Revision as of 10:30, 17 August 2013 editSimon Burchell (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers57,611 edits →Prep 1: more← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:29, 16 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,307,002 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 204) (bot | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
]<!-- | ]<!-- | ||
--> | --> | ||
<div class="toccolours" style="float: right;"><small>''']'''</small></div></br> | |||
{{ombox | {{ombox | ||
|style=color:black; background-color:#fff; padding:1em; margin-bottom:1.5em; border: 2px solid #a00; text-align: center; clear:all; | |style=color:black; background-color:#fff; padding:1em; margin-bottom:1.5em; border: 2px solid #a00; text-align: center; clear:all; | ||
|text=<div style="font-size:150%;">'''Error reports'''</div>Please '''do not''' post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to ]. If you post an error report on one of the ] here, please include a '''link''' to the queue in question. Thank you. | |text=<div style="font-size:150%;">'''Error reports'''</div>Please '''do not''' post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to ]. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the ] here, please include a '''link''' to the queue in question. Thank you. | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{DYK-Refresh}} | |||
{{DYKbox|style=font-size:88%; width:23em; table-layout:fixed;}} | {{DYKbox|style=font-size:88%; width:23em; table-layout:fixed;}} | ||
{{shortcut|WT:DYK}} | {{shortcut|WT:DYK}} | ||
{{archives|• ] | {{archives|• ]<br/>• ]<br/>• ]<br/>• Removed hooks: ] | ||
|style = font-size:88%; width:23em; | |style = font-size:88%; width:23em; | ||
|auto = yes | |auto = yes | ||
|editbox= no | |editbox= no | ||
|search = yes | |search = yes | ||
| |
|searchprefix = Wikipedia_talk:Did you know/Archive | ||
|index = /Archive index | |index = /Archive index | ||
|bot= |
|bot=lowercase sigmabot III | ||
|age= |
|age=5 | ||
|collapsible=yes | |||
<!-- |1=<p style="text-align:center;">]</p> --> | <!-- |1=<p style="text-align:center;">]</p> --> | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 600K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 204 | ||
|minthreadsleft = 5 | |minthreadsleft = 5 | ||
|algo = old( |
|algo = old(5d) | ||
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive %(counter)d | ||
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
}} | |||
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
|target=/Archive index | |target=/Archive index | ||
|mask=/Archive <#> | |mask=/Archive <#> | ||
Line 34: | Line 33: | ||
}} | }} | ||
This is where the ''']''' section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.<!-- for nominations: see ... --> | |||
{{DYK-Refresh}} | |||
This is where the ''']''' section on the main page, its policies and the featured items can be discussed. Proposals for changing how Did You Know works were being discussed at ]. | |||
== Should Good Articles be allowed in DYK? == | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:Did you know/Good Article RfC}} | |||
== Two reviewers sought == | |||
] needs two reviewers following an AfD which the nominated article has survived by a very large margin. It would be appreciated if two editors who are '''uninvolved''' with the topic area (either pro- or anti-) could take on the task. ] (]) 18:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:It already had one review and reviewer. You, the nominator of the page, don't get to pick and choose or reject nominators because their review is not to your liking. And being involved with the topic area has never stopped ''you'' from reviewing articles (e.g. ]), so why do you want other standards for other people? ] (]) 07:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Fram, you have not even carried out a proper review. You haven't assessed the article against ''any'' of the DYK criteria. You have objected to the hook on spurious original research grounds, ignoring the cited source, you raised concerns about notability which were rejected by 8 !votes to 2 in the AfD and you objected on spurious copyright violation grounds which have been rejected by the person whose copyright you accused me of violating (who of course you didn't ask). As a reviewer, you are supposed to check the article against the guidelines listed but you have done none of that. Secondly, I don't think you can credibly be regarded as an impartial reviewer. You have been an unrelenting opponent of the Gibraltar project for nearly a year now (let's not forget you even ). I don't see how someone with your level of fervent opposition can let that go and review an article impartially. I would ask that you voluntarily refrain from reviewing any Gibraltar-related articles in future, and to make things even I will voluntarily undertake to do the same. Finally, as for what we do now with the review, I think the fairest thing to do is to start over and ask two people who are uninvolved to make their own judgment, as I've done above. ] (]) 07:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::*I think it's entirely understandable if Prioryman is asking you to either apply the criteria as they exist or step down from the "reviewer" role. Two reviewers still needed. — ] (]) 07:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::*Prioryman, as shown in the Devil's Gap Footpath review, you are not one to lecture on DYK criteria, since you clearly either don't know them or don't care about them at all. I'll review whatever I like and however I like. I have asked you in your previous, very recent attempt to get me removed from reviewing to provide some evidence that my reviews are problematic. You haven't done this. I have time and again highlighted actual problems with the articles and nominations. Just like I regularly do with other, non-Gibraltarpedia articles. I have not declined the nomination on any article or nomination that didn't have serious problems. I dislike Gibraltarpedia (or parts of it) exactly because they do such a poor job in their attempts to get more Gibraltar-related articles on Misplaced Pages and on the main page. But that doesn't mean that I reject Gibraltar-related DYKs on spurious grounds. ] (]) 08:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::*Crisco, what was wrong with my review? The article is not about the subject but only about a subset, the hook was not supported by the source (and was patently ridiculous), and the article was a technical copyvio. As it stands, you corrected the third point, the first is still a problem, and the modified hook, with the weasely "many" inserted, is still not supported by the source. The supposed source for the hook, , gives ''two'' examples of footpaths that were "originally created" etc, 1790 path (which isn't even in the nominated article) and Douglas Pass (presumably the same as Douglas Path(?), and ] which isn't a footpath. So "many" actually equals "one" footpath now present in the article? Clear fail... ] (]) 08:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::*Fram, your "subset" complaint is essentially a notability issue, but that was decisively dealt with by the AfD. The hook is not "patently ridiculous" and your rejection is based on an ]: "So there were no footpaths in Gibraltar before this? This seems extremely unlikely, as most inhabited places in the middle ages were filled with footpaths, not for cannons and troops, but for the people who lived there." As I have pointed out to you, Gibraltar was established as a fortress. It's a barren lump of rock with no water, no mineral resources, no natural harbours and no agriculture. People don't live on the Rock of Gibraltar because there is nowhere for them to live, nothing for them to live on, and nothing for them to do there. Its only utility has been a military one. ''All'' of the paths and roads there were built by the military, by definition - Gibraltar didn't even have a civilian government until the 1950s. You can see from, for example, ] that all of the roads and paths outside the town go to fortifications, outposts or gun batteries. Your personal disbelief of a hook fact is simply not a valid reason to reject it. | |||
::::* Let's not forget also that you have completely failed to review the article. The DYK criteria address the length, newness and policy compliance of the article. The additional Gibraltar restrictions require a review of neutrality and promotional aspects. You have not tackled ''any'' of these issues. You have literally only reviewed the hook and used your personal incredulity of the hook fact - which is purely original research on your part - to reject the entire article ''without'' even considering any of the other requirements. Frankly, that's an abuse of your responsibility as a reviewer. | |||
::::*Finally, your opposition to this topic area is so long-standing and well-known that I simply do not think you can credibly be seen as an impartial reviewer. I certainly don't see you as impartial - how can I when you have so clearly abused your role as a reviewer, made false accusations against me and tried to delete Gibraltarpedia itself? I don't want to have to formally propose a ban on you reviewing articles in this topic area and I would prefer you to voluntarily refrain from further reviews, as I will undertake to do as well. ] (]) 12:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
== Back to 24 hours? == | |||
:::::*You have pointedly ignored the discrepancy I raised between the source and the hook. Or is that also not a DYK criterion? Oh, I see, apart from "length, newness, and policy compliance of the article", you "forgot" to mention that there are also rules about the hook. Or did you think that it was sufficient to meet some criteria, and that meeting ''all of them'' was optional? Again, if you don't know (or deliberately forget) the DYK criteria, then don't nominate or review any other articles please. Apart from that, I like it how you ignore most of the history of Gibraltar if it suits your arguments better. So no permanent settlement was created in 1160, and no ] existed since 1462? You claim that it had "no civilian government until the 1950s", but you seem to forget the pre-British history of the place. Careful, tensions with the Spanish are already running high, we don't want to add "the rewriting of Gibraltarian history on the English language Misplaced Pages" to be added to the fray. Oh, and contrary to what youclaim, your 1800 map shows plenty of roads or paths outside the town going to other things than fortifications, e.g. to the hospitals, to Moulins, and to the Notre Dame d'Europe. Furthermore, nothing says that footpaths can't be inside the town as well of course. Finally, this is the umpteenth time that you have mentioned banning me from these reviews, but as always, you have not produced ''any'' evidence to even start considering a ban. Please stop with your poisoning of the well and either put up or shut up. ] (]) 13:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{DYK admins}} As of this moment, we've got five filled queues. If we can fill another two queues before midnight UTC (eight hours from now), we'll keep running 12 hour updates for another three days. Otherwise we're back to 24. ] ] 16:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::*This is a classic ]ism, I'm afraid. I've written a featured article ] which was on the Main Page less than a month ago so I do know what I'm talking about here. Gibraltar was founded for military purposes. It was garrisoned continuously for over 850 years. It was run by a military governor - Moorish, Spanish, British - for 810 years. The roads you mention on the map were built for military purposes on military-owned land. The hospital was for soldiers. The windmills ("Moulins") ground the garrison's grain and that road runs to the batteries on ]. ] ("Notre Dame d'Europe") is an old army storehouse and the road there runs to the batteries on ]. None of these roads were built for civilians. The whole peninsula was run, owned, used and administered for military purposes from 1140 until the 1950s and yes, there was no civilian government until that time under any of its rulers. And yes, even in the town the footpaths were built for military purposes. Many of the pedestrian streets are called "ramps" (see e.g. ]). Why? Because they were literally built as ramps, so that cannons could be towed up to the batteries on the Rock. Some still have tracks built alongside the steps for the cannons to run up and down (e.g. ]). What you aren't grasping is that Gibraltar had no reason to exist other than its military utility. The people who live there now are surrounded by over 800 years' worth of military infrastructure, built on a massive scale. Its roads and paths were built by the British and Spanish armies to allow troops and weapons to be moved around. In the case of the Rock ''there was no other purpose for the footpaths'' as nobody lived or farmed there. | |||
:I've promoted one more, but don't think I'll have time for the last one. ♠]♠ ] 21:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::*I'm afraid your objection is simply based on a personal lack of knowledge on your part and personal disbelief. Nobody is expecting you to become a subject matter expert on this topic but we do expect that reviewers should accept authors' subject matter expertise in good faith, which is what you're conspicuously not doing. | |||
::Thanks. I'm working on ] right now, so we're good to keep going until 0000 6 Jan UTC. ] ] 22:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::And somebody needs to back-fill the holes that got left in ] after various yankings. ] ] 22:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::{{dykadmins}} just to make sure everybody is aware, we're going to extend 12-hour mode (at least) another 3 days now that we have 7 full queues. We do have quite a backlog to dig out of. By my count, we've got 165 approved hooks, and there's another GAN review drive that just started so I expect another big influx of nominations. I expect it'll take us several more 3-day sprints to get back to normal and it'll be less disruptive to keep them going back-to-back vs flitting back and forth between modes. ] ] 22:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::So long as queue 3 is filled by midnight and the two date requests in queues 4 and 5 are suitably kicked back, I have no valid objections.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 22:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::I filled one of the holes in queue 3. ] ] 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::I'm getting confused as to where the SOHA hooks need to go; anyone able to get their head around it? ] (]) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::::5 and 6 January, but they're already there. Brain fog is brain fogging, clearly.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 13:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::::As a reminder, ] says {{tq|The reviewer must approve the special occasion request, but prep builders and admins are not bound by the reviewer's approval}}. The relevance to this discussion is that keeping the queues running smoothly is a higher priority than satisfying special date requests. I'm all for people putting in the extra effort shuffling hooks around to satisfy SOHA requests, but we can't let "perfect" get in the way of "good enough". It would have been a mistake to force a change to the update schedule because of SOHA. ] ] 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===5 January=== | |||
We need one more queue to get filled in the next 8 hours to keep going with 12 hour mode ] ] 16:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I can take the next one if no-one else does in the next five hours. I'd need more eyes on the Tyler hook though.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 16:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Doing, although Glucoboy in prep 6 looks interesting and I might swap it and Tyler to avoid outsourcing. I'll make that decision after in nine articles' time.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Another six sets of 12 hour mode it is.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 00:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===8 January=== | |||
::::::*As for rules on the hook, as I already said you have reviewed the hook, but you have not addressed any of the criteria that are to do with the article. You are rejecting the article purely on the basis of personal disbelief of the hook fact. That's not appropriate conduct for a reviewer and I will ask you again to step back and let uninvolved reviewers deal with it. ] (]) 18:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{dykadmins}} We've got about 10 hours left in the current sprint. There's only 4 queues filled right now; unless we get 3 more filled today, we'll go back to 24 hour sets at 0000Z. By my count, we've currently got 156 approved hooks, and there's still that GA backlog drive going on, so I would expect another influx of nominations from that. ] ] 14:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I see you and {{yo|Hilst}} have queues 1 and 2 in hand. If no-one else does prep 3 in the next four hours, I'll take it.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 17:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::I took it. Next decision to be made on 11 January. ] (]) 18:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===11 January=== | |||
I have taken a quick look at the discussion here and the nomination page, and am obliged to agree with Prioryman that nominations don't get rejected just on the basis of having an incorrect hook, the correct procedure is to place a hold on the nom until either the hook is corrected (if necessary) or a new hook found. While I too am bothered by Gibraltar noms that appear to be about increasingly trivial topics, this particular article also clearly passed AFD so notability has been established. I therefore think it's time this discussion ended; the article can be passed or failed by consensus of uninvolved reviewers per the usual processes. ] (]) 12:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{dykadmins}} we're down to 127 approved hooks, which is great progress, but still above the threshold for another sprint if we can get 4 queues filled in the next 8 hours. ] ] 15:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I'll take the next one.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 15:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::{{yo|RoySmith}} I've queued prep 6 and can probably do prep 1 this evening.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 17:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::I did 7 (which, by the way, was totally clean, which made it easy). ] ] 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::I'll take 1 once I've cooked.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::Doing now.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 20:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::And the last one's all yours.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I'm assuming somebody else will step up. This is a team effort. ] ] 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Sorry, would do but am annoyingly indisposed. ] (]) 23:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Someone needs to update ] as it's protected.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::OK, I've put us back to 24 hour mode. I think this was the first time we've tried the "3 day sprint" thing and from what I can see, it worked well. We ran for 12 days, knocked the backlog down from (I think) 165 to 128, and always knew where we were. No more panic when the queues ran down to empty. So, good job everybody. I haven't been keeping careful track, but I think Launchballer probably gets the prize for most sets promoted to queue during this. | |||
::::::::::My guess is we'll need to run some more sprints in the near future as the GA review drive throws more work our way. But for now, we get to stand down and get some more rest. ] ] 00:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Should this be showing up as verified?? == | |||
== Diversi == | |||
] is now the second oldest nomination. It was approved some time ago and then debate started about why it wasn't getting promoted. Now that it is at the top of the table, I am noticing it is not showing up as verified. Is it listed incorrectly somehow so that it is not showing as verified?-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 13:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
