Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

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

Special occasion idea: Olympics

[edit]

Discussion on Olympics

[edit]

Remembering that we did themed sets for the FIFA Women's World Cup last year, I thought of an idea for a themed set of hooks: the 2024 Summer Olympics take place from July 26 to August 11 this year (in a little over five weeks) and I think there will probably be a decent number of Olympics-related hooks; I at least plan to write a good number of them. I was thinking we might be able to do something like one Olympics hook per day for the duration of the event, similar to how we did for the FIFA World Cup. Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I coordinated something like that for the last Olympics and had been planning on offering that service once more. Schwede66 21:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool idea! Lightburst (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also like this idea! I know of a couple topics that could provide Olympics-related hooks; I'll look into them. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've dug out the item that shows how we went about it last time: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 180#Olympic hooks. Schwede66 22:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like work @Schwede66:! Hopefully we can identify a few. Bruxton (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was somewhat involved! Schwede66 01:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some related considerations:

  • Moved to the Olympics: Special occasion holding area.
  • Done – added to the table below.
  • Done – added to the table below.

All the Olympic-related hooks that I could spot are in the table below. Schwede66 03:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Toby Olubi hook is in prep 3. Feel free to pull if it's of any use to you.--Launchballer 06:58, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: I don't know if you saw this, but my Toby Olubi hook is Olympics-related, and could also run near the start of the Olympics.--Launchballer 11:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn’t see that. I’ll have a look. Schwede66 13:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled it out of Q3 and plugged the hole that I've made. Schwede66 23:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, no, that was not a copy-paste error. It's a note for the promoting admin that the admin checks had previously been done. Schwede66 00:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a good idea. If I were to promote that set, I'd run all the checks anyway. Partly because I have a work flow, and partly because if I'm going to publish something over my signature, I'm going to satisfy myself that it's correct. So all you've done by adding this note would be to create additional work for me because I'd have to figure out what's going on and then edit the hook to get rid of the note. RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this should be a subsection within the existing special occasion section, not a separate section. I have adjusted accordingly. I don't understand why the Solomon Islands hook—not shown above but in the section itself—is listed for the day before the Olympics starts; it looks like one that could run any time during the actual Olympics, which the article on the games lists as July 26 through August 11. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ll add it to the table. Things got somewhat crowded last time, hence my thinking of running everything that’s not 2024 Olympics as a warmup beforehand. Schwede66 19:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset, I can see where the confusion arises. As explained above, the Olympic competitions start on 24 July, two days prior to the opening ceremony. Schwede66 04:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Schwede66, in that case the lede of the article is wrong. It should be made clear there that while the opening ceremony is on 26 July, the competition itself begins on 24 July. No objection to the Solomon Islands hook running on 25 July if the Olympics themselves have already begun by then; I see no reason why it can't run during the Olympics themselves on a date where there isn't anything more appropriate. I don't think it should be a "warmup" hook, however. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've put the line "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" into action and amended the lead of the 2024 Summer Olympics to spell out that some competitions start on 24 July. I'm easy about running "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics" during the Olympics if there's room if that's what others prefer; I note we have three four five of those hooks. Schwede66 03:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's not too crowded this time (yet). I'll move the "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics" hooks to show during the Olympics. Schwede66 05:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I shall eat my words. It's getting rather crowded; should have started running the warmup hooks earlier including the "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics". I don't think that we'll have a chance of limiting the sets to two Olympic hooks even if we shuffle things around; it seems we'll have more than two on average for the duration of the Olympics. Schwede66 00:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if we really should have Template:Did you know nominations/Breaking Through (2022 film) run as part of the Olympics run since it deals with the Winter Olympics rather than the Summer Olympics. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do others share that concern? I don't think that Summer versus Winter Olympics is a big stretch. I note that there are four Winter Olympics hooks in the table above. The other thought is that any hook will have to run at some point, so why not have Olympic-adjacent hooks run just before the Summer Olympics? Schwede66 10:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here that Zhang Ziyu has been nominated. Whilst she does play basketball and China is competing in that discipline at in Paris, she's not (yet?) a member of the China women's national basketball team. Hence, we could use this as another warmup hook. Schwede66 05:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please review Draft:Adam Maraana? The review could double as a QPQ, as the intention of the IP editor is to have this run as part of the Olympics. Schwede66 06:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk, is there a good reason why you pulled the Solomon Islands at the 2020 Summer Olympics hook out of the special occasion holding area (SOHA) and put it into prep 4? Because if there isn't a good reason, I'd like to see this reverted. Schwede66 00:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it was ever in the special occasion holding area. But I have no objection if you’d like to place it there. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 01:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Olympic hooks need a bit more attention from reviewers, or nominators are dragging the chain with QPQs. For example, Prep 1 is already filled but there's still one hook that awaits its QPQ. Prep 2 is filling up but a review for this nomination hasn't even been started yet. I'd be happy to do some shuffling but there's nothing really to shuffle this with; further down, the hooks are all timed for particular occasions. Shifting items back into the Olympics proper is also tricky as almost all days have two or three items already. I'd most appreciate if those who can stand reviewing sports articles can give this some attention. Schwede66 09:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, the only Olympic hook in prep 1 is my Toby Olubi hook, for which the supplied QPQ (Claude Hamilton Verity) was also a double nom?--Launchballer 13:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are all good, Launchballer. What isn't good is the Zhang Ziyu nomination. I'm not sure why the reviewer isn't signing off on it. Could someone else please check that the remaining issue ("sources vary") has been dealt with to satisfaction? This should go into Prep 1, and I've just made a hole for it (the prep set was already full). Schwede66 21:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: Ticked off whenever.--Launchballer 10:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Thanks, Launchballer. I've once more made a hole in Prep1 for Template:Did you know nominations/Zhang Ziyu to be promoted to; can't do it myself as I was involved in coming up with ALT1. Would appreciate if somebody could do the honours and promote this. Schwede66 18:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading that correctly, your only contribution was to add in 'at least', which was BeanieFan's suggestion anyway, and to swap cm and inches, which adds no extra information. I wouldn't say you was involved.--Launchballer 21:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe I wasn't – I'm just trying to make sure to not even give the impression of INVOLVED. Either way, Bruxton has filled that gap once more. Schwede66 22:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have queried, at Zhang Ziyu's nomination, why an article on an athlete who is not participating and has not participated in an Olympics is part of this "drive" and needs to run on 24 July. Looking at this comment, it seems that the original expectation was for very few hooks to come in and lots of supplementary hooks to have to be used, but now we're overflowing with hooks! From the table below, it seems that some days are now scheduled to have three Olympics hooks run, which is over the maximum of two per set. Why can't some of them be moved to run earlier? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be keen to obstruct that Zhang Ziyu not be promoted to Prep1, therefore practically pushing it into later sets. How does that align with your desire to bring other Olympic-related hooks forward? Isn't that a contradiction? Schwede66 22:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zhang Ziyu is not Olympics-related, along with many other sports nominations which won't be run until after the Olympics are over because of WP:DYKVAR (1, 2, 3 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). I have also noticed and tagged new Olympics-related nominations which aren't in the table yet, such as Template:Did you know nominations/Lê Đức Phát, and more will surely appear shortly. It seems very foolish to prioritise including Zhang Ziyu, who will not compete at the Olympics, when this drive has nominations ready to be prepped on people who actually are competing! I can bet that by the end of this, we will be looking at an entire set of hooks for the final day. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Today's main page was significantly unbalanced and I've addressed that by removing one OTD hook and adding a tenth DYK hook, for which I chose Zhang Ziyu. I've issued the credits manually; I did all this some 15 minutes after midnight UTC. Schwede66 01:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a summary of how many hooks we've got, and when they are scheduled to run:

Suggested date Q / Prep Hooks 18 Jul Hooks 19 Jul Hooks 21 Jul
21-Jul Queue5 2 2 2
22-Jul Prep6 2 2 2
23-Jul Prep7 2 2 2
24-Jul Prep1 2 2 2
25-Jul Prep2 2 2 2
26-Jul Prep3 2 2 3
27-Jul Prep4 2 2 2
28-Jul Prep5 3 3 3
29-Jul Prep6 2 4 3
30-Jul Prep7 3 3 5
31-Jul Prep1 3 3 2
1-Aug Prep2 2 2 3
2-Aug Prep3 2 2 2
3-Aug Prep4 2 3 2
4-Aug Prep5 1 2 2
5-Aug Prep6 2 2 1
6-Aug Prep7 2 2 1
7-Aug Prep1 2 2 1
8-Aug Prep2 1 1 1
9-Aug Prep3 1 1 2
10-Aug Prep4 3 3 3

As can be seen:

  • There are three days when we have three hooks.
  • Two of those three-a-day sets occur when all prior sets have two hooks, i.e. there is nothing we can do about it (other than delaying for the third hook to run until after the scheduled day).
  • The third occasion of a three-a-day set is on 10 August, and there are currently three days (4, 8, and 9 Aug) when one of those hooks could run early.
  • Given how it's going, I would expect that we get more nominations, and those one-a-day sets may get busier.

Therefore, we have to agree whether we would be happy with three Olympic-related hooks per set. Delaying Olympic-related hooks that are already approved is definitely not helping. Schwede66 22:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, and having thought about it overnight, I would be happy with three Olympic hooks so long as they are adequately separated, so long as they are all Olympic-related. I think two Olympic hooks and a non-Olympic sports hook is a tougher ask. The Zhang Ziyu nomination is less than two weeks old, I don't think there's any danger of it timing out. Happy to hear alternative perspectives on this.--Launchballer 11:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, Lorrane Oliveira was for Prep6, not Prep5. Schwede66 00:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schwede66 It was under the special occasion list with a date of July 28 which is prep 5. SL93 (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. Prep5 is right. I had recorded it wrongly in my table ... Schwede66 01:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have four hooks for 29 July / Prep6; this is the next prep set that will become available. That sounds too many, however, only one of those hooks is currently at SOHA. One hook, a swimmer starting for Israel, hasn't had the review started yet. There may well be a reluctance to "touch" anything Israel, so this might not make it. The two other hooks are both awaiting BeanieFan11 to provide a QPQ. Thus, at this point in time, we only have one viable hook from four candidates. When Prep6 becomes available, I'll thus bring one of the "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics" hooks forward so that we've at least got two hooks to go. Schwede66 20:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW if you need logistical support, I'm lurking. Kingsif (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of the four hooks for 29 July, one of them is Suriname at the 1960 Summer Olympics, which can run on any day. I think that one should run on a different day.--Launchballer 21:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but it's currently the only hook that's ready. As it's a "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics" hook, it's not a good idea to bring another one of this type forward into that set, though. If the three hooks aren't ready, we can always run Template:Did you know nominations/Zhang Ziyu as the second hook if someone wanted to sign that off. Schwede66 23:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, one other from that date has been marked ready (Victor Alvares de Oliveira). BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
July 30 will have two "first" hooks (Alyssa Mendoza is in prep 7, and Andy Barat is in SOHA). Do we really want two such hooks in the same prep, even if they are fully verified? SL93 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, SL93. The bigger concern that I have is that we have way too many Olympic hooks for 30 July. Here's the two hooks in question:
Shall we combine those into one hook? Two options, with ALT1a less EGGy:
What do you all think? Schwede66 00:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea. SL93 (talk) 02:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to do that, we'd get the nominations for 30 July from five to four. As I suggested the combined hook, I'd feel more comfortable if someone else copied it into Prep7.
Four Olympic hooks is still one too many. We have two nominations for triathlon (Shachar Sagiv and Matthew Wright) but I just cannot think of a good double hook for them. The two hooks that are signed off are those that we can combine into one. If the other three hooks all get signed off in time, I suggest we need to cull one of them. I suggest that be the hook for Matthew Wright as it was nominated significantly later than the one for Sagiv (20 July and 11 June, respectively). Just putting this out here for transparency; whilst I did not write the Sagiv article (an IP did), I did nominate it. Schwede66 02:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging nominator of both the proposed double hook and Matthew Wright (triathlete). BeanieFan11. SL93 (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with merging the two hooks (Mendoza / Barat). I could withdraw Wright if necessary. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have consensus for ALT1 or ALT1a. Could somebody who is uninvolved please do the honours and edit the Mendoza hook in Prep7 and add Barat to the mix? Schwede66 06:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BeanieFan11, as yet, nobody has started reviewing Shachar Sagiv's article. Sit tight; Wright might still make it. Schwede66 06:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I promoted it. I am slightly involved, but I boldly acted on it because it doesn't seem worthwhile to wait because it might mess up other prep builders who haven't read this far into the discussion. SL93 (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that, SL93. Much appreciated. I've seen that you have since filled the last few spots in Prep 6. Did you see that the Suriname hook is still in the SOHA for that set? Schwede66 23:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Schwede66 I was planning on moving one for it once a hook is approved for it. It doesn't look like there is an agreement. SL93 (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I didn't read that as there not being consensus; I thought we were just fine-tuning. I wonder whether Arcahaeoindris as reviewer is equally unaware / mis-reading the situation that it requires a further sign off? Schwede66 23:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can promote one of the hooks now if you can point it out. I can't tell which hook version it would be. SL93 (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sachar Sagiv (nom) has just been signed off. It was scheduled as the third Olympic hook for Prep 7 if someone would like to promote that before this gets promoted to become Q7 (it's next up). Kingsif? Schwede66 03:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting here that I merged the Sagiv and Matthew Wright hooks into one - my merged hook used nothing but information from two approved hooks, so this should be okay.--Launchballer 01:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Schwede66 Should Philippines at the 1924 Summer Olympics be on August 2 (like in this list) or August 3 (like in SOHA). SL93 (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a space in prep for it. It's nearly five in the morning where I am so I'm probably too groggy to promote it properly, but that should tell a prep-to-queuer to back off for a few hours. (Does nominating on the IP's behalf make you involved? I don't think it does.)--Launchballer 03:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can shuffle the "foo at the yyyy…" hooks around at will, SL93. It doesn’t matter when they run. Looking at the table, there are currently two hooks for each of those days, so I would go with that. Schwede66 22:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the prep 6 hook, that prep is now in queue 6. SL93 (talk) 21:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the list here wrt prep/queue 6. If I was to make a personal call on the Philippines article, though I imagine the disparity doesn't need immediately addressing because prep builders won't get there for a few days, I would say August 2 as otherwise (per this list) those two days would be unbalanced in number of Olympics hooks. Kingsif (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 1924 Philippines article seems a shoo-in for a non-that hook, like last month's most successful hook. Maybe something like "why the Philippines held two flags at the opening ceremony of the 1924 Summer Olympics?"--Launchballer 13:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would we rather that, or the Liechtenstein hook to be "... why Liechtenstein decided to use a different flag in the opening ceremony of the 1936 Summer Olympics?" (would also mean more difference between it and the previous Haiti one) If neither of Philippines/Liechtenstein is set to run soon, we could workshop it. Kingsif (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not both? These can run on any day, so just keep them well apart.--Launchballer 01:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

