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.

Travis Glover

• ... that Green Bay Packers player Travis Glover started at three separate positions along the offensive line during his college football career?

The hook has already run on DYK so this is somewhat of a moot point, but how does this hook meet WP:DYKINT? It is a very specialist hook and quite reliant on American football knowledge, and if you aren't familiar with American football positions and terminologies, the hook may not be as obvious or interesting. I'm not saying the hook fact itself wasn't unsuitable but there was probably a better way to word this. Pinging nominator Gonzo fan2007, article creator BeanieFan11, reviewer 4meter4 and promoter Launchballer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't have trouble understanding it, and I don't pay any attention to American football. My knowledge on the sport is close to nothing.4meter4 (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if it's interesting, but it's clear he played 3 positions in a sport. Whether that's because he's good at them all or because he didn't really have a purpose is less clear. Unfortunately the article does not provide commentary either way, nor any indication if this is different to the norm. If anything, I'm not sure how the hook interacts with WP:DYKHOOKCITE as it seems to be combining different sources, but counting is not usually considered OR. CMD (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why this constantly keeps coming up. Interesting to a broad audience applies to the 400 million fans of American football/NFL in the world. You know what I don't find interesting??? "That 69 is nice". How is it interesting that a child was going to have a different name?? ("that North West was originally going to be called Kaidence"). Or "that Lock's Quest was said to feature "some of the best original music in a DS game"?" What broad audience finds the music in a video game as some of the best? DYK does not have to be interesting to everyone. Half the DYKs on the main page I could give zero crap about, find full-blown disinteresting, etc and I don't come complaining to the talk page about every one of them. Could it have been worded better? IDK, propose a different wording if you want. Starting (not just playing) three different positions along the offensive line is an interesting fact to almost any AF/NFL fan, it shows versatility and productivity. Also, literally the English couldn't get simpler. There is no jargon or terminology here, and the only possible concern is linked (offensive line). This isn't Simple English Wikipedia. We can assume that the average read understands standard English words. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

We need you to cool it Zanahary (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder Zanahary. No cursing. Responding to the points brought up. No personal attacks. But yeah, I guess I'll take a chill pill. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

So many BLP hooks are extremely boring facts about pretty obscure people. I notice articles about sportspeople are particularly productive in terms of bad hooks. I’m not trying to be an ass, but I think we need to be more strict about the “interesting” criterion. Zanahary (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Part of my "frustration" is the continual needling by some DYK regulars on WP:DYKINT regarding American football topics, likely because of a lack of interest, knowledge or understanding of the sport. However, I often stress that a worldwide audience of 400 million for AmerFoot is significant, especially considering the sport's higher interest from English-speaking language countries (and this being the English Wikipedia). I'll also note that AmerFoot is currently going through a significant expansion internationally through the NFL International Series, so this isn't an American-only topic anymore. WP:DYKINT says The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest. This language is clearly ambiguous and provides a lot of room for interpretation, taking into account differences between populations and interests, and obviously provides room for hooks that have a general interest, but not a universal interest. I just wish that every other AmerFoot hook that comes to DYK doesn't get this type of discussion, while other topics with much smaller or less general interest from the population have much less scrutiny. It's just frustrating and tiring. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It isn't an anti-American football bias specifically. Similar things have also been said about basketball hooks, and basketball is more popular internationally than American football. Even soccer hooks have had the occasional pushback, so the concerns about sports hooks being too specialist aren't an American football thing. For what it's worth, I'm familiar enough with American football to get the idea of the hook, but not everyone worldwide will get it. Even within America, not everyone is an American football fan outside of the Super Bowl. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I guess you haven't been paying attention to the bi-weekly "mind-numbingly boring opera hook" discussions, like the one we had for a DYK that ran on the same day as Glover... And maybe it feels like AF DYKs get dragged more than other topics because, unlike every other topic, AF subjects run at DYK practically every other day? Between May 25 and May 31 we had three hooks on specifically gridiron offense players on NFC North teams! JoelleJay (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think its all that specialist. All you really need to understand to get the hook is the idea of 'positions' in sports, and I'd say that probably the vast majority of people do; e.g. I don't know a ton about the terminology for ice hockey, but I could understand it if someone said that "so-and-so ice hockey player played at three different positions'. Also, I'd think that him not only playing, but starting at each of the positions adds interest. I've had more 'interesting' hooks before, but I'd still say it clears the bar of 'interesting-ness' considering what we generally post. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not a big sports fan, but I know that at least in some sports, it's common for players to play different positions. I've always assumed that while the center has certain unique skills, the other linemen were pretty much interchangeable. RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I do not think these hooks a are too "specialist". I enjoy learning about all subjects so I often click through the links of hooks that I am not sure of and I learn. I think many people have a fundamental understanding of sports, and they would likely understand that starting "at three separate positions" means someone is pretty good at the sport. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree—as someone who has the barest understanding of American sports, I'm fairly certain that as long as you understand "positions" and "offensive" can be used in a sporting context, you should be able to understand a) what the hook is saying and b) that it's a bit unusual. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

as long as you understand "positions" and "offensive" can be used in a sporting context, you should be able to understand ... that it's a bit unusual. Really? I would guess most readers would not be at all surprised to hear that many offensive positions are interchangeable in a sport they're not super familiar with. A lot of sports do not make that big a distinction between positions, especially at lower levels (keeping in mind that basically only two countries even have college sports, so outside of NA readers will have very little appreciation for college feats of any kind), even in American football (e.g. the QB on my high school's team was also the kicker, probably because he was a ballerina), and it's definitely not unheard of at the professional level either. Utility players are pretty common in the most popular sport in the world -- our category has over 800 members -- and that's mostly only including players switching between offense and defense! Some of the most famous NBA players in recent history are combo guards, and in the MLB it is rarer for a team not to have someone who can play multiple positions. Utility players aren't that uncommon in gridiron either, and according to this NYT article, most American football fans apparently don't think it's that difficult for pros to switch along the O-line.

And anyway shouldn't DYKINT be aiming higher than "a bit unusual", especially when the mild unusualness is not even obvious to most readers? JoelleJay (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I don't understand quite a lot of what you just wrote, but for me, a person with "no special knowledge or interest" in the topic, it is intriguing. Not "jump out of my bath yelling" intriguing, but the sort that makes me raise my eyebrows and nod my head. Thus, fine by me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think we are just trying to feature new and good content, so aiming higher with hooks is not as important. We look for what might get folks to read the article and some of us think maybe this hook will. I appreciate you POV though. Lightburst (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

If the sources themselves don't find his switching along the O-line unusual enough to discuss beyond mentioning that he "has experience at both tackle and guard", why should WP? I should note also that the first source lists 25 other players in his draft class alone with "experience at both left and right tackle" or "both center and guard" or "had double-digit starts at both guard spots" or "played at a high level at both tackle and guard" or "logged snaps at every offensive line position ... except center" or "logged snaps at all five positions in college", and that's just for starters who played multiple games in multiple positions on the O-line, I'm not even including defensive line or other offense players, or all the players with descriptors like "[had] a few snaps at center and right guard, but [almost all] of his college snaps came at left guard" or "practiced at center and right guard". For several players the source even lists playing only one O-line position as a weakness.

Also, 3/6 days last week had hooks on NFL offense players from the same division in the same conference... If we're constantly going to inundate DYK with American football hooks, shouldn't readers unfamiliar with the subject at least be able to recognize why the hook is interesting without having to click through to the article, let alone have to additionally follow each of the links on football positions within the article so they can figure out for themselves why it would be unusual for someone to go from right to left tackle (because certainly neither the article nor its sources explains this)? JoelleJay (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

If the sources themselves don't find...unusual enough to discuss beyond mentioning...why should WP?: That's a slippery slope. A lot of DYK hooks just randomly quote snippets without the source expounding on the quote or even then source of the quote.—Bagumba (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The hooks certainly, but it was disappointing when I clicked through and it was not explained in the article either. CMD (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Nor is it in many other hooks. We can use this hook as an example for improvement, but it's not the exception.—Bagumba (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

As an example, we are currently running a hook with a quote from a satirical magazine, unattributed in the hook, and no evidence in the body that the quote is at all notable or even mentioned outside of the primary source itself. I'm all for expecting more substance in hooks, but let's not apply this only to American football hooks. —Bagumba (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Heh. I was rather proud of that hook :-) RoySmith (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Sorry, I didn't mean it to be personal. That is a fairly standard hook. My point was that a different standard was being proposed for Glover, which can be fine if we are going to be consistent across the board. —Bagumba (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm just saying that given we're running NFL player hooks 2+ times a week maybe we ought to make sure that they're more than vaguely unusual and that at least the sources explain what is interesting so that readers who know nothing about football are actually rewarded for clicking through. JoelleJay (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you that a fact’s interestingness can/should be determined by editors, not sources. Zanahary (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, it's totally not interesting. I'm not raising my eyebrows either. Zanahary (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

What makes a good DYK image?

I'm looking at WP:DYKIMG where it says The media must be suitable, attractive, and interesting; images in particular must display well in the small size of the {{Main page image/DYK}} template and find that description lacking. For sure, requiring it to be "suitable" is a tautology, and I'm not sure what it means for an image to be "interesting" in a DYK context. As for "display well", that is often a point of contention when I mention that an image isn't good. So, what do folks think would be more specific attributes that we should mention in DYKIMG to help improve our image selections? RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• It's meant to be vague and subjective? --evrik ^(talk) 16:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Far be it from me to object to snark, as it's a style of discourse I often employ myself. But my intent here was to see if we could build consensus on a more practical guide to hook authors and reviewers regarding image selection. RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• Given the current interminable RfC, I'm okay with the vagueness. --evrik ^(talk) 16:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Much of that is too nebulous to be useful, I'd be inclined to yeet everything between the two 'must's. Images shouldn't be gratuitous, but I think that's covered within WP:DYKGRAT, I don't think it warrants repetition.--Launchballer 19:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I would have thought the recent one on 3 June was too grainy and low quality and just another portrait. —Bagumba (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes we try to balance the availability. It's really easy to get a great shot of an existing building. Not so much an Indonesian doctor who died in 1983. That doesn't mean we should run lots of images of buildings. Valereee (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

yes. --evrik ^(talk) 19:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If we go off that case, WP:DYKIMG would more accurately be The media must be suitable, attractive, and interesting. —Bagumba (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any requirement to be attractive. But I do think they need to be recognizable. Most of the photos I object to fail on the recognizable aspect. RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

We need to refine our palates rather than write new recipes. --evrik ^(talk) 01:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kenneth Law

Considering we currently have an ongoing discussion about how to handle negative BLP hooks, this nomination may be of interest. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

An almost wholly negative article about a BLP subject who has ongoing criminal court proceedings? DYK shouldn't touch this with a bargepole. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I touched it. Now we'll see what happens. --evrik ^(talk) 00:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I failed the nomination per WP:DYKHOOKBLP. RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it fits the criteria you've cited. It's factual and relatively neutral. --evrik ^(talk) 00:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Factual or not, "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided" It also says "this is a stricter requirement than BLP as a whole". RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The hook itself is relatively neutral. --evrik ^(talk) 00:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I've invited comments from WP:BLPN.[1] I don't see a neutral hook in the article. Everything is either about pending charges, or it's attributed to Law himself. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

If you were to write on say ... Charles Manson, even a neutral hook may be perceived as somewhat negative. --evrik ^(talk) 21:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

... that the Beach Boys did a cover of a Charles Manson song? RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll approve that hook when you write the article. --evrik ^(talk) 22:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The article is written, that's where the hook came from. I'll keep it in mind if it ever reaches GA. RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Saw this through the BLPN notification. Regardless of whether WP:DYKHOOKBLP applies, putting an article on the mainpage about someone who is currently on trial for fourteen counts of murder seems like a terrible idea. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I've rejected. This seems to be another Tate case. Almost identical: Law himself says he sold the stuff. Ping to Bremps. Valereee (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is a terrible idea. People do bad things. If the person is notable for doing bad things, the hooks may be uncomfortable. Also, I don't think this should have been closed as it does a disservice to the author. --evrik ^(talk) 14:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Evrik, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that you think every borderline nomination should be accepted. You should be aware that this is a fringe viewpoint. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: I've never said that. What I've seen in the last month is a hyper focus on the negative BLPs. I think we've lost perspective. Also, I don't appreciate your negative personal attack. --evrik ^(talk) 16:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

