Revision as of 03:09, 20 December 2024 editRoySmith (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators92,475 edits →Nina Tikhonova: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:29, 16 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,306,970 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know/Archive 204) (bot | ||
(788 intermediate revisions by 94 users not shown) | |||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} | |archiveheader = {{aan}} | ||
|maxarchivesize = 600K | |maxarchivesize = 600K | ||
|counter = |
|counter = 204 | ||
|minthreadsleft = 5 | |minthreadsleft = 5 | ||
|algo = old(5d) | |algo = old(5d) | ||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
This is where the ''']''' section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.<!-- for nominations: see ... --> | This is where the ''']''' section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.<!-- for nominations: see ... --> | ||
== |
== Back to 24 hours? == | ||
] | |||
With Christmas just over four weeks away, I think this is a good time to ask: does DYK want to do sets for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day? | |||
{{DYK admins}} As of this moment, we've got five filled queues. If we can fill another two queues before midnight UTC (eight hours from now), we'll keep running 12 hour updates for another three days. Otherwise we're back to 24. ] ] 16:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
If yes, here are some potential hooks that can be used: | |||
:I've promoted one more, but don't think I'll have time for the last one. ♠]♠ ] 21:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*]: Food, needs a review | |||
::Thanks. I'm working on ] right now, so we're good to keep going until 0000 6 Jan UTC. ] ] 22:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*]: TV, <s>currently in Prep 6</s> at SOHA | |||
:::And somebody needs to back-fill the holes that got left in ] after various yankings. ] ] 22:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*]: Ship, <s>Approved</s> SOHA | |||
::::{{dykadmins}} just to make sure everybody is aware, we're going to extend 12-hour mode (at least) another 3 days now that we have 7 full queues. We do have quite a backlog to dig out of. By my count, we've got 165 approved hooks, and there's another GAN review drive that just started so I expect another big influx of nominations. I expect it'll take us several more 3-day sprints to get back to normal and it'll be less disruptive to keep them going back-to-back vs flitting back and forth between modes. ] ] 22:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::So long as queue 3 is filled by midnight and the two date requests in queues 4 and 5 are suitably kicked back, I have no valid objections.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 22:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::I filled one of the holes in queue 3. ] ] 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::I'm getting confused as to where the SOHA hooks need to go; anyone able to get their head around it? ] (]) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::::5 and 6 January, but they're already there. Brain fog is brain fogging, clearly.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 13:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::::As a reminder, ] says {{tq|The reviewer must approve the special occasion request, but prep builders and admins are not bound by the reviewer's approval}}. The relevance to this discussion is that keeping the queues running smoothly is a higher priority than satisfying special date requests. I'm all for people putting in the extra effort shuffling hooks around to satisfy SOHA requests, but we can't let "perfect" get in the way of "good enough". It would have been a mistake to force a change to the update schedule because of SOHA. ] ] 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===5 January=== | |||
We need one more queue to get filled in the next 8 hours to keep going with 12 hour mode ] ] 16:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I can take the next one if no-one else does in the next five hours. I'd need more eyes on the Tyler hook though.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 16:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Doing, although Glucoboy in prep 6 looks interesting and I might swap it and Tyler to avoid outsourcing. I'll make that decision after in nine articles' time.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Another six sets of 12 hour mode it is.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 00:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===8 January=== | |||
In addition, these articles are at ] and could potentially be used as Christmas hooks: | |||
{{dykadmins}} We've got about 10 hours left in the current sprint. There's only 4 queues filled right now; unless we get 3 more filled today, we'll go back to 24 hour sets at 0000Z. By my count, we've currently got 156 approved hooks, and there's still that GA backlog drive going on, so I would expect another influx of nominations from that. ] ] 14:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*]: Tree | |||
:I see you and {{yo|Hilst}} have queues 1 and 2 in hand. If no-one else does prep 3 in the next four hours, I'll take it.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 17:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*]: Tree | |||
::I took it. Next decision to be made on 11 January. ] (]) 18:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===11 January=== | |||
Thoughts about creating this set are welcome below. ] (]) 15:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{dykadmins}} we're down to 127 approved hooks, which is great progress, but still above the threshold for another sprint if we can get 4 queues filled in the next 8 hours. ] ] 15:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Excellent idea. I did actually see the Christmas Invasion in prep and wondered why it wasn't being saved. Pinging {{yo|DoctorWhoFan91|Piotrus|DimensionalFusion|Thriley|Grimes2}} who are involved with the first two noms. (I've been putting off expanding ] for over a year and they did a track called "Christmas Time" if that's of any use?)--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 15:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I'll take the next one.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 15:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::{{ping|Launchballer}} Nominate it when its ready: if we decide not to use it for this set, the article will still be better. ] (]) 16:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: |
::{{yo|RoySmith}} I've queued prep 6 and can probably do prep 1 this evening.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 17:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
:::I did 7 (which, by the way, was totally clean, which made it easy). ] ] 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::{{ping|Launchballer}} I'm not really familiar with DYK- should I add somewhere that it should be saved for Christmas (I will read the instructions to DYK more comprehensively later). {{ping|Z1720}} Great idea. Also, I'm working on another Christmas special- if it gets nominated and passed by then, I can nominate that for DYK too. ] (]) 11:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::: |
::::I'll take 1 once I've cooked.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
:::::Doing now.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 20:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*I'm planning to do a nativity painting. ] (]) 01:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::And the last one's all yours.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I'm assuming somebody else will step up. This is a team effort. ] ] 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Sorry, would do but am annoyingly indisposed. ] (]) 23:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::Someone needs to update ] as it's protected.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::OK, I've put us back to 24 hour mode. I think this was the first time we've tried the "3 day sprint" thing and from what I can see, it worked well. We ran for 12 days, knocked the backlog down from (I think) 165 to 128, and always knew where we were. No more panic when the queues ran down to empty. So, good job everybody. I haven't been keeping careful track, but I think Launchballer probably gets the prize for most sets promoted to queue during this. | |||
::::::::::My guess is we'll need to run some more sprints in the near future as the GA review drive throws more work our way. But for now, we get to stand down and get some more rest. ] ] 00:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== Should this be showing up as verified?? == | |||
Christmas hooks should go into the "Special occasions" section at the bottom of the ] page. Thanks guys! ] (]) 14:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Actually, they should go into the "Special occasions" section at the top of the ] page (direct link: ]), and only once they're approved. ] (]) 06:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
] is now the second oldest nomination. It was approved some time ago and then debate started about why it wasn't getting promoted. Now that it is at the top of the table, I am noticing it is not showing up as verified. Is it listed incorrectly somehow so that it is not showing as verified?-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 13:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
While not a "Christmassy" hook, it would be nice if ] could run on Christmas Day for the 110th anniversary of her sinking - ] (]) 20:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{re|Dumelow}} Since the hook mentions Christmas, I think it is appropriate for the set. It will also help us diversity the set] (]) 01:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:] The latest icon in the nomination is <nowiki>{{subst:DYK?}}</nowiki> so that puts it in the unapproved section. If someone approved the latest hooks and added <nowiki>{{subst:DYKtick}}</nowiki> then it would be approved again. ] (]) 13:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I can work up an article on ] species.--]] ] 17:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
::As I understand it ALT7 and ALT8 are acceptable, but is there anyone who has the responsibility to review it. ] was the original reviewer who approved it. ] called it into question. ] has been the most active discussant. I am not even sure who to ask to give it a positive tick.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 13:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::This Kiwi redhead is getting treated like the perverbial a redheaded stepchild (Not making up the phrase you can google "like a redheaded stepchild"). I have heard of American bias. I can list any smoe American basketball player, but this poor redheaded Kiwi can't get no love.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 15:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::For what it's worth, there have been hooks in the past about American sports personalities that have also been questioned due to lack of appeal to non-American readers, so it isn't specifically an anti-American (or pro-American for that matter) bias. ] (] · ]) 00:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*For the record, I don't do a lot of international editing, so I don't know if this is unusual here, but in my editing history, I have never written an article and noticed so many editors from a specific country were so interested that they would jump in with editorial corrections before. So many New Zealand editors (], ], ], ], maybe ]) expressed an interest in the article as editors, that I think WP is showing a lack of ethnic sensitivity by expressing lacked enthusiasm for subjects of interest to smaller (in this case ethnic) interest groups. I would have expected a small but differently concentrated viewership for this article. I suspect clickthroughs would come from Kiwi readers who have a smaller set of opportunities to do so at DYK in general. If this ran and got less than 2k clickthroughs they probably would not be from the common locations, but with a concentration, like the editorship of this article. Is this racist?-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 14:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*Can someone step in with a teaching moment for me. I know this subject is of strong interest to people from New Zealand and New Zealand is a fairly small country (population 5 million). I also believe that New Zealand subjects are probably a bit rare at DYK especially those where the word New Zealand could so easily be included in the hook. I feel such strong expressions of apathy for a subject with a small ethnic interest groups seem to unfair and counter to WP interest in a year when highlights inclusivity. Is WP's 2025 theme of inclusivity something DYK considers with respect to subjects pertinent to small interest groups.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 16:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:This isn't about inclusivity or even what country the subject from. It's a simple question of whether or not the hooks proposed are ]. Consensus in the discussion, unfortunately, is that the proposed hooks are marginally interesting at best. ] (] · ]) 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::] Confirming here. In the subjective assessments that DYK makes, there is no consideration for inclusivity.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 06:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:::That is a nonsensical interpretation, the most related read of what Narutolovehinata5 said regarding inclusivity would be that DYK hooks strive for maximum possible inclusivity. ] (]) 14:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*{{re|Narutolovehinata5}} Does mean that the nomination is closed? AFAICS, most of the 2+ months elapsed was while under the assumption that this was approved and ready to go: | |||
*:5 Nov Nominated | |||
*:7 Nov Approved | |||
*:25 Dec Formally marked for issue follow-up.—] (]) 08:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:Yes, I marked the nomination for closure per ] and a lack of consensus regarding a hook. ] generally refers to unpromoted nominations, though I think it might be better for it to refer to nominations that haven't run, since depending on how the wording is interpreted, promoting then pulling a hook could reset the timer under the current wording. Since the nomination is already over two months old, it was under editor discretion to time it out or not. ] (] · ]) 08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::@]: It seems pretty cutthroat. I could understand if it had an explicit outstanding issue for months. Instead, it was formally approved, but the lack of a promotion for ~2 mos became a stealth unapprove. That's putting the onus on nominators to constantly pester why their approved nomination has not been promoted, for fear a last minute issue will similarly be raised and their nomination will also be killed via timeout. —] (]) 08:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:::That's why DYKTIMEOUT isn't mandatory, it's editor discretion. There are cases when even if a nomination is already over two months old, it should ''not'' be timed out if there's good reason (for example, if discussion or workshopping is still ongoing). For what it's worth, multiple editors had expressed reservations about the hook options, so I took that into account when marking the nomination for closure. Had other editors said that they were willing to salvage the nomination, the closure marking would not have happened. ] (] · ]) 09:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::::Thanks for the explanation. —] (]) 09:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*I have replied to the nomination as the original reviewer; personally I think ALT8 is suitable and passes the DYK brief, but if there are still dissenting voices on this I'm happy to hear them out. Otherwise I suggest this be promoted using ALT8. ] (]) 09:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:I personally am okayish with ALT8, but I agree with {{u|Hilst}} that it probably won't do all that well on DYK. Given that they objected to the options, it might be worth hearing their thoughts first (or from other editors) before proceeding with ALT8. ] (] · ]) 09:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::I dislike ALT8 because it's not really a fact specific to Oscar Goodman. You could swap him out for any other player from the under-17 team (or even the coach), and it would still work. – 🌻 ] (] | ]) 11:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:::The article makes it clear that he stands out from other under-15, -16 and -17 athletes by virtue of whenever he is in a large tournament with players his age, he is always one of the best 5.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 13:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::::], see ALT9.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 14:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:For the record, I'm also very baffled with the claims that there is an anti-<s>Australia</s> New Zealand bias on DYK or with the nomination, or that rejecting the nomination would harm DYK's "diversity". The concerns regarding interest were independent of the subject being <s>Australian</s> New Zealander, and I imagine if similar concerns existed but the subject was instead, for example, British, such concerns would still remain. ] (] · ]) 09:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::Australia (population 28 million, the 54th largest nation) is not as underrepresented on DYK and this is not an Australian hook. New Zealand (population 5 million, 125th largest), which is less than 1/5th the size of Australia, and I presume it is underrepresented. That is the issue here.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 13:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::I can't verify DYK frequency, but I can extrapolate ] underreprentation by these category sizes ] (count 57) and ] (count 478). So the ] ratio is probably closer to 1/10 the frequency of Australia, which may or may not be underrepresented relative to the US and UK.-] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 13:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::Again, the issue isn't an anti-New Zealand or anti-country bias. The question is if there is consensus for a nomination to run. If there are existing concerns or objections, then it can't run. The issues with this nomination have nothing to do with having an anti-New Zealand bias, or wanting to prevent diversity on DYK. On the contrary, a diverse selection of topics is one of the things DYK strives for. But just because we aim for diversity or promoting underrepresented topics on DYK doesn't mean rules and guidelines should be waived or ignored. If a nomination about an underrepresented topic is rejected, it is ''not'' due to a bias against that topic, or a desire to prevent diversity, but rather an issue with the article, hook, or nomination. ] (] · ]) 13:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
*]. I just made a Christmas hook for this. ] (]) 21:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*] the "Krampus" hook is live and nominated .--]] ] 20:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*], a stunning Bruegel painting with pic, is now ready for review. ] (]) 19:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
