Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DYKT)
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

Giving queues template instead of full protection?

[edit]

We have a chronic problem of not enough admins doing promotions to queues. We also have a number of highly skilled DYK regulars who I would trust to edit queues but they can't because they're not admins and don't want to be. What if we changed the queues to Template protection instead of full protection. Then we could give WP:Template editor to a few people.

I know, there will be pushback at the project level to the change, but let's for the moment assume we can overcome that. From a DYK perspective, is that something that would work? Are there people who would be willing to take on the Template editor role and start doing queue promotions? RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd grab that with both hands. (I wouldn't mind being an admin either, but you can probably think of your own reasons why I might not go down very well at WP:RFA, and I'd want to get some featured content under my belt first.)--Launchballer 13:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the idea in theory (more trusted people with buttons is good), but in practise there are currently 191 template editors versus 851 administrators. Would such a small number be able to impact queues in the long-term? And you suggest that people could be given template editor to make the necessary changes, but such people would need to be go through normal template request to be trusted with all template tools, just as with admins (e.g. Admins joining solely for DYK) needing to be trusted with all their tools. I support the idea of doing something like this because as of late all the prep areas have been entirely full (even though most queues have been empty), meaning I've been unable to make any promotions :(DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 13:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 15 users at Template:DYK admins, of which I reckon four (RoySmith, Kusma, BorgQueen, Theleekycauldron) have raked sets this month. All extra hands on deck would help.--Launchballer 13:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that ratio of 15/851 (1.7%) admins is also true for template editors then that suggests only about 3 template editors would put their name to the project, and if the activity ratio is also true for 4/851 (0.47%) then that suggests we have about 8/10ths of a template editor. Which isn't the point of the original post but interesting to note DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The number of current template editors is irrelevant. We have a lot of capable people here who will not become administrators because our process to make administrators is broken (and has been broken for well over a decade). If we give these people the "template editor" right and lower protection of the queues, we will gain all of the people we add to the system as prep to queue promoters. —Kusma (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this. We do desperately need DYK admins, and since RfA is currently a pit of hell, I don't see it getting any better (I believe I read somewhere that we are losing more admins then gaining them because of how absolutely botched the system is). Until the process is revamped, we probably need a way to keep things efficient, and I'd 100% support giving template editors the right to promote. SirMemeGod  14:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But how to decide who gets promotion rights and who doesn't? That could get a bit awkward. Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The default system is "admin discretion". —Kusma (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does that work? Gatoclass (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, go to Special:UserRights/AirshipJungleman29, click "template editor", add the reason "does good work, should do even more work", click "Save user groups". I have for example given theleekycauldron the template editor right (before she became an admin) when she needed it for something (I think it was about DYK related edit notices). —Kusma (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure the wider community likes the idea of giving me more hats, but if you're willing I guess I'm down? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression the opposite was true. IOW, that the community was in favor of debundling the toolset. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have a guideline for granting TPE so it's not completely up to admin discretion. Users being granted the right should meet the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Template editor#Guidelines for granting — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That section does explicitly say "The above items are merely guidelines. An administrator may choose to substitute other proofs of an editor's competence in handling high-risk template responsibilities", though. —Kusma (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be opposed to this like I am opposed to all sorts of unbundling of admin tasks. But I have given up on Wikipedia ever promoting enough good folks to administrators, so now I think we should go for it. We should lower the protection of the queues to template editor and hand out 5-20 new template editor rights to the most trusted preppers and prep copyeditors (and perhaps take it away from people who screw up too much). Just out of paranoia, we should not change anything about the cascading full protection that keeps the top queue admin only. —Kusma (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20 is far too many. 5 or 6 max if that. But we could just ask a few former DYK admins for more assistance. I know that I personally have been intending to get back to some DYK promotion for quite some time, but never quite seem to manage it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The state of the queue shows that we do not have enough people willing to do p2q promotions. I do not think there is a sustainable way to change that with former DYK admins, even if you may be able to rope some of them in for firefighting every now and then. —Kusma (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But then if you allow people with the template editor permission to edit the queue, how do you stop just anybody who happens to have the permission from editing it? Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I want to stop them? If we have to, we can just take away their template editor rights. —Kusma (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most behavior on enwiki is self-policed. We explain to people how they're expected to behave and trust them to do so. That's especially true as you get to advanced permission holders (which I consider template editors to be). RoySmith (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a great idea. I remember you asking me to be go through the RFA process, but it doesn't seem to have changed when I was nominated over 10 years ago. Even if I don't do queue promotions, I would like to at least fix errors that others bring up. There have been many times when I would have jumped in to fix hook errors, but of course I don't have the ability to do that. I wouldn't mind doing queue promotions either. SL93 (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gratified at the positive reception this has received, and thus started a related discussion at WP:VPP#Template protection for DYK queues?. RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, those of you who might want to be an admin but have been unwilling to run because they don't want to deal with WP:RFA, might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrator elections. RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator elections sound just as stressful as RfA to my ears DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plan of action

[edit]

I see broad consensus above to implement this. I also haven't seen anything yet on WP:VPP#Template protection for DYK queues? which convinces me I'd get in trouble if I proceeded, but I'll let that run for a bit longer to make sure no show-stoppers emerge. I'm going to be at WCNA October 3-6; it makes sense to hold off doing this until I can come back. My plan is to change the protection of:

to template protection. Shubinator I took a look at User:DYKUpdateBot/Code. As far as I can tell, it ensures images are fully protected, but doesn't care about the queues themselves, so this change shouldn't be noticed by the bot. Can you confirm this?

If I understand how the main page protections work, Main Page is fully protected with the "Cascading protection" flag set. Main Page transcludes Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow which in turn transcludes {{Did you know/Queue/{{Did you know/Queue/Next}}}}, so the top queue will still end up being fully protected. Which means non-admin template editors will be able to edit the other six queues, but it will still take an admin to edit the top queue. I don't quite understand why the protection doesn't continue to cascade down to everything the queue transcludes, but I assume there's some template magic which limits the cascade level. Perhaps that's the purpose of the various <noinclude> tags?