"I've never said that." You are correct evrik, I said it. Can you point out that negative personal attack you refer to, perhaps keeping this nomination in mind? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going down this rabbit hole. --evrik ^(talk) 16:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, so will you strike that WP:PA accusation? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

You strike your comment. I'll strike mine. --evrik ^(talk) 16:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Negative? I thought this was interesting. :D Valereee (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

you think every borderline nomination should be accepted. You should be aware that this is a fringe viewpoint. This comment steps away from the question of content ('should this nomination be approved?'; 'what sort of hooks should DYK approve?') and becomes an accusation of character ('the way evrik thinks about DYK is abnormal and implicitly bad'; 'evrik approves almost everything, implicitly thoughtlessly'. I would also encourage AirshipJungleman29 to withdraw this personal attack against evrik. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

If the person in question had been convicted of doing terrible things, I might have a less strong opinion, but until Law's trial is actually concluded he is notable for being accused of doing terrible things. The fact that people look at this hook an conclude "this man has done bad things" before the court has actually determined whether he did or not is precisely one of the main reason that this seems like a terrible idea. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Original article author here. I understand this is a very sensitive issue, but I want to clarify that Law has admitted to selling sodium nitrite. The only remaining question is whether he did so illegally, which has to do with interpretation of the law instead of facts. There's very little disagreement on what actually happened. Bremps... 17:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I am aware that Laws admits to selling sodium nitrite. That isn't really relevant to my objection. He is solely notable for being accused of 14 counts of murder and his suspected involvement in possibly hundreds of deaths. While those charges remain unresolved I cannot see how putting him on the front page of Wikipedia, especially on DYK, which is not at all set up for nuance, can possibly be a good idea. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The question of whether or not he actually did it is a separate question from if it is a good idea to highlight that on the main page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Didn't Andrew Tate get featured on DYK? I understand there are arguments to not featuring Law on DYK, but citing Tate isn't a good example because Tate got featured on DYK. Bremps... 17:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it ran, and there was concern among others in the community that the hook was too negative. Others are concerned that we shouldn't run a hook that normalizes what the person is mostly famous for. There's been a boatload of discussion about how to handle future similar cases, and I think this is a good example because it's a very similar case: in each case, the person said this about themself. Valereee (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

That was a case of running something up the flagpole, you see who salutes and you see who shoots. --evrik ^(talk) 02:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Prep 7 (nom)

Not sure whether this is exactly "negative", but it certainly feels at least a little embarrassing to me, and from the discussion at the nom, it looks like you have to go into a stats database (Elite Prospects) being used as the source and figure it out for yourself, rather than that factoid being sourced to someone actually discussing it in a RS?

• ... that Georgi Romanov had a shootout loss in the 2022–23 KHL season even though he was credited with playing zero minutes that season?

I would suggest maybe

ALT1: ... that when Georgi Romanov and his wife lived in Yekaterinburg, she was a food blogger?

Pinging Blaylockjam10, Bruxton, AirshipJungleman29. Valereee (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the negativity nor the problem with using a stats database, and the proposed ALT is nowhere near meeting WP:DYKINT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the original hook isn't exactly a BLP case. Indeed, the hook is actually interesting even for a non-sports fan, which can't be said for some of our other recent sports hooks. I would suggest however clarifying "shootout loss" in the hook for the benefit of non-ice hockey fans. The new hook might have potential if it is specified that Romanov is an ice hockey player, but otherwise the original hook is still better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification at the article for how/why this happened. Valereee (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: "A goaltender receives a loss if he is on the ice when the opposing team scores the game-winning goal." – Romanov made his only appearance in a shootout (which is not timed, thus 'zero minutes') and the other team scored the game-winning shot during the shootout. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11, THANK YOU. Lol, I was like...whaaaa? So this is not something anyone would be embarrassed about? Valereee (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Hmmmm... well, I've never been a follower of hockey so I can't say with certainty – but it doesn't strike me as something overly negative... BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: Here are details from a nhl.com source in the article.

He also played in one Kontinental Hockey League (KHL) game this season, with his lone appearance coming for Avtomobilist Yekaterinburg in the shootout portion of a 4-5 shootout loss to Barys Astana on Dec. 24, 2022. He saved three of four (75%) shootout attempts.

Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

That source helps a lot, for me. I assume it would clarify the article's hook sentence for many. Valereee (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a good example why "negative hook involving a BLP" is a too wide category to be outlawed. Anyway, I think we could just as well state this without the loss:

• ... that Georgi Romanov's saved three out of four attempts in a penalty shootout that was his only appearance in the 2022–23 KHL season?

The "credited with zero minutes" would benefit from better sourcing. —Kusma (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

+1. Valereee (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

But this is not interesting, especially not to anyone uninterested in hockey. Zanahary (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I too did not see this as a negative blp hook. I was very interested in figuring out how it happened but never once had a negative thought about the player. Bruxton (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't sports, so I'll take your word for it that playing zero minutes all season and still recording a loss is not embarrassing. :D Valereee (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Negative? I thought this was interesting. --evrik ^(talk) 14:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, I don't sports, but negative doesn't mean uninteresting. And unless this is something so common that no one who does sports has any questions, then are we sure Elite Prospects didn't make a mistake? Valereee (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Unrelated to the actual nom, the proposed ALT1 focusing on his wife seems inappropriate to me. We would (I hope) find it sexist and wrong to have a hook on an independently notable woman that focuses only on what her husband did, so the reverse should also be wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Fair point. Valereee (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see this as negative? Statistics from reliable databases are usable as sources as far as I'm aware? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Porting my comments from related notice at WP:BLPN: I'm having trouble verifying the claim within the source provided. I checked the article, and it appears to be the only one supporting "zero minutes" and "no minutes." Could someone please point out what part of the ref offered actually says this? My next question is whether this wikivoice statement isn't original research or perhaps synthesis (I haven't looked at all other sources in the article for this to be synth, but it happens). Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I always feel that when contested, any fact sourced to a primary source database should be verifiable as well via a secondary source. Otherwise, we have Wikipedia editors mining stats databases for factoids they personally find interesting. —Bagumba (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I've marked the entry in the prep rather than pulling because we have three days and that prep also has an empty slot, so I figure it isn't getting moved to queue anytime soon, but if someone else wants to just pull, feel free. @Blaylockjam10, this is going to need a new hook. Valereee (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The source says 1 game played, a record of 0-0-1 (a loss) and the TOI (time on ice) is 0:00, why should this need a new hook? @Valereee:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Here are details from a nhl.com source in the article.

He also played in one Kontinental Hockey League (KHL) game this season, with his lone appearance coming for Avtomobilist Yekaterinburg in the shootout portion of a 4-5 shootout loss to Barys Astana on Dec. 24, 2022. He saved three of four (75%) shootout attempts.

Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a clever hook. I do not even care for hockey. Lightburst (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Question about review

Ornithoptera created Bjarne Store-Jakobsen which is slotted into Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1 with the hook

• ... that Sami politician, activist, and journalist Bjarne Store-Jakobsen's "mythical love story" is the subject of the 2014 film Bihttoš?

I created Esther Tailfeathers, and suggested we combine the hooks into one with two targets:

• ... that the "mythical love story" of Sami politician Bjarne Store-Jakobsen and Blackfoot physician Esther Tailfeathers is the subject of the 2014 film Bihttoš?

Would anyone object if Ornithoptera does that review, to move it along a little quicker? They know the sources and the content, but had zero to do with the writing of the article. Valereee (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure this was best practice. I've left a comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Esther Tailfeathers. (No need to reopen Template:Did you know nominations/Bjarne Store-Jakobsen, and courtesy ping to promoter AirshipJungleman29. regarding potential hook change) CMD (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it would probably be best if the nomination was re-reviewed by an uninvolved editor. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I've pulled Bjarne from prep. Discussion can continue at Esther's nomination.--Launchballer 09:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

CMD and AJ29, no worries, that was why I brought it here to begin with, wanted to make sure we were at minimum being transparent, I've marked it as needing a second reviewer. Thanks, Launchballer, that gives us some time to go through the normal process. Valereee (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewed, see nom page. CMD (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Making hooks more accessible for the unfamiliar

I’m wondering what other editors’ thoughts are on making it a standard to explain proper nouns in hooks, either directly or through context. So, for instance, a hook could say "…that a Dutch filmmaker was circumcised so he could pass as Muslim and film The Great Mecca Feast?" instead of "…that George Krugers was circumcised so he could pass as Muslim and film The Great Mecca Feast?" The revised book doesn’t need to explain or pipe the film title because it’s clear now from the description of Kruger that it’s a film the Dutch filmmaker shot.

These explanations could be piped like the above example or in-text, like "…that Cambodian musician Sinn Sisamouth…"

I just think this sort of hook makes more sense in the format that starts with "Did You Know… ?". Like, Did You Know that Samantha Clams was fifth defensive neuter-agent in Harriett’s Cookie Scramble? Uhm, no, I didn’t know that. I don’t know what these things are.

What do we think? Zanahary (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

I can see deferring to the nominator's discretion whether name-dropping will draw the type of interest they are seeking. —Bagumba (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

Ōsakishimojima

@Launchballer, Jpatokal, and Schwede66: I'm concerned about WP:CLOP vs mlit.go.jp/tagengo-db/common/001565298.pdf. For example:

a secret agreement between the provinces of Chōshū and Geishū to ally against the Tokugawa shogunate, was signed at Mitarai on November 26, 1867 and became a key event in the fall of the shogunate

a secret agreement between the provinces of Chōshū and Geishū to form an alliance against the shogunate. This treaty was an important step in the fall of the shogunate

See the Earwig report. There's nothing here that can't be fixed with a bit of copyediting, but it should be taken care of before it hits the main page. RoySmith (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that saw me scratching my head; given the Earwig report, that really stood out. How could I possibly have missed that? Looking at the article's history, the editor did a significant expansion after my initial review. They introduced the CLOP in that process and I didn't do a further Earwig check; hence I didn't spot that. My apologies. It's good that we have these re-review processes in place. Thanks for catching this, RoySmith. Schwede66 20:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The quoted text is from the website of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, which (like most Japanese government agencies) grants a CC BY license to all their content. Anyone may freely use the information published on the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism website (hereinafter referred to as "content"), including copying, public transmission, translation, transformation and other adaptations, in accordance with 1) to 7) below. ... These Terms of Use are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (the copyright license conditions set out at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.ja ; hereafter referred to as "CC BY"). Content to which these Terms of Use apply can also be used in accordance with CC BY. https://www.mlit.go.jp/link.html Jpatokal (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It's great that it's CC-BY-4.0, but you still need to comply with the terms of the license which include the obligation to 1) provide attribution and 2) "you must indicate if you modified the material and retain an indication of previous modifications". I'm not an expert on this stuff, but I would think you could comply with #1 by importing the text verbatim and putting "copied from <source URL>, CC-BY-4.0" as an edit comment, and then comply with #2 making another edit to modify the text, with a similarly descriptive edit comment. Given that wasn't done, then I'd say second best would be to add a note to the talk page. RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Or, even simpler, just quote it verbatim and cite the source as you would any other quotation. RoySmith (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The normal way to deal with #1 above is to add a CC-BY 4.0 template to the reference. I've done that for you. Schwede66 03:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Great Genna Martyrdom

I want hazard duty pay for having been forced to read some of the descriptions in this. RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

A "straightforward policy of elimination of Christians that had a dramatic impact on Nagasaki Christian community" you say. CMD (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Too much football

We've got one NFL hook in Queue 5 and more NFL on deck in Prep 6, Prep 1, Prep 2, and Prep 3. Maybe we want to dial that down a bit? RoySmith (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This happens, and I love football, but yeah we can spread it around. Some mandatory reporting has happened for NFL so folks are starting to pay attention to their favorite teams. I am having a great time traveling! I am going to go see the California sequoias this weekend. I hope you and everyone else has a great weekend! Lightburst (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7

• St. Anne's Church, Moxi (nom) looks clear to me! wild story. non-English citations accepted in good faith. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Mercantile Library Company (Philadelphia) (nom) nifty piece of Americana! AdoTang, bit jumpy about the use of this orgblog and the fact that the hook citation is in a picture caption. Anything more solid? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed the hook sourcing, but the orgblog is still there. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  pulled due to this and another unreliable source, unfortunately. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Mary Ann Wells (nom) solid shortbio. @Xoak and SL93: my interpretation of WP:WEASEL, per Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed, would be that the source saying was soon considered most influential ballet teacher of Pacific Northwest is not a clear case of attribution to any institution, person, or group thereof. Given that this is, like, a three-sentence source that cites no sources and has this weasel problem, I can't really justify relying on it for such an extraordinary claim. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Theleekycauldron, and @SL93 okay. Let's just rephrase it to "an influential" in lieu of the most influential. I think that'll solve it. I've edited the article accordingly. Or we could with the ALT2. Btw, that dictionary was written by a panel of subject experts and authoritative figures. They did not pass on adjectives willy-nilly but with careful consideration. They did not cite sources for short biographies, and I feel it was redundant in this instance for the highlighted adjective.

  However, they are themselves the ones who are largely cited in more modern dictionaries, such as Britannica and Encyclopedia.com. Since the material is in public domain, tons of their biographies are duplicated as is in reputable dictionaries with attribution. That also speaks for their credibility. X (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Xoak: The source doesn't say "an influential" or "the most influential", is the problem. A source is only as reliable as the information it is aggregating, and in this case, we have no idea who considers Wells to be "an influential" or "the most influential", so we have no idea how reliable the claim is. If the source simply said "Wells was the most influential ballet teacher in the Pacific Northwest", then we'd have something to talk about, but "Wells was considered the most influential ballet teacher in the Pacific Northwest" (emph. added) is a sourcing problem. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Theleekycauldron let's move on from this hook and modify it as suggested, or let's go for ALT2 (which I also mentioned in the nom). The reviewer and promoter didn't have issues with them. And I appreciate your keen eye. But I'm really occupied in IRL rn so can't communicate back and forth much. Let's go with ALT2.
  Have a good one. X (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  I guess just go with ALT2. SL93 (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Xoak and SL93: I've swapped in ALT2, with some modifications for brevity and source–text integrity. good to go! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  pulled at ERRORS. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Ryoko Kui (nom) my friend has vowed to get me into Dungeon Meshi, so this is a nice first step lol! looks good (equivocating on the difference between fan art and playable portraits), non-English citations accepted in good faith. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Silence Is Loud (nom) pulled on sourcing questions. I must say, I find jungle to be a really interesting genre – had no idea it existed, will have to explore more! really interesting concept. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Eurovision Song Contest 1974 (nom) awesome to have a GA on this! Eurovision never grabbed me, but some of my friends (and one of my professors this year) cared rabidly and so I hear a ton about it by proxy. Looks good to go, offline/non-English citations accepted in good faith. I've also shortened the hook substantially (cc Sims2aholic8). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Georgi Romanov (nom) pulled on sourcing issues. Sports articles can be trouble, because sources can tend to be all stats, particularly when they're by the team/statblocks/wire services – but I never got an answer to why he was credited with no playtime! Can't walk me to the brink with a good hook and not give me the answer :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

This one's still in the queue and should be pulled. I'll get to my Silence Is Loud hook later.--Launchballer 10:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I already explained that above – he only played as part of the shootout portion – which wasn't timed (thus no official playing time). I disagree that this should have been pulled. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Pulled. BeanieFan11, the pull doesn't have anything to do with that part of the hook – see nomination page for explanation :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Episode 8851 (nom) I have a hard time with soap articles, because coverage tends to skew waaaay too much towards plot and critical analysis tends to be very superficial. That's not something I can really grapple with here and now, though, so I've made some clarifying edits and we'll call it a day. Well done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Franz Liszt (nom) a hell of a GA! offline citations accepted in good faith. I've wanted to play la campanella for a long time and haven't really gotten there yet. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 6

Suicide of Fat Cat (nom)

After I uncovered WP:NONENGPLAG-type close paraphrasing at a different nomination, I was asked to check this one for similar issues. I have indeed found issues, such as the first paragraph of the "Background" section not being fully verified by the sources, and what looks like close paraphasing of a direct translation later on (the sentences beginning "Furthermore, ChaPanda and Wallace announced..."). These were the first issues I checked, and this sensitive article obviously falls under BLP; I do not have time to investigate further, but if more issues are uncovered, I would recommend pulling. Pinging nominator TheGreatPeng, reviewer Nineteen Ninety-Four guy and queuer TheSandDoctor (I promoted). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer here. I rescind my AGF review of this nomination, having found some closely paraphrased texts as well as blatantly copied ones from the source upon a Google Translate comparison between source text and article text:

Background

• Close paraphrasing detected at content supported by cite#8

Aftermath and Reactions

• Fourth paragraph copy-pasted from citations 12 and 18
• Seventh paragraph closely paraphrased from cite#3
• Last sentence of ninth paragraph closely paraphrased from cite#21
• All but first sentence of fifth paragraph closely paraphrased from cite#20

There could be more. On top of that, the article also fails to mention the fact that Fat Cat was reportedly frugal and a vegetarian, contrary to reports that he had given a large sum of money to his "wife" and his supporters claim that he would have loved McDs takeouts ordered in his memory. In any case, article should definitely be pulled from Queue due to blatant copyvio. I should have known better. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Before making any assumptions about the article, please check the Chinese Wikipedia first. Also, review the earlier version of the article, which was a translation of the Chinese Wikipedia article. I have already tagged on Talk:Suicide of Fat Cat. If the information matches the content from the source, please conduct an analysis on the Chinese Wikipedia first. I am new to Wikipedia and am learning. I never realized that translating content from the source or the Chinese Wikipedia could be a policy violation. It’s hard to understand how translation can vary when using Yandex or Microsoft translation tools instead of Google Translate. The policy seems to be like trying to copyright the wind. TheGreatPeng (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy Please stop harboring personal resentment toward me after I disagreed with the hook you chose for the DYK of Fat Cat. You are the only reviewer for that DYK, and you made more changes to the article than I did as the creator. After I disagreed with you, you started to bite me on every one of my articles. I’m a newbie; please don’t bite me, and I’m not infected with rabies. It seems like you just want to target Chinese editors first and ignore the truth. Let me point out: He mentioned that the whole Background section contains 'close paraphrasing detected at content supported by cite #8.' However, cite #8 is a mirror of English Wikipedia and was reported on May 11, after the Wikipedia article was created. You can compare the two versions easily by the timestamps see. Additionally, many Chinese sources are mirrors of the Chinese Wikipedia, so the majority of Chinese text matches the content from Chinese Wikipedia. Please conduct an honest research. Thank you for taking many of your time to find mistakes in me to discredit me. TheGreatPeng (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  TheGreatPeng, is Suicide of Fat Cat currently cited to sources that mirror the Wikipedia article? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  I added this English reference as an extra because an IP editor said the article was not sufficiently established for notability. Since then, I have added all the references I found online or through Google News. Please see the talk page and article's history. I also disagree with the claim that the 'fourth paragraph is copy-pasted from citations 12 and 18.' I will return with the facts, but now I have to go to my class. See you. TheGreatPeng (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  That makes sense. I ask because it's against WP:CIRCULAR to cite Wikipedia or to cite websites mirroring Wikipedia. Mirrors aren't accepted as reliable secondary sources. Thanks for translating an article over. It does seem like it needs some cleanup. The other Wikipedias have less strict standards for sourcing. It is likely related to size since the English Wikipedia had less strict standards when it was smaller. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  And other language Wikipedias cannot be assumed to be correct and blindly translated into English. Also at WP:CIRCULAR:

  Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources, since Wikipedia is a user-generated source.

  Content must be verifiable. —Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  Please strike your personal attacks against Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, TheGreatPeng. Your claim that they have "started to bite you on every one of your articles" is demonstrably false (source). WP:BITE is not a get-out-of-jail-free card: when you get things wrong, especially when they are serious, you are expected to take the criticism on board, not rant that "it seems like you just want to target Chinese editors first and ignore the truth". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not making a personal attack on Nineteen Ninety-Four. Thinking I was a target is a personal attack? How? If is not targeting Chinese editors, it nice, but the "ignoring the truth" is real, and he made a false accusation by not knowing some references are mirror sources. Before accusing others, he should do proper research first. I'm not trying to get a get-out-of-jail-free card. I said you guys are bullying new editors by overweighing and puzzling me with many Wikipedia policies. I'm still learning and don't think one-sided. TheGreatPeng (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've pulled this. I'm looking for a replacement. RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• I've also tagged the article with the relevant templates in light of these developments. I'm almost certain the bulk of it was generated through machine translation. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: Thanks for following up and tagging. And regarding, "should have known better", I don't know about that. Looking into this is a lot, especially since it's two different versions of the article each with their own timeline. I had intended to promote the piped-link hook, and am just getting off without blame here because I instead, did nothing. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• I read through the article and left brief comments on the talk page. I would like to ask DYK to close this as not promoted and to refrain from running any hook at this time. The article is a complete mess and should not be on the front page. It would have to be completely rewritten, and that’s clearly not going to happen. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  I've looked closer and rejected the nomination. Many thanks for the comments above. Viriditas, do I need to mark the nom as rejected or do I leave that for someone else? I think most of my early reviews were for OGs that had easy-to-pass articles, so I am currently a bit clueless, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  As you were the one who added the reject tick, a different editor will need to close it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Alexei Starobinsky

@TheSandDoctor, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, and Sgubaldo: The article says "his work remained unknown outside of the Soviet Union", but the hook says "remained unknown in the West" which isn't the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith, Piotrus, and Sgubaldo: Well, I guess that shows a misconception on my end. I thought of the Eastern Bloc. The source states "It was a very complicated model based on a quantum theory of gravity, but it caused a sensation among cosmologists in what was then the Soviet Union....Unfortunately, because of the difficulties Soviet scientists still had in travelling abroad or communicating with colleagues outside the Soviet sphere of influence at that time, the news did not spread outside their country.”, which seems to imply it is talking about the Bloc ("Soviet sphere of influence") yet then contradicts itself by talking of country in the singular. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith @TheSandDoctor I’m happy to change either the article or the hook if necessary. Let me know. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I updated the hook to say Soviet Union, so I think we're good now. RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @RoySmith:! TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

You are right the source is contradictory. I'd go with Soviet Union for the hook to be safe. Alexei Starobinsky does not have a pl wiki article, so I cannot (quickly) check Polish sources (since I am not 100% sure what would be the spelling of his name in Polish); and whatever I found would be ORish anyway (as in, whether he was cited or not). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK error rate

May 2024 errors

May error rate: 93% error-free (18 errors / 276 hooks), 95% (error-free before MP: 15/276)

May 2024 errors

Date	Hook	Error
May 5	that cosplaying as a character from the New California Republic (flag pictured) could potentially lead to accidental arrest due to mistaken suspicion of carrying a bomb?	failed verification (report, queue fix)
May 7	that opera composer and librettist Joseph Redding (pictured) was also a chess polymath and lawyer who won a landmark decision before the United States Supreme Court?	failed verification (report, MP fix)
May 7	that Kooraban National Park provides a habitat for more than twenty endangered animal species, including koalas?	failed verification (report, MP fix)
May 7	that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy were all gymnasts and ten-pin bowlers?	failed verification (report, MP fix)
May 7	that the production team of the TV series The Falcon and the Winter Soldier created a highway more than five miles (8 km) long to capture visual effects for a truck action sequence for the episode "The Star-Spangled Man"?	hook didn't specify it was a "digital" highway (report, MP fix)
May 8	that even though about 100,000 bombs fell on Le Touquet during World War II, making it "the most mined city in France", it was the first resort in northern France to open its beaches after its liberation?	failed verification (report, queue fix)
May 11	that when the Bukharian-Jewish Soviet newspaper Bajroqi Miⱨnat switched to the Latin script, it did not use capital letters, following Jewish writing rules?	hook did not specify that it "initially" did not use capital letters (report, queue fix)
May 14	that William F. Fiedler was the only American fighter pilot to become a flying ace in the P-39 Airacobra?	failed verification (report, MP fix)
May 15	that Oophaga solanensis frogs can be bought for $3 in their native Colombia and sold for up to $1,000 overseas?	hook didn't convey illegality (report, MP fix)
May 17	that the comedian Jonny Pelham is one of only 200 people in the UK to suffer from popliteal pterygium syndrome?	"only 200" failed verification and MEDRS (report, MP fix)
May 19	that winter wonderland fairs have become a celebrated annual British tradition – but often for the wrong reasons?	"wrong reasons" not in article and not NPOV (report, MP fix)
May 21	that Spider began making alternative music because she felt that not enough Black women were doing so?	link to set index article (report, MP fix)
May 22	that the U.S. Army Air Corps were so unimpressed by the Estoppey D-8 that one member stated that he would rather use "nails and a wire"?	attributed one person's opinion to entire US Army Air Corps (report, MP fix)
May 24	that actress Nellie McCoy (pictured) suffered a mental breakdown after her theatre performance was criticized, leading to her being committed to a sanatorium?	"after her theatre performance was criticized" not in article (report, not fixed)
May 24	that Axel Downard-Wilke (pictured) led a campaign in 2020 to have macrons used in Māori place names in Wikipedia articles?	COI (report, MP fix)
May 24	that women were 33 percent more likely than men to search for clown pornography in 2016?	"on Pornhub" not specified in hook fact (report, MP fix)
May 26	that during the "trial from hell" Matthew Charles Johnson and his co-accused hurled abuse at the judge and threw human excrement at a member of the jury?	certain hook details failed verification; BLPvio (report, MP fix)
May 29	that Israel's systematic destruction of trees and farmland in Gaza has been described as an ecocide?	"systematic" in wikivoice instead of attributed (report, MP fix)

June 2024 errors

June error rate (through June 12):

• 93% error-free overall (7 errors / 96 hooks)
• 95% error-free before MP (5 / 96)

June 2024 errors

Date	Hook	Error
June 4	that Barron Trump signed for D.C. United Academy as a midfielder?	notability and BLP concerns (report, MP fix)
June 6	that despite "C U in da Ballpit" being Camping in Alaska's best known song, the band says they all hate it?	"best known song" failed verification (report, MP fix)
June 8	that the Tang-dynasty politician Fang Yi'ai was put to death and his wife Princess Gaoyang was forced to commit suicide after their failed rebellion against Emperor Gaozong?	"put to death" not in article; possibly unapproved/unverified hook promoted (report, MP fix)
June 9	that Carrie Swain was possibly the first woman entertainer to perform in blackface?	"first" fails verification (report, MP fix)
June 10	that the ancient Greek game polis is one of the world's oldest strategy games?	didn't specify "oldest known" (report, MP fix)
June 10	that dance teacher Mary Ann Wells, despite being in the "I AM" movement, did not enforce rigid technical standards on her students?	Pulled for SYNTH (report, queue fix)
June 12	that Professor Layton and the New World of Steam is planned to be the first main entry since 2013 in the series Professor Layton, despite it being its developer's most popular media franchise?	failed verification (report, queue fix)

Error rate discussion

Anyone should feel free to update the table. I didn't list everything that was at WP:ERRORS, e.g. I didn't list simple copyedits like changing "$" to "US$". Overall, 93% or 95% error-free ain't bad, but IMO given the visibility, it really should be 99%, i.e. less than one per week. It's not ideal to have to rely on people fixing things at WP:ERRORS multiple times per week. Levivich (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I've always thought that if a hook ran for more than six hours and turned out to have a serious error, we should issue a retraction in the next set. A basic retraction policy underlies most honest sources of information, there's no reason we shouldn't have one as well – we're not like the rest of the project in that you can just edit stuff and it'll be fixed going forward, nothing is on the page for more than 24 hours. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

+1. Ironically, one of the ways that we judge whether a source is reliable is by looking at whether it prints retractions, yet we do not print retractions. I would go further and say that there ought to be a "retraction box" on the main page, where we post as retractions everything that ends up having to be fixed on the main page. In other words, every fix made at WP:ERRORS should be noted in the retraction box on the main page (not just DYK). I have a vague memory of this being discussed and rejected by the community at some point in the last 5 years or so but I don't remember where. Levivich (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I do like the idea of being transparent about errors, but it feels tricky. Maybe 'Corrections' instead of 'Retractions'; retraction seems like it should be for something possibly harmful that was factually incorrect. Like, I wouldn't want us to say we'd 'retracted' that Trump signed as a midfielder.

And really I'm not sure it's a fix to have Trump appear a second time at the MP with us noting the hook was pulled for the article being a BLP vio and questions being raised as to notability and we regret the error, that seems worse than the simple pull. Valereee (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Would a reader be more likely to encounter a retraction box at the bottom of the main page? Or at the talk page of the linked article? The second would be fairly easy to implement. Online, some newspapers don't offer anymore than a "published" and "corrected/updated" date on the article's page.[2] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: I think we'd mainly want to use a corrections/retractions box for errors of the hooks; while we can and do pull hooks for article issues, we generally don't maintain a retractions log on articles. I was just thinking something more like:

• In the second DYK set on June 8, 2024, it was claimed that Jane Doe invented the flywheel. However, multiple inventors have credible claims to the flywheel, some predating Doe by up to 20 years.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That would work for me Valereee (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think there's different levels of error. A poorly worded hook that should be rephrased is bad, but not as bad as something being actively not in the source stated. Lots of those above seem to be that the hook is the thing that isn't covered by the citation - perhaps that is the thing to stress to both reviewers and set promoters - to check that the source being used explicitly states the info being written.

As much as the rest of the article is important, the hook itself is the only bit that is given such high visibility. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I object to the Spider error – WP:DYKG doesn't mention SIAs, because they're articles, not DABs. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

There was a reasonable argument at ERRRORs that perhaps that page should be marked as a disambiguation—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not a perfect measure but I'm using "changed at WP:ERRORS" as basically the definition of "error." I think there's an argument to be made that this particular one might be a de minimis example, like changing "$" to "US$" or adding a wikilink to "George Washington" but I included it because I thought it fell into the category of "clearly against some DYK rule." I'm no expert about DYK rules so maybe that one isn't against any actual rule? Levivich (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The most concerning errors are the failed verification ones, sadly they seem the most common. Focusing on those would make the most difference both to quality and to the error rate. CMD (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I find the fact verification seems to be a chronic problem concerning, but for me the most concerning is BLP issues. Levivich, it looks like the May 8 Le Touquet hook was pulled before it hit the main page, is that an outlier in these tables? (That is, I'm seeing most of the reports at ERRORS were in Current DYK, which I'm assuming means most actually made it to the main page?) Valereee (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I included it because it was caught at WP:ERRORS and not by "internal" DYK error-correction processes. I think "next DYK" ERRORS should "count" as "DYK errors," e.g. something that DYK "missed." (It's true that most are current-DYK and not next-DYK, but isn't that a bug not a feature?) Levivich (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

No, I just wasn't clear on what the inclusion criteria were, and I do think we should be aiming for all errors to be caught before a set hits Next-but-one DYK. But it would also be interesting to understand how many errors actually made it onto the main page. The vagaries of transclusion and date stamps make my head spin...is there an easy way to note which errors were fixed after the hook moved onto the main page? Valereee (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

And IIRC some were flagged as next-DYK but fixed after it hit the main page (due to length of discussion); I think that's the only one that was fixed before it hit the main page, going from memory. That can be checked by looking whether the "fix" link is to the DYK template or a queue. Levivich (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you give the clueless an example? :D Er, one that even I can understand? Valereee (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes of course! Okay, so the "mouse" is that little plastic thing with buttons on it next to your keyboard that kind of looks like a mouse with no tail. Now when you move the mouse on your desk, it'll move the arrow on your screen, and if you hover over one of the links and press the left mouse button... :-D Just kidding, it's a good catch, I can update the list in two seconds later today when I get to a desktop and differentiate between fixed-at-current-DYK and fixed-at-next-DYK. Going from memory there is only one "next" and the rest are "current" but I'll double check and update the table to clarify this. Levivich (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

My mouse is wired, so kind of looks like it does have a tail...does that still count? Valereee (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

lol, somebody please get val a WMF tech grant for a wireless mouse. (On the other hand the tail might make it easier to find.) Levivich (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I found my TV remote in the fridge the other day. Valereee (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

"Tell me you're a stoner without telling me you're a stoner" Levivich (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh and to actually answer your question, if you click the "fix" link for the May 8 entry, it takes you to a diff of an edit to one of the queue templates; the other "fix" links go to a diff of the actual DYK template that's transcluded on the main page -- that's how we know those were live when the diff was made, whereas the queue template diff means it wasn't live yet (still in the queue). So ERRORS report + DYK template fix = fixed when it was already on the main page, while ERRORS report + queue template fix = not on main page yet. Levivich (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

OHHH. God, I can't even claim not enough coffee. Thanks! Valereee (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, they're all now updated to specify "MP fix" or "queue fix," and my memory was wrong: there were three queue fixes. I'll note though that there are examples where the error was reported to WP:ERRORS before the item hit the main page, but due to the length of discussion or admin response, the error wasn't actually fixed until it hit the main page. So, for example, the Kooraban error was reported on May 5 as a next-but-one error 2 days before going live, but wasn't fixed until May 7 when it was already live. So just because something is an "MP fix" doesn't mean it wasn't caught until it hit the MP, but it does mean the error hit the MP. Just thought I'd mention this wrinkle. Levivich (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

This seems quite good. I still support efforts to raise standards, especially at the main page, and to use DYK/GA/FA to promote higher standards, but studies have consistently found that most published news articles contain errors.[3] Many of the errors noted above are also somewhat minor rather than outright bogus. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not just newspapers – see Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

ZX Spectrum

@Jaguar, Panamitsu, and AirshipJungleman29:

The following sentence needs a citation: "The ZX Spectrum did not include a built-in computer monitor, and was instead intended to be connected to the customer's television set." Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Just want to point out this is likely already sourced in the article and amounts to a blue sky statement. In 1982, connecting to a television was standard. The TRS-80 Color Computer was released two years earlier than the Spectrum, and everyone who had it hooked it up to their color TV. It was a big deal and a huge game changer for young hobbyists. Viriditas (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

As someone who's younger than the Spectrum and only knows about it through retro YouTubers, it might be obvious to people of a certain generation but not younger ones (I'm from a generation that's surprised that the Spectrum used cassettes, for example). I don't think a citation would hurt here even if it was obvious. It shouldn't hold back the nomination but still.

While I'm here, I have to say that I'm not exactly a fan of the hook, albeit no to the extent that I would suggest that the hook needs to be pulled and replaced. If you're from Europe and were a big computer fan in the 1980s the hook is kind of a "duh", but maybe a different hook about the Spectrum could work here too? Something surprising about it rather than simply its biggest claim to fame. If no change to the hook is done I wouldn't mind, but I wonder if other possible hooks could also be suggested that might be more surprising. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Z1720 How would you feel about just removing that sentence? The later sourced sentence "Video output is channelled through an RF modulator, intended for use with contemporary television sets, to provide a simple colour graphic display." verifies that it ran through a television set. SL93 (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@SL93: I'm fine with removing it. Z1720 (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Done. SL93 (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

• Talia and Tori DellaPeruta (nom) Valereee (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Phenotypic disparity (nom) short, solid sourcing, hook checks out, looks great! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  moved to Queue 7. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Simon de Graaff (nom) looks good! @Crisco 1492, Soman, and AirshipJungleman29: I've swapped the main hook out for ALT1, as I think the main hook was a little clickbait-y (where the Dutch are concerned, it's not unreasonable to think he had a plan to physically split the actual land) and that the actual truth (he wanted to split Java's administrative regions) was a little boring. Well-written, but I'm not sure I want to make a hook interesting by potentially suggesting something that might not be true. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Lycus (river of Constantinople) (nom)
• Jude McAtamney (nom) Valereee (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  moved to Queue 7. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Professor Layton and the New World of Steam (nom) pulled, rejecting Valereee (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Let's Talk About It (book) ... that the inclusion of a graphic novel for teens in libraries was challenged 55 times in 2023? (nom) Valereee (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Felipe Lara (nom) Valereee (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  moved to Queue 7. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Jugando a Que No Pasa Nada (nom)
• Devizes Plot (nom)
• Fredrick Wangabo Mwenengabo (nom)
• Girl Friday (TV programme) (nom) seems to check out :) I considered raising a WP:DYKFICTION objection, but all things considered, it seems like a decent hook about reality TV, so why not. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• John Wilson (Arkansas politician) (nom) that is the craziest shit I have ever read, from start to sources. @QuicoleJR and AirshipJungleman29: I absolutely had to add in the part where he was re-elected to the same workplace after stabbing his colleague, so I verified and swapped in a modified version of ALT1. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Theleekycauldron: I'm fine with that. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

  So am I. As an aside, I quite like this system of checking prep sets. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Giving the hooks a triple check is something that has always been done, but I think we should do it in the prep set. --evrik ^(talk) 00:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  this is mainly for me to be transparent about checking queues and pulling people in to address issues as I go; if people want to help me out, they're more than welcome to :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I generally move to queue before checking, to signal to other admins that I've started a particular set. Helps prevent wasting time on the same set. Valereee (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: When promoting queue 2, you moved a bunch of hooks to queue 7. Do these need to be filled with other hooks? If so, can you fill them up? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 15:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand tlc is supposed to be studying for finals. Valereee (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: Do you know why the hooks were moved? Should they be moved back or new ones be selected? Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Striking moved back, they were already on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If I'm following correctly, they were moved to Q7 to replace hooks that had been pulled for issues brought up here or at ERRORS, can't remember which. Valereee (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Since the set is less than 24 hours before going to the Main Page, I have pulled hooks from other preps to fill in the gaps. Prep setters are encouraged to fill in the gaps I have created in those preps. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• I'm fine with ALT1 being used. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

"First" hooks

We had yet another "first" hook shown to be wrong on WP:ERRORS today. Looking at the lineup right now, I see a bunch more "first" claims:

Queue 6 ... that the first model of cosmic inflation was formulated by a Soviet physicist but initially remained unknown outside the Soviet Union?

Queue 2: ... that Professor Layton and the New World of Steam is planned to be the first main entry since 2013 in the series Professor Layton, despite it being its developer's most popular media franchise?

Prep 3: ... that Pujol and Quintonil are the highest-rated restaurants in Mexico's first Michelin guide, with two Michelin stars each?

Prep 5: ... that George Kunkel (pictured) portrayed a mountaineer in The Chalice of Courage (1915), the first film to depict assisted suicide?

Prep 6: ... that the Henry Street salamander tunnels in Amherst, Massachusetts, were the first amphibian tunnels (example pictured) in the United States?

Prep 6:... that Joe Shield was the first person from Vermont to be drafted into the NFL and then make a team's roster?

Maybe we want to take a closer look at these before they go live? These kinds of hooks really are problematic and we should stay way from them. It's really hard to prove that something is the first of its kind, and all it takes is one earlier example to show that we're wrong. RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree about a blanket ban, but I do agree with a closer review. The recent problematic first hook was not a typical first hook because it included "possibly", and it should have not been promoted. SL93 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I just looked at the one in queue 6. If the hook is true, the article Starobinsky inflation should probably mention it. Sgubaldo. SL93 (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I would not mind having a blanket ban, with exceptions possible for rock-solid cases. Schwede66 18:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

For the one in prep 6 about the salamander tunnels, this journal article says "one of the first" and this environment organization says "possibly the first". Pinging nominator Bruxton SL93 (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I see sources which say these were the first, but I also see sources which equivocate and say things such as what @Bruxton quoted above. We should go with the more conservative bunch and not claim a "first" that we can't back up. RoySmith (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you mean SL93. I made it clearer. SL93 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith I see two alts. Maybe one of those could work. SL93 (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

ALT1 isn't bad, but how about a terser version of it:

ALT1a: ... that before the Henry Street tunnels (example pictured) were built, volunteers carried spotted salamanders across the street in buckets?

What I don't like about all of these, however, is that we're talking specifically about the Henry Street tunnels but the photo is of some other tunnel. That seems distinctly sub-optimal. RoySmith (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems like this ought to be an extremely easy photo to get, too. Msact, Daderot, Ncnorie, Faolin42, Kithira have all taken photos in Amherst and have edited en.wiki recently. Valereee (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I got some pictures. Will upload tonight. Faolin42 (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Faolin42 Awesome, dude! RoySmith (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I've added the images at Category:Henry Street salamander tunnels Faolin42 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Cool. File:Henry Street southern salamander tunnel west entrance, Cushman MA.jpg would be perfect, but for some reason when I try to add it to the article, the editor won't let me. I'm guessing it's just some kind of cache or index delay problem, so I'll just try again later. RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Wow @Faolin42:. excellent. I got interested in these tunnels last year when I saw a toad tunnel in a post office parking lot. I am excited to see the article run. So glad you have such great images of the HS tunnels. Bravo! I never even thought to see if a WP editor lived near. And sorry I have been MIA for a few days. Bruxton (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That is awesome! Great photos, too! Valereee (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Glad I could help! Faolin42 (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

This is now in Prep 6 with the original "first" hook. I've recently edited the article to add that this emerging-traveling-mating is an event common among amphibians and known as a "Big Night" (sourced to Audubon). In addition to ALT1a, we could also use:

ALT2 ... that salamanders in Massachusetts use purpose-built tunnels under a road to get to their Big Night?

Ping to Bruxton. Valereee (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

According to WP:DYKMOS, we're not required to start hooks with "that". So, we could do:

ALT3: ... why salamanders cross the road? RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I like that one, too! Valereee (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I like that too but I'd suggest "how salamanders cross the road". Levivich (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, even better! Valereee (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Valereee, I am ok with any hook - the buckets one interested me as well. Regarding the original "first" hook, I imagine that somewhere in the US, amphibians used culverts prior to the Henry tunnels. And if we cannot prove these were the first I am ok with other hooks. Also I uploaded my pics of that toad tunnel and it is decidedly less impressive than the pics by Faolin42 of the tunnels under Henry. Bruxton (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Bruxton, great. Can someone please approve:

ALT3a: ... how salamanders cross the road (pictured)?

It would also make a good quirky, but I like the image a lot. Valereee (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I liked your pictures, especially that there was a sign and a little house. I went back over the articles for the Henry Street tunnels and realized there is a salamander sculpture/path on the Cushman Common, inspired by the Henry Street salamanders. See https://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/wm115XV_Crossroads_Salamander_Amherst_Massachusetts and many other references. Cushman is the village in Amherst where the tunnels are located. I have good pictures of the installation that I took 11 years ago, similar to the above link, but probably can't upload them because of copyright :-(. Faolin42 (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Faolin42, because the art is under copyright? I think we can upload images of US public art, like here? Valereee (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I will upload, and we'll see how it goes... Faolin42 (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I tried to upload an image of the Crossroads Salamander public sculpture, but the Upload Wizard stopped me because 'someone else's work is visible in the work' I'm submitting. I'll read through the FAQ's and take it to the Village Pump tomorrow to see if I can upload it. Faolin42 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I keep imagining a salamander traffic report: "Well, the Big Night is finally here, and traffic at the Henry Street Tunnel is backed up for yards. Tonight's forecast, coming up right after the news." Levivich (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: Imagine the slippery creatures before the bucket-brigade and the tunnels... oh the humanity! By the look of Faolin42's pictures, the Salamanders got a lot more attention than the filthy wart-ridden toads. File:Toad tunnel entrance.jpg. They do have a playful sign and a mini toad-house at the site File:Davis Toad Tunnel entrance.jpg. "Toad Hollow". The salamander tunnels are more impressive than this toad tunnel - I do not even know how a toad would find it. As I remember it took me a while to locate it! And then media outlets mocked the effort. Checking now, it was the Daily Show in 1999. Bruxton (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's the source I used for my hook, which states that the 'first inflationary model was developed by Alexei Starobinsky'. It wasn't known as 'inflation' yet because the term was coined later and this is mentioned in the article. This other source present in the article also states that 'There had previously been suggestions by some theorists that the universe might have undergone a period of rapid expansion early in its life, but the first to come up with a convincing scenario was Russian cosmologist Alexei Starobinsky...' Sgubaldo (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the nominated article, but rather the wikilink Starobinsky inflation. SL93 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that the Starobinsky inflation article should mention it. I was replying to the top comment since taking a closer look at each of the hooks was mentioned. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for not understanding. SL93 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

No worries at all, I should've been clearer. I've added a sentence about this to Starobinsky inflation. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The "there had previously" statements that you quote re Starobinsky make this too dubious to state definitively as a first in DYK. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I understood it as others had previously suggested such a possibility, but no one had ever formulated a proper model. The other source definitively states that it was the first model. If it's considered too dubious, then I won't object to its removal from the queue. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

W/r/t the Swain hook that was pulled today, I noticed the review says "hook verified AGF". I don't understand why a hook would be AGF and not verified when the hook source is available for free on the Internet Archive (courtesy ping reviewer Dahn). My two cents: DYK doesn't need a new rule about "firsts," it needs to actually verify hooks. I don't mean to brag here and I know it's kind of a jerk thing to say, but to drive the point home: y'all can look at my contribs and see that in 15 minutes I was able to google the title of the source book, find it for free on the archives, read the relevant page, see that the fact failed verification, make the appropriate edits to the article, and post an explanation with quotes and links on the article talk page. I only say this to point out that it doesn't necessarily take long to verify hooks. Levivich (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Btw here's an idea for a new rule: get rid of "AGF verification." If a hook can't be verified by at least two people (nom and reviewer), it doesn't go on the main page, period end of story. We have enough verifiable hooks in the pipeline that we don't need AGF verification. Levivich (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

And in doing so you enforce systematic bias on Wikipedia, for obvious reasons. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Nah, avoiding systemic bias does not require not verifying hooks. Take this Swain hook for example: the topic is an American woman and the source is written in English; no systemic bias here. Or, rather, despite not verifying the hook, this hook perpetuates systemic bias (it's about Americans). Levivich (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Systematic bias is rather larger than one hook. See e.g. Wikipedia:Systemic bias#Availability of sources may cause bias. Your proposal would see all hooks cited to offline references and most cited to non-Englih sources rejected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

(It's "systemic" bias, not "systematic.") As WP:SBEXT says, "Availability of sources may cause bias," emphasis mine. That doesn't mean that we must have inaccessible sources to fight systemic bias. And it doesn't mean that inaccessible sources that fight systemic bias must be sources that only one person can verify. It's possible to find two people who can both speak a foreign language or access an offline source. Of course, not AGFing verification makes it harder to fight systemic bias, but it doesn't mean we "enforce" (your word) systemic bias by requiring actual verification. It's about balance and trade-offs. I'll take verification over unverified when balancing the two, even if verification means more systemic bias. And there are third-way compromises, such as the one suggested by Bagumba below. Levivich (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The specific bias that this would cause (not just hypothetically) is Wikipedia:Recentism. I have on multiple occasions gone physically to a large academic library to find material for Wikipedia articles, or requested material from them by interlibrary loan, because that was the only way to find those sources. It is relatively easy for me to do so because I work at a university. It would be less easy to others. I don't think it's reasonable to expect DYK reviewers to do so, any more than it would be to turn Wikipedia or DYK into an encyclopedia of only things that can be found online. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Why not require the nominator to at least quote the relevant sentences that support the hook? —Bagumba (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

+1, it would make verification easier and faster, and buffer against systemic bias because the nom could quote otherwise-difficult-to-access sources (e.g., offline, in another language, etc.). Levivich (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

+1 to having the nom provide a translation. RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

When I nominate hooks, I nearly always include relevant quotations—or explanations if the relevant passage isn't particularly quotable—whether or not the source is online, offline, paywalled, etc., just for accessibility to the reviewer, so I would be supportive of an expectation that nominators include supporting quotations to verify hooks cited to sources the reviewer is not able to access because of a material or language barrier.

I would, however, oppose a blanket elimination of AGF verification. I'm inclined to share AirshipJungleman29's concerns on that matter, and I think Levivich understates or under-recognizes the potentially wide fallout such a change to DYK praxis would have. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I have nearly always included the quote and the translation in offline or paywalled sources I used for my hooks. Dahn (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I often see nominators just link the source without a quote, contrary to the nomination form instructions:

You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting the hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

—Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK helper prompts for the source quote. Valereee (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

But its often not provided, and reviewers should ask for it as part of as AGF review. —Bagumba (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Levivich: Is the question here why I didn't go checking for a source online when there was no reason to assume it was free or archived? If there had been a link to in the text, I would have clicked it. That said, I don't really see what the problem was with the hook: an author arguing that someone gave probably the fist female blackface performance or the like is a definite fact, inasmuch as this is far as the process for identifying facts can take us. This whole section looks rather pedantic, and creating mountains out of molehills. Dahn (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the author of the source did not argue that someone gave probably the first blackface performance. The claim to "probably first female performer in blackface" was the product of a simple misreading of a (confusingly-written) source. (See the article's talk page for details, and recent edits to the article for the solution.) I don't like to come down hard on any fellow editor for any single mistake -- I've made many myself -- but your response concerns me. "No reason to assume it was free or archived"? What? Why would you have to assume that? If I'm reading your response correctly, you're saying you did not even try to verify the hook simply because there was no link in the reference? Is that seriously the extent of your inquiry? No link = AGF it's fine? It doesn't appear you asked the nom if the source was available, nor for a quote from the source, nor did you google the title to see if you could get it. To me, googling something is like the minimum reasonable effort to find something; it takes seconds. People misread all the time, people make mistakes all the time, that's why it's important to have two sets of eyes on anything important, like on factual claims on the main page of one of the world's busiest websites. I haven't really participated in DYK in years, but it would be both alarming and disappointing if it turns out that DYK reviewers are doing nothing to verify hooks -- as in zero attempt to check the source, which unfortunately seems the have been the case here. Is that normal? Levivich (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: I don't want to get dragged into this for too long, so here's the gist of it: 1) the original claim made against the hook was that it the phrasing was not about a definitive fact, but rather an indefinite fact (an objection I regard as frivolous); now that claim is that the source doesn't verify the hook, something which I could not verify myself, since I did not check the source; 2) why didn't I check the source? Because there was absolutely no reason to assume that a source published in 1984 is online -- the likelihood that it would've been uploaded on Internet Archive was zero, and the actual uplading there is a likely breach of copyrights. Dahn (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Clearly the likelihood that it would've been uploaded to Internet Archive was greater than zero, since it's uploaded to Internet Archive. FYI, along with many other books from the 1980s and other time periods. Also FYI, whether the Internet Archive's lending of books violates US copyright is the subject of an ongoing court appeal; they're under a court order, which they say they comply with. So for the moment, it appears they are under court supervision, complying with the court orders, and not doing anything illegal, at least pending the appeal. Levivich (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Clearly the expectation that I should explore all probabilities that are less than zero is ridiculous. Dahn (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich: Wait, I've just "checked" the IA version of the source. It doesn't break copyright, because it is subscription-walled, meaning that I cannot check it -- I can only read two pages of it. To take you up at your own game: Why didn't you bother checking if it was actually accessible or not before lecturing me on my mistakes as an editor? Dahn (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The "subscription" is free; yeah, you need to register an account to borrow the book. Levivich (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

OMG, why didn't I assume it was made available on some site, and then created an account on that site just to see if I can then verify a hook in a nom that should occupy no more than 0.0000001% percent of my time on wikipedia? Instead of assuming that the editor has access to the print source and has cited it properly? How could I possibly be this unreasonable? Dahn (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you should have had to register an account at a website if you don't want to, even if it's free. But I think you should have asked for a quote or a link. I think reviewers should spend the time it takes to verify hooks whenever possible. Levivich (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It is frankly illusory to assume the quote is worth more than the paraphrase. We may be asking editors to render quotes they copy by hand from print sources, when a hook may summarize a quote that goes over 2 or 3 pages. I know this to be the case, since I have volunteered immense quotes from print or paywalled sources, with translations, for my own DYKs, and I know how much of a hassle this is. Also, it is still unclear to me: was the claim in the hook actually not in the source, at all, or was this merely an objection to "perhaps" and "probably" not including a "definitive fact"? Dahn (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

To clarify what I mean: a hook may summarize in three words info that the author can detail over three pages, without including the specific wording that the hook uses, but outlying the same idea to anyone reading it in good faith. In that instance, while quotes are surely welcome, the very fact of having had access to the three pages in the original print counts as AGF verification. Dahn (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

At any rate, here is the source in question. Biruitorul ^Talk 07:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

At any rate, the problem is not that the source was inaccurately quoted in the hook; it was the usual problem with "first" hook sources, that they missed someone else who was firster. So the issue of AGF verification is a complete red herring. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It is very typical to see things like this: an article about Carrie Swain mentioning she may have been the first woman to perform in blackface. The people writing that article cared about Carrie Swain and wanted to write something exciting about her, so they may not have done super extensive research that would have destroyed their thesis of her being the first. Generally, an article about "women in blackface" would be a much better source to confirm "first"ness than an article about one specific woman who may or may not have been the first woman in blackface.

We see this all the time, especially with things like local newspapers where the author wishes to promote their local hero and either exaggerates the claims or omits necessary context ("first woman to perform in blackface while on a unicycle"). "First" hooks should have sources that are more independent from the article subject than what we usually expect. —Kusma (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The claim that "there was an earlier case" should be based on a reliable source specifically stating the claim about someone else. It should not be based on wikipedians doing their own original research and arguing that they know of earlier cases (WP:SYNTH? WP:TRUTH?). In that sense, the hook was entirely valid, particularly under WP:AGF. "We see this all the time, especially with things like local newspapers" -- except this was an expert source, not a local newspaper. Dahn (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong claims require strong sources. When the source is shown to be weak or unreliable because editors turned up other evidence contradicting its claims, we should treat the source as unreliable and not run its claim. We should not bury our heads in the sand and insist that they are reliable, despite our external knowledge. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There's absolutely no way in which this approach can degenerate into a college of self-appointed censors using only the sources/parts of the sources that they feel are reliable. Dahn (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

But thats what the guideline WP:CONTEXTFACTS expects:

The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another.

—Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

As compared to other sources, in some cases that are rather clearly defined there (and that do not make the claim in the source uncitable, just likely to be challenged by another source). The recommendation there is not to get stuck up on a source if another source contradicts it with another, opposite claim -- one can cite both, and the fact will become relative. It certainly doesn't meant that editors should perform OR to "factcheck" the source! Dahn (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed the Kunkel hook and I saw the "first" fact in the source. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The Q2 "... that Professor Layton and the New World of Steam is planned to be the first main entry since 2013 in the series Professor Layton, despite it being its developer's most popular media franchise?" is not really a "first" hook as we have under discussion, it's "first since 2013", a very different claim. Of course, it has "main entry" as a qualifier as well due to a 2017 game. Mostly not too excitingly worded but not untrue.

P3 "... that Pujol and Quintonil are the highest-rated restaurants in Mexico's first Michelin guide, with two Michelin stars each?" has its first being related not to the subjects but to the Michelin guide, and this claim seems to hold up with the source given and the relevant primary sourcing. CMD (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The Layton hook's verifiability is question at ERRORS, and nom says we can just pull. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• TLDR in full, but one cautious solution might be to add "claimed/said to be" before a "first" claim, taking it out of Wikipedia's voice. This would I think work for examples 5 & 6 above. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

... that the ancient Greek game polis is one of the world's oldest strategy games?

This is currently being discussed on WP:ERRORS. It's really another example of the "first" problem. Any kind of superlative (first, biggest, oldest, etc) is almost impossible to prove unless you're talking about something that comes from a finite, well-known set. I can be confident when I say that Neil Armstrong ws the first man to walk on the moon, because there's only been a small number of people who have done that and it's trivial to tell which of those was first. But the set of strategy games is open-ended, so there's no feasible way to list all such games that have ever existed and figure out which is the oldest. In this case, it's particularly embarrassing because we just ran the couter-example a few days ago. RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This is remarkably contrived. The hook is about the game being one of the oldest, not the oldest, and refers to it being oldest from among those known. It being "among the oldest" also covers the situation where it is together with other much older games (say, Sumerian), since they are not as new as the other ones. I'm not even a fan of the "first" hooks, but this is a fabricated outrage if I ever saw one. Dahn (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. SL93 (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The "known" was only added after it was complained about at WP:ERRORS. RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

With or without that word, the meaning was already clear, as is any statement about "firsts" in the distant past. I wasn't even referring to it being present/added to the hook. Dahn (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Anything can be among the oldest, you just have the put the line for "oldest" at a convenient point in the timeline for the claim. I'm coming around to supporting a ban on superlatives (highest another one I've seen at DYK), it'll catch some probably good hooks but it might bring about more hooks which tell us more about the topic. "... that ancient Greek sources refer to a game called Polis, but the rules have been mostly lost?"? There are a few more hooks I'd try, but currently unsure due to situations like the article saying both "Many aspects of the game are unknown, such as the shape of the board" but also "the pieces moved in all directions on a square board". CMD (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Support. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose such an unnecessarily wide prohibition on using phrasing that appears in reliable and independent secondary sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The point is not if "you put the word oldest etc.", but if the source does. That said, I am sure other, even better hooks can be found for all such situations, but any "ban on superlatives", particularly when they refer to phrasings that are not actually superlatives (but "seem" to be), risks creating more problems than it solves, by giving any overzealous reviewer a carte blanche to shoot down valid hooks. Dahn (talk)

Note that we are already dealing with the Q2 and P3 examples above, in which the supposed problem with the "firsts" isn't even present -- but they were cited anyway, as "bad examples". Imagine what a ban on phrasing would entail, when we're already on this level of overbearing callousness. Dahn (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I should clarify that I am not defending a personal agenda over here -- I don't recall ever submitting a "first" (or "most" or etc.) hook in my entire contribution. I am just speaking out against a trend that I see as an overreaction, and against attempts to elevate reviewers into a position of discretionary privilege, where pet peeves become written norm. Some "first" hooks are bad, some are not, and they should all be evaluated for their own merits, without prejudice. Dahn (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If this is a reply to my comment, I noted that this would be a wide net but I don't see it being harmful at all. Other hooks are possible, and I'm not sure DYK has ever faced the issue of rejecting too many hooks. CMD (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Carrie Swain

It looks like this was pulled from the main page by Theleekycauldron at WP:ERRORS under a somewhat odd complaint raised by Andrew Davidson. The hook fact that was pulled comes from one of the few historians writing on Swain in a published history book (and the most detailed research in an academic publication on Swain currently in existence). That hook fact is probably the most significant thing about her as a performer. It's what makes her encyclopedic. If we can’t state the fact making the subject of primary interest to researchers/historians, and the fact that makes them principally encyclopedic I think we have lost our way at DYK. I think it was a bad choice, particularly since it’s a fact not likely to change given the age and subject matter. Since it was pulled, it needs to be re-opened and put back into the review process so a new hook can run at a different time. That should have been done at the time the hook was pulled from the main page. 4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that hook fails verification and have made edits to the article and posted an explanation and quote on the article talk page. (cross-post from WP:ERRORS) Levivich (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

No, hooks pulled from the front page are not put back into the review process. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Why not? Why can't this article get nom'd with a different hook? There are other possible hooks for this article. Levivich (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't know, but I suspect that it comes down to the fact that if it (or other pulled hooks) do run again, they'll have been on the main page for longer than others, because there was a mistake in them. That seems an odd course. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I left a note on the talk page. I disagree that the hook fails verification, and think the source is being misread by the other reviewer; particularly when one knows the timeline of women in minstrel shows (they were barred from appearing on the minstrel stage and did not appear at all until the 1870s, and even then usually not in blackface parts). Regardless, there should have been a good faith attempt to replace this with a suitable hook from something else in the article which was pointed out by others at the ERRORS discussion. @ AirshipJungleman29 I've seen hooks in the past get returned to review so I don't agree with that assertion that it doesn't happen. Is there a written policy to that effect? 4meter4 (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

There have been various cases (especially in similar ones where the pull is questionable) in which hooks pulled from the front page are added to the front page in the middle of a DYK cycle, at around the 'same time' they were pulled, as a last hook so that the ultimate total amount of time the hook spends on the front page is not more than that of other hooks. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I had the same thought about women not appearing in minstrel shows, 4meter4, but it looks to me like Anne of Denmark legitimately was cast in the minstrel show she devised at least once. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron That is not correct. Anne of Cleaves participated in masques which was a common form of entertainment in European courts of the 16th century and has nothing to do with either the European minstrel or the American minstrel show. Also, these are two completely different and unrelated art forms with two very different styles, formats, and repertoire. The European minstrel flourished during the medieval period, with the troubadour being the best known example of the minstrel of that period. The minstrel show being referred to here in the Carrie Swain article began in the United States in the early 19th century and is considered the first original form of theatre that arose specifically from American culture in the United States and which did not come from Europe. It was exported from America to Europe and elsewhere globally through traveling American minstrel troupes and through that some non-American groups adopted its style. However, it remained predominantly an American form of entertainment, that was not widely practiced outside of the United States. Anne of Denmark was long dead by the time the minstrel show first came into existence, and could not have possibly been involved with the American minstrel show, and she was born long after the decline of the European minstrel in the 14th century. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

What's all this kerfuffle about minstrels and their shows? The hook just refers to entertainers. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 It's tangentially related. The definition and origins of blackface is somewhat debated. Some scholars define blackface as not simply the practice of darkening ones skin through the use of makeup, burnt coal, etc. but also the accompanying racist caricatures that originated within the American minstrel show of the 19th century. The minstrel show had a whole set group of racist stock characters such as the Mammy stereotype (see Category:Blackface minstrel characters). They define blackface as being invented by lower class white men in America in the early 19th century and being a concept that came specifically from the minstrel show. Others however, take a broader view and argue the practice should be dated earlier to English Renaissance theatre to plays like Shakespeare's Othello where you had a white actor having his skin darkened to portray a black character. And of course there are racist statements in Othello. However, Othello was not a stock character, and its difficult to find patterns in blackface performance in Europe of the period, as opposed to the systematically racist structure of the American minstrel show where the majority of the cast was in blackface, there were set blackface parts consistent in the minstrel show format and structure in all of the afterpieces/plays from troupe to troupe, and it was intentionally parodying and denigrating African-Americans through racist tropes. Others date blackface even earlier to the mystery plays in Europe where religious plays were staged by the church in which actors playing demons and devils who were painted black. All of this to say, its impossible to separate blackface from the minstrel show. As for women in blackface, I think the writer was specifically defining blackface as practice within the minstrel show. The minstrel show barred women from performances until the mid 1850s, when a stock white woman character was added into the mix. No women appeared in blackface roles in the minstrel show until the 1870s when Swain began performing. Women were also barred from the stage in English Renaissance theatre. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Levivich and AirshipJungleman29: if we catch it early, sometimes it goes back into circulation without a hitch. Otherwise, once a hook gets pulled, that's generally the end of its life. DYK has only so many editor-hours, and I don't think they're well-spent on articles that already have taken up a bunch of review time and then turn out to have even more holes. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I could see how a nom might feel that practice was punitive (although I'm sure nobody intends the practice to be punitive). But I also question whether re-running pulled hooks actually requires significantly more editor-hours. For example, if DYK re-ran every single pulled hook in May, that would only be 3 hooks, or 1% of the 276 hooks that ran in May; 1% is hardly a huge extra load on the pipeline. Further, aside from the hook mistakes, these 3 have already been vetted against other WP:DYKCRIT; basically all of WP:DYKCRIT#Articles is done, so a re-review, of just the new hook, would take less work than the first review or any average DYK review, meaning re-running all the May hooks would be less than 1% extra work. So I don't think conserving 1% or less editor hours is worth the cost in terms of discouraging noms, or the cost of not promoting (for the full duration anyway) articles on the main page that otherwise should be promoted, or the cost of not presenting the readers with a good DYK hook (on the second run). I would allow pulled hooks to be re-run, because they are so few and far between. Levivich (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Note to self: write an iffy hook with crap sourcing. Cross fingers that it doesn't get much scrutiny before hitting main page. At 400 hours, log into OutragedReader account to complain loudly at ERRORS about the idiots at DYK having done it again. At ~ 1200 hours, start insisting the hook be pulled. Next morning log back into main account. Apologize profusely; the source was in another language and the machine translation was at fault. Come up with an alternate, and this time brilliant, hook to run again. Cha-ching, probably three dozen editors have worked on the article because of the brouhaha, it appeared for a cumulative 40 hours on the MP, and the hook ends at the top of the month's stats. Win-win-win! :D Valereee (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"I don't always WP:GAME the system, but when I do, it's 3D chess." 😂 Levivich (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If we can’t state the fact making the subject of primary interest to researchers/historians, and the fact that makes them principally encyclopedic I think we have lost our way at DYK. I think it was a bad choice, particularly since it’s a fact not likely to change given the age and subject matter. I'm inclined to share OP's sense of things here. This matter feels kind of like straining at gnats (the couching of "possibly the first" not being good enough for DYK) while swallowing camels (perpetuating systemic misogyny in Wikipedia's biographical coverage of humans by reducing the visibility of biographical articles about women), howsoever inadvertently. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I do think it's bad when we have to reduce the visibility of women at DYK. But, to paraphrase Tamzin at a recent Signpost article, this problem can be avoided by not printing falsifiable statements about women. Someone can't be "possibly the first" if they weren't the first, and I don't really see a way around that. Now, would it be maybe more fair to have found a different hook in the article or from the nomination? Maybe. But the priority is trying not to get things wrong, and if we force admins to waste time coming up with a viable alternative on an article that has at least one problem, we're going to make more mistakes and get less done. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

if we force admins to waste time: While I suspect this in unintentional on your part, it seems unfortunate to frame 'helping improve the visibility of women's history content on Wikipedia by making a good faith effort to replace the hook' as 'wasting time', as if reducing systemic bias on Wikipedia isn't a worthy use of time and should only be done when absolutely convenient. Editors are, with narrow exceptions, volunteers, yes. Still, within that we make choices about to what we commit this voluntary time. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That seems a very uncharitable reading of theleekycauldron's comment. No alternative hook was available, and they would not be able to propose and approve a new hook on their own. No other hook was presented at ERRORS, which is open to all volunteers, even non-admins. CMD (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A few months ago one of Piotrus hooks was pulled and we let it get a second life for the hours it missed - I think it was added on as a ninth?. I think if we can fashion a new hook it may be best to let this run again. 4m4 is a conscientious contributor here and it was an honest mistake missed by a reviewer, a promotor and an administrator. Lightburst (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments that this should not re-run. Sure, it wasn't an intentional error, but it would set a strange precedent to say you can get more than a full day at DYK by introducing hooks that don't comply with the rules...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The notion that someone would intentionally nom a bad hook in the hopes of getting the article more than a full day on DYK is, in my view, so preposterous that it's not something Wikipedia need worry about. Levivich (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• What was the issue here, at long last? That the source didn't state that she was probably the first, or that "probably the first" is not viewed as a "fact"? Dahn (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  That the source didn't state that she was possibly the first. Levivich (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

What did it say? Because the nominator seems to be disputing your reading. Dahn (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

To clarify what I mean: a hook may summarize in three words info that the author can detail over three pages, without including the specific wording that the hook uses, but outlying the same idea to anyone reading it in good faith. Dahn (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Even clearer: does Shirley Staples, the expert authority on blackface, say something to the tune of Swain being "possibly the first" etc.? Or does she say something else? Because, if she does say that Swain was "possibly the first", and if wikipedian reviewers are "sure" that they know of earlier cases, if the hook was pulled on these grounds, then the problem is not one of hook and source, but on misinterpreting wikipedia guidelines at a reviewer level. Dahn (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

All of these questions about what the source says can be answered by reading the source, which is available for free online, or at least by reading the quote from the source on the article talk page. Again, in short, the source doesn't say she was the first, or possibly the first, female black face performer. It says one newspaper wrote that she was among the first. You can read the quote on the article talk page for yourself. Levivich (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes well I have since read the excerpt provided by Biruitorul above, and not only is this a claim advanced by the author (not a newspaper cited by the author, as you claim), but, in at least one reading of the claim, it also verifies the hook, as per the nominator. Others here may be right that the phrasing is not sufficiently clear, but that is certainly something else than the theatrical lamentations about how the hook is not verified etc. Dahn (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what words in that excerpt convey to you the idea of "possibly first female blackface performer" (as opposed to "among the first"), but I guess that means that even if you had attempted to verify the hook, you would have deemed it verified. Nevertheless, I think it'd be best if reviewers verified hooks. Levivich (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The "may have been the first" part, and what comes after, clearly rendering the author's opinion. Dahn (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

"may have been the first woman to attempt the acrobatic comedy typical of male blackface work" in absolutely no way means "may have been the first woman to perform in blackface," because "acrobatic comedy typical of male blackface work" is not the same thing as "blackface." Similarly, as to what comes after, "among the first women to put burnt cork on her face" does not mean "possibly the first woman to put burnt cork on her face." Levivich (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The phrasing preferred by the author is enough to make me, and I suppose the nominator as well, unsure about the meaning. If your interpretation is correct, neither me (even with full access to the book) nor the nominator should be expected to have replicated it. Dahn (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment In talking over the Staples source at the talk page on Swain, we came to the meeting of minds that the source language is not clear on the hook fact because of the way the writer made so many side remarks around the hook fact. It was confusing, and it’s better to err on the side of caution. Basically it came down to whether she was referring to blackface in general or a specific type of blackface role in which Swain was possibly the first, and it wasn’t clear which. So for that reason I agree that the hook fact was rightly pulled. We agreed that source could at least rightly say that she was among the first group of women to wear blackface. That could be be the modified version of the hook. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

That meeting of minds about ambiguities in the source is entirely different from an allegation that the nominator has produced WP:OR in creating the hook. Dahn (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the original hook overlooked some qualifiers in the source, i.e. Carrie Swain may have been the first woman to attempt the acrobatic comedy typical of male blackface work The hook saying that she was "was possibly the first woman" is similar to "some people say" from MOS:WEASEL, when the source only said that the claim was from one newspaper: One newspaper described Carrie Swain as among the first women to put burnt cork on her face —Bagumba (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Inasmuch as the author believes that blackface acts required more than putting soot on one's face (as in: an acrobatic performance as well), and if this all that can be read in the text, Swain is, under that definition, "perhaps the first". If this is indeed the case, then anyone wanting to challenge that claim would have to come up with another author, using another definition of blackface, specifically saying that "the first blackface act by a woman was/may have been this" -- and not simply "look, I read it in another book that this lady living before also wore blackface". I wouldn't have imagined this would be under any sort of debate. As for the newspaper: that fragment clearly refers to another primacy there -- the painting method (not the act), and it is that claim that is attributed to "one newspaper". I feel that a lot of time is being wasted here to distract from the fact that, while the hook may have been questionable (under clearly AGF terms), its pulling out was justified by the reviewers' own OR, something which should absolutely not be allowed to proliferate. Dahn (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, nothing in WP:OR forbids the use of editorial discretion to omit a questionable claim, even if an otherwise-reliable source makes it. Nor does it forbid discussing on talkpages or project-pages whether or not a seemingly reliably-sourced claim is actually true: indeed it specifically says that This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards!