**Now reviewed, needs promoting & moving. ] (]) 03:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===]=== | |||
*If anyone is looking for a Christmas article, I started ]. He played Alfred the janitor in '']'' known for his "Make a buck. Make a buck" critique of Christmas commercialism. ] (]) 21:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{yo|BennyOnTheLoose|AmateurHi$torian|SL93}} I don't think it's on to have a hook that implies someone's lazy per ]. Misplaced Pages's birthday is on 15 January and this article mentions this site - why don't we run a hook mentioning it on that date?--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
: {{re|Launchballer}} I'd added a couple of alt hooks when approving the nom, we could also use those. The Misplaced Pages birthday thing sounds great as well :) -] (]) 21:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I agree about the WP:BLP aspect. I've swapped in ALT1. If somebody wants to go to the trouble to schedule this for her birthday, I won't object, but I can't get too excited about it. ] ] 21:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::What's there now works.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but Smith seems to have embraced the nickname - it's included in her official Twitter and Instagram handles, for example. Regards, ] (]) 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::Given the standards given on ], it's probably not a good idea to schedule this on January 15 just because of Misplaced Pages's mention. It seems like a rather flimsy special occasion. We've rejected arguably more deserving occasions in the past, so I can't see why this rather weak connection should be given a pass. ] (] · ]) 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===]=== | |||
{{yo|Za-ari-masen|Surtsicna}} Article does not mention the word 'monk'. Also, the lead could do with expanding, but that's technically not a DYK issue.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{u|Launchballer}} I added the word "monk". ] (]) 21:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::And I added an end-of-sentence citation. This ''should'' be fine.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::I still can't get over how certain end of citation rules are pointless - like this one. Just thinking out loud a bit. ] (]) 21:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::When I'm checking a hook, this is one of those rules I'm willing to play a little fast and lose with. As long as there's a citation pretty close, and it's obvious what source backs up the hook fact, I'm good, even if it's not strictly at the end of the sentence. So sue me. ] ] 22:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===]=== | |||
:Is there a reason why ] was already promoted instead of being held for Christmas? Or to be more appropriate, not held until Epiphany? ] (] · ]) 08:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
First hooks are notoriously problematic. This one seems fine as earlier patents would have been rejected by law (and indeed one ''was''), but I'm opening this to the floor just in case.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Wouldn't mind if ] runs on Christmas Eve if the Christmas Day prep is full. ]@] 17:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I'm inclined to think this is OK. The source says "The patent grant was made possible by a decision last year by the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals", so at least there's a small window of time in which an earlier software patent might have issued. And apparently this was followed extensively in the industry press, so it's unlikely an earlier one just wasn't noticed. This is mentioned in ], and I also found a bunch of other citations.<ref>{{Cite web |title= |author= |work=scholarship.law.columbia.edu |date= |access-date=12 January 2025 |url= https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1271&context=faculty_scholarship}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Software patents 'a bit of a mess' says Martin Goetz, the first man to get one |author= |work=the Guardian |date= |access-date=12 January 2025 |url= https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/24/smartphone-patent-wars-intellectual-property}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=June 19, 1968: First software patent awarded to Martin Goetz |author= |work=Patrick J. McGovern Foundation |date= |access-date=12 January 2025 |url= https://www.mcgovern.org/the-legacy-of-patrick-j-mcgovern/from-the-pages-of-tech-history/june-19-1968-first-software-patent-awarded-to-martin-goetz/}}</ref> ] ] 21:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::I've just approved ] which might be nice to run in the holiday season - ] (]) 09:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{reflist-talk}} ] ] 21:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===]=== | |||
* I nominated ] and ] for Christmas Eve/Christmas Day. ] (]) 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{yo|Kingoflettuce|Darth Stabro|Hilst}} Not sure how comfortable I am with this on BLP grounds; while Roach is dead, we don't know if Casey or Schwartz is. There was a suggestion at the nom page of receiving a standing ovation for admitting to his alcoholism and I think we should go with that.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:, cannot find anything for Schwartz. | |||
:Perhaps as an '''ALT1''': "... that Archbishop ''']''' received a standing ovation at ] when he admitted to being an alcoholic?" ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 20:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::There may be some way to work in the drunk driving incident without being too wordy, but I haven't figured one out. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::I think the drunk driving aspect would quality for ]. If you're alright with the slightly more concise '''ALT1a''': ... that Archbishop ''']''' received a standing ovation for admitting his alcoholism?, I'll swap it in.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::Sounds good. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::::Done.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
===Two sets?=== | |||
I just noticed this proposal was for ''two'' special sets. I think that's excessive. One would be plenty. ] ] 17:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: Not at all, the more the merrier. Assuming we have more than enough for one set that is. And they don't all have to be run on Christmas Day, they can be split over Christmas Eve/Christmas Day or even Boxing Day or New Year's Day and so on, depending on their relevance. ] (]) 12:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===]/]=== | |||
==]== | |||
{{yo|Skyshifter|Sammi Brie|AirshipJungleman29}} Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation for "an organization dedicated to defending transgender youth".--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I would like to request second opinions regarding the suitability of ALT1 and its hook facts, which for context reads: | |||
* ... that gay political consultant ''']''' "used to think that all gay people were hairdressers"? | |||
Although the more interesting hook among the two options proposed, I am worried that it might be considered offensive without the context provided in the article. Given that I am not LGBT, I'm not sure if I'm the best person to determine if the hook as currently written is suitable or not. I would like to ask for second opinions and suggestions on the hook, particularly from our LGBT regulars, if the hook as currently written is acceptable or not. ] (] · ]) 11:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Done. <span style="border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span><span style="background:#6E41B5;border:1px solid #6E41B5;padding:2px">]</span> 21:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:If we want a slightly more positive focus, then perhaps: | |||
:AGF fine.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:* ... that gay political consultant ''']''' found that there were "gay lawyers gay businessmen" after moving to San Francisco? | |||
:However, I don't find the current hook to be offensive, as it's pretty clear that Rivaldo viewed that presumption as inaccurate. Maybe I'm only saying that because I'm not gay, though. ] (]) 04:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I think it's fine. ] (]) 19:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:As a gay man, and after looking at the ] article, I do find it rather offensive that the hook chosen actively plays off a negative stereotype of the LGBT community, rather then going with ANY of the other options, such as having worked with both ] and ].--]] ] 19:15, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Regardless of the appropriateness of the hairdresser angle, the issue is probably that the Milk/Harris angle is a lot more niche especially outside of America. Many non-Americans obviously know who Harris is, but probably not Milk. In addition, that angle primarily targets politics buffs, which not even all Americans are. I'm not saying the hairdresser angle is the best angle and indeed I'm very much open to suggestions, it's just that the Milk/Harris angle is probably not the best option. ] (] · ]) 23:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===]=== | |||
==Prep 6/Queue 6== | |||
{{yo|Queen of Hearts|Generalissima|Hilst}} Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Sigh, done. ] ] 21:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{yo|Gonzo fan2007|Di (they-them)}} Possibly showing my ignorance, but I'd worry that fact could date; they could conceivably play each other again. Got anything else?--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 23:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: |
::My concern has been resolved.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | ||
:::{{U|Launchballer}}, for my own benefit, what rule are you referencing? The Packers and Seahawks play each other often (which is why there is a rivalry page!), I just wanted the rivalry page to be on DYK during the game, as it will likely lead to more hits. Thanks!<span style="white-space:nowrap; font-family:Harlow Solid Italic;"><span style="font-size:small; color:teal;"> « Gonzo fan2007</span> ] @ </span> 14:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::They're talking about the "unlikely to change" rule, which said that a hook fact must be "unlikely to change". It was criticized for being too impractical and vague, so it was recently changed to instead say that it is an "established" or "definite" fact. ] (] · ]) 15:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::{{U|Narutolovehinata5}}, I am now grasping the concern. So fundamentally the fact will change when the game starts, because the teams will have played each other 25 times. Is there any opposition to adding a qualifier, like "prior to today" or "before 2024"? So it could ready "...that even though the Green Bay Packers and Seattle Seahawks have only played each other 24 times before 2024, 4 of those games have come in the playoffs?"<span style="white-space:nowrap; font-family:Harlow Solid Italic;"><span style="font-size:small; color:teal;"> « Gonzo fan2007</span> ] @ </span> 22:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::The rule itself has since been repealed/changed so there's nothing to worry about anymore in this case. ] (] · ]) 00:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===]=== | |||
== ] == | |||
{{yo|Vigilantcosmicpenguin}} One of the notes needs a citation.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I wonder if the note can just be removed completely. I don't see many readers knowing what the ''wuwu'' year is. ] (]) 01:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===]=== | |||
:Pinging nominator {{u|Generalissima}}. ] (]) 01:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*Hook says "up to" ten, article says "at least" ten, and source says 22(!). What's right? Pinging ], ], and ] (may need adoption; EF is on wikibreak. — ] (]) 02:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Removed these <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 01:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*:The text on the page has 8 entries for satellite tornadoes - of which, two mention other satellites within the same entries. The confusion is likely because the list includes all tornadoes from that day of the ]. ] (]) 03:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Fine by me.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 10:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
*::Okay, and the table shows exactly ten. The numbers aren't numbering. Would it be safe to just drop the "at least" and "up to"? — ] (]) 03:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:::I don't see why not. I only see ten mentioned in the source, unless there's a different source listed on the article. ] (]) 03:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:I’m here. Ten is the accepted number, although if I could add 22 to a table that would be amazing. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===]=== | |||
{{yo|CFA|WikiOriginal-9}} Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Done. ] (]) 02:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Currently in Q1: | |||
::Fine by me.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 10:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* '''Note''' This hook is now at ]. ] 11:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
* ... that the ''']''' had ten ] rotating around it? | |||
== 10 hook sets? == | |||
Well sure, what tornado doesn't ''rotate''? Wouldn't the more appropriate word be "orbiting", per the ] article? | |||
We switched to 9 hooks per set a while ago. That has certainly kept us closer to keeping up with nominations, but we're still falling behind and having to run in 12-hour mode once in a while to keep up. I suggest we try 10 hooks per set and see how that goes. ] ] 01:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Pinging nominator ] - ] (]) 11:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Not worth it. The current rate will even out over time. ] (]) 01:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not sure if one extra hook per set will help much if at all. I do think that more prep builders would help. ] (]) 01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Sure. ]<sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 13:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I do not mind going to 10 hooks a set. If we start running out, we can always return to 9-a-set at a later date. ] (]) 03:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
{{resolved}} | |||
: Nine is already more than enough IMO. Apart from the extra work required in verifying a 10-hook set, it becomes much harder not to repeat topics with longer sets, and longer sets just tend to look cluttered. 12-hour mode has long been a staple of DYK anyhow and one extra hook per set is not going to change that. ] (]) 12:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I think we're getting to the point where DYK is at risk of getting so long that hooks won't get the attention they deserve. I'd rather not move to 10 unless the overall backlog situation gets worse. —] (]) 12:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
===] (])=== | |||
* ... that ''']''' ''(pictured)'' achieved the first flight and was the first flight-related death in China? | |||
{{ping|Crisco 1492|ProfGray|AirshipJungleman29}} I think this hook is grammatically ambiguous on whether the {{tq|first flight}} was the first flight ''anywhere'' or the first flight in China. {{small|(And this is more of a nitpick, but is it idiomatic to say that someone {{tq|was}} a death?)}} ] (]) 21:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:If you don't mind, would you please offer a suggested edit for the hook? It's been discussed a lot. (Btw, if a reader wonders if that's the first flight anywhere, will they wonder why they've never heard of Vallon and, hmm, they'll go to the wikipedia page on the ].) ] (]) 22:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Adding commas after "flight" and "death" would make it unambiguous. ] (]) 22:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::*Done — ] (]) 23:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Note that I've moved this hook to prep 5 to prevent four consecutive black and white images. ] (]) 00:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:*Technically it would have been two, as the ''Horn of Plenty'' item is a colour image of a mostly B&W composition. But that's nitpicking; no worries from me. — ] (]) 00:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
===] (])=== | |||
* ... that serial killer ''']''' began using drugs at age eight? | |||
{{ping|Swinub|It is a wonderful world|AirshipJungleman29}} I think this might violate ]. ] (]) 21:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:How {{u|Jlwoodwa}}? ] (]) 00:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:*Yeah, there's... really not much BLP issues where an individual's notability is limited to the negative things they've done. — ] (]) 00:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:*:Yes, but DYKBLP applies even to people primarily known for negative reasons. DYKBLP states that hooks should not ''unduly'' focus on a negative aspect about a living person. Would focusing on how this person, regardless of who they are, did drugs at the age of eight, count as due? ] (] · ]) 04:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:With no response from the nominator and reviewer I've gone ahead and pulled it. For what it's worth, even if Meza wasn't a living person the hook would probably still be a bad idea. ] (] · ]) 01:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
=== Timoshenko the cat === | |||
Currently in P2: | |||
* ... that a cat, Timoshenko, joined the British submarine ''']''' on twenty patrols in World War II? | |||
Who cares what the cat's name was? Surely the hook should just read: | |||
* ... that a cat joined the British submarine ''']''' on twenty patrols in World War II? ] (]) 23:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:It's a fascinating question, actually. The reason why the cat shares its name with ] is historically interesting. The Russians and the British were allied in their fight against the Nazis and the cat was named in honor of the real Timoshenko after he began mounting major counter-defenses during the ]. I think the cat was named Timoshenko by the crew of the sub after the counter-offensive in Rostov, I'm not sure. I suspect it was a morale booster, and with a cat named Timoshenko walking around the sub, it was a reminder that the war was not yet lost, there was hope. So there's a lot of history here, and for that reason, the name is interesting. Others may disagree. ] (]) 00:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: Fine, but then that should be explained in the hook, otherwise it's a complete puzzle why the name is included. Suggest changing it to: | |||
:: * ... that a cat named after a Soviet general joined the British submarine ''']''' on twenty patrols in World War II? ] (]) 00:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::My own thinking: less is more, and such "puzzlement" as you put it might lead to more people visiting the article. Also, not too keen on linking before the main article, but if you unlinked it, it would probably still work. ] (]) 00:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::: Delinked, thanks. I cannot agree however that adding the name of the cat adds anything of value to the hook, because the name alone will be completely meaningless to 99.99% of readers. ] (]) 00:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::No objection to your new version, but I think what you and I consider "meaningless" might be different. It sounds like you oppose names in hooks, and I can understand that as I tend to oppose dates. ] (]) 00:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::: In general, I oppose names in hooks for non-notable persons, or to put it another way, names that cannot be linked to an article. Otherwise, what purpose do they serve? They are just conveying a piece of useless trivia. There's another reason I oppose them as well, but stating that might lead to another debate which I'd prefer not to have right now - cheers, ] (]) 00:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::: Anyhow, I have substituted the above version - thanks, ] (]) 06:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
=== Fen Juhua === | |||
Also in P2: | |||
* ... that ''']''', the "first of the lady knights in the Chinese cinema", ''']'''? | |||
- appears to be a clear breach of ]. Pinging nominator ], reviewer ] and promoter ]. ] (]) 00:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Suggested alt: | |||
*'''ALT1:''' ... that ''']''' has been described as the "first of the lady knights in the Chinese cinema" for her role in ''']'''? ] (]) 01:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
**DYKFICTION reads "If the subject of the hook is a creative work, the hook must be focused on a real-world fact." She was first of the lady knights in Chinese cinema, per Teo; that is the crux of the hook. If you'd prefer '''ALT2''' ... that ''']''' became the "first of the lady knights in the Chinese cinema" after fighting for love in ''']'''?, that keeps both elements while still keeping the link grounded as "a film". — ] (]) 05:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::: That's fine by me - substituted. ] (]) 06:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
---- | |||
*I wrote these, so a second set of eyes will be needed. — ] (]) 03:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
** ] AGF verified. ] (]) 03:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===]=== | |||
*I promoted to prep; second pair of eyes needed. — ] (]) 03:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: ]. Verified. ] (]) 03:29, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===]=== | |||
*Lede needs to be beefed up. I've tagged the article. Pinging ], ], and ]. — ] (]) 03:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Thanks, Darth Stabro. Tag removed. — ] (]) 03:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Nazi crimes against children == | |||
{{resolved}} | |||
Currently in P3: | |||
* ... that ''']''', such as kidnapping, ], and mass murder, resulted in more than two million victims? | |||
There are some issues with this hook. Firstly, "victims" do not only include those killed, and the way the hook is phrased conflates the different categories of victims. | |||
Secondly, the article states that more than 2 million Polish children lost their lives in World War II - but were they all killed in crimes, or is this the total number of children who lost their lives from all causes? Also, since this number refers only to Polish children, shouldn't the hook have "in Poland alone" appended (assuming they were all crime victims)? | |||
So I'm strongly inclined to pull this hook until the issues are sorted. Pinging the nominator ] for comment; any other comments welcome, thanks, ] (]) 11:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:@] Maybe it is late here, and I am tired, but I don't under stand your first concerns. Victims means all children who lost their lives because of Nazi policies and actions. Just like Holocaust victims includes not only people murdered directly, but those who starved, froze, etc. | |||
:Regarding the second point, yes, we can append the hook with "in Poland alone", that would be a correct clarification if deemed useful. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 15:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
], given that it's often quicker to propose an alt hook rather than debate the merits of another, I think I will just do that: | |||
* ... that in addition to millions murdered, ''']''' included ], forced labor, forced institutionalization, medical experiments and ]? ] (]) 01:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:@] Thanks. I am fine with this, arguably even better than what I came up with, thanks. Pinging reviewer @] and mod @] <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 01:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Looks good to me. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 02:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ] (image question)== | |||
Does anybody mind terribly if I swap the image for ] from ] to ]? The newer one was just uploaded yesterday ({{u|Elli}} is my queen) and, being made to look like bubble wrap, is a clearer demonstration of the trash concept imo. ♠]♠ ] 20:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Support. Much nicer image, too. First thing I thought of was bubble wrap. ] (]) 21:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:*I'm also good with that. — ] (]) 23:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:*:, feel free to revise the caption or alt text, ] (]) 04:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:*::Thanks for doing the swap, cheers y'all. ♠]♠ ] 07:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Christmas: A Biography == | |||
Hello, I need someone to choose a hook for ] and move it into the Christmas queue. Thank you. ] (]) 00:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{u|Viriditas}}, are you saying that the nomination is passed? If so, please add the tick and I can promote a hook. ] (]) 01:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::No, I’m saying we need a second reviewer to choose a hook, as I don’t find any of the hooks interesting. I have asked the nominator to add different ones from the secondary sources (of their own choosing) that I find both interesting and educational, but the nominator disagrees. To their benefit, the nominator has offered many different hooks to choose from, but is singularly focused on a hook style I do not like. I’m hoping other eyes can decide in favor of the nominator or otherwise. ] (]) 01:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{yo|AirshipJungleman29}} Due to time constraints on building a Christmas set, I will just go ahead and pass the hook in spite of my disagreement with the interestingness criterion. That way you can choose from the set. ] (]) 01:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Okay I passed it. ] (]) 01:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I am currently taking a look at the nom to try and determine the best course of action. ] (]) 03:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I have promoted one of the hooks that seemed interesting to me, but many others also seem fine. Not really sure what all the fuss was about in the 40kb nomination. ] (]) 11:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: Well, that saved me some work :) ] (]) 12:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::{{re|AirshipJungleman29}} Well, the discussion was huge because there was some persistent disagreement on how DYKINT works, some long reply paragraphs, and a quick look at the book itself. Good thing everything was sorted out in the ] of time. ]@] 18:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Backlog mode == | |||
{{DYK admins}} At ], the suggestion was that we go through backlog mode "with the goal of reducing the number of noms at WP:DYKN to 80 or so". We're now at 79. If there are no objections, I propose ending backlog mode at 00:00 UTC.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 13:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Good work, everyone. I agree with moving back to regular mode. — ] (]) 13:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I've updated ] and ], believe that's everything.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 00:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== DYKHOOK: Facts that will likely change while posted == | |||
A few weeks back, as follows: {{TextDiff|The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change|The hook should include an established fact}} Currently on the Main Page, there is a hook that resulted in about a fact that changed: the total number of games between two teams was in the hook, but it became dated because they were playing each other shortly after its posting. | |||
While there's consensus that a hook doesn't need to remain true in perpetuity, I wasn't expecting that it would likely become dated while it was posted. This was flagged earlier at ] (above), but it was decided that no hook changes were needed given the recent guideline change. | |||
'''Question''': Should "unlikely to change while posted", or similar, be added to ]? {{re|Gonzo fan2007|Launchballer|Narutolovehinata5}} Courtesy ping as participants from the above thread. —] (]) 15:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I would support this, or at the very least some clarity that the hook will need to be updated accordingly while it is running.<span style="white-space:nowrap; font-family:Harlow Solid Italic;"><span style="font-size:small; color:teal;"> « Gonzo fan2007</span> ] @ </span> 15:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:{{u|AirshipJungleman29}} made the change, so pinging for their input here. ] (] · ]) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Prior to AJ29's changing to "established fact", I had reworded the guideline to say "unlikely to change prior to or during its run on the Main Page"; this wording was changed for being redundant. Should the wording be reverted to this wording instead? ] (] · ]) 16:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::I'd be fine with that wording.<span style="white-space:nowrap; font-family:Harlow Solid Italic;"><span style="font-size:small; color:teal;"> « Gonzo fan2007</span> ] @ </span> 17:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::At ], I had mentioned hooks that bcome dated before posting, but didn't think of it changing while posted. I'd be OK with that wording, or an alternative that addresses this recent case. —] (]) 05:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:With no objections and AJ29 not responding to the above discussion, I've gone ahead and changed the wording back to my original change. "Established fact" seemed vague anyway and was probably not the best term to use regardless of the outcome of the above circumstances. ] (] · ]) 13:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*Just noting that in the past, we've had some timely DYKs that contain hook facts relevant to the day they're posted, and they've usually been handed and worded so that they aren't false at some point in the day (... that, until today... ''or'' ...that, today is the Xth time... ''or'' similar) – and aside from the wording in the guideline this seems logical and something that should have happened in this case anyway. Was there any reason why not, besides relying on the changed wording? ] (]) 05:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Inquiry at ] == | |||
Copied from nomination talk page; feels like it should have broader review than just one talk page on one nomination that may not be watched. — ] (]) 21:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
;Original comment | |||
{{u|Royiswariii}}, why did you close this as "rejected by reviewer"? The reviewer, {{u|Launchballer}}, gave it the approval tick. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 20:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC) — ] (]) 21:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I've readded it to ].--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 01:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:], can you be specific what on DYK nom i rejected? ] ] 02:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::@], see the heading of this section. <span style="border:3px outset;border-radius:8pt 0;padding:1px 5px;background:linear-gradient(6rad,#86c,#2b9)">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 02:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The direct link to the nom page is ]. —] (]) 05:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Older nominations needing DYK reviewers == | == Older nominations needing DYK reviewers == | ||
The previous list |
The previous list hasn’t yet been archived but it has only a few unreviewed noms remaining, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 3. We have a total of 270 nominations, of which 147 have been approved, a gap of 123 nominations that has increased by 11 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations! | ||
'''Almost two months old''' | |||
*<s>October 2: ]</s> | |||
'''More than one month old''' | '''More than one month old''' | ||
*October 24: ] | |||
*<s>October 31: ]</s> | |||
*November 1: ] | |||
*November 4: ] (two articles) | |||
*November 4: ] | |||
*November 5: ] | |||
*November 7: ] | |||
*November 9: ] (second opinion requested) | |||
*November 10: ] | |||
'''Other nominations''' | |||
*November 17: ] | |||
*<s>November 17: ]</s> | |||
*November 19: ] | *November 19: ] | ||
*November |
*November 19: ] | ||
*November 21: ] | *November 21: ] | ||
* |
*December 1: ] | ||
*<s> |
*<s>December 6: ]</s> | ||
* |
*December 11: ] | ||
* |
*December 12: ] | ||
'''Other nominations''' | |||
*<s>December 2: ]</s> | |||
*<s>December |
*<s>December 20: ]</s> | ||
*December |
*December 24: ] | ||
*December |
*<s>December 25: ]</s> | ||
*December |
*<s>December 26: ]</s> | ||
*December 28: ] | |||
*December 29: ] | |||
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! ] (]) 23:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*December 30: ] | |||
*<s>December 30: ]</s> | |||
*December 31: ] | |||
*<s>December 31: ]</s> | |||
===]=== | |||
*<s>December 31: ]</s> | |||
*This is one of mine, and thus a second pair of eyes is needed. — ] (]) 00:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*January 1: ] (two articles) | |||
::Doing.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 01:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*January 1: ] | |||
:::Looks good to me.--<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 01:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*<s>January 1: ]</s> | |||
:::*Thanks. — ] (]) 01:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*January 2: ] | |||
*January 2: ] | |||
===]=== | |||
*January 2: ] | |||
* Given the recent hullabaloo about potentially ambiguous phrasing, is "amphibian" in the generic sense something we want on the main page? The article says "amphibious lifestyle", which is less likely to be confused with ]. Pinging ], ], and ]. — ] (]) 00:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*<s>January 2: ]</s> | |||
*:Well referring to the 1782 source, honestly with the French term "amphibie" translating either to "amphibian" or "amphibious," either could be correct ("etoit amphibie"). Cuvier in 1804 interpreted Lamanon's description as him thinking that it was ''an'' amphibian ("...e'etoit un amphibie"). ] (]) 02:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*January 2: ] | |||
*::Fair enough. I just wonder if the ambiguity could be better reflected in the article. — ] (]) 02:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*<s>January 2: ]</s> | |||
*January 2: ] | |||
===]=== | |||
*January 3: ] | |||
*Just going to note that I included the ALT from the section above. — ] (]) 00:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*January 3: ] | |||
*January 3: ] | |||
===]=== | |||
*Last I checked, the ] in North America is generally September to June; as such, "closed after the 1969{{ndash}}1970 academic year" means it closed in 1970. Does the source specify 1971? Pinging ], ], and ]. — ] (]) 00:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:Good catch, worth double checking. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 03:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*:Yes, it looks like 1970 would be the correct date, based on contemporary sources. It looks like the 1971 date slipped in from the ''To Work for the Whole People'' book source, which says 1971 on page 259. ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 05:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
*::Okay, I removed the year from the hook] (]) 13:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
===]=== | |||
{{ping| AirshipJungleman29| Spiderpig662 |4meter4 }} There's extensive copying from The Independent, a clear violation of ] which needs to be addressed before this can go live. ] ] 18:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:This also has a {{t|Lead too short}} maintenance tag, which also needs to be addressed. ] ] 19:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::@] I see you took care of the worst of it. If you take a piece of text and just change words here and there but keep the same underlying structure and order, that's the definition of close paraphrasing. That's what you had (and to a lesser extent, still do). What you should be doing is reading the original source and then formulating your own way of expressing the same information. ] ] 22:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::{{ping|RoySmith}} I didn't even realise about close paraphrasing, thanks for letting me know. I'm planning on rewriting more of it tomorrow. ] (]) 23:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::Glad I could be of service. ] ] 23:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::::This still has the maintenance tag, so I've swapped it down to {{prep|3}} to be worked on. ] ] 03:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===]=== | |||
{{ping| AirshipJungleman29 | Chaiten1 |PCN02WPS }} If I'm reading this right, the last set of papers were published ''on'' his 18th birthday, not ''before''. ] ] 18:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks - he published his 200th paper in 2004, and was still publishing new papers aged 18 / 72, in 2008 ] (]) 18:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I'm not seeing where it says that in the article. ] ] 18:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
===]=== | |||
{{ping|WoodElf}} The lede's too short to summarize article's key points. Please expand, thanks. ] (]) 05:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Lede is updated. ] 11:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Prep 3 == | |||
@] I'm unsatisfied with the new wording of the hook for ] in prep 3 as I believe it is now incorrect. In my mind, the construction {{tq|was said to be "incurable"}} is important since I don't believe it to be true that her illness was magically only curable if she went back to New Jersey specifically. To say {{tq|his wife's illness was only curable if she returned to New Jersey}} is presenting the physician's opinion in Misplaced Pages's voice, which I think should be avoided (especially in this case, since the absurdity of the advice was the appeal of the hook in the first place). The new wording also throws out "New Jersey" with no explanation, which doesn't make any sense, and in isolation doesn't really add much to the hook. I'm definitely not saying the hook can't be shortened, but I believe its new wording to be less than ideal. ] <small>(] | ])</small> 18:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I think I meant to have "was believed to be only curable" in there {{u|PCN02WPS}}, which would resolve the wikivoice problem, but I don't see how the original explains "New Jersey" any more than the current version. ] (]) 19:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::@] From how I read the source, it seemed like the "cure" was to have her return to her home state, not New Jersey specifically. Maybe the hook could be {{tq|...that William C. Roberts had to resign a pastorate in Ohio because his wife's illness was said to be "incurable" unless she returned to her home state?}} or, with the new wording, {{tq|...that William C. Roberts had to resign a pastorate in Ohio because his wife's illness was believed to only be curable if she returned to her home state?}} ] <small>(] | ])</small> 19:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Should ] apply to mythology, legends, folk tales, and the like? == | |||
