This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women artists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women artists on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women artistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women artistsTemplate:WikiProject Women artistsWomen artists articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
A fact from Tove Jansson appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 February 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Latest comment: 3 months ago14 comments5 people in discussion
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Other problems: - Something odd happening with Copyvios report but first one I've dismissed as a copy of the Wiki article and second (Tovepedia page) I've read through and checked and it's book titles and awards that seem to be causing the matching.
Overall: Perhaps hook could be more intriguing with some when and a tiny bit more what (without totally giving the game away), e.g. "In 1952, Tove Jansson accepted a lucrative offer from a British newspaper man?" Zeromonk (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
ALT1: "In 1952, Tove Jansson accepted a lucrative offer from a British newspaper man?"
I'm happy with that, and the source is unchanged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
The hook/alt are misleading and set an absurd precedent: you can remove relevant info from all hooks, make them look more mysterious than they are, and draw clicks with that method, doing absolutely no service to the topic itself. The bland info here is that she accepted an offer to draw the comics in English papers as well (well, it's actually not that bland, it would be somewhat interesting on itself); the pointlessly vague phrasing here makes it seem like the offer was from James Humphreys. Is the subject here really so obscure that there's nothing else to fish from the article, and that we have to resort to this sort of trickery? Dahn (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm very sorry you feel that way, and the old-style hook is certainly not a "precedent": it was for many years the Wikipedia DYK tradition to make hooks somewhat entertaining and ambiguous; indeed, short witty hooks were considered the best. If times have changed and we have to be straight-faced and literal now, that's fine (maybe other reviewers will be happy with it, I don't know; the reviewer above was), but there is no reason to become angry about it. Anyway, here's another in case we choose not to go with one of the hooks above. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's not about being straight-faced and literal, it's about not relying on nonsensical deception to make the article seem more interesting (this is especially weird here, where the article seems reasonably interesting). Dahn (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alt 2 has some modicum of interest only if one already knows who Jansson was, and that she drew mainly for children. ALT 3 is a bland statement that rhymes with just about any author who also drew. How about how she made a political figure that she she dated into Snufkin? how about her Moomintroll was originally used in her political cartoons? how about the psychological clues about her family and how they seeped into her illustrations? Seriously, you're acting like this is an obscure bland figure on whom nothing interesting can be found, and in fact she was a trove of beautiful quirks. Dahn (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've suggested two witty and two plain hooks. If you want to propose others, please list and cite them as ALT4, etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, whatever, I'm a bit bemused by the heat in this process. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Zeromonk: Is the above hook approved? If not, what else needs to be done? Z1720 (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alt 4 is fine, happy to approve. Please everyone try to AGF in discussions of hooks. Everyone here wants to try and help people discover new and interesting things, so thank you for doing that and being part of this process. Zeromonk (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
@Chiswick Chap, @Zeromonk - see this Earwig link. Appears to be a pretty straightforward copyvio issue to me. Please promptly fix it and I will revdel the versions with the copyrighted text. If this isn't fixed, the hook will have to be pulled from DYK, unfortunately. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
- Something odd happening with Copyvios report but first one I've dismissed as a copy of the Wiki article and second (Tovepedia page) I've read through and checked and it's book titles and awards that seem to be causing the matching.
Perhaps hook could be more intriguing with some when and a tiny bit more what (without totally giving the game away), e.g. "In 1952, Tove Jansson accepted a lucrative offer from a British newspaper man?" Zeromonk (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The hook/alt are misleading and set an absurd precedent: you can remove relevant info from all hooks, make them look more mysterious than they are, and draw clicks with that method, doing absolutely no service to the topic itself. The bland info here is that she accepted an offer to draw the comics in English papers as well (well, it's actually not that bland, it would be somewhat interesting on itself); the pointlessly vague phrasing here makes it seem like the offer was from James Humphreys. Is the subject here really so obscure that there's nothing else to fish from the article, and that we have to resort to this sort of trickery? Dahn (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