{{Queue|2}}, no. 4: one of the more blatant bits of advertising to be potentially appearing on the main page. ] (]) 00:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:{{Prep|2}}, actually. ] <span style="color:blue">•</span> ] 00:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:: Oops! ] (]) 01:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:] The latest icon in the nomination is <nowiki>{{subst:DYK?}}</nowiki> so that puts it in the unapproved section. If someone approved the latest hooks and added <nowiki>{{subst:DYKtick}}</nowiki> then it would be approved again. ] (]) 13:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I think the problem is in "so good". I altered the phrasing to tone it down. The rest of the facts in the sentence appears to be properly cited in the article. ]] 04:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::As I understand it ALT7 and ALT8 are acceptable, but is there anyone who has the responsibility to review it. ] was the original reviewer who approved it. ] called it into question. ] has been the most active discussant. I am not even sure who to ask to give it a positive tick.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 13:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::This Kiwi redhead is getting treated like the perverbial a redheaded stepchild (Not making up the phrase you can google "like a redheaded stepchild"). I have heard of American bias. I can list any smoe American basketball player, but this poor redheaded Kiwi can't get no love.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 15:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::For what it's worth, there have been hooks in the past about American sports personalities that have also been questioned due to lack of appeal to non-American readers, so it isn't specifically an anti-American (or pro-American for that matter) bias. ] (] · ]) 00:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*For the record, I don't do a lot of international editing, so I don't know if this is unusual here, but in my editing history, I have never written an article and noticed so many editors from a specific country were so interested that they would jump in with editorial corrections before. So many New Zealand editors (], ], ], ], maybe ]) expressed an interest in the article as editors, that I think WP is showing a lack of ethnic sensitivity by expressing lacked enthusiasm for subjects of interest to smaller (in this case ethnic) interest groups. I would have expected a small but differently concentrated viewership for this article. I suspect clickthroughs would come from Kiwi readers who have a smaller set of opportunities to do so at DYK in general. If this ran and got less than 2k clickthroughs they probably would not be from the common locations, but with a concentration, like the editorship of this article. Is this racist?-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 14:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*Can someone step in with a teaching moment for me. I know this subject is of strong interest to people from New Zealand and New Zealand is a fairly small country (population 5 million). I also believe that New Zealand subjects are probably a bit rare at DYK especially those where the word New Zealand could so easily be included in the hook. I feel such strong expressions of apathy for a subject with a small ethnic interest groups seem to unfair and counter to WP interest in a year when highlights inclusivity. Is WP's 2025 theme of inclusivity something DYK considers with respect to subjects pertinent to small interest groups.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 16:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:This isn't about inclusivity or even what country the subject from. It's a simple question of whether or not the hooks proposed are ]. Consensus in the discussion, unfortunately, is that the proposed hooks are marginally interesting at best. ] (] · ]) 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::] Confirming here. In the subjective assessments that DYK makes, there is no consideration for inclusivity.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 06:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:::That is a nonsensical interpretation, the most related read of what Narutolovehinata5 said regarding inclusivity would be that DYK hooks strive for maximum possible inclusivity. ] (]) 14:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*{{re|Narutolovehinata5}} Does mean that the nomination is closed? AFAICS, most of the 2+ months elapsed was while under the assumption that this was approved and ready to go: | |||
*:5 Nov Nominated | |||
*:7 Nov Approved | |||
*:25 Dec Formally marked for issue follow-up.—] (]) 08:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:Yes, I marked the nomination for closure per ] and a lack of consensus regarding a hook. ] generally refers to unpromoted nominations, though I think it might be better for it to refer to nominations that haven't run, since depending on how the wording is interpreted, promoting then pulling a hook could reset the timer under the current wording. Since the nomination is already over two months old, it was under editor discretion to time it out or not. ] (] · ]) 08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::@]: It seems pretty cutthroat. I could understand if it had an explicit outstanding issue for months. Instead, it was formally approved, but the lack of a promotion for ~2 mos became a stealth unapprove. That's putting the onus on nominators to constantly pester why their approved nomination has not been promoted, for fear a last minute issue will similarly be raised and their nomination will also be killed via timeout. —] (]) 08:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:::That's why DYKTIMEOUT isn't mandatory, it's editor discretion. There are cases when even if a nomination is already over two months old, it should ''not'' be timed out if there's good reason (for example, if discussion or workshopping is still ongoing). For what it's worth, multiple editors had expressed reservations about the hook options, so I took that into account when marking the nomination for closure. Had other editors said that they were willing to salvage the nomination, the closure marking would not have happened. ] (] · ]) 09:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::::Thanks for the explanation. —] (]) 09:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*I have replied to the nomination as the original reviewer; personally I think ALT8 is suitable and passes the DYK brief, but if there are still dissenting voices on this I'm happy to hear them out. Otherwise I suggest this be promoted using ALT8. ] (]) 09:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:I personally am okayish with ALT8, but I agree with {{u|Hilst}} that it probably won't do all that well on DYK. Given that they objected to the options, it might be worth hearing their thoughts first (or from other editors) before proceeding with ALT8. ] (] · ]) 09:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::I dislike ALT8 because it's not really a fact specific to Oscar Goodman. You could swap him out for any other player from the under-17 team (or even the coach), and it would still work. – 🌻 ] (] | ]) 11:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:::The article makes it clear that he stands out from other under-15, -16 and -17 athletes by virtue of whenever he is in a large tournament with players his age, he is always one of the best 5.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 13:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::::], see ALT9.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 14:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:For the record, I'm also very baffled with the claims that there is an anti-<s>Australia</s> New Zealand bias on DYK or with the nomination, or that rejecting the nomination would harm DYK's "diversity". The concerns regarding interest were independent of the subject being <s>Australian</s> New Zealander, and I imagine if similar concerns existed but the subject was instead, for example, British, such concerns would still remain. ] (] · ]) 09:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::Australia (population 28 million, the 54th largest nation) is not as underrepresented on DYK and this is not an Australian hook. New Zealand (population 5 million, 125th largest), which is less than 1/5th the size of Australia, and I presume it is underrepresented. That is the issue here.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 13:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::I can't verify DYK frequency, but I can extrapolate ] underreprentation by these category sizes ] (count 57) and ] (count 478). So the ] ratio is probably closer to 1/10 the frequency of Australia, which may or may not be underrepresented relative to the US and UK.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 13:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::Again, the issue isn't an anti-New Zealand or anti-country bias. The question is if there is consensus for a nomination to run. If there are existing concerns or objections, then it can't run. The issues with this nomination have nothing to do with having an anti-New Zealand bias, or wanting to prevent diversity on DYK. On the contrary, a diverse selection of topics is one of the things DYK strives for. But just because we aim for diversity or promoting underrepresented topics on DYK doesn't mean rules and guidelines should be waived or ignored. If a nomination about an underrepresented topic is rejected, it is ''not'' due to a bias against that topic, or a desire to prevent diversity, but rather an issue with the article, hook, or nomination. ] (] · ]) 13:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
::There's something wrong with the structure of the hook (which is now in {{queue|2}}, having just been promoted from {{prep|2}})—it doesn't work as a sentence. Also, the article didn't say DeFrancesco had bought a stake in the company, just that he owned a stake in the business ... which could have been acquired in any number of ways; for all we know, could have been in payment for his endorsement. Perhaps something like "... that jazz musician ] thought well enough of ''']''' organs that he stopped using ]s and obtained a stake in the company?" I'll leave it to others to judge whether this is still too close to ] to qualify; I think it might be interesting enough of a hook even if the Hammonds were cut due to concerns. ] (]) 04:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:::Sourced or not, it still reads to me purely as a pretext for getting the Diversi name, along with an endorsement, onto the Main Page of Misplaced Pages, but I'm no policy wonk. | |||
:::And BlueMoonset is right, the syntax of the sentence is a bit off as it stands. | |||
:::With apologies for being a pest, ] (]) 13:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Have you considered discussing this with the nominator? ] (]) 13:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*I pulled the hook back to the nominations page, where discussion can continue without everyone feeling like the situation is a crisis. --] (]) 15:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
**I'm surprised that Awien didn't notify the nominator. Saying that someone is trying to advertise a company is a big deal, especially when it would be put on the main page. I would not be happy if someone posted somewhere that I was advertising something, without even bothering to give me a chance to defend myself. ] (]) 16:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{od}}The Diversi article was recently created by Ritchie333 as part of the process of polishing the ] article for GAN. ] "Diversi has almost no presence on Misplaced Pages (a single listing at ]), but they deserve ''something'' more than that", and so Ritchie333 created the article. This company has very little going for it beyond the involvement by Joey DeFrancesco, so if the DYK is to have any kind of hooky hook this is it. The Diversi company is otherwise very small, with low volume sales to a small potential market. It's kind of sad, really. I'm sorry to see the DYK challenged. ] (]) 16:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:Binksternet, what you seem to be saying is that Diversi should be allowed a plug on WP because they're the underdog. I can actually relate to that. If somebody with the power wants to wave a magic wand and make this go away, I'll go away too. | |||
:SL93, what you seem to be saying is that a non-admin, non-insider is supposed to know that the DYK talk page isn't the place to raise a DYK issue? I know all it says is "To report errors in the queue, please post at WT:DYK", but to the uninitiated, that looks as though it would include potential errors of judgment over inclusion. I would suggest you not bite the well-intentioned who don't like to see WP look bad and try to do something about it. In fact, come to think of it, I'm offended that ''you'''ve reprimanded ''me'' in public rather than contacting me in private and letting me defend myself. | |||
:] (]) 22:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::I never said that you couldn't, but it is wrong to to treat it like the hook is for sure an advertisement. ] (]) 22:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::: I think Awien acted correctly in raising the concern here about a hook that did come across as promotional and that was in queue for the Main Page. Orlady then acted prudently in removing the hook from the queue so that it could be discussed further. Binksternet and BlueMoonset then collaborated to come up with a better, less promotional hook which is now back in queue. No need for reprimands. This is how the system is supposed to work. ] (]) 03:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::::Whether or not the system worked the correct way, Awien did say that it was blatant advertising from someone who has edited on Misplaced Pages for over 7 years. He never said that it could come across as promotional, but only that it was promotional. I don't understand where people are getting their information from. I never said anything about the system. ] (]) 13:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
===]=== | |||
:I created the DYK. The hook was a parody of ]'s famous quotation "I liked the shaver so much, I bought the company". I have never even ''seen'' a Diversi organ, much less played one. In case my sarcastic sense of humour isn't coming across, implies I am aware of basic article policies. My talk page is generally open for people questioning my judgement. ] ] ] 09:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{yo|BennyOnTheLoose|AmateurHi$torian|SL93}} I don't think it's on to have a hook that implies someone's lazy per ]. Misplaced Pages's birthday is on 15 January and this article mentions this site - why don't we run a hook mentioning it on that date?--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
: {{re|Launchballer}} I'd added a couple of alt hooks when approving the nom, we could also use those. The Misplaced Pages birthday thing sounds great as well :) -] (]) 21:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I agree about the WP:BLP aspect. I've swapped in ALT1. If somebody wants to go to the trouble to schedule this for her birthday, I won't object, but I can't get too excited about it. ] ] 21:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::What's there now works.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but Smith seems to have embraced the nickname - it's included in her official Twitter and Instagram handles, for example. Regards, ] (]) 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Given the standards given on ], it's probably not a good idea to schedule this on January 15 just because of Misplaced Pages's mention. It seems like a rather flimsy special occasion. We've rejected arguably more deserving occasions in the past, so I can't see why this rather weak connection should be given a pass. ] (] · ]) 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===]=== | |||
== Review request == | |||
{{yo|Za-ari-masen|Surtsicna}} Article does not mention the word 'monk'. Also, the lead could do with expanding, but that's technically not a DYK issue.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{u|Launchballer}} I added the word "monk". ] (]) 21:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::And I added an end-of-sentence citation. This ''should'' be fine.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::I still can't get over how certain end of citation rules are pointless - like this one. Just thinking out loud a bit. ] (]) 21:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::When I'm checking a hook, this is one of those rules I'm willing to play a little fast and lose with. As long as there's a citation pretty close, and it's obvious what source backs up the hook fact, I'm good, even if it's not strictly at the end of the sentence. So sue me. ] ] 22:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===]=== | |||
For ] which was nominated over six weeks ago. ] (]) 22:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
First hooks are notoriously problematic. This one seems fine as earlier patents would have been rejected by law (and indeed one ''was''), but I'm opening this to the floor just in case.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I'm inclined to think this is OK. The source says "The patent grant was made possible by a decision last year by the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals", so at least there's a small window of time in which an earlier software patent might have issued. And apparently this was followed extensively in the industry press, so it's unlikely an earlier one just wasn't noticed. This is mentioned in ], and I also found a bunch of other citations.<ref>{{Cite web |title= |author= |work=scholarship.law.columbia.edu |date= |access-date=12 January 2025 |url= https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1271&context=faculty_scholarship}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Software patents 'a bit of a mess' says Martin Goetz, the first man to get one |author= |work=the Guardian |date= |access-date=12 January 2025 |url= https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/24/smartphone-patent-wars-intellectual-property}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=June 19, 1968: First software patent awarded to Martin Goetz |author= |work=Patrick J. McGovern Foundation |date= |access-date=12 January 2025 |url= https://www.mcgovern.org/the-legacy-of-patrick-j-mcgovern/from-the-pages-of-tech-history/june-19-1968-first-software-patent-awarded-to-martin-goetz/}}</ref> ] ] 21:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Older nominations needing reviews == | |||
:{{reflist-talk}} ] ] 21:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===]=== | |||
;Un-reviewed | |||
{{yo|Kingoflettuce|Darth Stabro|Hilst}} Not sure how comfortable I am with this on BLP grounds; while Roach is dead, we don't know if Casey or Schwartz is. There was a suggestion at the nom page of receiving a standing ovation for admitting to his alcoholism and I think we should go with that.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* <s>July 29: ]</s> | |||
* July 30: <s>]</s> | |||
* —: <s>]</s> | |||
* —: ] | |||
* July 31: ] | |||
* <s>August 1: ] | |||
* August 2: ]</s> | |||
* August 4: ] (four-article hook) | |||
* —: ] | |||
* —: ] | |||
*<s> —: ] | |||
* —: ] | |||
* —: ] | |||
* August 5: ] | |||
* —: ] | |||
* —: ]</s> | |||
* —: ] | |||
* —: ] | |||
:, cannot find anything for Schwartz. | |||
;Re-review needed | |||
:Perhaps as an '''ALT1''': "... that Archbishop ''']''' received a standing ovation at ] when he admitted to being an alcoholic?" ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 20:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* July 5: <s>] (alt hook only needs approval)</s> Verified. ] (]) 09:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::There may be some way to work in the drunk driving incident without being too wordy, but I haven't figured one out. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* <s>July 9: ]</s> | |||
:::I think the drunk driving aspect would quality for ]. If you're alright with the slightly more concise '''ALT1a''': ... that Archbishop ''']''' received a standing ovation for admitting his alcoholism?, I'll swap it in.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* July 13: ] | |||
::::Sounds good. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* July 19: ] | |||
:::::Done.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* July 22: ] | |||
* —: ] | |||
* July 23: ] | |||
* —: ] | |||
* <s>July 25: ] | |||
* —: ] | |||
* —: ]</s> | |||
* July 27: ] | |||
* July 28: ] | |||
* July 29: <s>]</s> Withdrawn. ] (]) 20:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
* <s>July 30: ]</s> | |||
* August 5: ] | |||
== ] == | |||
Add more nominations whatever you like, but each must belong to either "un-reviewed" or "re-review needed". I'll correct errors in the list if I see mistakes. --] (]) 23:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
===]/]=== | |||
Oh yes; do not list nominations | |||
{{yo|Skyshifter|Sammi Brie|AirshipJungleman29}} Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation for "an organization dedicated to defending transgender youth".--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* whose articles are not yet fixed and/or | |||
* whose issues are not yet resolved and/or | |||
* whose discussion is getting too long. | |||
Done. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 21:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
And do not include Gibraltar-related nominations If an individual nomination is listed in this talk page already prior to this list, it will not be listed here. Requests that are archived are allowed to be listed. --] (]) 23:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
:AGF fine.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===]=== | |||
== Oldest Nominations needing DYK reviewers == | |||
{{yo|Queen of Hearts|Generalissima|Hilst}} Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Sigh, done. ] ] 21:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::My concern has been resolved.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===]=== | |||
While we have 168 current nominations, 22 of which are approved, we do have five empty queues and three empty preps, and a great many older hooks that need reviewing. Some of the more middle-aged hooks are above, but several of the ones here don't fit the criteria of that section though they definitely need a reviewer, so I'm listing eleven of them here. Thank you as always for your continuing assistance. | |||
{{yo|Vigilantcosmicpenguin}} One of the notes needs a citation.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I wonder if the note can just be removed completely. I don't see many readers knowing what the ''wuwu'' year is. ] (]) 01:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*<s>June 20: ]</s> | |||
:Pinging nominator {{u|Generalissima}}. ] (]) 01:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*<s>June 21: ] (now two separate hooks that need reviewing)</s> | |||
::Removed these <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 01:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*June 24: ] | |||
::Fine by me.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 10:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*<s>July 4: ]</s> | |||
*<s>July 9: ]</s> | |||
*July 11: ] | |||
*July 14: ] | |||
*July 15: ] | |||
*July 15: ] | |||
*July 23: ] | |||
*<s>July 24: ]</s> | |||
===]=== | |||
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! ] (]) 05:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
{{yo|CFA|WikiOriginal-9}} Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Done. ] (]) 02:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award == | |||
::Fine by me.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 10:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* '''Note''' This hook is now at ]. ] 11:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
See ]--] <small>(]/]/]/]/])</small> 16:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
== |
== 10 hook sets? == | ||
We switched to 9 hooks per set a while ago. That has certainly kept us closer to keeping up with nominations, but we're still falling behind and having to run in 12-hour mode once in a while to keep up. I suggest we try 10 hooks per set and see how that goes. ] ] 01:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
A hook currently in Prep 1 reads: ''... that British manufacturer Karrimor's formidable reputation for ground-breaking outdoor pursuit equipment was a direct result of its location in Lancashire, and a CEO who was an avid climber and trekker?'' Any chance of dropping the ''formidable'' from the hook - sounds a bit ]. Thanks, ] (]) 16:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
: |
:Not worth it. The current rate will even out over time. ] (]) 01:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
:I'm not sure if one extra hook per set will help much if at all. I do think that more prep builders would help. ] (]) 01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I do not mind going to 10 hooks a set. If we start running out, we can always return to 9-a-set at a later date. ] (]) 03:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
: Nine is already more than enough IMO. Apart from the extra work required in verifying a 10-hook set, it becomes much harder not to repeat topics with longer sets, and longer sets just tend to look cluttered. 12-hour mode has long been a staple of DYK anyhow and one extra hook per set is not going to change that. ] (]) 12:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I think we're getting to the point where DYK is at risk of getting so long that hooks won't get the attention they deserve. I'd rather not move to 10 unless the overall backlog situation gets worse. —] (]) 12:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Older nominations needing DYK reviewers == | |||
: Note: I have re-inserted the descriptive terms ] in my talk page. ]] 07:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
::Hardly ], no matter what the editor says. "reputation for..." would have been fine, and neutral, while still reflecting the reputation without necessarily promoting the company. It's on the Main Page now, which is worrying - possibly it should have been held for further discussion instead of putting a blatant advert live. ] (]) 10:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
The previous list hasn’t yet been archived but it has only a few unreviewed noms remaining, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 3. We have a total of 270 nominations, of which 147 have been approved, a gap of 123 nominations that has increased by 11 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations! | |||
== Increase from 14 per day to 16 per day? == | |||
'''More than one month old''' | |||
So far we have 180 nominations, but the amount of verified hooks is below 30. 30 or less is not enough to go back to three sets per day. Perhaps we might increase from seven per set to eight per set during the two-set system? --] (]) 08:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
*November 19: ] | |||
*November 19: ] | |||
*November 21: ] | |||
*December 1: ] | |||
*<s>December 6: ]</s> | |||
*December 11: ] | |||
*December 12: ] | |||
'''Other nominations''' | |||
*<s>December 20: ]</s> | |||
*December 24: ] | |||
*<s>December 25: ]</s> | |||
*<s>December 26: ]</s> | |||
*December 28: ] | |||
*December 29: ] | |||
*December 30: ] | |||
*<s>December 30: ]</s> | |||
*December 31: ] | |||
*<s>December 31: ]</s> | |||
*<s>December 31: ]</s> | |||
*January 1: ] (two articles) | |||
*January 1: ] | |||
*<s>January 1: ]</s> | |||
*January 2: ] | |||
*January 2: ] | |||
*January 2: ] | |||
*<s>January 2: ]</s> | |||
*January 2: ] | |||
*<s>January 2: ]</s> | |||
*January 2: ] | |||
*January 3: ] | |||
*January 3: ] | |||
*January 3: ] | |||
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! ] (]) 03:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Refreshed list of older nominations needing reviewers == | |||
== ] == | |||
;Un-reviewed | |||
* July 30: ] | |||
* July 31: ] | |||
* August 4: ] (four-article hook) | |||
* —: ] | |||
* —: ] | |||
* August 5: ] | |||
* —: ] | |||
* August 6: ] | |||
* August 7: ] | |||
* —: ] | |||
* —: ] | |||
* —: ] | |||
===] (])=== | |||
;Re-review needed | |||
{{ping|Generalissima|PCN02WPS|SL93}} both the article and source make it clear that Montford only "likely" purchased his own freedom; the hook needs to be adjusted accordingly. If it fine if I drop a "likely" before "purchased"? ] (]) 13:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* July 13: ] | |||
* July 19: ] | |||
* July 22: ] | |||
* —: ] | |||
* July 23: ] | |||
* —: ] | |||
* July 27: ] | |||
* July 28: ] | |||
* August 5: ] | |||
* August 7: ] | |||
* —: ] | |||
* —: ] | |||
:Go ahead, apologies. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 15:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Again, the nomination must omit: | |||
* long discussions | |||
* unresolved issues | |||
* irrepaired articles | |||
* Gibraltar-related topics | |||
===] (])=== | |||
If the nomination is getting complicated, then an individual request on a nomination is best recommended. --] (]) 08:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC) | |||
I don't want to restart the kerfuffle we've seen on this page recently, but I'm honestly not sure if this hook violates ]. Opinions requested, and courtesy pings {{ping|CanonNi|JJonahJackalope|SL93}}. ] (]) 13:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{Ping|AirshipJungleman29}}, after reading through the special considerations section of the Did You Know? guidelines, I would probably agree with you that a hook on this article should be more focused on a real-world topic than the current hook is. I apologize for that oversight on my end, just let me know what I should do moving forward with this submission and I await feedback from the nominator. Thanks, -] (]) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
: While it probably constitutes a violation, it's an entertaining hook that does link to two topics pertaining to real-world physics, namely ] and ] - which serves our educational purpose. Perhaps we could ] this one? ] (]) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::I thought that those two things could count as the real world information. ] (]) 18:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Warp drives are definitely fictional. Maglocks, while real, seem very prosaic, at least judging from the linked article; no idea why they were chosen ahead of space suits interestingness-wise. ] (]) 18:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::I meant maglocks and the “look like American semi-trucks from the 1970s?” I just woke up. As for the space suits, I don’t see such a hook suggested. ] (]) 18:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::: Yes, warp drives are fictional, but if you read the article, it includes an entire section on the physics related to the idea. Maglocks might be "prosaic" but I've never heard of them so they tweaked my curiosity. Not sure what your comment about spacesuits pertains to, but everybody knows what a spacesuit is. ] (]) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I could add more to the article from the source to do this hook ... that ''''']''''' "can be as relaxing or sweaty as you like"? ] (]) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:@] sorry for the late reply. If the current hook isn't suitable, would something like "... that players of ''''']''''' have to control three axes at once?" work? The source would be . Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 11:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 14:29, 16 January 2025
Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you. |
DYK queue status
Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 19 hours ago( ) |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.
