When I am active on DYK, I review nominations frequently, but I don't keep score and don't care to. When I submit a nomination of my own, I provide new QPQs for the nomination, that way both I and the reviewer can see that they are new and haven't been used previously. I basically use my nominations as an incentive to do more reviews than I would otherwise do. And I happen to know that I am not the only user who operates this way. Forcing us to provide QPQs prior to nomination will remove that incentive to the net loss of the project. I can also see it pushing me to rush reviews in order to get my nomination out in a timely manner. Gatoclass (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I had never banked QPQs either, but I do now, it's a simple change to make. I have one I haven't even written down yet, maybe I'll get around to that soon. Alternatively, I've done QPQs in the seven days I had to nominate the article. The seven day window is still very much there. CMD (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
If it were just one or two QPQs, the idea might not bother me so much. But my nominations are usually multis - for example, I am currently working on a multi with five or six articles. That's one heck of a lot of QPQs to plough through before even being able to list my nom. It's turning the DYK experience from something that is supposed to be fun into just another chore. Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Why does the QPQ/nom order affect the overall fun? CMD (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I can understand the rules being strict in order to swiftly deal with abusers but I can also understand general leniency given for the most part. I've got 20 QPQs banked so it's no big deal (doing my part to keep this afloat). As mentioned the rules are not 100% clear and I was inquiring about that with the previous reviewer. I don't feel that I was insisting or wikilawyering. I never had a DYK rejected before (it was argued to be marginally below a 5x expansion) and didn't contest that rejection. Anyways, new QPQ up and since I'm paying for it, I'll request a new reviewer to make sure this is above board. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Prius Missile

Hello, can AlphaBetaGamma get a bit of help with ALT3 and ALT5 (or any other hook for that matter) over at Template:Did you know nominations/Prius Missile? I think I've done as much as I can, but they need some help with grammar, formatting, and presentation, and I don't want to get into the reviewer passing their own hook territory. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 7

Council of District Dumas

@Soman, Crisco 1492, and AirshipJungleman29:

The first paragraph in the "Background" section needs at least one citation at the end of the paragraph. I have indicated the location with a "citation needed" tag. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 1

Josie Childs

@AirshipJungleman29, SL93, and Flibirigit: Maybe I'm just not seeing it, but it looks like there's no credit template for this. RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Fell out in this edit. I've added it.--Launchballer 15:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thomas P. Fenner

@AirshipJungleman29, 4meter4, and Metropolitan90: The article says "profits ... helped finance" which implies it was one of several sources of funding, but the hook says "was paid for" which implies it was the only source. RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith We could insert the word partially if you think it is necessary.4meter4 (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hefker

@AirshipJungleman29, ProfGray, and Vigilantcosmicpenguin: It seems to me that to get from the the paragraph ("For David Bergelson, hefker refers to expressionist poetry itself...") in the article to the hook requires a bit more insight and interpretation than is typical for DYK, but I'd like a second opinion on this one.

There was also a question raised on the nom page about whether most readers would understand the word "Talmudic". My guess is that most people, while perhaps not actually knowing what the Talmud is, would at least recognize that it's a historic book associated with Judiasm, but let's see what others thing about that as well. RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This also contains some long direct quotes from PD sources. That's fine, but I think they need to be set out as quotes with explicit attribution. RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The article uses Template:Source-attribution to credit the public domain source. As I understand it, this attribution, plus inline citations, is enough to meet the requirements of WP:FREECOPY. If I have misinterpreted this policy, I will re-approve the nom once the changes have been made. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 26. We have a total of 283 nominations, same as last time, of which 171 have been approved, a gap of 112 nominations that has increased by 19 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It's amazing that we've been running two sets per day for the past five days and the deficit is still moving in the wrong direction. I wonder if we should be looking at 10 hooks per set after we get done beating down this backlog? RoySmith (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
171 approved hooks per this list, 190 per the last one; 93 non-approved per the last list, 112 per this one. The number of approved hooks is shrinking. Am I missing something?--Launchballer 20:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I guess I interpreted "has increased by 19" as "gotten bigger". Silly me. RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 2 (8 January)

Debra Toporowski

The text in this hook is not matched with the text in the article in a two places - (1) the article says "membership within the Cowichan Tribes" was not possible before 1985 rather than "Indian status in Canada"; it's not obvious to me that those are the same thing. (2) the article says "her mother had married a Chinese man", not a "Chinese-Canadian" as per the hook above. These discrepancies should be resolved so the hook reflects the article and the cited sources exactly. Pinging @Ornithoptera, Vigilantcosmicpenguin, and AirshipJungleman29:  — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Good day Amakuru, seems like the hook was altered after approval. I have adjusted the article to say "Chinese-Canadian". The reason why the 1985 date is important is that adjustments to the Indian Act to remove the provisions that were applicable to Toporowski's case had occurred. The Cowichan Tribes barred Toporowski from membership because her mother had lost her Indian status through that act, and therefore she too would not be applicable for membership within the tribes. As a bit of a TLDR, her mother, and Toporowski before she was born, simultaneously lost both their status and their membership. If this is difficult to reconcile, we could use ALT0 or ALT2 as well. Ornithoptera (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Bæddel and bædling

  • ... that bædlings may have been a third gender in Anglo-Saxon society?