As far as anointing new template editors goes, technically I (or any other admin) has the ability to flip the bit, but I think as a matter of transparency, it makes sense to apply at WP:PERM and also post a note here saying that you've applied. I imagine we'd want to start with 1 or 2 people and see how things go. Given that this will give people rights to edit sensitive things outside of DYK, it won't be handed out like candy. RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me when you do that and I'll apply for the permissions. Launchballer 19:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that full protection still applies to today's and tomorrow's queues, you might be better just reducing the protection to extended confirmed. This would eliminate the need for editors to get extra rights. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there's consensus to do that, I would have no objection. Let's see how people react to the idea. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a bit too relaxed; I wouldn't want editors with 513 edits queueing sets. If PSHAW could check whether an editor is an admin, had over 10,000 edits, or had promoted over ~150 hooks, then that might be fine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would that work though? PSHAW is a user script and can only do what the user can do DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might think so. But WP:OTD only fully protects today's and tomorrow's pages. All the others are just semi-protected I believe, and that seems to work fine for them — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This should be given by an assigned right so that there is at least some vetting.--Launchballer 20:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this for a while, and the more I think about it, the more I like it.
Perhaps we could appoint people as "DYK Clerks", similar to SPI clerks or ArbCom clerks. The software won't enforce anything, but the rule would be "Queues are for clerks only". If you violate the rule, you get trouted (exactly what happens at SPI if you violate the "archives are for clerks only" rule). Clerkships would be handed out by rough consensus at WT:DYK.
Right now, there's really no vetting at all. Anybody with a mop, whether they know anything about how DYK works or not, can muck with the queues. Having mopless but clueful clerks seems preferable to that. RoySmith (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that might very well work. Let's try it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we do that, we should just get rid of the preps altogether and just let people directly edit the (non-top) queues. The responsibility for fact checking would then be with people we currently call prep builders. —Kusma (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(And of course we could get rid of the prep/queue system completely by just transcluding [[Wikipedia:Did you know/{{TODAY}}]] onto the Main Page similar to what we do with OTD, but that's probably a separate discussion). —Kusma (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's a good idea — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, but responsibility for quality control cannot be left to prep builders alone. The prep/queue system works not only because it has up until now relied solely upon admins for the final step, but because in making that final step, sets by necessity get an additional check from a fresh reviewer. That additional check is a vital component of the DYK process in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think our current process is poor design. The person deciding what to put on the Main Page (the prep builder) should be the same as the person taking responsibility for what is on the Main Page (currently the queuer). We currently have three levels of "quality control" but allow the first two levels to be sloppy, relying on a scarce resource (queuers willing to sign off other people's work) in a very un-wiki process. —Kusma (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, I don't think we should be adopting OTD's system because, until fairly recently, OTD was absolutely full of show-crashing holes in every set. The only reason it's not (usually) like that anymore is careful attention from a group of admins willing to wipe each set clean. Trusted users should have to sign off on every set, otherwise we just have too many problems. Under the system that's being proposed here, the final check on a set going on the Main Page could be from someone with just 500 edits and no community-granted permissions – I absolutely cannot get behind that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. Gatoclass (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) With respect Kusma, although I have been pretty inactive of late, I have done a ton of both prep building and queue promoting in the past, and I do not believe for a moment that prep builders should have final responsibility for quality control, because they already have too many other considerations to juggle in putting together sets. For that final step, one needs somebody who is focused solely on quality control, not on that plus all the other considerations that must go into building a balanced set, to say nothing of the time and effort required. If you expect prep builders to do all the quality control as well, you are going to end up with either nobody ever building a set, or an unacceptable number of errors going through to the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody has "final" responsibility for quality control of each of their edits; this is a wiki after all. Separating edits from taking responsibility for them is what I do not like. By all means have an extra review process, but why should the reviewer have more responsibility for the edit than the person who made it?
As to "prep builders are so busy already": preps are built by a much more collaborative and wiki process than queues, often with people promoting individual hooks and moving them around and with several people working on copyedits. Compared to that, our process to fix anything once in the queues is both understaffed and bureaucratic. —Kusma (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, yes, prep builders are supposed to thoroughly check noms before promoting them. But practically, it's just too much for one person to do. As RoySmith has pointed out, just to properly check a single queue generally takes 20 minutes to half an hour - and that's if one doesn't find any errors that need work. Expecting people to do that and search for a bunch of varied hooks and decide how to sort them and go through the transfer process just gets overwhelming. So yes, builders must check for errors but a second reviewer is needed to verify their work.
Other than that - anybody can build a prep set as things stand, and prep builders have a wide range of competence, so their work always needs to be checked. This entire proposal, after all, is about finding a method to add a few more queue promoters who don't have the admin bit but who can be trusted with quality control. What you seem to be proposing is to just let any Tom, Dick or Harry promote to queue because there are enough people checking each other's work for it all to somehow work out. History shows that is a great way to have a complete breakdown in quality control. Gatoclass (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the argument could be made that allowing more people to work on cues would actually help solve the checking stuff. By not having to rely on sysops, quality control could be made faster and more flexible, since people could just pull or revise hooks instead of needing to bother admins about it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either we expect prep builders to check the noms or we don't. I think a typical way for a major blunder to make it to the Main Page is a sloppy qpq review (only checking newness, length and Earwig) followed by a prep builder only interested in typical prep builder stuff like bio/US balance and an admin promoting a set in two minutes to alleviate the backlog. Each of them can pretend that somebody else did the checking. I think fewer rounds of box ticking could be helpful in making people take more responsibility. Or perhaps we should have clearer responsibilities and say that prep builders do not need to make certain checks so they will be left only to admins who then won't be able to pretend somebody else did them. Full disclosure: as an admin promoting preps to queues, I do not check everything either. I generally check for accuracy, NPOV, BLP and copyvio and do not care at all about general eligibility things like newness, as getting those wrong does little harm. —Kusma (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My prep-to-queue checks are that I can find the hook fact stated in the article and that there's a citation to what looks like a RS, and that Earwig doesn't point out anything horrible. If something raises a red flag (a "first" claim, for example), I'll run that down. I'll give the sources a cursory glance just to see if they're total BS. When I was building preps, most of my effort went into complying with our style rules for balancing topics and maintaining variety.
It's really the initial review that digs the deepest into the guts of the article, but I'd be naïve to believe most of those do as good a job as they should. Many initial reviews are done by our newest DYK participants so they haven't yet built the skills we need. Some are done by more experienced DYK denizens but as a rush job so they can tick off the QPQ box. It's not a good situation, but it is what it is. RoySmith (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responsibility is shared, yes - and really has to be, because one person alone is unlikely to pick up every potential issue. Under the current system, hooks get reviewed as they make it to the main page by a minimum of three people, and that is a system that has proven to be reasonably robust. Having said that, the principle onus of responsibility must always be on the administrator promoting the hook to the queue. because they are the last link in the chain and as an admin they are held to a higher level of accountability than others. But at the same time, imagining you are somehow going to get better results by dispensing with two levels of error checking is, I'm afraid to say, just plain delusional. Gatoclass (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good that I never suggested going below two levels of checking, then. Anyway, we are getting quite off topic, as the original point of this conversation was to expand the pool of queuers by going to template protection instead of full. I still think we should go for that ASAP. I do not currently expect consensus to implement any more radical ideas and apologise for the distraction. —Kusma (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in listen-mostly mode on this for the past few days as I'm on the road, but I see a couple of possible ways forward:
1) My original proposal of using template protection.
2) User:MSGJ's modification of that to use ECP instead.
3) Using ECP coupled with appointing DYK clerks who are socially authorized (but not software enforced) to manage the queues.
At this point, I'm kind of leaning towards #3, and I suspect #2 would be a non-starter. What do other people think? RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I hate it when I can't edit something, and I'd hate it even more if someone tells me they reverted my good edit because I wasn't authorised to make it. Also, 3 smells like bureaucracy. So I prefer 1 or 2. —Kusma (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed to ECP protection, either alone or with "clerks", because almost anybody can edit an ECP-protected page so it's tantamount to practically no protection at all. One major reason why we went to template protection in the first place was the problem of random editors suddenly altering hooks in problematic ways shortly before they went to the main page, and that certainly isn't something I would want to see reintroduced. Template protection would be the bare minimum in my view and even that I have serious concerns about. Gatoclass (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever protection level we choose, the next queue is always automatically fully protected via cascading protection, so we always have at least 12 hours of full protection before a set hits the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I tried to view source on Queue 2 earlier after seeing #Queue 2 broken?, it said that the queue was cascade-protected as it was transcluded in Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content. Is this an error? Launchballer 00:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would need to be removed before any lowering of protection can take effect — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is independent of the Main Page's protection (the next queue is actually cascade protected multiple times). But indeed we need to edit that page to un-cascade protect the rest of the queue. Thank you for pointing it out! —Kusma (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I see @MSGJ added those in 2012! And the list was expanded to include queue 7 in 2020. I guess until then we only had 6 queues? RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gatoclass and Kusma: Prep builders actually aren't required to recheck the nomination in full. They usually check more than they have to by virtue of being experienced, but they're technically only responsible for reverifying the hook and some other minor checks. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, sorry if I implied otherwise. Hook verification is the main thing, added to that, when promoting to the queue, I usually do a quick check that everything is sourced and that the sources look reliable, along with a quick scan to ensure that there are no obvious problems with prose quality (prep builders should do the same IMO). But yes, hook accuracy is the prime concern. Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fact checking the hook is the most important of the checks at each stage, as the hook will be shown to millions of readers, not just tens of thousands like the article (if you are lucky), but I am not always convinced that preppers have done this.
Looking at the admin instructions (I rarely use them other than as a checklist for manual updates) I think we should update the admin instructions a bit to remove some of the stuff nobody does or only does at other times. For example, the check that the image is protected needs to happen only for manual updates because it is otherwise done by the bot; it is not something we actually do for prep to queue. —Kusma (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: the protection of the image is usually done by KrinkleBot on Commons and the check that the image is protected is done by DYKUpdateBot. —Kusma (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been too active on DYK lately, but I've always wanted to give Queue building a shot so I might consider applying. Either that or I'd like to at least try out the permission so I can help out in stuff like pulling or rewording hooks from Queue. I did read the requirements for Template editor and they do seem rather stringent even for most DYK regulars, especially with the stuff related to template editing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plan of action v2

[edit]

OK, I'm back from WCNA, so it's time to pick this up again. As I mentioned upthread, I was leaning towards one of the ECP variations instead of WP:TPROT, but I see some pushback to that so I'm back to the original plan. My main concern is that when people apply to WP:PERM for their bit, the folks there will not be willing to grant it because this isn't really what TPROT was envisioned for. But if that happens, we won't be any worse off than we are now, and can consider the next step at that time. So, the current plan is to change the protection on:

to template protection and also to remove these entries from Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content. I'll let this sit for one more day to give people a last chance to raise any objections. Absent any show-stoppers that might arise, I'll go ahead and do all that tomorrow morning. RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is done. I trust people will let me know if I screwed anything up. At this point, non-admins who want to do queue maintenance should post a request at WP:PERM. RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If we use WP:PERM we'll probably need to explain to other admins handling that area that we'd like to give Template editor to people who can be trusted to leave modules and esoteric templates alone when they don't know what they are doing. Anyway, I would like to encourage @AirshipJungleman29, @SL93, @BlueMoonset and @Ravenpuff to apply so they can help with p2q promotions and with copyediting the queues. —Kusma (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively I would encourage them to apply for adminship, perhaps by using the new election process instead — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Applying for a mop is certainly something to consider. I see we've already got 7 candidates listed at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates, which gives me quite a bit of optimism that it might be a process that's going to work.
BTW, I just did some testing. If you are a template editor and try to edit the next queue (Queue 1 at the moment), you will get an "edit" link, making it look like you can edit the page, but when you click that link, the cascading protection will kick in and prevent you from actually making any changes. RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be helpful if {{DYK queue/navigation}} was adjusted so that the fully protected queues were displayed in a different color (e.g. red)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection, but it needs to be done by somebody who knows arcane template syntax better than I do :-) RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure this is helpful, as the protected queue is the same as the next queue. —Kusma (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not keen on this change, and it isn't clear to me where consensus was reached for it. However, at minimum, anybody who wants this permission to edit the queues should be posting their intention here first, preferably well before, because regulars here shouldn't have to monitor PERM to see who might be applying. Gatoclass (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I made a request at PERM but withdrew it at Gatoclass's suggestion, and that I did indicate twice that I would grab this with both hands (see [1], [2]).--Launchballer 23:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but again, before going any further, I think the issue of consensus needs to be clarified, and once that is resolved, there would still have to be a discussion about the exact process to be followed and indeed what exactly we are giving users permission to do with their new right. Gatoclass (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gatoclass, I just read back through the entire thread. I see seven people in favor (@Launchballer, @Kusma, @Sir MemeGod, @AirshipJungleman29, @SL93, @Narutolovehinata5 and myself), three more (@DimensionalFusion, @MSGJ, @Theleekycauldron) who participated in the discussion but I can't tell for certain which way they felt, and one (you) who are clearly opposed. That sounds like consensus to me. I'll be blunt: based on your edit history, you used to be an active queue promoter but you've done two queue promotions in the past two years. If you don't want to do promotions any more, that's perfectly fine, but don't get in the way of people who want to do the work. RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Roy, the problem is that few if any of the users in this thread are disinterested parties, since it's comprised solely either of overworked DYK admins or people who would like the extra permission. And of course all these people deserve a say, but should it be left up to them alone to decide? Your thread at village pump, on the other hand, seemed to attract very little support. My concern here is that the wider community may want input into a change of this nature, and if they don't get it and things start to go wrong, it could lead to a lot of unhelpful wikidrama. And DYK has surely had more than enough of that over the years.
Now with regard to my own position - I haven't actually outright opposed this idea yet. I would have opposed if I was in a position to get back to regular queue reviewing, but the truth is, I'm not, and I still don't know at this point when or if I will be able to return to contributing on a regular basis here, so am very reluctant to stand in the way of those who can.
Regardless, if this is going to be done, I want to see it done the right way, not rushed into with insufficient consideration. So consensus is the first thing that must be decided. Are we all really comfortable with just deciding this in our own little corner of the project, or should it first go to, say, WP:CD, so that the wider community can have input?
And assuming for the sake of argument that the proposal gets approved one way or another, there are, I think, still a number of questions that need to be resolved before it is implemented. For example, will this change mean that any editor with the template permission will be permitted to edit the queues, regardless of their DYK experience or lack of it? Or will they need to get a separate endorsement for editing these particular templates (which are very different in function from others)? And when someone gets this permission, what does it mean exactly? Will they be permitted only to promote preps to the queue, or will they be permitted to copyedit or make changes to hooks in the queue?
And finally, again, what should the process look like for applying for this particular permission? Because, as I've said above, I don't think it's going to be sufficient for users to just make a request at WP:PERM. Rather, users should be obliged to formally give notice of their intention to request the permission here first, so that DYK regulars, who will be familiar with the quality of their DYK contributions, are alerted. And we might want to outline a formal process for doing that. So they are some of the concerns I have right now. Gatoclass (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm a disinterested party (not exactly sure how I found this thread). I also see consensus for non-admins to be able to help in this work, and I commend Roy for taking the initiative. There is no requirement to ask here for permission first - anyone can post at WP:PERM to ask for advanced permissions, and if they meet the criteria then they will be given out. This post was inappropriate, in my opinion, and I intend to review the request regardless of it being withdrawn — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could set up an expected number of promotions to prep (I can't remember the tool that counts these) before someone can help in the queues. If it's a high enough number, it is likely major issues would have been detected by that point. CMD (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think promotions to prep and general edits to the prep sets should both be counted, perhaps separately. We have some people who have been copyediting and fixing formatting issues on the prep sets for years. I would like to allow them to edit the queues even if they haven't been doing a lot of promoting. —Kusma (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of a couple of other potential issues here. PERM permissions can be granted unilaterally by any admin without debate. This sets the bar very low by comparison with the DYK process to date, which has required somebody to stand for adminship if they want to edit the queues. That's a pretty remarkable change from the previously required standard, and strikes me as insufficiently robust. In terms of the PERM guidelines, there is nothing to prevent it of course, but this is, after all, a novel rationale for the permission (and one which, as already noted, is evidently about to be decided without wider community input). So I still think it would be appropriate for a user who wants this permission to test consensus at this page first.

Other than that, should there be a limit on the number of users who are granted this permission at any one time? Because this does strike me as a process that could quickly get out of hand, with permissions being handed out not only without discussion, but to too many users whose record for fact-checking/copyediting may not actually withstand closer scrutiny. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, people can become admins without any experience with DYK. Our experienced non-admin prep builders are going to do a better job at p2q than the random clueless admin who might do an emergency promotion. —Kusma (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, for those that haven't seen it at WP:PERM, I've been given the right.--Launchballer 07:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw. Congratulations! Now get to work promoting queues :-) RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween set

[edit]

I think it could be nice to have a Halloween-themed DYK set this year, like last year. Would anyone else be interested in working on this? User:Premeditated Chaos said that she has a page ready, so that's already one. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago, I did Feetloaf. Not sure I've got anything better than that in the wings. The scariest I've got in my dusty drafts collection is User:RoySmith/drafts/Token Sucking. That's been incubating for six years and I still haven't managed to get it done. Maybe it's worth putting some effort into for this year. RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the nomination up for mine now: Template:Did you know nominations/What A Merry-Go-Round. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is another approved nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret C. Waites. TSventon (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer of my hook Template:Did you know nominations/Brian David Gilbert suggested that I post it here. The hook mentions Stranger Things (scary), Halloween monsters (spooky), and the American health insurance system (AAAHHHHH!!!).
— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw a review in the Guardian for a programme called "Killer Cakes" if that's of any use.--Launchballer 08:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haunted (Laura Les song) is nominated for GAN. This might be a potential option for this set. Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can work up articles/expansions for a deathcamas and a "ghost of Gondwana" spider species--Kevmin § 18:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Slime (fantasy creature) to go with this set. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also asked that Template:Did you know nominations/Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites (song) be included in the set. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnocentricity?

[edit]

I know we've done Halloween sets before, but I wonder if this is excessively ethnocentric? This is historically a Christian event (although it's been co-opted by people outside the Christian faith) and Geography of Halloween says The celebrations and observances of this day occur primarily in regions of the Western world. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't explicitly endorsing Halloween, it's just a fun project to get spooky/thematically appropriate hooks on October 31st. I really don't think this is an issue. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Halloween is celebrated everywhere where there is a strong American influence, which is quite a large part of the world, especially the English speaking one. We should try to celebrate some Indian holidays too, but there isn't anything wrong with a Halloween theme. —Kusma (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is willing to build a set for a non-Christian, non-Western special occasion, I would be fully supportive and find articles to help. Z1720 (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phase 2 of DYK namespace change

[edit]

Given the arguments pointed out for phase 1 about how newbies never really touch the queues and promotions, I present Phase 2 of the DYK namespace change (it's technically phase 1 since the original phase 1 got postponed but phase 2 to prevent confusion). If accepted by the community, the proposals will be implemented ten days from that date.

Smaller things

If you think I've left anything out, let me know!!! If you have any feedback, also reply below. Thanks! DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a great idea. I would suggest a subpage structure, e.g. Wikipedia:Did you know/nominations to keep everything under the parent page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So nominations would be Wikipedia:Did you know/nominations/xyz instead of Template:Did you know nominations/xyz? Sounds interesting DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Maybe with a capital "N" to match other subpages like Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics, Wikipedia:Did you know/Monthly wrap, etc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Approved doesn't need to be a subpage of nominations. Could use Wikipedia:Did you know/Approved for this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to keep nominations separate from the rest of DYK so you can more easily find all DYK related pages other than the nominations. I can see no advantage of putting everything under one subpage tree. —Kusma (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's ensure Wikipedia talk:Did you know nominations and Wikipedia talk:Did you know nominations/Approved redirect here, to prevent new pages springing up where fewer people will be watching. This seems doable if timed to occur shortly after a new set goes live. We will need to check for new nominations appearing in the template space for a bit, perhaps someone knows if the way we catch current malformed nominations will work for this. CMD (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, remote talk pages don't tend to get attention so it's better to redirect to somewhere it will be read DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3/2021 Naperville-Woodridge tornado

[edit]