[edit]

The Paris Olympics will be kicking off on 26 July 2024 with an opening ceremony in the early evening. Event competitions start two days earlier on 24 July with association football and rugby sevens. The closing ceremony (article yet to be written!) is on 11 August. That's 19 days of Olympics and as suggested above, we could run Solomon Islands at the 2020 Summer Olympics as a warmup just before that period.

There'll be some special date requests coming in and to avoid filling up individual hook sets with too much sport, I suggest we co-ordinate what will run when to spread things out in a logical fashion. I suspect that we'll stay in a 24-hour cycle for the duration of the event but if that changes, we can accommodate that as well. Time zone–wise, Paris is currently at UTC+02:00 (Central European Summer Time or CEST), hence there are no mental gymnastics necessary as long as we stay in the 24-hour cycle. Comments welcome. Helpers are welcome and essential; I certainly don't want to do this all by myself as this was quite a bit of work some three years ago for the Tokyo Olympics. And with regards to my own special interests, I shall tell you that the Kiwi rowers are in good shape; I can hear the medals clinking already! Schwede66 01:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

[edit]

Just a heads up that I've got a week of little available time coming up:

  • I may be out for most of tomorrow (Wed, 24 Jul)
  • I will be out for all of Thu, 25 Jul
  • I will have limited availability on Fri, 26 Jul
  • I will be out for all of Sat and Sun, 27&28 Jul
  • I will have limited availability on Mon, 29 Jul
  • I will be out for all of Tue, 30 Jul
  • I may be out for most of Wed, 31 Jul

After that, things should be back to normal. Hence, it might be a good idea if others take the lead. Kingsif, you were asking whether there's something where you could help – here's your chance. Last time, Joseph2302 did a lot of good work – would you be interested to step up?

What needs doing? Here's a hopefully complete list:

  • Respond to new nominations if they come up and slot them into a logical spot in the table below, but it would also be fine to say "thanks, but no thanks – it's too late in the process". That's up to you.
  • On Template talk:Did you know/Approved, move items from their spot to the SOHA
  • Once a day, I update the status items in the table below:
  • items will go from prep to queue, or will have been published on the main page
  • items will go from "Review not yet started" to "under review" to "At SOHA"
  • in the column "prep set", add new preps as they become available
  • Keep an eye on nominations that move close to prep sets becoming available and encourage those who are involved in getting on with it. For example, there are about half a dozen QPQs outstanding and nudging usually results in action.
  • Shuffle things around in prep if needed; encourage promoters to put things into prep if you don't want to do it yourself.
  • Ping admins if things need to move around in queue.

If I think of anything else, I'll add that to the list. It's reasonably late in the process (the first competitions will start tomorrow) and all the structural issues are sorted. It just needs some low-level maintenance at this point. Schwede66 23:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a lot of work, I'm impressed you've handled it all yourself so far. I can probably manage a daily check of new nominations and promoting hooks to newly available preps. Kingsif (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kingsif. Yes, that is a lot, but it's be much less work now than it was in the beginning. Anyway, if you haven't got time for everything, I suggest the following two priority items:
  1. Place approved noms into the special occasion holding area
  2. Update the table so that there's an overview for prep builders, yourself, etc
I'd say that new nominations is the least important part. As it stands, we have enough. To accommodate more, you'd have to look around which hooks can be merged, which requires thinking time, much reading, discussion, i.e. a lot of work is involved in that. Schwede66 23:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get my around the table but got it. Kingsif (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic hooks table

[edit]

On the "Approved" page, there is now a heading Olympics: Special occasion holding area.

Hooks that have been published, not including current MP
Article (nom) Requested Suggested date Prep set Notes (all times in CEST) Status
2024 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres hurdles (nom) none 21 July Queue 5 This hook names Femke Bol who is due to compete in Paris. We have a second (double-)hook that names here, hence I suggest we run this as the first warm-up hook to put as much time between the two appearance of Bol as possible. This would lend itself as the picture hook as we've got a good photo. published
Breaking Through (2022 film) (nom) none 21 July Queue5 The film deals with real events around the 2002 Winter Olympics, hence it's an ideal warmup hook. published
Zali Steggall (nom) none 22 July Queue 6 1998 Olympic skier published
Ri Jong-yol (nom) none 22 July Queue6 One of the warm-up hooks; can run on any date before the Olympics start published
Yang Jingru (speed skater) (nom) none 23 July Queue 7 One of the warm-up hooks; can run on any date before the Olympics start. published
René Heyde (nom) none 23 July Queue7 One of the warm-up hooks; can run on any date before the Olympics start. published
Toby Olubi and Can't Touch This (nom) none 24 July Queue 1 One of the warm-up hooks; can run on any date before the Olympics start (24 is in fact the first day of competitions but we haven't got anything for that day yet). This double-hook has already had its admin checks done (by Cwmhiraeth) published
American Samoa at the 2020 Summer Olympics (nom) none 24 July Queue1 One of the "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics" hooks; can run on any day during the Olympics published
Twice a Man (film) (nom) none 25 July Queue 2 ... that Olympia Dukakis's first screen role was in the avant-garde film Twice a Man? That's got to be a brilliant Olympics hook. published
Angling at the 1900 Summer Olympics (nom) none 25 July Queue2 One of the Olympic warmup hooks. published
Camil Doua (nom) none 26 July Queue 3 Flagbearer – Doua is competing in the men's 100 metre freestyle and the heats will be on 30 July. Problem is that we have two hooks for that date already. As Doua is flagbearer for Mauritania, the opening ceremony date is a perfectly viable alternative. Agreed for this to be a standalone hook for its rather cool hook fact. published
Alison McGregor (nom) none 26 July Queue3 The hook mentions that she was an Olympic torch carrier, i.e. a great warmup hook for the opening day. published
Lê Đức Phát (nom) 26 July 26 July Queue3 Flagbearer – part of the mass hook. Otherwise, Lê is going to compete in men's singles badminton, with the preliminary round every day from 27 to 31 July inclusive. Any of those days would thus also work. published
Edda Hannesdóttir (nom) 26 July 26 July Queue3 Flagbearer – part of the mass hook. Otherwise, Hannesdóttir is set to compete in the women's triathlon on 31 July published
María Sara Grippoli (nom) 26 July 26 July Queue3 Flagbearer – part of the mass hook. Otherwise, Grippoli is set to compete in women's 49 kg taekwondo, with all competitions on 7 August. published
Viren Nettasinghe (nom) 26 July 26 July Queue3 Flagbearer – part of the mass hook. published
Chloë Farro (nom) 26 July 26 July Queue3 Flagbearer – part of the mass hook. published
Oyuntsetseg Yesügen (nom) 26 July 26 July Queue3 Flagbearer – part of the mass hook. Late addition to the set. The nomination page is already closed; if you'd like to review this, please use the nomination talk page to do so. published
Fathimath Dheema Ali (nom) none 27 July Queue 4 The women's table tennis singles prelim round starts on 27 July published
Evann Girault (nom) none 27 July Queue4 Girault is going to compete in men's sabre, and that competition is held on 27 July (from elimination to finals; all on one day) published
Lilia Cosman (nom) 28 July 28 July Queue 5 Cosman will compete in the qualification round on 28 July. published
Aminata Barrow (nom) None 28 July Queue5 Barrow will compete in women's 100 metre breaststroke, with heats on 28 July published
Lorrane Oliveira (nom) 28 July 28 July Queue5
potential lead hook
Oliveira will compete in women's artistic team all-around, with qualifications on 28 July. That's the third hook for that day. The nominator says that the team will most likely make it to the finals, to be held on 30 July, but we've got two hooks for that day already, so that's not a good alternative. 		published
Adam Maraana (nom) 29 July 29 July Queue 6 My preference would be for this hook to run on 28 July, when the heats and semi-finals in 100 m backstroke will be held. Problem is that we have three Olympic hooks for that date already. Given that he's quite good, there is a chance that he'll make the final on 29 July. Hence let's take the gamble and go for that day. published
Victor Alvares de Oliveira (nom) 29 July 29 July Queue6 Submitted on 18 July hence this one might not make it in time. Alvares de Oliveira is going to compete in men's foil fencing, with all competitions to be held on 29 July. published
Solomon Islands at the 2020 Summer Olympics (nom) none 1 August One of the "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics" hooks; can run on any day during the Olympics published
Article (nom) Requested Suggested date Prep set Notes (all times in CEST) Status
Alyssa Mendoza (nom) none 30 July Queue 7 Assuming that she is still featherweight, the women's 57 kg boxing competition begins on 30 July with the round of 32. published
Andy Barat (nom) none 30 July Queue7 Barat is going to compete in the men's slalom K-1, and that competition has its heats on 30 July. That's unfortunately the third article for this date. Before you promote to prep, please see the discussion above about combining this with the Alyssa Mendoza hook. published
Valentin Houinato (nom) none 30 July Queue7 Nominated to DYK late in the process. Houinato is set to compete in the men's 81 kg judo event, with all competitions held on 30 July published
Shachar Sagiv (nom) none 30 July Queue7 Men's triathlon is scheduled for 30 July starting at 8:00 published
Matthew Wright (triathlete) (nom) none 30 July Queue7 Nominated to DYK late in the process. Wright is set to compete in the men's triathlon, which is scheduled for 30 July starting at 8:00. Is there an opportunity to combine the two triathletes in this set into one hook if both nominations get reviewed in time? published
Dylan Travis (nom) none 31 July Queue 1 The first USA men's 3x3 game is on 30 July. Subsequent games are on 31 July, 1, 2, and 4 August if that date gets too crowded. in queue
2024 United States men's Olympic basketball team (nom) 28 July 31 July Queen1 The U.S. team plays in the preliminary round on 28 and 31 July and on 3 August. We already have too many hooks for 28 July, so any of the other two options will work better. in queue
Marcedes Walker (nom) None 1 August Queue 2 Walker is going to compete in the women's 3x3 basketball competition and they are playing a round robin round-robin tournament from 30 July to 3 August, playing every day. Hence, there's heaps of flexibility moving this hook around to suit. in queue
Warren Lawrence (nom) none 1 August Queue2 Nominated to DYK late in the process. Lawrence is set to compete in the men's 50 metre freestyle event, with heats and semifinals on 1 August. in queue
Emily Ausmus (nom) none 2 August Prep 3 Ausmus is competing in the women's water polo tournament in Group B, with preliminary round games held on 27, 29, and 31 July, and a game on 2 August. Any of those dates are suitable. in prep
Philippines at the 1924 Summer Olympics (nom) none 2 August Prep3 One of the "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics" hooks; can run on any day during the Olympics. We do have an image but it's of rather poor quality. in prep
2024 World Athletics Relays – Mixed 4 × 400 metres relay (nom) 2/3 August 2 August Prep3 The mixed 4 × 400 metres relay is scheduled for 2 and 3 August 2024.[1] in prep
Filomenaleonisa Iakopo (nom) none 3 August Prep 4 Iakopo is scheduled to compete in the women's 100 metres, with the preliminary round scheduled to be held on 3 August. in prep
Apsara Sakbun (nom) none 3 August Prep4 Sakbun is going to compete in women's 50 metre freestyle swimming, with heats and semi-finals on 3 August. in prep
2022 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres and 2022 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres hurdles (nom) none 4 August Prep 5
potential lead hook
This is the second hook that names Femke Bol. She is due to compete in 400 metres hurdles (heats on 4 August). 		in prep
Liechtenstein at the 1936 Summer Olympics (nom) none 4 August Prep5 One of the "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics" hooks; can run on any day during the Olympics in prep
Piper Kelly (nom) None 5 August Prep6 Qualifications for women's speed climbing are on 5 Aug. in prep
Aniya Holder (nom) 5 August 5 August Prep6 Qualifications for women's speed climbing are on 5 Aug. in prep
Suriname at the 1960 Summer Olympics (nom) none Prep6 One of the "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics" hooks; can run on any day during the Olympics in prep
Jenya Kazbekova (nom) 6/8 August 6 August Prep7 Kazbekova is due to compete in women's combined sport climbing, with semifinals for the two competition elements (boulder and lead) split over two days: 6 & 8 August. Hence, this can run on either date. in prep
Zheng Haohao (nom) none 6 August Prep7 Zheng is due to compete in women's park skateboarding on 6 Aug. in prep
Ruby Remati (nom) None 7 August Prep 1 The team artistic swimming event will be held on 5, 6, and 7 August. The hook could run on any of those days. In prep
Mikaella Moshe (nom) None Prep1 In prep
Emmanuella Atora (nom) 8 August 8 August Prep2 Atora is due to compete in women's 57 kg taekwondo (assuming that she's still in this weight class). The competition is to be held on 8 August. in prep
1964 Summer Olympics medal table (nom) None 8 August At SOHA
Manizha Talash (nom) none 9 August Breaking or breakdancing is a new sport. Who would have known. The competition for females is on 9 August. At SOHA
Logan Edra (nom) none 9 August Here's our second female breakdancer. Any chance of combining the two hooks? At SOHA
Gaku Akazawa (nom) none 10 August Akazawa is going to compete in the men's freestyle wrestling 65 kg, with the event scheduled to start on 10 August. Under review
Alasan Ann (nom) none 10 August Ann is going to compete in the men's taekwondo +80 kg, with all events scheduled for 10 August. At SOHA
Kennedy Blades (nom) none 10 August Blades is going to compete in the women's freestyle wrestling 76 kg, with the event scheduled to start on 10 August. At SOHA
[[]] (nom)

Queue 6

[edit]

Stefano Manetti

[edit]

@Bruxton, Ergo Sum, and Sohom: substantial copying from press.vatican.va (earwig report). It's not just the stuff that shows up in red in the report, but as you read through the text, it's obvious that this was just copied with a few words changed here and there. Needs a substantial rewrite, not just more minor sentence tweaks. RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not copy and paste from the Vatican's website. The reality is that there are only so many ways to phrase basic, factual information. I wouldn't even know how else to convey the titles and years differently without adding needless extra verbiage. Ergo Sum 14:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sophienburg Museum and Archives

[edit]

@SL93, Kimikel, and Lajmmoore: there's nothing wrong per-se, but the blow-my-socks-off story is that there was a German colony in Texas. As an American (albeit a neoyorquino), when I think of Texas history I think Mexican, and by extension Spanish. I was schocked to discover there was a German colony. If that could be emphasized more, it would make a much stronger hook. RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: I definitely don't disagree, but how would you suggest emphasizing that fact more? Kimikel (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"...that while a royal German castle in Texas was left abandoned for decades after the Prussian colony failed, it now houses the Sophienburg Museum and Archives?" Kingsif (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sport in Vatican City

[edit]

@SL93, Arconning, and Flemmish Nietzsche: a particularly troublesome "first" hook. I'm willing to accept that the NFL or MLB keep detailed records which can back up these kinds of hooks, but a game played in the 1500s? The source, while nominally the Vatican newspaper, really looks like more of a blog, written in the first person ("He introduced me to many friends with whom I shared a passion for football"). I see lots of other mentions of this, but most don't give their source and those that do all point back to this one. RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fix ping RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "the first-ever match of calcio fiorentino" from the hook was in 1521 according to the article, but Calcio storico fiorentino tells us that "a match was organized on the Arno River in 1490" for something believed to be at least a close variant. Perhaps the "first-ever match" was the first ever match using Vatican City's particular version of calcio storico rules. Unsurprisingly it was played in the Vatican.
I wanted to suggest to use the Popes who played calcio storico as a hook, but the source actually says they played calcio storico in their youth, before they became popes. —Kusma (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I would believe the Vatican keeps watertight records from the 1500s. To the point, is it perhaps referring to the first game of calcio played in the Vatican? Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The catholic church kept great records about a lot of things. Marriages, births, deaths, who was a pope. I'd trust those things. Not ballgames. RoySmith (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith The article is about an interview conducted to Sergio Valci, a prominent figure in Vatican football, that's why it's written in the first person. It was also conducted by Giampaolo Mattei, a prominent journalist in Vatican City. The hook is probably worded incorrectly, I'd say it should be worded as "with a match of calcio..." Arconning (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are books with snippet view in Google books that mention the match. The source is apparently Benedetto Fantini, a diplomat who wrote about the match to his employer. Both teams came from Florence and Leo X, a Medici, watched for four hours. TSventon (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So how does any of that give us confidence that this was "the first-ever match of calcio fiorentino"? RoySmith (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. Arconning suggested replacing "the first-ever match of calcio fiorentino" with "a match of calcio fiorentino". I am also dubious about "that sport in Vatican City officially began in the 16th century", which is another way of saying "first". TSventon (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, can you make the suggested amendment, or should this be pulled for further discussion? TSventon (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would people think about:
ALT3: ... that Sport in Vatican City has included chariot racing, calcio fiorentino, and taekwondo?
RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT4: ... that Sport in Vatican City has been seen as a way to express Catholic spirituality and principles? CMD (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or, looking one sentence beyond that in the article, we could do:
ALT5: ... that although Sport in Vatican City has been seen as a way to express Catholic spirituality and principles, the church opposed the participation of women?
The article doesn't quite say this, but it's based on a footnote in the cited source: "28 ... the intransigent hostility of the Church to women's participation in sport" so would require a little adjustment of the article text. Including the anti-woman sentiment would make this a much stronger hook. RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith I think rewriting the article to enable a controversial hook to go live tomorrow is a bad idea. TSventon (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really rewriting. The article already says seemingly negative opinions towards the advancement of sport involving women, especially women's gymnastics. It just needs a little tweaking to better tie that to the source. RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith I'm good with ALT3, just uncapitalize the "sport" Arconning (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Alt3 as I would expect many things in Vatican City to (aim to) express Catholic spirituality and principles. TSventon (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue with ALT3 is it being based upon two events that occurred centuries before Vatican City was created, one almost two millennia before. CMD (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This hits the main page in 3 hours. SL93 (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DYK admins: Please pull this. I recommend replacing it with Prep 6's Solomon Islands at the 2020 Summer Olympics, which I've reviewed and see no issues with. (For the record, ALT5 is my favourite of the ones above, assuming it checks out.)--Launchballer 21:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on it. I think we can still find a good hook, but let's worry about that off the clock. RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5

[edit]

Soviet Red Army Monument, Harbin

[edit]

The hook is 212 prose characters long, well above the 200 character maximum. It needs to be shortened or a new hook proposed and checked. Pinging nominator Toadboy123, reviewer Soman, and promoter AirshipJungleman29. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I meant to trim it in prep but forgot. Done so now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived several minutes ago, so I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 7. We have a total of 253 nominations, of which 122 have been approved, a gap of 131 nominations that has decreased by 10 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep area 3

[edit]

has .. ... that at age 12, Emily Ausmus participated in an international water polo tournament against players seven years older than her?

I believe that "her" should be "she" or "she is." 2603:7000:2101:AA00:45CF:48FA:4F1F:A7EF (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I googled "I or me after than" and the numerous hits suggest that both I and me are acceptable, so I would stick with the current version. TSventon (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better Off Dead? ALT0

[edit]

Hello, this is regarding Template:Did you know nominations/Better Off Dead?, which I nominated on 7 June.

Long story short: the reviewer objected to ALT0 and ALT0a as bad, taking a quote out of context. I requested a new review of the hooks; theleekycauldron responded to the call but said that while she supports it running, I should ask here instead as the reviewer did not drop their objection. I'm therefore here in hopes of garnering a consensus for the hooks running . Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I can't quite see out of which (different) context ltbdl feels the quote has been taken, so if they could expand on that, that would be ideal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where the bad taste issues might come from, but the angle itself does seem fine. As a possible compromise, however, ALT0c could still work to allay any possible concerns about bad taste. It adds more detail, yes, but the hook is more about presenting the fact as it rather than being sensational. I don't think the hook fails the "avoid sensationalist" rule either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1

[edit]

Ravenpuff made the following modifications: ... that Cameroonian-born Joel Embiid opted to play for the the2024 U.S. Olympic basketball team instead of France in part because his son is American?[2] As the 2024 Olympics is ongoing, does "2024" need to be explicit, or can it be reasonably implied by the in "the U.S. Olympic basketball team"?—Bagumba (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any real downside to including "2024"; if anything, it helps to emphasize that this hook relates to the ongoing Olympics. Many other Olympics-related DYK submissions include the current year as well. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an WP:IAR exemption for a nomination being older than 7 days

[edit]

I am here to request that Template:Did you know nominations/Babydog be given an exemption to the rule on being new enough, as the page was undergoing an AFD discussion after it was created. The nominator, User:Thriley, still needs to do a Quid Pro Quo review, but once that's done I would like the page to have a chance. I think that this is a case where WP:IAR is probably safe to invoke. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. To be honest, I'm listening for a good reason why time at AfD should count as part of the seven days, given that nominations have to go on hold during that period anyway.--Launchballer 10:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page existed for one day before the AfD, and was nominated in the second day post AfD-closure. I also do not feel AfD time should count towards the limit, forcing nominations for pages that end up getting deleted is a potential waste of reviewer time. CMD (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We explicitly allow an extra day or two beyond the seven on request; this is a third day, so no big stretch especially given the confusion around AfDs. It's best to nominate anyway, so there isn't a question; not all AfDs are settled so expeditiously, and I'd be reluctant to accept a three-week-old nomination. We automatically put nominations on hold when we know they're at AfD (usually with the "/" icon) so they aren't reviewed during the wait, which renders the "potential waste of reviewer time" argument moot. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there's having to put it on hold in the first place. I say let's cut out the middle man.--Launchballer 18:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do kind of agree that there should be an explicit rule that time during an AfD is not counted toward the "newness" counter. SilverserenC 18:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me as well, it fits with my understanding of the spirit of the limitation Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also prevents someone from trying to spuriously game the system against another editor by nominating their new article for AfD even if there's little chance for it being deleted. Since they could still delay things long enough with the AfD (especially with low participation rates in AfDs nowadays) that it goes past the time limit, particularly if the creator was nearer to the end of the 7 day period for nomination. SilverserenC 19:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your scenario is much of an issue (I've never heard of such a case of gaming the system ever happening), the issue is really more of articles currently at AfD being nominated while at AfD to meet the requirement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7

[edit]

Congenital anosmia

[edit]

@AbhiSuryawanshi, Awkwafaba, and JuniperChill: There is a sentence that needs a citation, which I have indicated with a cn tag. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Thanks. --AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
للبيييب 188.209.238.75 (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special occasion request

[edit]

Please see Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher Columbus (Zador). When I originally worked on this the special occasion date hadn't occurred to me. It wasn't until I got around to nominating it that I realized that the 85th anniversary of the opera was this year, and that it would also work for a Columbus Day hook. We are currently 10 to 11 weeks away from those dates. Any objections to running this for a special occasion even though it is about a month early for the 6 week window period?4meter4 (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think extending the usual six-week maximum by so long is appropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Egg

[edit]
hie thee to the nom page RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

DYK: "... that though Donatello was a Bardi, he wasn't a Bardi?"

I have no idea where the links are going to go before I click them.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but I think this is best taken up at the nom page.--Launchballer 09:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nom page is Template:Did you know nominations/Bardi (surname), please pick it up there, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Software maintenance

[edit]

This hook was run yesterday. I logged a bunch of issues at WP:ERRORS but it scrolled off before they were resolved. They included:

  1. The hook is not a definite fact which is unlikely to change
  2. It is introduced by a weasel
  3. The hook was not clearly stated in the article
  4. The source which supposedly supported the hook did not pass verification
  5. The first hook suggested in the nomination didn't pass verification either

My impression is that this didn't go well because the source wasn't clearly identified, was behind a paywall and wasn't quoted. Note that the nomination was professional paid work and so one would expect a high standard. So it goes...