Does this count as a "definite fact" per the stipulations at WP:DYKCRIT? I'm not convinced that something that merely "may have" been true is legitimate for DYK, given that the hook gives readers no context on which to judge it's likelihood of being true. The article itself is not really terribly forthcoming on the weight of evidence for the different interpretations of this either... @Generalissima, Tenpop421, and AirshipJungleman29:  — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

It is a definite fact that they may have been (compare "Ellen Thesleff's self-portrait may have been drawn in a trance-like state?", "an enigmatic ancient site deep in Madagascar (pictured) may have been built by Zoroastrians?" ). The evidence for these terms is limited (the article itself is able to go over more or less all of the attestations), and I think the article well summarises the interpretations that this limited corpus has been given. Best, Tenpop421 (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
that's fair, but i'm not sure i agree with that – if that's the standard, then pretty much anything can be a definite fact, since almost anything may be true? what's more accurate and definite is that smart, reputable people have suggested it is true. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

1957 Ruskin Heights tornado

The article doesn't as far as I can see mention that the debris at 30,000 was reported by pilots. The relevant text simply says "Debris from Hickman Mills was found in Iowa, 165 mi (266 km) away, and other debris was carried aloft 30,000 ft (9,100 m; 5.7 mi; 9.1 km)", without saying how the elevated debris was known about... @EF5, Wildfireupdateman, Departure–, and AirshipJungleman29:  — Amakuru (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I was in the process of verifying ALT0 and never checked this one. I don't have access to the source, but I did find that the NWS source the figure of 30,000 is sourced to states:

On May 20, 1957 the atmospheric wind profile displayed a clockwise change in wind direction from the surface up through 30,000 feet in the atmosphere. This type of atmospheric wind profile often is associated with rotating or supercell type thunderstorms (Figure 6)

This refers to helicity in the atmosphere, not debris. I can't access most of the sources cited there. However, the Weather Bureau May 1957 Storm Data source states:

Debris carried to height of 30,000 feet and to many miles from damage path.

I'd remove the "pilots reported" part. Even though I'm not sure how else it would be verified, pilots aren't mentioned in any of the sources I can access. Departure– (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
According to the book Significant Tornadoes, 1880-1989: Volume 2, a Chronology of Events by Grazulis(undoubtedly an RS, archive link https://archive.org/details/significanttorna0002thom/page/400/mode/2up), "A cancelled check from Hickman Mills was found at Ottumwa, Iowa, 165 miles away. Pilots reported debris at an attitude of 30,000 feet." If needed, you can change the source to this book. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't know if that's WPOR by Grazulis though, so I would be fine if "pilots reported" was removed. Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Can a statement by a subject matter expert be considered original research, though? Departure– (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

DYK time???

Under Template:Did you know/Queue#DYK time, we've got:

The next empty queue is 3. (update · from prep 3 · from prep 4 · clear)

What do these links do? I'm afraid to click on any of them to find out for fear of doing something I might regret. Do these force main page updates from those various sources? RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I just clicked on all of them. They don't do anything, just take you to various pages. I suspect they are a hangover from the days of manual queueing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
They open up the editing windows for the next empty queue, next two preps, and Template:Did you know/Clear. See Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Admin instructions#Moving a prep to queue 2.--Launchballer 15:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Queue 3 (8 January)

The Bootleggers (Hopper)

@AirshipJungleman29, Viriditas, and Randy Kryn: The article says "thought to depict the smuggling of alcohol" but the hook presents this as authoritative fact in wiki voice: "portrays the illegal alcohol trade" RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Take another look. The sentence you refer to doesn’t hedge the question of smuggling alcohol, but rather the location depicted. Viriditas (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah, got it. Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, I’m partial to ALT1, but it is long. Viriditas (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Blossoms Under Somewhere

@AirshipJungleman29, Prince of Erebor, and Artem.G: I'm a little concerned about the WP:BLP aspects here, heightened by the fact that most of the sources are in Chinese, making it difficult to verify. I see that the nom includes English translations of excerpts from the relevant sources; maybe we could include those quotes in the article references so our readers can have access to them? RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

RoySmith, Great suggestion! I have added the quote and its English translation to the source that supports the hook fact. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 17:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Flag of Okinawa Prefecture

If it's decided to keep the flag as the primary hook in and from Preparation area 1, please add a border so the shape of the white flag is clearly visible. Thanks! Yue🌙 20:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Category: