Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

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

Prep 3

Perugia's limia

@AirshipJungleman29, Surtsicna, and NeverBeGameOver: I suggest we not use this image. It's poor quality in many ways. I couldn't even tell it was a picture of two fish until I looked at the large version. RoySmith (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I clearly see it as two fish in the small version. SL93 (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Erm, Roy, I think you might need a new pair of glasses. :) BorgQueen (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

...I don't see what else it could be... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I suspect the white and green fish may blend in with the white and green background for some, especially if someone is not primed to look for fish. (One fish is also a bit fuzzy, but that's one of those issues which is alleviated by the smaller size.) CMD (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

On my desktop, I can clearly see the fish on the left. I can make out the fish on the right if I look for it, but basically it's doing what millions of years of evolution have enabled it to do; blending in with the background. On my phone, it's all just a blob. From a technical quality standpoint, the best images I see in this prep set are File:Sof'ja Kropotkina.JPG from Sophie Kropotkin and File:WOSU office 02.jpg from WOSU-TV.

And now that I look at this more, there's another issue. The caption says "Perugia's limia male pursuing a female". What WP:RS do we have that says which gender each of those are, and that the activity pictured is pursuit? RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks fine no matter how I go about it. I'm fine with fixing the caption. SL93 (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Trimmed the caption. BorgQueen (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't get myself to agree with changing the image when the only way that I can barely see it is if I remove my glasses. SL93 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the image is fine. And beautiful. BorgQueen (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

BorgQueen and others, I am very curious about the suggestion that we need sources to identify what is going on in a photograph. Is there a guideline about this? Or a community consensus? I see a fair number of images set to appear soon on the Main Page in featured articles with captions that likewise miss sources. One could go further and ask why there is no RS that says the fish in this image are L. perugiae at all. How would there even be a RS for this when the photo was taken by a Wikipedian? Would the author be a reliable source on the sex and behavior of his fish (otherwise evident from the photo)? The removal of this information from the caption is rather unfortunate given that it ties so well with the hook. Surtsicna (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:V says All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including ... captions, must be verifiable. Uncited information in image captions is one of my pet peeves. The last time I complained about this at a FAC, I was told that the photographer was an expert in field (IIRC, polar bears) and they were taken part of a scientific expedition, so we could count on their expertise to correctly identify what was in the photos. That's not unreasonable.

But in this case, all we know is the photo was taken by User:Usien. Are they an expert? I have no idea. I agree with you that we don't even know if the species identification is correct, but let's for the moment stick to my specific complaint which is how do we know which fish is which gender, and how do we know if the one fish is pursuing the other or if they're just out for an afternoon swim and both happened to be in the same frame at the same time? So if we don't know that, and have no way to verify it, we shouldn't say it. RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

We can tell the sex of the fish by... looking at them. The males differ from the females in the shape of their anal fins (this male has a clearly visible gonopodium), base coloration, and body shape. Whether the male is pursuing the female or just completely innocently swimming in the direction of her genital vent is indeed difficult to say with full certainty. But the idea that we need RS to identify what is in a photo seems problematic. Do we need a RS to ascertain that the woman in the infobox photo at Meghan Markle is indeed Meghan Markle? Or to identify which is the male and which is the female in the Lion infobox? I am genuinely curious about how this is supposed to work. I have always understood WP:V to refer to information in the caption that is not evident from the image itself. Surtsicna (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not evident to me which is the male and which is the female. You're telling me that it's evident to you, which is kind of the definition of WP:OR. RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The gonopodium on the right fish and gravid spot on the left fish make the sexes clear. That being said, it's falling on that interesting line where anybody with any degree of familiarity with the topic can see its true, while those entirely ignorant of the subject area will have no way of telling and, apparently, focus on the entirely wrong issue. Sexing many species of fish requires very little in the way of specialist knowledge- and, while it may seem counterintuitive, in livebearers it's actually much easier than identifying the species. For example, are one or both of those fish Limia perugiae? Nobody without specialist knowledge of the genus could tell you, and even then maybe not. Fish species are incredibly easy to misidentify. But is the fish on the left a female and the one on the right a male? Absolutely. That is beyond doubt.

So yeah. I'm with @Surtsicna. Why is the nebulous species identification completely fine, but the trivial question of "does the fish have a visible penis" OR? I don't want the picture pulled, but it makes no sense to pull the caption and not the image. The pursuing thing, though, that's hard to verify from just a still and I do have to thank @BorgQueen for pulling that part. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian For example, are one or both of those fish Limia perugiae? Nobody without specialist knowledge of the genus could tell you, and even then maybe not. Fish species are incredibly easy to misidentify. Thank you for making such an interesting point. If we can't be 100 percent sure, I'm inclined to pull the image altogether. We really don't want to take any chances on Main Page, do we? BorgQueen (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I completely get the inclination. I don't think I'd like that solution, however, as I think it would kind of give us a really weird precedent. For example, most species of animals and plants need the exact same amount of knowledge to identify them- could we truly never run a mainpage image of them that hadn't been previously published in a reliable source and suitably licensed? And for photographs of people- the cross-race effect is real, even for famous individuals, but even ignoring that, people confuse each other all the time. If somebody claimed to have met an author and gotten a picture of them, why do we trust that they identified the author correctly, especially if we don't have any other good images to compare it to? And, even then, wouldn't our act of comparison then fall under WP:OR? And how about photographs of cars, planes, geographic features, computers, buildings without signs- do we trust our fellow editors uploading the pictures to get their labels right, or do we hold out for a reliable source to confirm the id for us? I fear with this interpretation, we'd be limiting not only the images we ran, but the type of images we could run. Taking August's hooks so far, three plant images have been run. Of these images, two of them (File:Pavonia praemorsa 1DS-II 2-6600.jpg and File:Tulbaghia acutiloba, blomme, veldblomstappie, FG NR, a.jpg were uploaded as "own work", but we accepted the uploader's identification as okay enough for the main page. And what I said above, about fish identification? That goes doubly for plants.

All in all, I don't think there's a good solution to this issue that's going to make everybody happy. I know my personal opinion, of course- Wikipedia is a big old work in progress, and removing all "own work" images seems far more damaging than occasionally misidentifying the odd fish. (Especially when, as far as I can see, nobody has seriously challenged either the sexing or the species ID) It does seem unlikely to me, however, that this is the first time somebody has raised this point. Does anybody know of any old conversations, RFCs, or the like discussing this issue? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Good point regarding the plants, GreenLipstickLesbian. BorgQueen, I think in this case MOS:IMAGES helps a lot: Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. Closely related fish species might look perfectly alike on the outside and only be distinguishable by e.g. the number of teeth, and if we cannot see those, we do not need to be 100% certain. Trusting the photographer is then fully in line with MoS. Surtsicna (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Whether the male is pursuing the female or just completely innocently swimming in the direction of her genital vent is indeed difficult to say with full certainty. Thank you, I'm so relieved to have removed that description from the caption then. I don't think the Meghan Markle analogy is relevant to this case, as it doesn't normally require specialized knowledge to identify Ms. Markle when we look at her portrait images. But, of course, there can be more room for confusion and debates when it comes to certain old, or noticeably unclear, photographic images. BorgQueen (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me being a bit facetious! I was suggesting that it is highly unlikely that he was just passing by because male poeciliids are notoriously lecherous. As for Markle identification, I am reminded of the incident of Dolly Parton anonymously entering a Dolly Parton look-alike contest and losing to a drag queen. I can guarantee that there are many people who find it much easier to identify animal species than to identify Markle - and the skill it takes is pretty much the same. Surtsicna (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at WT:V#Image captions?. RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

BorgQueen, can we have the sexing of the fish back in the caption now please? We are so fortunate to have been given a good photo capturing both sexes, and it ties directly into the hook. Surtsicna (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Surtsicna Very well. Tell me the exact caption you'd like. Sans the pursuing, of course. BorgQueen (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@BorgQueen "A Perugia's limia male approaching a female" should be non-contentious. Approaching as in coming nearer, no romantic advances implied. Surtsicna (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@Surtsicna  Done BorgQueen (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we have a moratorium on nonsensical hooks

Like today's "that Quintus Quincy Quigley preferred Angles to a ring?" - it's not quirky, it's not hooky, it's nonsense. Sure, it's a complete sentence, but there's a fine line between leaving a reader wondering more about the statement and leaving the reader wondering what the statement itself is. A hook doesn't, perhaps shouldn't, give everything away, but it's still got to say something that is either inherently interesting (and QQQ simply preferring something is not) or - if it's in the quirky slot - something that is interesting based on wordplay or similar (which isn't apparent even though Angles is clearly a double meaning and ring deliberately too vague). Kingsif (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Works for me. This one was really pushing the limits of quirky. RoySmith (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Andrew Davidson, Surtsicna, and AirshipJungleman29:.--Launchballer 10:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The OP's last hook was "... that though Donatello was a Bardi, he was not a Bardi?" This sounds nonsensical so you obviously have to read the article to understand it. This makes it a good hook and I'm not seeing the difference. Otherwise, this just seems to be a case of de gustibus non est disputandum. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

My position is that hooks of this type aren't great, but the community thinks they're fine, so I promote them to the quirky slot. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I don't think my last hook is good because you have to read the article - it's good because it entices you to read the article based on what the hook actually tells you. And that, Andrew, is the difference. Being told X is Y but also not Y, makes a reader interested in what Y could possibly be that makes such true. It makes sense in the fundamental way of understanding what is said even if you don't know what all of the parts are. The hookiness (and quirkiness) is the apparent contradiction, one does not need to know what Y is to understand the hook itself.

While the hook I mention here in the OP, is effectively just throwing random words into the hook to make the hook itself read as weird. It's nonsense in that there fundamentally is nothing there to be understood, any meaning having been sacrificed for an attempt at mimicking quirkiness. The hookiness is "these words are weird and don't make sense put together". And worse, it is also super boring taken at face value, even if you know what it's about.

As I said, there's a fine line, but IMHO most people can tell the difference between relying on readers being unaware and intrigued, and relying on them being confused - and we shouldn't be aiming for the latter. Kingsif (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The words "Angles" and "ring" are not random; they are exactly the words used in the full anecdote. One is a proper name, and this is indicated by the capital letter while the ring is just a ring and not cryptic at all. I started with the anecdote and tried to express this succinctly. As explained in the nomination, I didn't want to obscure the name of the subject with too much detail as I felt his name was the most intriguing part of the hook.

So, the hook worked reasonably well for me as it was built up from knowledge of the subject. It may well be puzzling for readers coming cold to it but that's fine for a hook. How well it works overall in attracting readers remains to be seen.

As for your hook, I don't much appreciate it because I'm not sure what those different meanings of Bardi are and I still haven't found out because they don't sound especially interesting to me. But if it works for you then I'm fine with it. Creating these things is like composing poetry or an epigram. It's an art, not a science and so some variation in content, style and appreciation is to be expected.

In my case, the editor who reviewed the hook seemed to like it and it went through the prep and promotion process without being altered in any way, which is unusual in my experience. It's not clear to me why you're making a big deal about it now but so it goes. If it helps draw more attention to the article, then that's more hits for it. And, at the end of the day, the set scrolls off and we're done because this is all quite ephemeral.

"Animula vagula blandula..."

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

You know I didn't mean to highlight your hook specifically, but that it's the latest in what has seemed an increasing number of 'quirky' hooks that have nothing interesting about their facts (and, forgive me, "X preferred Y to Z" isn't inherently interesting, and strange words alone will not make it so) but have been written seemingly deliberately absurdly to try and make them quirky. I still like to come at reading DYKs fresh, and IMHO it's off-putting when hooks have nothing interesting but their weird construction. I just wanted to draw attention to a trend of something I think is going to make hooks less appealing. Kingsif (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Carl Linnaeus whose primary principle was "mirari omnia, etiam tritissima" commonly translated as "wonder at everything, even the most commonplace".

References

Interest is not inherent; it is an attitude or POV of the observer and some acute observers are able to take an interest in anything and everything. For example, consider Carl Linnaeus (pictured) who wrote, "mirari omnia, etiam tritissima". I came across this motto at the Chelsea Physic Garden and immediately thought that these were words to live by and so put them on my user page.

So, our pragmatic measure of the interest of our hooks is statistical – the number of views that they get. The numbers are in now and Quintus Quincy Quigley got 11,605 views, which seems reasonably good.

Bardi (surname) got 6,634 which is rather less. It was in the quirky slot too but attracted some heat at WP:ERRORS which resulted in changes to the hook. Perhaps these weakened the hook and made it less effective. The official history of the main page now has that hook as "... that though Donatello was a Bardi, he was not part of the Bardi family?" which doesn't seem so interesting, eh?

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

mamas sang on "Mama"?

Since we're on the subject, how do people feel about .. that mamas sang on "Mama"? in Queue 2? RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that one's quite far away from nonsensical. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Have to agree with Airship, that's a logically quirky way of saying that some vocals in the song were provided by people who are mothers. This Mama hook IMHO fulfils the aim of quirky hooks - presenting a fact in a fun way - and is not the problem at hand. If people can't sense the difference, a litmus test could probably be "ignoring how it's written, is an interesting fact presented?" Kingsif (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

To add, the only borderline example I currently see in the preps and queues would be prep 7's "that English DJ Sammy Virji pranked Salute after making "Peach" with them?" - it's debatable whether pranking a collaborator is an interesting fact, and if you think it isn't, the hook would be relying on something of an innuendo not just for its quirkiness but for its interestingness. Kingsif (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Possibly showing my immaturity, but I proposed that hook thinking people would click to see what the prank was.--Launchballer 17:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If the prank is interesting, a hook about it could be. Kingsif (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

A good hook doesn't give all the information, it leaves the reader wanting to know more.--Launchballer 18:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Where did I say give all the information? Just making the prank (rather than "Peach") the focal point of the hook could give it some substance. Kingsif (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that's interesting or even encyclopedic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith Given that it's now in Queue and the reservations raised here, is there consensus to put it back to prep or to even pull it? For what it's worth, I do think it's a rare example of a quirky hook that's actually accurate even at first reading, but AJ29 has made an objection to it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I could go either way; I'll let somebody else make the call. RoySmith (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, my comment above was referring to the Sammy Virji hook. I am perfectly fine with the mamas hook, as I say above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 When I encountered that hook in Prep the concern I had was that it assumed knowledge of who Salute was. However, I didn't want to add too much context since I was worried that others might feel that adding context would the hook. In the meantime I've moved it to a later prep, but do you think it needs to be pulled or reworked altogether? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

As above, I don't believe the information is encyclopedic, so would prefer either ALT0 or ALT2 from the nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Prepping questions

Hi! Just got PSHAW, since I'm new to this area of DYK, I want to ask a question. For the prepping procedure, bullet point three says ... that the article has not been substantially edited since the last approval, does it include good-faith edits and/or expansions? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 12:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@TheNuggeteer: I have no comment on your post; but in the meantime, could you explain what makes you qualified to close this nomination despite not being a DYK moderator? While it's been marked as rejected and should probably closed off the bat, I find this quite odd. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait, it was only for DYK moderators? You should probably revert the edit. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 13:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, what's a DYK moderator? Why does TheNuggeteer need to be "qualified" to close a nomination which obviously fails the DYK criteria, and who awards these classifications? I don't believe I've got one, and I've closed dozens of nominations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree. TheNuggeteer did nothing wrong closing that nomination.--Launchballer 13:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

@TheNuggeteer To return to your original question, I would not consider small good-faith edits, but major expansions or reorganizations definitely would warrant a re-review. Sohom (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

S1/S2 (Amsterdam Metro)

@Styyx: please walk me through the sourcing for the hook statement. In the nom you just put "Source: Article", which isn't useful. RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi RoySmith. I have made it a bit more clearer in the article. "This meant that the line ran as a metro from Amsterdam Centraal to Amsterdam Zuid and was fully integrated into the system, while switching to a tram service after Zuid until its terminus", source: "Toen in 1990 lijn 51 naar Amstelveen in gebruik werd genomen, moest deze deels als metro en deels als tram worden uitgevoerd" and "At the time, no rolling stock existed that was able to convert from a metro to a tram mid-service. The GVB placed an order at La Brugeoise et Nivelles (BN) for 13 trains in 1988 that were capable of doing so, only for use as Line 51", source: "Al moet gezegd dat er in 1985 nog geen voertuig bestaat dat op zowel een metro- als trambaan kan rijden. Er zijn dan alleen nog technische tekeningen beschikbaar. Het vervoersbedrijf besluit de stap te wagen en laat een sneltram bouwen door de Belgische leverancier BN uit Brugge". Note that in both instances the rest of the sentence is supplemented by the other source used. Some sources used elsewhere in the article also call it a tram (i.e. see the translated title of source 28). Styyx (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks. AGF on the language translation. RoySmith (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Iman Mahdavi

@Bsoyka: it's good practice when citing a video like https://watch.yurview.com/videos/iman-mahdavi-count-down-to-paris to include a time index in the citation so people know where to look. This is analogous to including a page number in citation to a book. RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Nam Su-hyeon and Jeon Hun-young

@SL93, BeanieFan11, and Grnrchst: it looks like the event is a team of three; just mentioning two competitors in the hook is a bit misleading. RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

• I did mention it in the nom: I also realized there's the possibility of including Lim Si-hyeon, the third member of the team; however, her article needed to be expanded to about 3,300 bytes to count as 5x expanded (someone else expanded it) and it is currently about 2,700: not sure if including it would somehow be possible. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

  Even if the third article doesn't qualify for DYK as a bolded link, the hook should still make it clear that the two people mentioned were just part of a three-person team. RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I will say that Lim Si-hyeon is currently 2969. Given that it's not going to take up that much extra room if we're linking to it anyway, how do we feel about IARing it?--Launchballer 16:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Why? Just include the link without bolding it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Done. RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Image in Prep 3

File:Margaret Coe - Crater Lake 2 - 2010 - Oregon State Capitol.jpg in Prep 3 is almost certainly not a valid free image. The artist is still alive, and the painting is from 2010. Clicking on the image in its source page, it says "Artwork copyright the artist, who must grant permission to use or create photographs or derivative works for any other use than personal." MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I pulled it. SL93 (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion at Commons here. SL93 (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Image eligibility question

It is my understanding that images of statues in the US erected after 1978 are generally not considered free without express consent from the sculptor. However, this image of a 2013 statue is owned by the US federal government and in the public domain. Does it meet the criteria set forth in WP:DYKIMG from a copyright standpoint? Left guide (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I asked about this on Commons:Commons:Village pump#Is File:P103013PS-0384 (10596687253).jpg actually PD?. RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Mismatch between DYKA and the main page

The Main Page DYKs are different from the ones showing up under today's date at DYKA. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You posted this at a couple minutes after midnight UTC. My first guess is you just caught it in the middle of doing an update and if you wait a few minutes everything will be fine. RoySmith (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The bot only updates the page once per day right at midnight to add the latest DYKs. See the page history. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Shubinator, who maintains the bot. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

At some point, someone's gotta write Wikipedia:Did you know/Yes, the archives are out of sync, right? (Sets are archived by the time they're taken off the Main Page, it's easier that way.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhhhhhh. That's extremely counterintuitive. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Can't blame me for missing this sentence in the middle of the second paragraph at the top of the page, right? (Currently, DYK hooks are archived according to the date and time that they were taken off the Main Page.) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, no, it's really snuck in there. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. For the latest conversation on this, check out Special:Permalink/1216864813#Main page DYK now and Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2024/March#27 March 2024 don't match?. Shubinator (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Reopening Jab Se Tere Naina DYKN

Hi, could this nomination be reopened? All the issues were resolved by me at the earliest time possible. It only had to be promoted. KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t support that. The article is no longer new; it was first nominated almost two months ago. Schwede66 19:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Schwede66, the article is not new, and even though the article is barely over 1500 characters now, there is still a fair bit of crufty material in there. Sohom (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1

Right now this nomination's proposed hooks do not seem to meet WP:DYKINT as they seem to be reliant on being familiar with Biblical studies and may not be easily understood by a general audience. Is there anyone here who could assist and perhaps propose a more non-specialist hook? Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Technical implementation of the recent changes to WP:QPQ

With the above discussion more-or-less having a consensus to require QPQs at the time of the nomination, is it technically feasible to implement some kind of technical implementation regarding it? For example, if a nominator is not exempt from providing a QPQ and does not give one, a warning would pop up telling them about their lack of a QPQ, asking them if they are sure they want to make the nomination. In this case, they can still ignore the warning and create the nomination, but the warning would at least give them a heads-up that they need a QPQ and the nomination could be closed if they do not provide one. I do not think it would be a good idea to outright prohibit editors from submitting a DYK nom without a QPQ however, as there may be legitimate reasons to do so (such as planning to do it within a day, or simply not being able to do it in time but planning to follow up on it as soon as possible). Think of it as similar to the warning that you can enable in preferences where you're warned if you forget to put an edit summary. Is it possible to implement such a feature? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging User:SD0001 as such a warning or message could probably be added to DYK-helper, although I'm not sure if it's possible to add it to the DYK wizard. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that an automated warning about a missing QPQ is a good way of implementing the consensus. Schwede66 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Follow-up ping to @SD0001 :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

it's feasible, yes. Please raise an edit request for MediaWiki:DYK-nomination-wizard.js with the necessary changes. I can port the same changes to DYK-helper once that's done. – SD0001 (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 I think instead on an instant close, how about a 3-day period in which the nominator can supple the qpq or the nom gets closed. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 10:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

The place to raise that would be the discussion above. CMD (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

With the warning, that should already discourage editors from providing a QPQ late in the first place since they're reminded that they need to provide a QPQ. Rather than requiring a three day maximum, it's probably better to leave it to editor discretion (remember that the new change took place because the old rules that required a week-long maximum proved ineffective in practice). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Anything less than a week and nominators will just renominate. A warning's a good idea though.--Launchballer 11:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Renominating a nomination that's been closed is WP:GAMING the system and should not be tolerated. The whole point of this is to keep nominators from making extra work for reviewers. Renominating a failed nomination is the opposite of that. RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I would not tolerate that either. A renomination can be met with another closure. Schwede66 19:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Dollar Mountain Fire

Now that the issues with Dollar Mountain Fire have been resolved, I would like to see it granted a full appearance as I would have gotten. The initial pull happened less the 3 1/2 hours into a 24 hour run, and historical precedent is that when asked, situations like this often are allowed to rerun the full term. Thanks --Kevmin § 15:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

We have a finite number of slots per day so rerunning Dollar Mountain Fire means not running something else. Given that Dollar Mountain Fire was pulled for an unreliable source and we have more nominations in the queue than we can use, what makes giving it another slot more important than running something else? RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