WP:ERRORS discussion

This is another blatant weasel – who estimates this? And it's obviously not a "definite fact which is unlikely to change" as there are a range of estimates. The hook discussion started with the figure of "three times" and it appears that such estimates are unreliable because the article repeatedly says that the topic has not been well-studied. Other issues include:

  1. The ceiling is obviously a lot higher than 9 and I reckon the sky's the limit. Consider the case of Wikipedia. This was developed on a shoestring using open source software. But now the WMF has a large staff and a huge budget. As I understand it, the staff headcount has gone from half a person to over 700 – that's a factor of about 1,400. And much of the code is still the same legacy stack.
  2. Deciding what is development and what is maintenance is often an arbitrary accounting decision. For example, consider Vector 2022. Is that new development or maintenance of the existing system? The article indicates that it would be considered "enhancement" and so classified as maintenance but it's all still a matter of subjective definition.
  3. Changes are often incremental and so there's the Ship of Theseus problem. At what point is a system a new creation?
  4. The supposed hook fact does not seem to be clearly stated in the article. I've searched for "nine" and "9" and can't find it.
  5. The idea that you can generalise in a definite way about such varied activity and systems is inherently suspect. See all models are wrong.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

0. "Who estimates this?" Ulziit, Bayarbuyan; Warraich, Zeeshan Akhtar; Gencel, Cigdem; Petersen, Kai. If you look closely, you'll realise that the definite fact is the estimation, not the costs.
  1. "I reckon the sky's the limit. Consider the case of Wikipedia." Well, if you happen to note these considerations of yours in a reliable source, we can take them into account. Until then, we prefer to avoid original research.
  2. "it's all still a matter of subjective definition" Yes, that's why we leave it to reliable sources to do the research.
  3. See above notes on reliable sources and original research.
  4. I would suggest reading the article, not just using ctrl-F. You may find the hook fact in the "Software life cycle" section. WP:2+2=4 may be useful.
  5. See 3). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AirshipJungleman29 seems to be referring to this source:
    Ulziit, Bayarbuyan; Warraich, Zeeshan Akhtar; Gencel, Cigdem; Petersen, Kai (2015). "A conceptual framework of challenges and solutions for managing global software maintenance". Journal of Software: Evolution and Process. 27 (10): 763–792. doi:10.1002/smr.1720..
    On the cited page 764, this states

    The maintenance phase is the longest part of software lifecycle and, in most cases, also the most expensive. For the last several decades, the cost of software maintenance is continuously growing. In the 1970s, the costs were around 60%, while in the 1990s and 2000s, the reported costs increased to about 90% and more.

    Note that this says "90% and more" and so the hook is clearly inconsistent by stating "up to nine times". This hook should be pulled as the source does not verify it but instead contradicts it. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    i tried to fix this hook in a hurry (the previous one didn't verify at all) and came out with this one, my bad :) how about we change the wording so that the hook matches the source? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that theleekycauldron correctly challenged the original hook which was "... that maintenance of existing software is estimated to cost more than three times as much as its development? ". The source for that wasn't quoted in the nomination and failed verification and we have the same problem with the version that's now on the main page. As I noted above, these generalisations are too fuzzy to be presented as definite facts and they are very subject to change as the technology and techniques move fast. Just pull it, please, and we should then start a post mortem. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew🐉(talk) 14:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what you expect to happen here. If there's problems with the article, go fix them, or discuss them on the article's talk page. If you have a problem with the nom accepting money, take it up with them. They were totally up-front about it (which puts them ahead of like 99.9% of our paid editors) and sounds like it more or less falls under WP:GLAM. If you just want to complain about the fact that DYK's quality control isn't as good as it should be, I agree, but our energy would be better spent working on upcoming noms than wringing our hands about yesterday's. RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have considerable experience of software maintenance and, when this is done professionally, issues are normally logged when they arise. This provides an audit trail and record which then enables further action, lessons-learned and so forth. I gather there's some sort of DYK reform process underway per Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed/2023–24. And, in any case, there's an implicit continual improvement process and the first requirement for that is feedback. Such feedback is best done here because WP:ERRORS is ephemeral and keeps no records.
As for the article in question, I was thinking of starting a good article reassessment but first I'll have to read through it again and mull over its issues. I can already see that it has some but it will take time and effort and nobody is paying me to do this.
As for upcoming noms, I have one myself and there's no shortage of other things to do. "Excelsior!"
Andrew🐉(talk) 17:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Browsing this talk page now I'm here, I notice that problems with this hook were noticed 6 days ago – see Prep_5 above. In that discussion, Black Kite says "This hook doesn't work. Even if we assume that the book source is correct (which I can't check)..." So, right there we see the problem of being unable to access the source upon which the hook depended. You can't conduct a sensible discussion if you can't see the details. Relevant quotations should be mandatory in such cases.
Another structural problem is the habit of naming such sections with names like "Prep 5" rather than with an article name. There are currently two sections on this page called "Prep 5" and this is both confusing and lacking in context about the actual topic(s). I named this current section "Software maintenance" because that is the name of the topic. How hard is that?
Andrew🐉(talk) 19:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Davidson, you reported somewhere a while back that every morning, you read the main page and dive into some of the topics to see what's written is actually correct. And you unearth numerous problems by doing so. I very much appreciate your efforts and applaud you for doing this good work.
The only downside is that when you go through your breakfast routine, items are already live. How much more useful would it be if you offered your wonderful service before things appear on the main page? Are you aware that Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow offers you the main page a day in advance? I wonder whether if you could slightly adjust your routine and read that page instead? Your work is much appreciate, and having your feedback and thoughts 24 hours earlier would be immensely valuable. Schwede66 20:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow link and might give it a try, thanks. I'm not sure how accurate it is though. Most of my main page activity currently is for the WP:ITN section and that is updated continuously rather than on a daily schedule. And how does the tomorrow view deal with DYK when the hook sets only last for 12 hours?
The actual main page is always likely to get the lion's share of attention because it's the default view when I go to the Wikipedia site or load the Wikipedia app. If one starts looking at other pages then one is literally not on the same page and that seems quite lonely. Is there a talk page or noticeboard associated with the tomorrow view? That might help in building a community of forward-looking reviewers.
Andrew🐉(talk) 20:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how does the tomorrow view deal with DYK when the hook sets only last for 12 hours? If I had my druthers, we would take the whole idea of 12-hour updates and nuke it from orbit. It is antithetical to improving quality. Anybody can shovel manure twice as fast, but I'm not willing to play that game.
I also come from a software engineering background; bug trackers, post-mortems, standup meetings, OKRs, pagers, the whole smash. The advantage of my "job" at wikipedia is if I don't feel like working, I just don't, and I don't have to tell anybody why, nor do I have to justify that I didn't get done what I thought I would get done this quarter. RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall, at one time, it was set-times of six hours. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was before my time, but yes I remember back when DYK used to do four sets a day (and also had the "from Wikipedia's newest content" flavor text). Do we have the discussions that led to the retirement of both? By the time I started my DYK career in 2016 it was already down to two sets a day at most. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
on WP:ERRORS, there are links to the current, next, and next-but-one DYK, regardless of cycle length :) also, yes, let's not do 12-hour sets anymore. Instead, we should do one set per day of eight to nine hooks and they should all be bangers. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've said this before, but I'd be in favour of going back to a standard eight-hook, 24-hour set. If WP:PEIS limits at WP:DYKNA become an issue, we can just reject some older nominations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