I found out my DYK submission had been accepted via the watchlist as the ping didn't go through. Anyway, the DYK article pipe was changed from a 2021 tornado in the Chicago suburbs to a tornado in Chicago. This is factually inaccurate as Chicago itself was not impacted by the tornado directly (although it almost was). I understand the text length concern, so the use of a tornado in Chicagoland or a tornado near Chicago in its place could be used as a compromise. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea, I'll adjust it. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about something like "... in 2021, the windy city got really, really, windy?" RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This blurb would be perfect for Severe weather sequence of July 13–16, 2024, where six tornadoes hit the city itself in 24 hours. I'm thinking I might expand the article within the month and nominate it again. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if and when it does, the entry will be "...that the Windy City was struck by two windstorms and six whirlwinds in only 24 hours?" This is in no way a nomination. I won't start seriously expanding the article until around October 18 or so, when the NCEI storm database releases their report for July 2024 events. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone from outside the US, what's the distinction? Why does it need to be made more obscure DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago is a big city, so saying the tornado hit Chicago makes it sound as if it ran straight into the Loop, which isn't accurate. SirMemeGod  15:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A city (such as Chicago) has specific geographic boundaries. The term "suburbs" is short for "suburban area" and generally refers to the built-up areas around a city but not technically inside the city boundaries. RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Preceding comment removed in an edit conflict, restored by GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The boundaries set by government don't necessarily reflect the actual geographic size of a city – e.g. Malta's capital city, Valletta, technically has a population of 5,000 set by the government but an Urban population of 480,000 DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the tornado happened in the Chicago metropolitan area, hence why saying Chicago doesn't really make sense. SirMemeGod  16:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For most people, Chicago metropolitan area == Chicago unless you really care about that sort of thing. For the same reason London == London metropolitan area and Capital of Malta == Valletta metropolitan area DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See [3]. Naperville isn't even considered part of Chicago. SirMemeGod  16:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That link goes to a Page not found – if Naperville isn't part of Chicago, why not just say Naperville? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because "Chicago suburbs" makes the location of Naperville easier to identify. If someone asked me to point out Naperville on a map, I'd be confused, but if someone told me to point out "Chicago suburbs" on a map, it's a lot easier to understand. That's also a contributing factor to how interesting the hook is, it happened in the Chicago area. SirMemeGod  16:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So... It's Chicago then DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not Chicago. It's 28 miles west of there. Saying it's Chicago without qualification is blatantly inaccurate, and running inaccurate hooks gets them pulled from the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An example of a clear non-US distinction between "[City]" and "[City] metropolitan area"
Don't say that to people from the West Midlands if they can hear you... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since the argument is going on, I'll present a bit more context: The initial tornado warning (which I got as the image for the page on tornado warning) did include areas of the city of Chicago, specifically Chicago Lawn and Midway International Airport. The tornado itself reached Chicago's county, Cook County, Illinois, but dissipated after affecting the cities of Willow Springs and Burr Ridge, both of which are in both Cook and DuPage county. The storm did produce wind gusts, rainfall, and (potentially) hail in the aforementioned areas, but as far as I can tell nothing notable came of it (i.e. no injuries, fatalities, or significant damage). Nothing of note happened in The Loop itself, either. No tornado hit Chicago in 2021. The DYK page saying as much is inaccurate. WP:VNT is a non-argument as there are numerous official, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources that clearly state that Burr Ridge, Willow Springs, Darien, Woodridge, and Naperville are not Chicago, and instead suburbs of Chicago. Besides, it's one word changing from "in" to "near", and the DYK was based on the helicity, not the location. The only source stating the tornado hit Chicago is a Geospacial Insurance Consortium article that has the claim that the tornado hit "Southside [sic] of Chicago" in its title and nowhere else. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try but the West Midlands isn't real. It's just bigger Birmingham DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 17:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll speak up for the poster who does not immediately get the difference. They are far from the only one, and from 9000 miles away, it seems kind of so . . ., but there is a precise way to look at it, and not. (If you are from England or know it perhaps think City of London and not.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Things can also get weird in the US. I live in the Bronx which by all legal definitions is part of New York City. But informally if I have to go to Manhattan, I'll say, "I need to go into the city". And don't even try to figure out why New York City (which is part of New York State) consists of five counties, one of which is New York County. RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if you have to go the Marble Hill . . .:) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's "the Bronx", but just plain "Marble Hill", not "the Marble Hill". Because history. RoySmith (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And here, we thought it was The Bronx. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's "the Bronx" or "The Bronx" seems to be a matter of style. I've seen it both ways. Also "Da Bronx" :-) RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a personal one, since RoySmith already went. I live in Gahanna, Ohio, 10-or-so minutes from Columbus, Ohio, a city with almost a million residents. Gahanna is technically part of Columbus, but it is overwhelmingly referred to as either Gahanna or the "Columbus Suburbs". "Columbus" is reserved for downtown Columbus. :) SirMemeGod  17:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Im with the US editors here, and for a local one to me, while Bellevue, Washington and Redmond, Washington are in the greater Seattle metropolitan area; Microsoft, Nintendo, T-Mobile US, and Costco would all raise a fit if you said they were in the Seattle city limits.--Kevmin § 18:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all Wikipedia editors are American though DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 18:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tornado took place in Chicago, located in the US. With that, we should probably use United States terms, and US editors have overwhelmingly agreed that Chicago and Chicago suburbs are separate places, from what I've gouged from this discussion. SirMemeGod  19:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If US editors (speaking with a crudely broad brush) think the suburbs of Chicago are not part of Chicago, let's just keep to that fudge, as I'm sure most other editors would think they are part of Chicago and thus get the basic geographical area. CMD (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I anticipate many people outside the US also distinguish between metro areas and cities proper. The 800,000 people in Nova Iguaçu would likely object to being called "Rio", for example, despite being <20 miles away. JoelleJay (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh, bad one got thru

[edit]

Here's one that got thru that shouldn't have. Hey I know this is a fast-moving operation, we are all volunteers, nobody's perfect and some non-optimal stuff is going to thru on occasion (and the DYK vetting is actually quite vigorous and effective). Still, I feel compelled to point this one out as perhaps the sort of thing to watch for in future.

I'm talking about Masada myth, which appeared as a DYK on 20 September 2024. The lede paragraph at that time (with bolding added for emphasis) said:

The Masada myth is the early Zionist retelling of the Siege of Masada, and an Israeli national myth. The Masada myth is a selectively constructed narrative based on Josephus's account, supplemented with fabrications and omissions. This narrative was socially constructed and promoted by Jews in Mandatory Palestine and later Israel. Despite the modern academic consensus, popular accounts by figures like Yigal Yadin and Moshe Pearlman have perpetuated the myth, influencing public perception.

and to excerpt the rest of the lede (of which some parts are OK, granted):

This narrative selectively emphasized... the defenders' courage and resistance while omitting the details of their murderous campaign against innocent Jews. The Masada myth's central role in Israeli collective memory has puzzled scholars due to its structural differences from other national myths [as it] is not heroic in nature."

POV much? Come on. King Arthur wasn't real, Roland's sword could not cleave stone, and the first emperor of Japan was not a god. We don't describe all the other foundational myths as having "fabrications and omissions" or complain that they "selectively" emphasized the good parts of the mythic founders while leaving out the bad parts ("murderous" etc.) and so forth because of course they do, what would you expect. We just describe the myth. Why make an exception for these particular people in the lede. Not a good look to be honest. Herostratus (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point about the "Masada myth" referenced here is that it's a modern myth invented for political reasons that still has relevance to a current political situation. Legends like King Arthur or those pertaining to the Emperor of Japan simply do not have the same political dimension, which is why they are not subject to the same kind of analysis. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this was pulled after this discussion at WP:ERRORS. —Kusma (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but that looks more like a case of a seriously underdone hook rather than an issue with the content of the article per se. Gatoclass (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No you're mostly wrong about the political dimension I think, national myths tell stories that bond the nation together and make people proud of it. That is political in a broad sense. And some national myths are not so very old or arisen from folk tales -- the Finnish Kavala was written in 1935 for instance. I could say a lot more, and I have at that article's talk page.
But I mean I'm not here to argue about content points. Let's get real here. We all know how the demographic heavily represented here is uh turning and turning hard if you get my drift. But, I don't care what anybody chants at the demonstration, we don't bring that here. But some editors don't get that, so keep a lookout for more of this stuff. And for anybody who doesn't see a problem with that lede, I would ask them to recuse themselves from articles dealing with Israel and the people who live there, and let others do the looking out, thanks.
Again, thanks for your service, carry on and dread nought. Herostratus (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it was pulled per a discussion at the main page errors page. This is pointed out on the article talk page, did not see that earlier. Excellent work then! Thank you all.
Ah, I realize how the hook was not good. It says the story was "judged a myth". But that's not true. A myth is certain kind of story. Myths can be true or false or some of each. The Masada Myth was always understood to be a myth. But -- there is another use of the word "myth" in common use, that means falsehood. It's always pejorative and, in context, this was how it was slipped in. As I said be vigilant. Herostratus (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3

[edit]

Abdul Ahad Azad

[edit]
  • "First" claims have had a lot of kickback, and something subjective like "the first poet to introduce revolutionary themes" is definitely not going to fly. The article mitigates it with "considered", which is a bit better, but still not quite main-page worthy. Tagging creator, reviewer, and promoter: Ratekreel, User:Onceinawhile, AirshipJungleman29 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with this comment. We are allowed superlatives (largest, fastest, most) so long as they are objective / verifiable / falsifiable. In fact we are encouraged to used them, as they go to the heart of what makes a topic interesting. Being the "the first poet to introduce revolutionary themes" is 100% objective, particularly because Kashmiri literature is a modern phenomenon so the evidence is easy to confirm.
    The statements in the hook rely on the published words of Braj Kachru and Ghulam Nabi Gowhar. I cannot think of more appropriate sourcing.
    Onceinawhile (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the three sources are offline, but the one that is online describes him as "the first revolutionary socialist poet" which is much more specific (and credible). So I would have to agree with Chris that the original hook won't fly, and that the article itself probably needs a little further clarification. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Onceinawhile. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong; I'm saying that we shouldn't present this information in Wikipedia's voice. A "first" claim, especially with a) something as subjective as themes, and b) something as multi-interpretable as "revolutionary" (in what, style? politics?) needs to be attributed. As Gatoclass notes above, the descriptor "socialist" certainly helps, as it makes it clear that this is politically revolutionary, and that it is a specific subclass of politics. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Cris Woodrich, the "first" claim is well referenced in scholarships on Azad. The second "revolutionary" claim is explained in poetic themes section. Azad was revolutionary in the sense that he was wary of exploitation, socioeconomic inequality, injustice, and the likes etc and that he advocated for bringing about a change in social, political and linguistic landscape which would be essentially characterized by humanist, classless and inclusive society. And it's these topics, that became the new "themes" in Kashmiri literature.
    I don't think adding "socialist" would help, it would rather reduce the cause that Azad stood for and translate him as a socialist (in political sense) like any other. Azad's philosophy was broader than the politics of socialists and it's necessary to acknowledge the Kashmiri blend in it. That why I would prefer keeping the present hook. --Ratekreel (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ratekreel. The issue is the use of Wikipedia's voice, rather than attributing it to the scholars. We have historically had issues with "first" hooks. Just looking at Archive 201, we have Capital Bicycle Club, Caanaanite shipwreck, Tina and Milo, Zhong Jingwen, and Ajah Pritchard-Lolo. This is compounded by the fact that, as a thematic analysis, there is necessarily a judgment call; what scholars have found in his works may be disputed by other scholars, or what scholars have dismissed by earlier poets may be deemed revolutionary by other scholars. As such, there needs to be attribution, or a non-"first" hook. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Chris Woodrich, got it. How about we use ALT1 which states "... that Abdul Ahad Azad laid the foundations of literary criticism in Kashmiri literature?" ---Ratekreel (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ratekreel, the article uses "credited with". I think, if the ALT uses that similar phrasing, we should be golden.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would the ALT, "... that Abdul Ahad Azad is recognised for laying the foundations of literary criticism in Kashmiri literature?", be fine? We could use "credited with" too. --Ratekreel (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that should work. I'm copying the alt over to Prep 1. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! Thank you! --Ratekreel (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gatoclass, see Special:Diff/1249592654 on why adding "socialist" won't help. Moreover, I don't think the online reference is more credible than two of the offline books. Kachru's book is a landmark work and so is Gauhar's biography of Azad. --Ratekreel (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Longings