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! ] (]) 03:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
For context, ] is stuck as the original hook was about an event in Greek mythology. Concerns were raised that the hook violates ]. Wouldn't that be overkill? Plus, wouldn't saying that DYKFICTION applies to mythology, legends, and the like would mean that much of the Bible, as well as other religious texts, would also fall under DYKFICTION? I sort of see where the idea was coming from, but I really don't think that mythology was something that editors had in mind when that guideline was codified. ] (] · ]) 05:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
:I'm a bit confused by this because you closed ] after it was rejected for DYKFICTION with the same argument. ] (]) 08:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::I marked that nomination for closure not due to DYKFICTION concerns, but due to DYKTIMEOUT (it was already two months old with outstanding issues). ] (] · ]) 09:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The outstanding issues were DYKFICTION ones. ] (]) 10:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I didn't even notice or realize that the concerns were regarding DYK fiction, only that it remained unapproved after two months, hence why I timed it out. ] (] · ]) 01:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:Why should we exempt religious texts and make a difference between L. Ron Hubbard's fiction that was widely available and the fiction that was only sold to Scientologists? Involving the real world isn't too difficult for religious texts; they don't need an exemption. —] (]) 10:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I strongly disagree with attempting to apply DYKFICTION to folklore, mythology, and so on. In fact, there should be an explicit disclaimer added to DYKFICTION that it does not cover those, since this has come up before. The ''intent'' of DYKFICTION was to discourage "did you know that (in-universe fact like "the fictional alter-ego of Jimmy Wales defeats 100 criminals in just 10 seconds") in ''Some Novel''? Because that's a trivial issue someone just made up. But if we're talking folklore, it ''really is'' relevant to say what the folklore is. That's something true in real-life culture. Like if Paul Bunyan became a GA, mentioning that he carved the Grand Canyon with his axe would be a totally valid hook. Same with religious / theological topics - if there's a suitably hooky fact about what some guru / saint / etc. is said to have done, that's precisely the point. Knowing what precisely Hermes was the god of isn't "fictional", it's basic human knowledge of a field. ] (]) 18:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::How could DYKFICTION be reworded to incorporate this? ~{{Smallcaps|]}}<sup>]{{nbsp}}•{{nbsp}}]</sup> 18:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::If you want to feature a legend of Paul Bunyan, just make sure to incorporate the real world in your hook. Say where it comes from, who recorded it, where there are statues commemorating it. This is generally easier with legendary characters than for general plot points in fiction. —] (]) 20:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::The problem is that the main page is aimed at readers, and the best hooks are ''short'' that ideally highlight just ''one'' fact. If that fact is something about the legend, that should be acceptable; we shouldn't feel a need to create an awkward dual-hook that says the interesting thing we want readers to care about, and then some later bit that might be less interesting. ] (]) 22:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::I don't see a hook "... that Paul Bunyan was said to have carved the Grand Canyon with his axe" as any better than "... that in ''Star Wars'', backwards Yoda speaks?" —] (]) 22:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:If a mythological topic has a Misplaced Pages article, it needs to be the subject of multiple non-narrative sources. Those will provide non-fictional analyses of the subject which can be used as a hook. The later sections of ] provide numerous examples.{{pb}}People have been inventing stories using the limits of their creativity for millennia. It makes no sense to allow a hook like "that in the ], Aeneas went to the undwerworld", and to disallow "that ] used to be called Anakin Skywalker" when everyone involved in creating both stories knew they were entirely fictional. ] (]) 18:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Going to the underworld and Vader turning to the dark side are far more than fiction. They are part of a large body of mythology based on archetypes related to patterns in literature, concepts in philosophy, and more controversially, psychology itself. The element of fiction is just the appearance of the larger iceberg, 90% of which lies beneath the surface. If we reduce all of this to "just fiction", we aren't even addressing the most interesting and salient features of the idea. That's why DYKFICTION is so limiting. ] (]) 01:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===] (])=== | |||
== Diane Leather == | |||
{{ping|Generalissima|PCN02WPS|SL93}} both the article and source make it clear that Montford only "likely" purchased his own freedom; the hook needs to be adjusted accordingly. If it fine if I drop a "likely" before "purchased"? ] (]) 13:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:Go ahead, apologies. <small> ] (]) (it/she) </small> 15:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Just leaving a note here that I've pulled the ] hook from the main page (got there via Q2) over copyvio concerns as reported at Errors. ''']]''' 08:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
===] (])=== | |||
:Turns out that the copyvio existing for a year back in 2014 and 2015, was mentioned on the talk page, but nobody had ever done a revision deletion. I've done so now and restored the article. ''']]''' 09:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
I don't want to restart the kerfuffle we've seen on this page recently, but I'm honestly not sure if this hook violates ]. Opinions requested, and courtesy pings {{ping|CanonNi|JJonahJackalope|SL93}}. ] (]) 13:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:{{Ping|AirshipJungleman29}}, after reading through the special considerations section of the Did You Know? guidelines, I would probably agree with you that a hook on this article should be more focused on a real-world topic than the current hook is. I apologize for that oversight on my end, just let me know what I should do moving forward with this submission and I await feedback from the nominator. Thanks, -] (]) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::] ] ]<sup>]</sup> 19:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
: While it probably constitutes a violation, it's an entertaining hook that does link to two topics pertaining to real-world physics, namely ] and ] - which serves our educational purpose. Perhaps we could ] this one? ] (]) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::I thought that those two things could count as the real world information. ] (]) 18:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::Warp drives are definitely fictional. Maglocks, while real, seem very prosaic, at least judging from the linked article; no idea why they were chosen ahead of space suits interestingness-wise. ] (]) 18:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
::::I meant maglocks and the “look like American semi-trucks from the 1970s?” I just woke up. As for the space suits, I don’t see such a hook suggested. ] (]) 18:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:::: Yes, warp drives are fictional, but if you read the article, it includes an entire section on the physics related to the idea. Maglocks might be "prosaic" but I've never heard of them so they tweaked my curiosity. Not sure what your comment about spacesuits pertains to, but everybody knows what a spacesuit is. ] (]) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:I could add more to the article from the source to do this hook ... that ''''']''''' "can be as relaxing or sweaty as you like"? ] (]) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
:@] sorry for the late reply. If the current hook isn't suitable, would something like "... that players of ''''']''''' have to control three axes at once?" work? The source would be . Thanks. <span style="white-space:nowrap"><span style="font-family:monospace">'''<nowiki>''']<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki>'''</span> (] • ])</span> 11:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 14:29, 16 January 2025
Error reportsPlease do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Misplaced Pages:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you. |
DYK queue status
Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC) Current time: 16:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 16 hours ago( ) |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.
Back to 24 hours?