[edit]

@DYK admins: Queue 1 is missing the {{DYKbotdo}}. Rather than attempt to fix it myself and possibly make it worse, could somebody who understands these page formats better than I do please take a look? Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think all that's needed is a {{DYKbotdo}} in the following format:
as an inserted first line of file. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed I’ve also looked why it was missing and it’s step 2 of the admin instructions (Moving a prep to queue) that wasn’t done when manually moving a prep to queue. Cwmhiraeth, do you always promote manually? Using PSHAW prevents this from happening. Schwede66 18:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3

[edit]

Tobey (song)

[edit]
  • ... that the music video for "Tobey", in which Eminem carves into his own alter ego with a chainsaw, was delayed by three days?

@Launchballer, @Dxneo, @Arconning, @AirshipJungleman29: The three-day delay does not seem all that interesting or hooky to me, and distracts from the main point of interest, which is Eminiem killing off Slim Shady. I see from the nom that there were DYKFICTION concerns, but I don't think adding an unrelated fact about a short delay as a fig leaf makes a difference in that respect, as the Slim Shady element is still the part of the hook that anybody cares about. (If the hook was "that the music video for "Tobey" was delayed by three days", are you interested? No.)

Personally, I'm inclined to say that there's not a DYKFICTION issue. Eminem is a real person, and Slim Shady is an alter ego that he uses in real life, so we're clearly tied into "the real world in some way". The point isn't that a fictional character got killed, the point is that Eminem is metaphorically leaving his childish persona behind to (theoretically) mature as an artist.

Would anybody object to a reword to something like:

  • ... that the music video for "Tobey" features Eminem killing his alter ego Slim Shady with a chainsaw?

♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea.--Launchballer 08:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. As I understand it, Slim Shady is an entirely fictional alter ego that Eminem uses within the context of songs to emphasise dark themes. He is entirely at liberty to do whatever he likes with the character, as explained in WP:DYKFICTION. The music video could equally hypothetically feature Slim Shady travelling to the Hundred Acre Wood and meeting Winnie the Pooh, or preventing World War One, or getting married to Barack Obama, or ... you get the point. It's fiction. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree as well. That is like saying something similar from a work such as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter wouldn't count as a DYK fiction hook, although it surely would.SL93 (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're that opposed, Airship, I don't understand why you would promote the hook in that form. Is it your position that the unrelated factoid about a real-life three-day delay makes the Slim Shady element somehow acceptable, even though on its own you feel it would be unacceptable? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about either "that the music video for "Tobey", which had been delayed by three days, saw Eminem carve into his own alter ego with a chainsaw" or "that the belated music video for "Tobey" saw Eminem carve into his own alter ego with a chainsaw?".--Launchballer 10:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it makes no sense to note the three-day delay at all. If the mention of Eminem "killing" Slim Shady is in violation of DKYFICTION, why is it suddenly not in violation as long as we say the video was delayed? What does that have to do with the rest of it? It would be different if the video was delayed because of the chainsaw imagery for some reason, but it wasn't, so as it stands, we've strapped this unrelated and boring little factoid to the interesting part of the hook as a nonsensical fig leaf to protect against DYKFICTION. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I agree that the hook is unsuitable with or without the addition of the delay mention, and agree with NLH5's pull. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the concerns about DYKFICTION I've pulled the hook for now. Discussion about a new hook fact can continue on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Highest averages method

[edit]

Pinging @Closed Limelike Curves, Sawyer777, and AirshipJungleman29: Unless I am missing something obvious, there is no explanation, either in the target article or in the 1876 election article (in which the word "rounding" isn't mentioned at all), as to why a faulty rounding procedure led to the result of the election. There's a source, but there's no explanation. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation seems to be that "a pretext was found" to add 9 extra seats in addition to the numbers calculated and that was enough to change the result of the election. See page 37 of Fair representation. TSventon (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, indeed, but again (a) that isn't explained in either article, and (b) if I'm clicking on that hook I want to know why a rounding issue changed the result, and I would be disappointed. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Closed Limelike Curves: can you add some more detail to the article? TSventon (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to be a pain here, but unless I'm really missing something, the reference doesn't explain why the nine additional seats - which appear to be the cause of the problem - were produced by a rounding error. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the newest version clear enough? Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's better. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the sourcing in our present article is in any way adequate for its heavy editorialization present in the article. The single line of text about this material in the source given in the article is "the malapportionment of the 1870s was directly responsible for the 1876 election of Rutherford B. Hayes, although his opponent enjoyed 51.6 percent of the vote". This is used to support claims that (1) the apportionment happened in 1870, (2) that it tilted the electors by 9 votes, (3) that these seats were given out in an arbitrary manner (rather than, say, by following a standard rule of apportionment and choosing the number of seats to be apportioned in an advantageous way, which might be unfair but is not arbitrary, (4) that the Webster method is unbiased, and (5) that the Webster method would have given 9 fewer votes to the Republicans. None of these article claims are present in the source. As for the hook, it claims that (1) the highest averages method is "correct" in some sense that other standard methods are not, (2) that the apportionment was made by Congress, (3) that the malapportionment was caused by Congress not rounding correctly (rather than, say, by rounding correctly but choosing numbers that caused the rounding to come out in favor of one party), and that (4) this determined the outcome of the presidential election; only (4) is supported by the source. We need much better sourcing before this hook can run. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, I have added a reference to page 37, which has most of the information you are querying. Can you check again? TSventon (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with you on the implication/phrasing of this hook being a bit off, although really my comment on failing to use the correct rounding procedure is driven by the fact that, at the time, the law actually specified Hamilton's method, while convention suggested Webster's (used from 1840-1860). How about:
...that the results of the 1876 presidential race were swayed by the use of an unusual rounding procedure?
But this might have the opposite suggestion, that highest averages are "unusual". Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fun fact I want this to be about is something like "the 1876 election was decided by a literal rounding error", but I'm not 100% sure where I'd link to the page. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1237666229"