[edit]
  • The plot summary is +1000 words in a 1600-word article. Per WP:NOVELPLOT, this should be reduced by about a third. Technically not against DYK rules to run it with a yellow tag, but tagging Orchastrattor and Slgrandson in case this can be dealt with before the prep is promoted.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Subject easily falls under the "complex and dense" category highlighted by the guideline given both the textual scope of retelling the entire New Testament and the timeframe of covering some 20-30 years of the protagonist's life. I might shave off a hundred words or so but there really wouldn't be that much else to cut from the actual plot, its already missing plenty of details from the book. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't say I agree. There are multiple places where extraneous detail is provided, such as the name of the stillborn child. Other sentences could be rewritten: "On her way to meet Nathaniel, with whom she has been forced into a betrothal, Ana meets Jesus." There are also phrases such as "rumors begin to spread of her having been deflowered out of wedlock" that could be simplified by removing euphemisms ("rumors spread that she is no longer a virgin"). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's the hundred or so words I'm talking about, the point is that the 700 word mark is unrealistic for the article. like you're describing I can streamline the way some of the existing sentences are written, but I can't actually cut anything from the plot without losing encyclopedically valid information about the subject. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The unfortunate thing is that, in most instances, information we would like to keep ends up on the cutting room floor. As for the complexity of the novel, it does not appear to be at the same level as The Great Gatsby (726 words), The Red Badge of Courage (638 words), or To Kill a Mockingbird (629 words). I'd be willing to remove the template if the plot were cut down to 800 words or so, longer than the MOS recommends, but not so hefty.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a couple of sentences in the "themes and analysis" section that are unsourced that need a citation. Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PSHAW bug (minor)

[edit]

When promoting Template:Did you know nominations/Deep Cut Gardens, PSHAW displayed a false warning that no green or grey check was on the page, Rjjiii (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was 'cause the check mark was given as [[File:Symbol_confirmed.svg|16px]], with the underscore. Added support for that :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Rjjiii (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2 broken?

[edit]

Could somebody look at Queue 2. It looks like it's missing the {{DYKbotdo}} line. RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth pinging. BorgQueen (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting a timeout on an old nomination

[edit]

I reverted the timeout on this nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Laurence Patrick Lee. Issues were raised a month ago with the article's only proposed hook, but it seems like the nominator didn't understand the expectation to offer an alternative hook of some type. (The nominator is an experienced editor but new to DYK.) If I'm screwing up here, others are welcome to revert me and time it out. I thought I should explain in case it seems odd to see such an old hook at WP:DYKN. Rjjiii (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happens. The timeout on Template:Did you know nominations/Liberalism in the Philippines doesn't make sense to me either. Why the core writings underpinning (at that time) liberalism in the Philippines being adopted by opposing groups is not a about liberalism in the Philippines is not something I understand. CMD (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DYKTIMEOUT states: Unpromoted nominations over two months old may be rejected at the discretion of reviewers and promoters. That's "may be", not "must be". It doesn't have to be automatic, and if significant progress is being made, why not allow an extra few days? (Still, once a nomination has been closed with a timeout, it probably shouldn't be reopened unless a reviewer specifically gave extra time.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be less confused about the closure if the argument "the boldlinked article should generally be the main or at least a major factor in the hook" was not being applied to a hook that is possibly as core as you can get to understanding the article topic. CMD (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived several hours ago, so I've created a new list of 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 12. We have a total of 243 nominations, of which 106 have been approved, a gap of 137 nominations that has decreased by 7 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than two months old

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) 00:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 7 October 2024

[edit]

Could an admin please uncapitalize Head of State (East German Head of State → East German head of state) for the Uwe Holmer hook in Queue 3? I don't think that head of state should be capitalized. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 04:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryTheorist:  Done, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2 hook on Jools Lebron

[edit]

The current hook ends with only for someone else to trademark it? This is problematic for two reasons. The first is that while there were several trademark applications made for "very demure, very mindful" back in late August—it looks like Jools is fourth in line chronologically—no trademark on the phrase has yet been granted, and it's likely to take many months to process the applications. The second is that the antecedent for "trademark it" is unclear: indeed, I couldn't figure out whether it was her gender transition that had been trademarked (which seemed highly unlikely), or the term "demure" from "demure" videos earlier in the hook, which doesn't seem to be what was actually applied for.

Note that the approved ALT1 hook, which was not selected, does not involve this unsupported claim, and it could replace the incorrect ALT0 hook that was promoted.

Pinging nominator Launchballer, article creator Willthacheerleader18, reviewer Lajmmoore, and promoter Rjjiii. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this issue hadnt crossed my mind, thanks for catching it @BlueMoonset - happy with alt1 Lajmmoore (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: sorry, i found this issue independently and decided to pull! ALT1 works, it's a little less flashy but it checks out. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
alt1 works for me!! -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

[edit]

Have I Got News for You (American game show) (nom)

[edit]

@Launchballer, Onceinawhile, AirshipJungleman29, and Crisco 1492: Seems to me like this hook is inching closer to the BuzzFeed thing of aggressively teasing "this thing you won't believe!", and while I'm sure we could net more clicks this way, I don't love that direction for DYK – we are still an encyclopedia's project. Could the hook be rephrased or reworked? Chris, I'm quite sorry to be grilling you on your first week at DYK. The rest of you, not so much ;)[FBDB] theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to object to this, but it was my understanding that hooks were supposed to leave something out to entice people to read the article. "Dispensed with" does not state the cause so should not fall foul of DYKHOOKBLP.--Launchballer 09:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Naperville–Woodridge tornado (nom)

[edit]

@GeorgeMemulous, Piotrus, and AirshipJungleman29: The article looks good, but I gotta raise WP:DYKINT questions on this one. First of all, there's the thing that "helicity" is not something that is easily understood by people with no special knowledge or interest. Second, doesn't that just mean that this was... a reasonably strong tornado? Like, if helicity correlates to strength (among other factors), isn't it worth noting that its helicity wasn't particularly unusual? I'm no expert by any means, but this just seems like an odd thing to highlight. As always, the question is: when I read this hook, what about it makes me want to know more? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron I kind of agree, see my comment in the nomination. I suggest this is to be explained. And I guess it was just a "reasonably strong tornado", but since helicity is an encyclopedic thing (Hydrodynamical_helicity#Meteorology), I think the hook is ok-ish, as it is educational (teaching folks that we refer to tornado stregnth using this word), and through the use of jargon, it made a boring bland hook acceptable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure – I mean, a large textbook on particle physics is educational, but I think the average reader would probably find it confusing, get bored, and go watch YouTube instead. That is to say, I'm not sure jargon gives hooks a better educational impact, in my experience :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hook as promoted was "... that a tornado near Chicago had more than four times the helicity that it reasonably needed?" I nixed the "reasonably" when promoting, as the word isn't in the article and it feels like editorializing, but that may help with INT. There's also the possibility of adding that the debris was brought four miles (six km) up into the air. "... that a tornado near Chicago, having more than four times the helicity it needed, lifted debris approximately 4 miles (6 km) in the air?"" The source indicates that 10,000 feet is normal for EF2+ tornadoes, but I know I for one didn't know that.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feelings about the hook. On the one hand, it's an introduction hook that may teach a new term to readers (personally I wasn't aware of the term helicity before seeing this). On the other hand, it may seem too technical for the average reader to get, and the reliance on a relatively specialist term is not ideal. Are there any other possible options that could be used here, ideally those that are more layperson-friendly? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't lie, I really liked how the hook tries to educate readers about a concept which doesn't typically receive Main Page exposure, instead of being another cookie-cutter hook. When I first read that hook, I certainly wanted to know much more, and went down a 30-minute rabbit hole at tornadogenesis and related articles. I can't imagine that anybody would read "that a tornado lifted debris into the sky" and find a rabbit hole out of that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an alternative for the less-informed:
"...that a tornado near Chicago had more than four times the helicity reasonably needed for tornadogenesis?"
I suppose this isn't the easiest article for a DYK, even though it has a fact like this. Next time, when I make an article on 1976 Lemont tornado, I'll give it an easier DYK blurb of "...that a violent tornado reversed direction, missing Chicago but hitting a nuclear facility?" GeorgeMemulous (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment. Helicity isn't always documented with tornadoes like this, but I know that soundings taken during the 2013 Washington, Illinois tornado returned helicity in the range of 270 m2/s2, and soundings taken during the 2011 and 1974 Super Outbreaks, the most intense tornado outbreaks in history, returned helicity around 450 m2/s2, all at the storm-relative 0-1km range. Naperville had around 600 at the 0-1km layer. Not that it belongs in the hook, but just as a bit of context. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GeorgeMemulous, Crisco 1492 mobile, and Theleekycauldron: I've changed it to "... that a tornado near Chicago had more than four times the helicity needed for tornadogenesis?" This is the alt hook above minus "reasonably". Rjjiii (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that really solves the WP:DYKINT problem, but if people disagree, I'm happy to let it run and we can review after. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more and final objection: tornadogenesis doesn't have a helicity threshold as much as a gradient. Change "needed" to "reasonable" and there will be no issues on length.
"...that a tornado near Chicago had more than four times the helicity reasonable for tornadogenesis?" works fine, but I'd prefer if we did not imply tornadogenesis has a floor of helicity set at 150m/s^2. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Crisco 1492 for input, Rjjiii (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