Secondly: Inasmuch as the author believes that blackface acts required more than putting soot on one's face (as in: an acrobatic performance as well), and if this all that can be read in the text, Swain is, under that definition, "perhaps the first". Is this just counterfactual speculation about how the source might have meant something completely different to what the parts Levivich quoted say, or can you actually quote where the source says that "acrobatic performance" is a "required" part of a blackface act? Because the natural reading of "typical" would be suggest that the author in fact thinks it's not required! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

It is a possible reading of the text, which the nominator made in good faith. It is perhaps correct to say that other parts of the source make the reading questionable, and therefore make the hook replacable; however, what apparently was done here is an interposing of reviewers between the claim, taken at face value by them as well, and what should go on mainpage, based on their OR. If the reviewers have been able to dig up other acts that precede Swain, they should also be able to come up with a source saying "another woman was probably the first to do blackface" (whatever the definition of the act); otherwise, it is them performing an editorial voice on wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully everything reported to WP:ERRORS was a good-faith mistake. That doesn't oblige us to keep it on the front page once there is reason to think it is a mistake.

If the reviewers have been able to dig up other acts that precede Swain, they should also be able to come up with a source saying "another woman was probably the first to do blackface" This is an absurd position to take. You cannot seriously be suggesting, for example, that if someone found a source saying "In 1836, Jane Doe performed a blackface act" you would consider it original research to conclude that as 1836 is before 1878 a blackface performance in 1878 cannot have been the first. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I am actuallysuggesting that, because: a) if the source says that, it should presumably also say something about the significance of that act, thereby satisfying the criterion; b) you may think it is not a big deal to do it in this case, but consider what precedent is created -- when users can argue with published sources by freely interpreting other sources. Dahn (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Also note that WP:WEASEL is an editorial guideline for editors, on wikipedia, not usable for invalidating critical judgements by the authors and the sources -- which we may use and render verbatim, or in paraphrase, without this being a problem. Dahn (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"was possibly the first woman" was a poor paraphrase of what the source said—namely, that one newspaper made the claim. —Bagumba (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

No. It was a paraphrase, poor or not, of Swain being arguably the first woman to perform the "acrobatic" act that the author (not "a newspaper") apparently considered the actual definition of blackface. Dahn (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how "the acrobatic comedy typical of male blackface work" can mean that acrobatic comedy is the actual definition of, or even part of, blackface. (Similarly, I don't see how "among the first" can mean "possibly the first," to me it means not the first.) Although I'm starting to understand how this passage might be confusing to someone who isn't familiar with what blackface is (blackface is not acrobatics or comedy, even if acrobatic comedy was typical of male blackface performers at a certain place and time in history). Levivich (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The point is what blackface is to the (expert) source. Again: pull the hook because it is (arguably) ambiguous, but not because reviwers "know better". Dahn (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

The point is what blackface is to the (expert) source. Despite your repeated assertions the expert source does not say that an "acrobatic act" is part of the "actual definition of blackface". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I get it that this your reading. I get it that another reading may be erroneous. The issue of it "not really saying what it was taken to mean" is legitimate, and may validate the hook being pulled (though not other proclamations about how other reviewers are necessarily wrong); but if did say or had said that, we do not argue with the expert source by substituting ourselves as experts. That is the main point I am making here, and which keeps getting danced around. Dahn (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Southern chivalry

@Orchastrattor, Generalissima, and AirshipJungleman29:

• The following sentence needs a citation: "The Ku Klux Klan would also make frequent use of terms like "Knight" or "Empire" in their internal vocabulary and hierarchy." Z1720 (talk) 23:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Z1720 I added a citation for it. Searching the citation with CTRL+F reveals their usages of "Knight" and "Empire". SL93 (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Concern is resolved. Z1720 (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hae Nang Maew

@Willuconquer, Munfarid1, and SL93:

The last part of this sentence is uncited, and is grammatically incorrect: "Villages in Tamnak Tham Subdistrict, Nong Muang Khai District, Phrae Province make fake cats from bamboo frame and coconut husks named "Nong Saifon".[9] Hello Kitty[10] or Doraemon[11] dummies have also been used as replacements." This should be fixed before it goes on the Main Page.

I am also concerned about close paraphrasing with [4], can someone take a look and make edits to fix this? Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Z1720 I fixed the close paraphrasing. The sources were after Hello Kitty and Doraemon so I moved them. I reworded the sentence. SL93 (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Concerns have been addressed and resolved. Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list of older nominations was archived about twelve hours ago, so I've created a new list of 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 23. We have a total of 231 nominations, of which 86 have been approved, a gap of 145 nominations that has increased by 34 over the past 10 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than one month old

• April 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Cora Babbitt Johnson
• April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/DarkZero Esports
• April 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Meat diaper (two articles)
• May 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Bar Kokhba refuge caves
• May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Adnan al-Bursh
• May 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Homeworld: Vast Reaches
• May 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Toro de fuego
• May 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Asia
• May 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Florida Hospital Oceanside
• May 9: Template:Did you know nominations/AdventHealth North Pinellas
• May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Han Bong-zin
• May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Party of Revolutionary Communism (five articles)
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Guardian Cap
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Ceasefire proposal for Israel–Hamas war (May 5)
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Grace A. Johnson
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Interstate 85 in North Carolina
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Vinland Saga (TV series)

Other nominations

• May 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Saleh Manaf (reviewed 12 June 2024,  — Chris Woodrich (talk))
• May 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Baubau
• May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/South by South Lawn
• May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Space Babies
• May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Russell Cole
• May 18: Template:Did you know nominations/East Wake Academy
• May 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Hock burns
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Praetorium of Constantinople
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Jump (Tyla, Gunna and Skillibeng song)
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Flyover (book)
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Hamad City
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Pascal Maynard
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/LS Power
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Jacob Green Jackson
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Golden Girls (play)
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Voluntary war
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Gary Orfield
• May 22: Template:Did you know nominations/I'm really excited about the opening of Tuen Ma line
• May 22: Template:Did you know nominations/The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs
• May 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Suicidal Tour
• May 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Thriller (Fall Out Boy song)

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) 02:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Alexandru Talex

Nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Alexandru Talex

• ... that Alexandru Talex was described as "the gentlest" member of a Romanian far-right organization?

Minor point perhaps, but the bolded article does not say that the Crusade of Romanianism is a far-right organisation. In the body, on first mention, it doesn't really say about it other than that it was "founded by Stelescu in opposition to the Guard". In the lead, it's described as a "proletarian-fascist group", but that's not directly cited anywhere and while I suppose that implies far-right, it would be good to state and cite explicitly if it's in the hook. @Dahn, Gerda Arendt, and AirshipJungleman29: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

Note: Earwig is down right now, all of these are still pending the copyvio checks. RoySmith (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Durham (1006)

@AirshipJungleman29, CSJJ104, and WatkynBassett: I'm confused by the "seems to have" part. Was he alive or not? RoySmith (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

That is the phrasing used in the sources, which was copied into the nomination template if you wish to check. I suspect that, as with many things in that time period, it is impossible to say for certain. If it is an issue for appearing on the main page, then I would be happy for one of the alt hooks to be used instead. --CSJJ104 (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I was confused at first as well, but this is exactly how the source frames it. All the best! WatkynBassett (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I like ALT2 the best. SL93 (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Izzy Scane

@AirshipJungleman29, BeanieFan11, and Hameltion: The article talks about goals, but the hook says points. Are those the same thing? Any reason we can't use the same word in both places? RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• I just edit-conflicted to say the same thing - my comment read "What does "led the country on points" mean? Which country (the hook does not identify one)? What points? This is jargon." Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thanks for catching – my error. Hook should say goals (points are goals + assists). Could replace the first use of "the country" with "NCAA Division I" or "American college lacrosse" if needs elaboration. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Trust Machine: The Story of Blockchain

@AirshipJungleman29, TheSandDoctor, and SL93: The article says just "refugees" which got turned into "stateless refugees" in the hook. It's not clear those are the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It appears to just be "refugees". Even though I'm saying that now, I cannot read The New York Times source because it wants me to subscribe. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Guest link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/movies/trust-machine-review.html?unlocked_article_code=1.zE0.WJLP.k5QOsGhlogu6&smid=url-share RoySmith (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I see "We learn how, thanks to blockchain, neighbors in Brooklyn can trade solar electricity; how the technology might provide records for stateless refugees; and how it offers a way for fans to buy equity in an artist they like, without the middle men who come with sales on the internet." I'm not sure if "records" are the same as "identities". I'm hoping that the nominator knows. SL93 (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith, SL93, and AirshipJungleman29: NYT says they're stateless, Hollywood Reporter says the IDs are "official identities independent of the failed nations they’re fleeing". TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Bernard Mellor

@AirshipJungleman29, Generalissima, and Mystery Merrivale: The article says Mellor worked in a unit which was headed by Fleming. To me, saying "alongside" implies they were the same rank. This sounds more like "worked for" rather than "worked alongside". RoySmith (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The Last of Us season 1

@AirshipJungleman29, Rhain, and OlifanofmrTennant: Come on, folks. The article says "The New Yorker claimed the series budget exceeded..." which got turned into a statement of fact in wiki-voice in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:DYKHOOK, if the source is not willing to the say the fact in its own voice, the hook should attribute back to the original source as well. Since The New Yorker is willing to say the fact in its own voice, I figured the hook could safely do the same. The article attributed the information for consistency with surrounding sentences, but it was unnecessary so I've rephrased it anyway. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

To my ear, when I hear "X claimed", there's an implicit measure of doubt about the veracity of the claim, especially when it's paired with "sources suggested" as it was in the article. If you trust the source to be correct, then no need to equivocate with "claimed" and an attribution in the article. And if you feel the need to provide the attribution in the article, then it needs to be in the hook as well. RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Prep 6

User:Bernanke's Crossbow, User:evrik, User:SL93 ... that making manganese nitride alloys requires a sponge? I don't think that claim is in the article, not stated that broadly. It says " A sponge is essential to Mn₂N synthesis:", but the article also says there are other formulas besides Mn₂N that can also be called manganese nitride. And the next paragraph appears to describe an alternate way to make manganese nitride that doesn't mention a sponge. Art LaPella (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• ... that making manganese nitride alloys sometimes requires a sponge? --evrik ^(talk) 06:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Possibly one of the wildest weasels in Wikipedia history

Here's a superlative sighting from yesterday's main page:

• ... that the ZX Spectrum is one of the best-selling British computers of all time?

This uses the popular weasel "one of the best..." which takes a superlative and weakens it with "one of" to make it fit any also-ran. The actual facts seem to be that the Spectrum was certainly outsold by the Amstrad PCW and the Raspberry Pi. And nowadays, general purpose computing devices such as the iPhone sell more every year in the UK than the ZX Spectrum sold in its entire history.

A good way to test these weasels is to see if they are more definite when the word NOT is attached. For example:

• ... that the ZX Spectrum is NOT the best-selling British computer of all time?
• ... that Carrie Swain was NOT the first woman entertainer to perform in blackface?
• ... that the ancient Greek game polis is NOT the world's oldest strategy game?

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)