Back to 24 hours?
@DYK admins: As of this moment, we've got five filled queues. If we can fill another two queues before midnight UTC (eight hours from now), we'll keep running 12 hour updates for another three days. Otherwise we're back to 24. RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've promoted one more, but don't think I'll have time for the last one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm working on Queue 5 right now, so we're good to keep going until 0000 6 Jan UTC. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- And somebody needs to back-fill the holes that got left in Queue 3 after various yankings. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DYK admins: just to make sure everybody is aware, we're going to extend 12-hour mode (at least) another 3 days now that we have 7 full queues. We do have quite a backlog to dig out of. By my count, we've got 165 approved hooks, and there's another GAN review drive that just started so I expect another big influx of nominations. I expect it'll take us several more 3-day sprints to get back to normal and it'll be less disruptive to keep them going back-to-back vs flitting back and forth between modes. RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- So long as queue 3 is filled by midnight and the two date requests in queues 4 and 5 are suitably kicked back, I have no valid objections.--Launchballer 22:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I filled one of the holes in queue 3. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm getting confused as to where the SOHA hooks need to go; anyone able to get their head around it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- 5 and 6 January, but they're already there. Brain fog is brain fogging, clearly.--Launchballer 13:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a reminder, WP:DYKSO says
The reviewer must approve the special occasion request, but prep builders and admins are not bound by the reviewer's approval
. The relevance to this discussion is that keeping the queues running smoothly is a higher priority than satisfying special date requests. I'm all for people putting in the extra effort shuffling hooks around to satisfy SOHA requests, but we can't let "perfect" get in the way of "good enough". It would have been a mistake to force a change to the update schedule because of SOHA. RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a reminder, WP:DYKSO says
- 5 and 6 January, but they're already there. Brain fog is brain fogging, clearly.--Launchballer 13:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- So long as queue 3 is filled by midnight and the two date requests in queues 4 and 5 are suitably kicked back, I have no valid objections.--Launchballer 22:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DYK admins: just to make sure everybody is aware, we're going to extend 12-hour mode (at least) another 3 days now that we have 7 full queues. We do have quite a backlog to dig out of. By my count, we've got 165 approved hooks, and there's another GAN review drive that just started so I expect another big influx of nominations. I expect it'll take us several more 3-day sprints to get back to normal and it'll be less disruptive to keep them going back-to-back vs flitting back and forth between modes. RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- And somebody needs to back-fill the holes that got left in Queue 3 after various yankings. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm working on Queue 5 right now, so we're good to keep going until 0000 6 Jan UTC. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
5 January
We need one more queue to get filled in the next 8 hours to keep going with 12 hour mode RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can take the next one if no-one else does in the next five hours. I'd need more eyes on the Tyler hook though.--Launchballer 16:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Doing, although Glucoboy in prep 6 looks interesting and I might swap it and Tyler to avoid outsourcing. I'll make that decision after in nine articles' time.--Launchballer 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another six sets of 12 hour mode it is.--Launchballer 00:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Doing, although Glucoboy in prep 6 looks interesting and I might swap it and Tyler to avoid outsourcing. I'll make that decision after in nine articles' time.--Launchballer 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
8 January
@DYK admins: We've got about 10 hours left in the current sprint. There's only 4 queues filled right now; unless we get 3 more filled today, we'll go back to 24 hour sets at 0000Z. By my count, we've currently got 156 approved hooks, and there's still that GA backlog drive going on, so I would expect another influx of nominations from that. RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see you and @Hilst: have queues 1 and 2 in hand. If no-one else does prep 3 in the next four hours, I'll take it.--Launchballer 17:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I took it. Next decision to be made on 11 January. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
11 January
@DYK admins: we're down to 127 approved hooks, which is great progress, but still above the threshold for another sprint if we can get 4 queues filled in the next 8 hours. RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll take the next one.--Launchballer 15:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: I've queued prep 6 and can probably do prep 1 this evening.--Launchballer 17:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did 7 (which, by the way, was totally clean, which made it easy). RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll take 1 once I've cooked.--Launchballer 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Doing now.--Launchballer 20:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- And the last one's all yours.--Launchballer 21:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm assuming somebody else will step up. This is a team effort. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, would do but am annoyingly indisposed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Someone needs to update User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates as it's protected.--Launchballer 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I've put us back to 24 hour mode. I think this was the first time we've tried the "3 day sprint" thing and from what I can see, it worked well. We ran for 12 days, knocked the backlog down from (I think) 165 to 128, and always knew where we were. No more panic when the queues ran down to empty. So, good job everybody. I haven't been keeping careful track, but I think Launchballer probably gets the prize for most sets promoted to queue during this.
- My guess is we'll need to run some more sprints in the near future as the GA review drive throws more work our way. But for now, we get to stand down and get some more rest. RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Someone needs to update User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates as it's protected.--Launchballer 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, would do but am annoyingly indisposed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm assuming somebody else will step up. This is a team effort. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- And the last one's all yours.--Launchballer 21:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Doing now.--Launchballer 20:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll take 1 once I've cooked.--Launchballer 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did 7 (which, by the way, was totally clean, which made it easy). RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: I've queued prep 6 and can probably do prep 1 this evening.--Launchballer 17:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Should this be showing up as verified??