[edit]

Making the Bed (nom)

[edit]

@MaranoFan, Prince of Erebor, and Cwmhiraeth: Raising WP:DYKINT objections always makes me feel terrible, but given that our pop music hooks have been struggling this year, I hope I'm erring on the constructive side by bringing this up. But, like... is this all that unusual? I guess most artists don't tease tours in music videos because it'd be cliche if everyone did it, but it seems like an entirely reasonable and even orthodox PR move for a superstar to do that. I also get a little fidgety given that it is PR – quick-hit music journalism tends to regurgitate that stuff and its social media reactions, but it's not, like, the stuff academia is made of. (I'm also not sure ALTs 1 and 2 are viable replacements, both in the spirit of WP:DYKFICTION, but one thing at a time.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wouldn't classify teasing a tour in a lyric video as something that happens extremely commonly. The interesting fact here is that the tour was basically announced through an easter egg that predated the actual announcement. The last Rodrigo DYK did 12k views which is quite decent. Since the article is indisputably DYK-eligible, I would be fine if you could come up with an alternate hook but uncomfortable if the nomination is completely thrown out.--NØ 11:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, clearly teasing it in a lyric video isn't routine, but it's not a surprising piece of information that is being teased - I'm sure everyone expected Rodrigo to tour in support of the album (especially as she'd already mentioned touring it in an interview). I wouldn't throw the nom out but a more interesting hook wouldn't go amiss. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


TheNuggeteer

[edit]

TheNuggeteer was given a six-month long topic ban from content assessment processes (including DYK) a couple of days ago per this discussion. They still have a few open and unpromoted nominations at both WP:DYKN and WP:DYKNA, so either the nominations will have to be closed, or another editor adopt them. Courtesy ping to Premeditated Chaos who has mentioned this in some of TheNuggeteer's unapproved noms. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the WP:DYKNA nominations are still approved, then no adoption is needed and the nominations can be promoted as usual since no further action by TheNuggeteer is needed. It's the noms not yet approved yet needing work that will end up being closed if no one adopts them in the next few days. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking to adopt. Where do I find them? Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: I think it's just those two, Rjjiii (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both noms need new hooks stat. Are there any other issues I should be aware of? Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, both articles need copyediting and probably some vetting. It took me awhile to figure out what I think "The song and music video centers around Tyler's alter ego, with some hints of feminism, hence the name "A Boy Is a Gun"" is trying to say. CMD (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, I'm having difficulty understanding why AmBisyon Natin 2040 isn't one or two paragraphs within National Economic and Development Authority. I don't really see it as needing to be a standalone article. On the other hand, I'm not seeing any potential hooks that stand out. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: It's really unfortunate, but having reviewed both of these articles, I think AmBisyon Natin 2040 and A Boy Is a Gun should both be rejected. I think AmBisyon Natin 2040 should be merged into National Economic and Development Authority and A Boy Is a Gun needs a complete rewrite. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing credit for rechao

[edit]

Similar to this section, I noticed that Template:Did you know nominations/Rechao is listed Wikipedia:Recent additions#7 October 2024, but I did not get a talk page message and the article's talk page does not list the DYK nomination. Can someone help with this, and does anyone know why this happened? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Please see this discussion. BorgQueen (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing the reasons for this not working. One of the reasons is "The bit of code that detects hooks in prep had a bug that prevented detection of hooks with an apostrophe in the piped text." The hook uses italics for rechao, so maybe that's why it didn't work. Cunard (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that one was because the link in the hook wasn't capitalized. It should recognize those now :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing this! Cunard (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron:, another example here, not sure if it's related to an already solved fix. CMD (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, same thing :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone be able to help with sending the talk page message and updating the article's talk page? Pinging Launchballer (talk · contribs), would you be able to help since you helped in this section? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for helping with this, Launchballer (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4

[edit]

Actinote zikani

[edit]

Typhoon Nat (1991)

[edit]
  • The phrase "most unusual" is not in the article (though I have to agree; my reaction was "WTF?"). I see that this was nominated by TheNuggeteer, so it may be affected by other sanctions. Also pinging reviewer Ergo Sum and promoter AirshipJungleman29. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the explicit phrase to the article; I promoted the nomination without being aware of the sanctions, and have no opinion on whether it should remain in prep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Airship. Looks good now.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be honest: there's so little detail in the article proper: the only date given there is September 17. The storm's beginning and end dates are only in the infobox. At an absolute minimum, I would expect the date of the storm's naming, the date it first became it typhoon, the date it was downgraded, when it became a typhoon again, made landfall, and dissipated. My opinion is that this fails WP:DYKCOMPLETE, and should not be run without further expansion to better cover what was a storm that lasted 19 days, supposedly September 14 through October 3. There is also a disagreement between the infobox, which lists this as a category 3 typhoon with peak winds of 150km/h, and the body of the article, which lists this as a category 2 typhoon with peak winds of 155km/h. Further, the article is inaccurate in its details; the phrase recorded rainfall of 950.8 hPa seems to be confusing air pressure (hPa) and rainfall amounts (earlier measured in millimetres). Since this is in Prep 4, which is the next prep up for promotion, I'm pulling it. I don't see how we can run this article as it currently exists. Pinging Ergo Sum, AirshipJungleman29, and Chris Woodrich. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alrighty. Sounds good to me.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-hook

[edit]

I just realized after starting to examine this prep that I had reviewed two of the hooks. As such, I do not think it wise for me to move them from prep to queue (I know the instructions refer to prep creation only, but I'd rather err on the side of caution). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you tick off the seven you haven't reviewed and leave the other two per WP:DYKPARTIAL? For the record, I see WP:CLOP in Arekia Bennett (pinging @CaptainAngus, Buidhe, BlueMoonset, and AirshipJungleman29:) and not all of Daniela Larreal's Major results section is cited - pinging @Kingsif, Narutolovehinata5, RoySmith, and Nineteen Ninety-Four guy:.--Launchballer 12:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the major results aren't cited in the list, they're cited in prose - AFAIK this is pretty standard. That like it's really "only add a cite to the list if there isn't one in prose". Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to @Launchballer:... I did a review of Arekia Bennett and I'm not really seeing the close paraphrasing you're referring to. But... I wrote the original article so maybe it's just going over my head. I even ran Earwig's Copyvio Detector to double check myself and not much jumped out. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks! CaptainAngus (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree about the paraphrasing:

    Bennett is the executive director of Mississippi Votes, a nonprofit organization focused on promoting voter registration, voter registration drives, and energizing young people in the state.

    vs

    Bennett, the 27-year-old Jackson native and executive director of Mississippi Votes, a nonprofit focused on voter registration and engaging young voters in the state

    RoySmith (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

[edit]

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Council is a group that talks about how to organize and support groups of editors who are trying to work together. If you are interested, please put that page on your watchlist and join the discussions there. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PSHAW failing to promote prep

[edit]

@Theleekycauldron I'm trying to promote Prep 4 to the queue, but it fails with: 

index.php?title=User:Theleekycauldron/Scripts/PSHAW/dependencies/Hook.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:21
Uncaught (in promise) TypeError: m[1].capitalize is not a function
   at new Hook (index.php?title=User:Theleekycauldron/Scripts/PSHAW/dependencies/Hook.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:21:28)
   at Prep.loadHooks (index.php?title=User:Theleekycauldron/Scripts/PSHAW/dependencies/Prep.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:39:15)
   at Prep.create (index.php?title=User:Theleekycauldron/Scripts/PSHAW/dependencies/Prep.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:26:9)
   at async HTMLLIElement.moveToQueue (index.php?title=User:Theleekycauldron/Scripts/PSHAW/protocols/queuer.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:25:16)

in the javascript console. Any idea what's going on? Is it possible my page protection change broke something? RoySmith (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nope, that's on me! one moment... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
should work now :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed it does, thanks for the quick fix! RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

[edit]

Actinote zikani

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, Sir MemeGod, and Kevmin: The hook fact is only mentioned in the lead (sans citation). Under Protection it says it's on the IUCN list, but doesn't say anything about being "one of two" species. RoySmith (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. :) SirMemeGod  22:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also adding a note that the source makes it sound like there are 3 butterflies because the grammar is wrong. The third species in that list is a bird, Fatu Hiva monarch. Also, it's a "blog" source, but it's coming from a subject matter expert. Rjjiii (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand WP:DYKMOS, the italics should be outside the parentheses – i.e., (''specimen pictured'') should be changed to ''(specimen pictured)''. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Italics fixed, Rjjiii (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 5

[edit]

Political text messaging

[edit]

Rail transport in Northamptonshire

[edit]
I don't believe I had anything to do with this one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6