We have always had a "finite" number of slots, and yet we have historically also looked at early pulls from the main page and situations where a re-do was acceptable. The 1 single source was already addressed, and it was noted by @The ed17: that he did not feel the nomination should be punished for the pull given the minute amount of information from that source. Additionally placing this into the approved nominations page doesn't "bump" anything. Your frustration at the volume of nominations should be directed at the 1-5 noms and done crowd not the steady regulars that are pulling their weight (I currently have more banked QPQs then I have articles Im writing).--Kevmin § 16:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not frustrated at the volume of nominations. Quite the contrary: it's wonderful that we have more nominations than we can use. That gives us the ability to pick and choose the best ones. And I disagree that editors with only a few nominations should be dismissed as not pulling their weight. One of our stated objectives is ... the recruitment of new editors. RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's harm in giving the article a second chance. The article ran for less than 1/4 of its scheduled run time for reasons that were quickly resolved. It could probably run again in a later set: I don't see where "this running again means another article can't" is coming from since it's just one article and it's not like there are any other hooks that need to be bumped off to make room for it, or even a nomination that needs to be rejected. Given how there are still multiple sets in preparation, this could easily be slotted into one of them. If the hook had run for 12 hours or more, I can see the argument about the article being given its chance, but with less than four hours, it probably deserves a fair showing on the Main Page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Anyone else willing to weigh in on this?--Kevmin § 01:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7

Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co.

@SL93, Daniel Case, and Epicgenius: this needs an end-of-sentence citation. RoySmith (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith I thought it did. "Kaplan looked outside reported case law for examples modern readers would be more familiar with: first, Alfred Eisenstadt's V-J Day in Times Square, and wildlife photographer Thomas D. Mangelsen's widely reprinted Catch of the Day, showing a grizzly bear waiting with an open mouth for a salmon leaping out of an Alaskan river. This aspect necessarily applied only to the image, and not its subject matter: source". SL93 (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean, and I think I took care of it. SL93 (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

Iloilo Central Market

@SL93, TheNuggeteer, and Bsoyka: WP:CLOP issues vs. https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1933275/iloilo-city-mayor-defends-demolition-of-historic-market-facade. RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith Done. SL93 (talk) 13:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/J1407b

Unfortunately, the nom and others are busy and I couldn’t close this one out. I’m heading out on vacation and would appreciate a second reviewer. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Have a nice holiday! BorgQueen (talk) 06:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Bikers for Trump

@RoySmith We can't use this image because the logo itself will have to be licensed under CC or something we can use. I'm letting you know because you've suggested in your review that we use it. BorgQueen (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Pity, but thanks for letting me know. RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Tokamak de Fontenay-aux-Roses

@Maury Markowitz Could you please point out where it is stated that File:TFR early.jpg is under CC-BY-SA-2.5? BorgQueen (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

BTW I've asked on the article talk page and there was no reply, so I'm asking here again. Meanwhile I've moved the hook to a prep. BorgQueen (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Artem.G I see you noted this discrepancy in your review but decided to AGF. Unfortunately, image licensing is something where AGF doesn't apply. RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I found the relevant information. It isn't. SL93 (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@SL93 Thanks. ITER Organization retains copyright in the pictures and videos. [...] The pictures and videos may not be sold, distributed or otherwise made available for use by third parties It most certainly isn't then. The image will have to be removed from the article, and eventually, from Commons. BorgQueen (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion on Commons. BorgQueen (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

As I sent to the Commons drop box:

Dear Maury,

Sorry for the late reply. You can certainly use all the materials found on our website, we would just appreciate if you could quote us @ITER Organization.

Many thanks,

Cordiales salutations /Mit freundlichen Grüssen/Kind regards/Dozo yoroshiku

Cecile FOUCHER DE BRANDOIS

Admin & Communication Assistant

Communication Division Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@BorgQueen: ...and next time, would it be too much to ask for more than one hour to respond, especially on a holiday weekend? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That is not even close to enough. You need to go through this process. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, I've found that process so frustrating in the past that I've stopped bothering to try. On more than one occasion I've found a photo that I wanted to use, wrote to the copyright owner, and got back an email just like the one Maury got: "Of course you can use it, no problem, we're happy to make it available". And then I write back, "That's great, thanks, but could you please send an email to permissions-commons and tell them X, Y, and Z?" and that's where things start to go sideways. The people at the other end don't understand why, after telling me it's OK, I'm insisting they jump through some additional hoops and eventually I just give up and don't use the photo. I get why we need to cross our t's and dot our i's, but it's still frustrating. RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz Excuse me? I've waited for several days. BorgQueen (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)