Template:Did you know nominations/Oscar Goodman (basketball) is now the second oldest nomination. It was approved some time ago and then debate started about why it wasn't getting promoted. Now that it is at the top of the table, I am noticing it is not showing up as verified. Is it listed incorrectly somehow so that it is not showing as verified?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger The latest icon in the nomination is {{subst:DYK?}} so that puts it in the unapproved section. If someone approved the latest hooks and added {{subst:DYKtick}} then it would be approved again. TSventon (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I understand it ALT7 and ALT8 are acceptable, but is there anyone who has the responsibility to review it. User:Sims2aholic8 was the original reviewer who approved it. User:AirshipJungleman29 called it into question. User:Narutolovehinata5 has been the most active discussant. I am not even sure who to ask to give it a positive tick.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- This Kiwi redhead is getting treated like the perverbial a redheaded stepchild (Not making up the phrase you can google "like a redheaded stepchild"). I have heard of American bias. I can list any smoe American basketball player, but this poor redheaded Kiwi can't get no love.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, there have been hooks in the past about American sports personalities that have also been questioned due to lack of appeal to non-American readers, so it isn't specifically an anti-American (or pro-American for that matter) bias. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- This Kiwi redhead is getting treated like the perverbial a redheaded stepchild (Not making up the phrase you can google "like a redheaded stepchild"). I have heard of American bias. I can list any smoe American basketball player, but this poor redheaded Kiwi can't get no love.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I understand it ALT7 and ALT8 are acceptable, but is there anyone who has the responsibility to review it. User:Sims2aholic8 was the original reviewer who approved it. User:AirshipJungleman29 called it into question. User:Narutolovehinata5 has been the most active discussant. I am not even sure who to ask to give it a positive tick.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, I don't do a lot of international editing, so I don't know if this is unusual here, but in my editing history, I have never written an article and noticed so many editors from a specific country were so interested that they would jump in with editorial corrections before. So many New Zealand editors (User:Alexeyevitch, User:Gadfium, User:Schwede66, User:Panamitsu, maybe User:Lukraun) expressed an interest in the article as editors, that I think WP is showing a lack of ethnic sensitivity by expressing lacked enthusiasm for subjects of interest to smaller (in this case ethnic) interest groups. I would have expected a small but differently concentrated viewership for this article. I suspect clickthroughs would come from Kiwi readers who have a smaller set of opportunities to do so at DYK in general. If this ran and got less than 2k clickthroughs they probably would not be from the common locations, but with a concentration, like the editorship of this article. Is this racist?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can someone step in with a teaching moment for me. I know this subject is of strong interest to people from New Zealand and New Zealand is a fairly small country (population 5 million). I also believe that New Zealand subjects are probably a bit rare at DYK especially those where the word New Zealand could so easily be included in the hook. I feel such strong expressions of apathy for a subject with a small ethnic interest groups seem to unfair and counter to WP interest in a year when 2025:Wikimania highlights inclusivity. Is WP's 2025 theme of inclusivity something DYK considers with respect to subjects pertinent to small interest groups.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't about inclusivity or even what country the subject from. It's a simple question of whether or not the hooks proposed are interesting to a broad, non-specialist audience. Consensus in the discussion, unfortunately, is that the proposed hooks are marginally interesting at best. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Narutolovehinata5 Confirming here. In the subjective assessments that DYK makes, there is no consideration for inclusivity.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is a nonsensical interpretation, the most related read of what Narutolovehinata5 said regarding inclusivity would be that DYK hooks strive for maximum possible inclusivity. CMD (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Narutolovehinata5 Confirming here. In the subjective assessments that DYK makes, there is no consideration for inclusivity.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't about inclusivity or even what country the subject from. It's a simple question of whether or not the hooks proposed are interesting to a broad, non-specialist audience. Consensus in the discussion, unfortunately, is that the proposed hooks are marginally interesting at best. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Does your edit mean that the nomination is closed? AFAICS, most of the 2+ months elapsed was while under the assumption that this was approved and ready to go:
- 5 Nov Nominated
- 7 Nov Approved
- 25 Dec Formally marked for issue follow-up.—Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I marked the nomination for closure per WP:DYKTIMEOUT and a lack of consensus regarding a hook. WP:DYKTIMEOUT generally refers to unpromoted nominations, though I think it might be better for it to refer to nominations that haven't run, since depending on how the wording is interpreted, promoting then pulling a hook could reset the timer under the current wording. Since the nomination is already over two months old, it was under editor discretion to time it out or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: It seems pretty cutthroat. I could understand if it had an explicit outstanding issue for months. Instead, it was formally approved, but the lack of a promotion for ~2 mos became a stealth unapprove. That's putting the onus on nominators to constantly pester why their approved nomination has not been promoted, for fear a last minute issue will similarly be raised and their nomination will also be killed via timeout. —Bagumba (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's why DYKTIMEOUT isn't mandatory, it's editor discretion. There are cases when even if a nomination is already over two months old, it should not be timed out if there's good reason (for example, if discussion or workshopping is still ongoing). For what it's worth, multiple editors had expressed reservations about the hook options, so I took that into account when marking the nomination for closure. Had other editors said that they were willing to salvage the nomination, the closure marking would not have happened. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. —Bagumba (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's why DYKTIMEOUT isn't mandatory, it's editor discretion. There are cases when even if a nomination is already over two months old, it should not be timed out if there's good reason (for example, if discussion or workshopping is still ongoing). For what it's worth, multiple editors had expressed reservations about the hook options, so I took that into account when marking the nomination for closure. Had other editors said that they were willing to salvage the nomination, the closure marking would not have happened. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: It seems pretty cutthroat. I could understand if it had an explicit outstanding issue for months. Instead, it was formally approved, but the lack of a promotion for ~2 mos became a stealth unapprove. That's putting the onus on nominators to constantly pester why their approved nomination has not been promoted, for fear a last minute issue will similarly be raised and their nomination will also be killed via timeout. —Bagumba (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have replied to the nomination as the original reviewer; personally I think ALT8 is suitable and passes the DYK brief, but if there are still dissenting voices on this I'm happy to hear them out. Otherwise I suggest this be promoted using ALT8. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I personally am okayish with ALT8, but I agree with Hilst that it probably won't do all that well on DYK. Given that they objected to the options, it might be worth hearing their thoughts first (or from other editors) before proceeding with ALT8. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I dislike ALT8 because it's not really a fact specific to Oscar Goodman. You could swap him out for any other player from the under-17 team (or even the coach), and it would still work. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The article makes it clear that he stands out from other under-15, -16 and -17 athletes by virtue of whenever he is in a large tournament with players his age, he is always one of the best 5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Hilst, see ALT9.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The article makes it clear that he stands out from other under-15, -16 and -17 athletes by virtue of whenever he is in a large tournament with players his age, he is always one of the best 5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I dislike ALT8 because it's not really a fact specific to Oscar Goodman. You could swap him out for any other player from the under-17 team (or even the coach), and it would still work. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm also very baffled with the claims that there is an anti-
AustraliaNew Zealand bias on DYK or with the nomination, or that rejecting the nomination would harm DYK's "diversity". The concerns regarding interest were independent of the subject beingAustralianNew Zealander, and I imagine if similar concerns existed but the subject was instead, for example, British, such concerns would still remain. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- Australia (population 28 million, the 54th largest nation) is not as underrepresented on DYK and this is not an Australian hook. New Zealand (population 5 million, 125th largest), which is less than 1/5th the size of Australia, and I presume it is underrepresented. That is the issue here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't verify DYK frequency, but I can extrapolate main page underreprentation by these category sizes Category:FA-Class New Zealand articles (count 57) and Category:FA-Class Australia articles (count 478). So the WP:TFA ratio is probably closer to 1/10 the frequency of Australia, which may or may not be underrepresented relative to the US and UK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I personally am okayish with ALT8, but I agree with Hilst that it probably won't do all that well on DYK. Given that they objected to the options, it might be worth hearing their thoughts first (or from other editors) before proceeding with ALT8. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, the issue isn't an anti-New Zealand or anti-country bias. The question is if there is consensus for a nomination to run. If there are existing concerns or objections, then it can't run. The issues with this nomination have nothing to do with having an anti-New Zealand bias, or wanting to prevent diversity on DYK. On the contrary, a diverse selection of topics is one of the things DYK strives for. But just because we aim for diversity or promoting underrepresented topics on DYK doesn't mean rules and guidelines should be waived or ignored. If a nomination about an underrepresented topic is rejected, it is not due to a bias against that topic, or a desire to prevent diversity, but rather an issue with the article, hook, or nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Queue 6
Zoe Smith
@BennyOnTheLoose, AmateurHi$torian, and SL93: I don't think it's on to have a hook that implies someone's lazy per WP:DYKHOOKBLP. Misplaced Pages's birthday is on 15 January and this article mentions this site - why don't we run a hook mentioning it on that date?--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: I'd added a couple of alt hooks when approving the nom, we could also use those. The Misplaced Pages birthday thing sounds great as well :) -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree about the WP:BLP aspect. I've swapped in ALT1. If somebody wants to go to the trouble to schedule this for her birthday, I won't object, but I can't get too excited about it. RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- What's there now works.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but Smith seems to have embraced the nickname - it's included in her official Twitter and Instagram handles, for example. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given the standards given on WP:SOHA, it's probably not a good idea to schedule this on January 15 just because of Misplaced Pages's mention. It seems like a rather flimsy special occasion. We've rejected arguably more deserving occasions in the past, so I can't see why this rather weak connection should be given a pass. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- What's there now works.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
2024 attack on the Bangladesh Assistant High Commission in India
@Za-ari-masen and Surtsicna: Article does not mention the word 'monk'. Also, the lead could do with expanding, but that's technically not a DYK issue.--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Launchballer I added the word "monk". SL93 (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- And I added an end-of-sentence citation. This should be fine.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I still can't get over how certain end of citation rules are pointless - like this one. Just thinking out loud a bit. SL93 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- When I'm checking a hook, this is one of those rules I'm willing to play a little fast and lose with. As long as there's a citation pretty close, and it's obvious what source backs up the hook fact, I'm good, even if it's not strictly at the end of the sentence. So sue me. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I still can't get over how certain end of citation rules are pointless - like this one. Just thinking out loud a bit. SL93 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- And I added an end-of-sentence citation. This should be fine.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Autoflow
First hooks are notoriously problematic. This one seems fine as earlier patents would have been rejected by law (and indeed one was), but I'm opening this to the floor just in case.--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to think this is OK. The source says "The patent grant was made possible by a decision last year by the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals", so at least there's a small window of time in which an earlier software patent might have issued. And apparently this was followed extensively in the industry press, so it's unlikely an earlier one just wasn't noticed. This is mentioned in Martin Goetz, and I also found a bunch of other citations. RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
References
- scholarship.law.columbia.edu https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1271&context=faculty_scholarship. Retrieved 12 January 2025.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - "Software patents 'a bit of a mess' says Martin Goetz, the first man to get one". the Guardian. Retrieved 12 January 2025.