[edit]

1961 Pittsburg State Gorillas football team

[edit]
@Cbl62, Crisco 1492, and DimensionalFusion: Could you walk me through where 'undefeated' has an end-of-sentence citation? I'm sure it's there, but I'm not seeing it.--Launchballer 10:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and I see sourcing for the last match. I'd feel a lot happier if that WP:CLUMP was resolved, but that isn't a DYK issue, so this should be good to go.--Launchballer 11:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: The hook states that the team featured four All-Americans, but the article states Three of the team's linemen received first-team honors on the 1961 NAIA All-America team and only includes images for the three of them (I also checked the source for the table, which names exactly the same three players). The hook also states that the team won three championships but four titles are presented in the infobox. Am I misreading the article or were the numbers perhaps swapped in the hook? Complex/Rational 15:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As set forth in the "Awards and honors" section, four players received All-America honros: Snadon on the 1961 Little All-America team (the AP's All-America team for small college players), and three (Archer, Beal, and Hess) on the NAIA All-America team. Also, there were three national championships: NAIA, AP, and UPI. Cbl62 (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) As I read it (being a non-football person), Snadon was also all-American; he's not included with the linemen because he was a fullback. I do not know why the all-American was excluded from his image caption.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I too would suggest, though, that Snadon be mentioned as all-American in his caption. Complex/Rational 16:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cathy Merrick

[edit]
  • Neutrality seems questionable. "Made history", "heartfelt responses", "much-needed healthcare to Northern First Nations" (also uncited), etc. Pinging Ornithoptera, Cielquiparle, and AirshipJungleman29. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Crisco 1492 Good flags. Changed "made history" to "became"; changed "heartfelt responses" to "responses"; changed "passing" to "death"...but left "much-needed healthcare" alone because maybe there's no other way to say it. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It still needs to be cited; in the lede we've got " As Chief, Merrick successfully lobbied for and secured $40 million to construct the Cross Lake Health Complex, the first of its kind in Northern Manitoba, bringing much-needed healthcare to Northern First Nations." All the article provides is "... negotiated with the federal government to advocate for the construction of a $55-million healthcare centre." (I note that the cost of the centre is also different). I don't think many would dispute that the healthcare available to Northern First Nations has been lacking; however, per WP:V and WP:LEDE, we should have it referenced and in the body of the article.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do believe that was added in after the nomination by another editor. When I had nominated it, the line was "Among her activities as chief, Merrick was able to support the development of a healthcare centre within the community," which was cited within the article per Sinclair and Ward: "and negotiated with the federal government to advocate for the construction of a $55 million healthcare centre." I can restore the original wording if that is fine by you. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ornithoptera. It sounds like the original wording is better supported by the sources. I'll reread for neutrality after posting this. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. After nomination, especially with the attention an article receives, well meaning editors can swoop in and change some stuff up. Happens but thank you for doing your diligence and noticing them before it was too late. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. The article looks good; this resolves my concerns.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sainsbury's, Greenwich

[edit]
  • Hook fact is cited (in the article at least) to a press release by Sainsbury's; given the advertising value of claiming a head of state requested a visit to one's supermarkets, a secondary source would be needed if we are to keep the "requested" phrasing. The nomination used this source, though I am paywalled from seeing if Zola requested the tour. Tagging Gazamp, Dumelow, and DimensionalFusion (who promoted the hook to Prep 1)  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I verified it from the Times article (which is cited at the end of the sentence). The first three sentences of the article are "Jacob Zuma visits a branch of Sainsbury’s in southeast London, yesterday, where not even his entourage could distract everyone. The President of South Africa was shown around the store in Greenwich by Justin King, the Sainbury’s chief executive, and Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary. He had requested the tour on his three-day state visit because of the amount of trade the company does with South Africa." - Dumelow (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nominations/JerAx

[edit]

I believe all the issues in the article/DYK nom have been addressed. I may be naive when it comes to DYK, but the closing reason, "No progress regarding the nomination has occurred in the weeks since it was marked for closure", and the final reason for rejection, "close paraphrasing and other problems that have been found by multiple reviewers" doesn't seem fair. AFAICS, the only issue was the sourcing and that was resolved promptly. Can this nom be considered for a re-open? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Narutolovehinata5:.--Launchballer 07:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the nomination hadn't had a single response in weeks. It was also multiple editors that had an issue with the article, namely TechnoSquirrel69 and RoySmith. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira my take on this is that you kept pushing back on issues found by reviewers. In general, if you listen to the reviewers' comments and work to resolve them, you'll find people are mostly willing to work with you. If you keep saying, "No, that's not a problem", people are going to walk away. For example, regarding the WP:CLOP issue I pointed out, if you had said, "I'm sorry, I'm not seeing that, could you help me to understand the problem better?", I would have been happy to spend a bunch of time teaching you about what close paraphrasing means and work with you to find some better wording. Instead you asserted that it wasn't a problem. We've got more submissions than we can handle, so I'm not inclined to invest any more time on this.
BTW, I notice the similarity between your username and the subject of the article, which leads me to wonder if there's a WP:COI issue here as well. RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no COI here. I used to be a gamer and my username is inspired by the Dota 2 player and an Overwatch 2 hero, Moira. I made a number of improvements from the feedback provided by the reviewers. Which of my replies gives the impression that "No, that's not a problem" when I also tried to fix the CLOP issue that you raised?
The CLOP issue was mentioned when you rejected the DYK, it looks like you had already made up your mind before giving me a chance to fix it. Another editor also felt that the paragraph didn’t have any issues. FWIW, would you mind helping with the CLOP issue now? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyRadar and fair-use

[edit]

Could somebody who understands image licensing and fair use please take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/MyRadar? RoySmith (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped by with a quick review. Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7

[edit]

Chesmac (nom)

[edit]

@JIP, BeanieFan11, and AirshipJungleman29: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Launchballer: It was easy to find citations that the Telmac 1800 could not show a chessboard, but a bit more difficult to find a citation that a physical chessboard was needed. In the end I found one that was already used in the article, it mentions that in practice, players had to use a physical chessboard to keep track of the game. It has been added to the end of the sentence shown in the hook. JIP | Talk 09:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read Finnish, so I'll take your word for it.--Launchballer 09:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Sonata (Barber) (nom)

[edit]

@Zingarese, Jaguarnik, and AirshipJungleman29: Article has many {{cn}} tags. I also don't see where "conservatory-trained" appears in the article, so I took it out (it came under WP:DYKTRIM anyway). Also noting that https://christopheraxworthymusiccommentary.com/2024/09/19/jeremy-chan-at-st-olaves-tower-hill-with-playing-of-commanding-authority-and-towering-musicianship/ almost certainly copied us.--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Launchballer, the one citation needed tag you added to the article was not accurate since the Heyman inline in the second paragraph was referring to all of that text before it. So I just added a duplicate. About the trim, that's fine, one of the sources (Heyman as well, I think) mentioned it, though. And the full citation needed tags were from recordings I removed from the article when I nom'ed the article, but someone added them back and changed the section back to a bulleted list, which I disliked. And I'm flattered about Christopher Axworthy copying us :) Zingarese talk · contribs (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!) 11:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abramo Colorni (nom)

[edit]

@Andrevan, Buidhe, and AirshipJungleman29: Got anything more definite than 'might'?--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That one should probably be attributed inline. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the type of "indefinite fact that is likely to change" the guidelines are designed to prohibit—those are stuff like "...that Hurrican Milton has killed [X] people in Florida" (you can check the original discussion). If the word "might" is now prohibited, no amount of attribution will change anything. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to come up with another hook. The text is not definitive. The attribution would be to historian Daniel Jutte[4] but he doesn't have an article. Andre🚐 18:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Betts (nom)

[edit]

@Chaiten1, MaranoFan, and AirshipJungleman29: As written, this would deserve {{unreliable sources}}; using Gov.uk for anything is a WP:BLPPRIMARY violation, WP:BROADWAYWORLD is red on WP:UPSD, and there are numerous user-generated databases on here. I'm tempted to pull this.--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can never tell with these types of sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beata Olsson (nom)

[edit]

@Hameltion, Narutolovehinata5, and SL93: Article has a citation needed tag and the "Style of play" section would surely deserve {{expand section}}.--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure all of the sources in this one are reliable, either... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones did you have in mind? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
whoopsie! wrong section, I was looking at Rose Betts. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's for relatively uncontroversial or uncontentious information, as long as the article isn't solely or primarily reliant on them I don't see that as an issue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there sources out there which describe her style of play in more detail? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added citation. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 13:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pell v The Queen (nom)

[edit]

@MaxnaCarta, Cunard, and AirshipJungleman29: Sorry, but I don't agree with the explanation given on the nomination page; WP:BLP states that "the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death, [...] particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends" and I would argue that child sex abuse clearly qualifies. I'm looking for a very good reason why I shouldn't pull this.--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have pulled this, it's just such a blatant violation.--Launchballer 09:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This quote from WP:BLP leaves out the part of the policy that was pivotal to why I approved the nomination. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Recently dead or probably dead (WP:BDP) says:

Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime.

The policy says "two years at the outside". Two years is 24 months. It has been over 21 months since the subject's death (three months short of the 24 months specified in the policy). I consider over 21 months to be close enough to "two years at the outside" for BDP to no longer apply. We could wait another three months so it reaches exactly two years after his death, but I consider that unnecessary and don't think it would make a meaningful difference. Cunard (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I consider child sex abuse allegations to be as contentious as it gets, meaning two years applies in my book. Especially given that there are many other hooks in the article...--Launchballer 09:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
21 months is close enough to 24 months that I do not see a meaningful difference on "implications for their living relatives and friends". I am fine with other hooks though. What non-contentious hooks does this article about a child sex abuse court case have? Cunard (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking in terms of "that the verdict of Pell v The Queen could not be reported on properly for two months". You'll need an end-of-sentence citation for it though.--Launchballer 10:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for the suggestion. I've added italics to the court case name in the proposed hook. I've added two sources to the end of that sentence. I'll defer to the other editors on which hook to use. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy on emphasises the importance of neutrality in hooks and discourages undue focus on negative aspects of living persons. My proposed hook adheres to this policy for several reasons.
First, the hook highlights a significant judicial decision made by the High Court of Australia, which is an important fact in the context of the legal proceedings against Pell. It does not dwell on the negative aspects of his life or past allegations but instead focuses on the outcome of a major legal case. I see slight merit in an assertion that mentioning his conviction on the main page of Wikipedia unduly focuses on a negative aspect, however the emphasis is on the court's decision rather than the allegations.
Second, the hook presents an objective fact: the court’s unanimous decision to overturn the conviction. This fact is crucial to understanding the legal narrative surrounding Pell and the decision and the fact mentioned in the hook was reported internationally, which further emphasises its relevance.
Lastly, the hook does not misrepresent or sensationalise the situation; it simply states a pivotal moment in the legal process. It provides necessary context without unduly emphasising negative elements of Pell's life, thus maintaining a neutral perspective in line with the WP:DYKBLP.
Therefore, I humbly contend that the hook reflects a balanced and factual presentation of a significant legal judgment, making it neutral and guideline compliant.
P.S
I foresaw no controversy at all in submitting this. Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes! — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit of an out-there position, but I tend to feel that if the hook is DUE relative to the article (which it is), and the article is DUE relative to splitting policy (no one's nommed the article for merge), then the hook is unlikely to be UNDUE? Like, it seems rather awkward to be okay with an entire article devoted to a negative aspect of a living person, but not the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Without comment on this specific situation, an article existing is not the same as promoting the article on the main page, and articles can be edited while hooks are preserved and presented prominently on a talkpage forever. CMD (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a BLP violation at all to tell us that Pell (most famous for being a convicted sex offender) was no longer a convicted sex offender at the time of his death. —Kusma (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought he was most famous for being a cardinal, given that that's what most of his article is dedicated to.--Launchballer 10:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm looking for a very good reason why I shouldn't pull this. Perhaps that you manipulated the quote to deliberately exclude the possible ending dates of the "indeterminate period" and replace if with your own analysis. I'm looking for a very good reason on how this could be done in good faith, Launchballer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I kept rewording my comment and had moved that part of it to outside the quotes.--Launchballer 10:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hymenophyllum axsmithii (nom)

[edit]

@Kevmin, PrimalMustelid, and AirshipJungleman29: Not seeing where this is in the article.--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the final sentence of "Paleoecology". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, the last sentence of "Paleoecology" the possibility Hymenophyllum axsmithii was an epiphyte or not will depend on more fossils being found and described; in particular the rhizome and root structure will be key to determining where in the Republic paleoforest it lived keeping in mind that epiphyte is tree and ledge dwelling plants.--Kevmin § 17:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1

[edit]

Uzun-Hajji

[edit]

Episode 7921

[edit]

You Liked This (Okay, Computer!)

[edit]
  • What makes Clout a reliable source? I'm seeing that the author/interviewer is also the president of the media, which makes me question its reliability. Also, looking into Standing's background, I see that she sued TikTok but the company changed the voice without acknowledging that the original was her. Unless there has been acknowledgement, we only have that she claimed to be the voice of TikTok. Tagging Koopastar, Viriditas, and AirshipJungleman29.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see anything that would make me think Clout is unreliable—smaller media outlets presumably have limited staff. The Verge reported that Tiktok agreed to settle with Standing and that they changed the voice mid-lawsuit... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm seeing, per the Verge article you linked above, that "TikTok never confirmed that it used Standing’s voice." A settlement certainly implies culpability, but that would be OR on our part. As for Clout, their About Us page is a list of two names, and a reference to "Born Communication" at the bottom. Every article I've opened is credited to Kieran Rogers, and they are described as a blog at their Submithub page (which is linked through "Submit your Music"). Per WP:BLOG, Rogers would need to be a recognized expert in the field for his blog to be accepted as an RS. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        The voice on TikTok and the voice on the recording are the same voice. Am I missing something here? The claim is not in doubt here. Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Her being the "voice of TikTok" is still not supported by the available references, no matter what our ears may hear.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        That sounds pretty Orwellian (almost a direct quote from 1984: "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command"). The sources support it based on my reading. Are you making a legal distinction based on a TikTok settlement? That’s not in the sources that I can see. Bev Standing was the voice of TikTok. No reasonable industry source says otherwise. This claim appears in every mainstream media source and there isn’t a single one that says otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Standing's attorney, "TikTok admitted that Bev's voice was indeed the voice of their text-to-speech feature",[5] (presumably in Standing v. Bytedance, 7:2021cv04033), so I fail to see any issues here. (Although the details of this admission aren't explicit, a newer source called Artificial Intelligence Law (2024) indicates that the settlement included the provision that TikTok would license Bev Standing's voice. As Hamburg 2022 cited below indicates, this lack of licensing was one of the core complaints of the original case. If TikTok agreed to this in the settlement as Swan 2024 says, then this supports the admission alleged by Standing's attorney.) The available references in the article all support this. Chris appears to be making an argument that doesn't exist. Viriditas (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition to TikTok admitting the voice belonged to Standing and all of the popular sources for this claim, all of the industry sources support it as well. Johanna Gibson, Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary, University of London, writes: "Without a recognition of the voice as creative, the performer is at risk of being marginalised by the encroachment of artificial intelligence into the performance space, where their voice is simply a part of a sound recording and alienated, both technically and legally, from its source. A now rather famous example of this is the dispute between Bev Standing, a Canadian voice actor, and TikTok's parent company, ByteDance. Standing had recorded audio for the Chinese Institute of Acoustics several years previously, but the actor's voice then emerged as TikTok's text-to-speech feature." (Reforming Intellectual Property, p. 119) Viriditas (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeanne Hamburg: "Someone's voice (and aspects of their persona such as their photo, image, or other likeness) can be protected by what’s called the 'right of publicity.' That right prevents others from appropriation of one's persona – but only when appropriation is for commercial purposes. In the TikTok case, there was commercial use, as TikTok was benefiting from use of Standing's voice to 'narrate' its users' videos (with some user videos apparently involving 'foul and offensive language'). In her Complaint, Standing alleged TikTok had violated her right of publicity in using her voice to create the AI voice used by TikTok, and relied upon two other claims: false designation of origin under the Lanham Act and copyright infringement, as well as related state law claims. The false designation of origin claim turned on whether Standing's voice was so recognizable that another party's misappropriation of it could confuse consumers as to whether Standing authorized the Tik Tok use. The copyright infringement claim was possible because Standing created the original voice files for a company that hired her to record Chinese language translations. TikTok subsequently acquired the files but failed to get a license from Standing to use them, as TikTok was legally obligated to do because Standing was the original creator (and therefore copyright owner) of the voice files. As with other historical technological innovations (one of the earliest being the printing press), the law often plays catch-up, but has proven surprisingly adaptable to new technology. Here, Standing was able to plead three legal theories (six if you count the state statutory and common law unfair competition claims), so it seems artists are well-protected by existing law, at least if they are alleging AI was used to copy their work or persona." ("Protection for Voice Actors is Artificial in Today’s Artificial Intelligence World", The National Law Review, June 2022)

Charlotte Motor Speedway

[edit]
The sentence beginning "In 2021, the race" needs a citation.--Launchballer 10:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7

[edit]

I'm not happy with the hook for Abramo Colorni. It quotes an unknown individual, whose expertise is unknown because we have no article on him. More importantly, it states that Colorni's work might have inspired Joyce's Ulysses, but neither this theory nor his name is mentioned in the article Ulysses (novel). Colorni had a fascinating life and I think we could easily find a better hook. I suggest that the nomination is reopened and an alternative found. @Andrevan: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me try to come up with another one, although Daniel Jutte is a real historian[6] Andre🚐 18:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6 (11 October)

[edit]

Statue of John Stockton

[edit]
(Nominated at Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of John Stockton)

The hook "that the sculptor re-positioned the statue of John Stockton about 20 times by using a wrench to adjust ball-and-socket joints on steel rods?" is potentially misleading as the source does not say that this statue contains ball-and-socket joints or that it can move. @DimensionalFusion, Dr vulpes, and Left guide: tagging involved editors, Rjjiii (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source says The statues are supported by steel rods with custom-made ball-and-sockets in the joints that allow Challis to insert a wrench through a temporary hole to make adjustments to the positioning of the body. – to me, that sounds like what the hook says DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DimensionalFusion: but are any of those "staues" (plural) the one outside of the Delta Center, which is the subject of the article? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

[edit]
  • ... that a judge is threatening to order the government of India to shut down Wikipedia in the country over a defamation lawsuit?

It would be great if this could be slotted in before October 25th to prevent it becoming outdated. Also wanted to get feedback on the meta-ness. Valereee (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could that be shortened to:
ALT1: ... that a judge is threatening to shut down Wikipedia in India over a defamation lawsuit?
which says essentially the same thing in fewer words. RoySmith (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me! Valereee (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1250689855"