- "June 19, 1968: First software patent awarded to Martin Goetz". Patrick J. McGovern Foundation. Retrieved 12 January 2025.
RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
John Roach (bishop)
@Kingoflettuce, Darth Stabro, and Hilst: Not sure how comfortable I am with this on BLP grounds; while Roach is dead, we don't know if Casey or Schwartz is. There was a suggestion at the nom page of receiving a standing ovation for admitting to his alcoholism and I think we should go with that.--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Casey is dead, cannot find anything for Schwartz.
- Perhaps as an ALT1: "... that Archbishop John Roach received a standing ovation at World Youth Day 1993 when he admitted to being an alcoholic?" ~Darth Stabro 20:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- There may be some way to work in the drunk driving incident without being too wordy, but I haven't figured one out. ~Darth Stabro 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the drunk driving aspect would quality for WP:DYKTRIM. If you're alright with the slightly more concise ALT1a: ... that Archbishop John Roach received a standing ovation for admitting his alcoholism?, I'll swap it in.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds good. ~Darth Stabro 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the drunk driving aspect would quality for WP:DYKTRIM. If you're alright with the slightly more concise ALT1a: ... that Archbishop John Roach received a standing ovation for admitting his alcoholism?, I'll swap it in.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- There may be some way to work in the drunk driving incident without being too wordy, but I haven't figured one out. ~Darth Stabro 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Queue 1
Thamirys Nunes/Minha Criança Trans
@Skyshifter, Sammi Brie, and AirshipJungleman29: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation for "an organization dedicated to defending transgender youth".--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Done. Skyshiftertalk 21:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- AGF fine.--Launchballer 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Darryl De Sousa
@Queen of Hearts, Generalissima, and Hilst: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sigh, done. charlotte 21:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- My concern has been resolved.--Launchballer 21:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Zhao Chongguo
@Vigilantcosmicpenguin: One of the notes needs a citation.--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wonder if the note can just be removed completely. I don't see many readers knowing what the wuwu year is. SL93 (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging nominator Generalissima. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Removed these Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fine by me.--Launchballer 10:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Burt (crocodile)
@CFA and WikiOriginal-9: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. SL93 (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fine by me.--Launchballer 10:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note This hook is now at WP:ERRORS. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
10 hook sets?
We switched to 9 hooks per set a while ago. That has certainly kept us closer to keeping up with nominations, but we're still falling behind and having to run in 12-hour mode once in a while to keep up. I suggest we try 10 hooks per set and see how that goes. RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not worth it. The current rate will even out over time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if one extra hook per set will help much if at all. I do think that more prep builders would help. SL93 (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not mind going to 10 hooks a set. If we start running out, we can always return to 9-a-set at a later date. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nine is already more than enough IMO. Apart from the extra work required in verifying a 10-hook set, it becomes much harder not to repeat topics with longer sets, and longer sets just tend to look cluttered. 12-hour mode has long been a staple of DYK anyhow and one extra hook per set is not going to change that. Gatoclass (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we're getting to the point where DYK is at risk of getting so long that hooks won't get the attention they deserve. I'd rather not move to 10 unless the overall backlog situation gets worse. —Kusma (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list hasn’t yet been archived but it has only a few unreviewed noms remaining, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 3. We have a total of 270 nominations, of which 147 have been approved, a gap of 123 nominations that has increased by 11 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
More than one month old
- November 19: Template:Did you know nominations/2019 NFC Divisional Playoff game (Seattle–Green Bay)
- November 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Sun Haven (video game)
- November 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Doug Hamlin
- December 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Tellus (app)
December 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Prius Missile- December 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Step by Step (Braxe + Falcon song)
- December 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Browning
Other nominations
December 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Wu Zhong (general)- December 24: Template:Did you know nominations/2024 drone sightings
December 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Scientific Research Institute of Medicine of the Ministry of Defense in Sergiyev PosadDecember 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Frederick W. Hinitt- December 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Special Operations Brigade (PLA Navy Marine Corps)
- December 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Their Highest Potential: An African American School Community in the Segregated South
- December 30: Template:Did you know nominations/20–50 club
December 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Chauburji (Agra)- December 31: Template:Did you know nominations/List of things named after Julius Caesar
December 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Jindřich MarcoDecember 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Julier Pass- January 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Penstemon harringtonii (two articles)
- January 1: Template:Did you know nominations/WLOK (Ohio)
January 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Pantropiko- January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Dirini
- January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Klerykal fiction
- January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Roll-A-Palace
January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Line of Duty- January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Chinese sanctions
January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Langar Ki Masjid- January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Elisheva Biernoff
- January 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Jailson Mendes
- January 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Tanzania. Masterworks of African Sculpture
- January 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Wielka, większa i największa
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) 03:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Queue 2
Donum Montford (nom)
@Generalissima, PCN02WPS, and SL93: both the article and source make it clear that Montford only "likely" purchased his own freedom; the hook needs to be adjusted accordingly. If it fine if I drop a "likely" before "purchased"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Go ahead, apologies. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Star Trucker (nom)
I don't want to restart the kerfuffle we've seen on this page recently, but I'm honestly not sure if this hook violates WP:DYKFICTION. Opinions requested, and courtesy pings @CanonNi, JJonahJackalope, and SL93:. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29:, after reading through the special considerations section of the Did You Know? guidelines, I would probably agree with you that a hook on this article should be more focused on a real-world topic than the current hook is. I apologize for that oversight on my end, just let me know what I should do moving forward with this submission and I await feedback from the nominator. Thanks, -JJonahJackalope (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- While it probably constitutes a violation, it's an entertaining hook that does link to two topics pertaining to real-world physics, namely warp drive and maglocks - which serves our educational purpose. Perhaps we could WP:IAR this one? Gatoclass (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I thought that those two things could count as the real world information. SL93 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Warp drives are definitely fictional. Maglocks, while real, seem very prosaic, at least judging from the linked article; no idea why they were chosen ahead of space suits interestingness-wise. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I meant maglocks and the “look like American semi-trucks from the 1970s?” I just woke up. As for the space suits, I don’t see such a hook suggested. SL93 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, warp drives are fictional, but if you read the article, it includes an entire section on the physics related to the idea. Maglocks might be "prosaic" but I've never heard of them so they tweaked my curiosity. Not sure what your comment about spacesuits pertains to, but everybody knows what a spacesuit is. Gatoclass (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Warp drives are definitely fictional. Maglocks, while real, seem very prosaic, at least judging from the linked article; no idea why they were chosen ahead of space suits interestingness-wise. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I thought that those two things could count as the real world information. SL93 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I could add more to the article from the XboxEra source to do this hook ... that Star Trucker "can be as relaxing or sweaty as you like"? SL93 (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 sorry for the late reply. If the current hook isn't suitable, would something like "... that players of Star Trucker have to control three axes at once?" work? The source would be this article. Thanks. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 11:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)