@DYK admins: As of this moment, we've got five filled queues. If we can fill another two queues before midnight UTC (eight hours from now), we'll keep running 12 hour updates for another three days. Otherwise we're back to 24. RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've promoted one more, but don't think I'll have time for the last one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm working on Queue 5 right now, so we're good to keep going until 0000 6 Jan UTC. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- And somebody needs to back-fill the holes that got left in Queue 3 after various yankings. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DYK admins: just to make sure everybody is aware, we're going to extend 12-hour mode (at least) another 3 days now that we have 7 full queues. We do have quite a backlog to dig out of. By my count, we've got 165 approved hooks, and there's another GAN review drive that just started so I expect another big influx of nominations. I expect it'll take us several more 3-day sprints to get back to normal and it'll be less disruptive to keep them going back-to-back vs flitting back and forth between modes. RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- So long as queue 3 is filled by midnight and the two date requests in queues 4 and 5 are suitably kicked back, I have no valid objections.--Launchballer 22:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I filled one of the holes in queue 3. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm getting confused as to where the SOHA hooks need to go; anyone able to get their head around it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- 5 and 6 January, but they're already there. Brain fog is brain fogging, clearly.--Launchballer 13:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a reminder, WP:DYKSO says
The reviewer must approve the special occasion request, but prep builders and admins are not bound by the reviewer's approval
. The relevance to this discussion is that keeping the queues running smoothly is a higher priority than satisfying special date requests. I'm all for people putting in the extra effort shuffling hooks around to satisfy SOHA requests, but we can't let "perfect" get in the way of "good enough". It would have been a mistake to force a change to the update schedule because of SOHA. RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a reminder, WP:DYKSO says
- 5 and 6 January, but they're already there. Brain fog is brain fogging, clearly.--Launchballer 13:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
- So long as queue 3 is filled by midnight and the two date requests in queues 4 and 5 are suitably kicked back, I have no valid objections.--Launchballer 22:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- @DYK admins: just to make sure everybody is aware, we're going to extend 12-hour mode (at least) another 3 days now that we have 7 full queues. We do have quite a backlog to dig out of. By my count, we've got 165 approved hooks, and there's another GAN review drive that just started so I expect another big influx of nominations. I expect it'll take us several more 3-day sprints to get back to normal and it'll be less disruptive to keep them going back-to-back vs flitting back and forth between modes. RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- And somebody needs to back-fill the holes that got left in Queue 3 after various yankings. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm working on Queue 5 right now, so we're good to keep going until 0000 6 Jan UTC. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
5 January
We need one more queue to get filled in the next 8 hours to keep going with 12 hour mode RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can take the next one if no-one else does in the next five hours. I'd need more eyes on the Tyler hook though.--Launchballer 16:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Doing, although Glucoboy in prep 6 looks interesting and I might swap it and Tyler to avoid outsourcing. I'll make that decision after in nine articles' time.--Launchballer 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Another six sets of 12 hour mode it is.--Launchballer 00:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Doing, although Glucoboy in prep 6 looks interesting and I might swap it and Tyler to avoid outsourcing. I'll make that decision after in nine articles' time.--Launchballer 21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
8 January
@DYK admins: We've got about 10 hours left in the current sprint. There's only 4 queues filled right now; unless we get 3 more filled today, we'll go back to 24 hour sets at 0000Z. By my count, we've currently got 156 approved hooks, and there's still that GA backlog drive going on, so I would expect another influx of nominations from that. RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see you and @Hilst: have queues 1 and 2 in hand. If no-one else does prep 3 in the next four hours, I'll take it.--Launchballer 17:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- I took it. Next decision to be made on 11 January. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
11 January
@DYK admins: we're down to 127 approved hooks, which is great progress, but still above the threshold for another sprint if we can get 4 queues filled in the next 8 hours. RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll take the next one.--Launchballer 15:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: I've queued prep 6 and can probably do prep 1 this evening.--Launchballer 17:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did 7 (which, by the way, was totally clean, which made it easy). RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll take 1 once I've cooked.--Launchballer 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Doing now.--Launchballer 20:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- And the last one's all yours.--Launchballer 21:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm assuming somebody else will step up. This is a team effort. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, would do but am annoyingly indisposed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Someone needs to update User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates as it's protected.--Launchballer 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- OK, I've put us back to 24 hour mode. I think this was the first time we've tried the "3 day sprint" thing and from what I can see, it worked well. We ran for 12 days, knocked the backlog down from (I think) 165 to 128, and always knew where we were. No more panic when the queues ran down to empty. So, good job everybody. I haven't been keeping careful track, but I think Launchballer probably gets the prize for most sets promoted to queue during this.
- My guess is we'll need to run some more sprints in the near future as the GA review drive throws more work our way. But for now, we get to stand down and get some more rest. RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Someone needs to update User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates as it's protected.--Launchballer 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry, would do but am annoyingly indisposed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm assuming somebody else will step up. This is a team effort. RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- And the last one's all yours.--Launchballer 21:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Doing now.--Launchballer 20:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'll take 1 once I've cooked.--Launchballer 19:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I did 7 (which, by the way, was totally clean, which made it easy). RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: I've queued prep 6 and can probably do prep 1 this evening.--Launchballer 17:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Should this be showing up as verified??
Template:Did you know nominations/Oscar Goodman (basketball) is now the second oldest nomination. It was approved some time ago and then debate started about why it wasn't getting promoted. Now that it is at the top of the table, I am noticing it is not showing up as verified. Is it listed incorrectly somehow so that it is not showing as verified?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger The latest icon in the nomination is {{subst:DYK?}} so that puts it in the unapproved section. If someone approved the latest hooks and added {{subst:DYKtick}} then it would be approved again. TSventon (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I understand it ALT7 and ALT8 are acceptable, but is there anyone who has the responsibility to review it. User:Sims2aholic8 was the original reviewer who approved it. User:AirshipJungleman29 called it into question. User:Narutolovehinata5 has been the most active discussant. I am not even sure who to ask to give it a positive tick.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- This Kiwi redhead is getting treated like the perverbial a redheaded stepchild (Not making up the phrase you can google "like a redheaded stepchild"). I have heard of American bias. I can list any smoe American basketball player, but this poor redheaded Kiwi can't get no love.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, there have been hooks in the past about American sports personalities that have also been questioned due to lack of appeal to non-American readers, so it isn't specifically an anti-American (or pro-American for that matter) bias. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- This Kiwi redhead is getting treated like the perverbial a redheaded stepchild (Not making up the phrase you can google "like a redheaded stepchild"). I have heard of American bias. I can list any smoe American basketball player, but this poor redheaded Kiwi can't get no love.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- As I understand it ALT7 and ALT8 are acceptable, but is there anyone who has the responsibility to review it. User:Sims2aholic8 was the original reviewer who approved it. User:AirshipJungleman29 called it into question. User:Narutolovehinata5 has been the most active discussant. I am not even sure who to ask to give it a positive tick.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, I don't do a lot of international editing, so I don't know if this is unusual here, but in my editing history, I have never written an article and noticed so many editors from a specific country were so interested that they would jump in with editorial corrections before. So many New Zealand editors (User:Alexeyevitch, User:Gadfium, User:Schwede66, User:Panamitsu, maybe User:Lukraun) expressed an interest in the article as editors, that I think WP is showing a lack of ethnic sensitivity by expressing lacked enthusiasm for subjects of interest to smaller (in this case ethnic) interest groups. I would have expected a small but differently concentrated viewership for this article. I suspect clickthroughs would come from Kiwi readers who have a smaller set of opportunities to do so at DYK in general. If this ran and got less than 2k clickthroughs they probably would not be from the common locations, but with a concentration, like the editorship of this article. Is this racist?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Can someone step in with a teaching moment for me. I know this subject is of strong interest to people from New Zealand and New Zealand is a fairly small country (population 5 million). I also believe that New Zealand subjects are probably a bit rare at DYK especially those where the word New Zealand could so easily be included in the hook. I feel such strong expressions of apathy for a subject with a small ethnic interest groups seem to unfair and counter to WP interest in a year when 2025:Wikimania highlights inclusivity. Is WP's 2025 theme of inclusivity something DYK considers with respect to subjects pertinent to small interest groups.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't about inclusivity or even what country the subject from. It's a simple question of whether or not the hooks proposed are interesting to a broad, non-specialist audience. Consensus in the discussion, unfortunately, is that the proposed hooks are marginally interesting at best. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Narutolovehinata5 Confirming here. In the subjective assessments that DYK makes, there is no consideration for inclusivity.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is a nonsensical interpretation, the most related read of what Narutolovehinata5 said regarding inclusivity would be that DYK hooks strive for maximum possible inclusivity. CMD (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Narutolovehinata5 Confirming here. In the subjective assessments that DYK makes, there is no consideration for inclusivity.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- This isn't about inclusivity or even what country the subject from. It's a simple question of whether or not the hooks proposed are interesting to a broad, non-specialist audience. Consensus in the discussion, unfortunately, is that the proposed hooks are marginally interesting at best. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Does your edit mean that the nomination is closed? AFAICS, most of the 2+ months elapsed was while under the assumption that this was approved and ready to go:
- 5 Nov Nominated
- 7 Nov Approved
- 25 Dec Formally marked for issue follow-up.—Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I marked the nomination for closure per WP:DYKTIMEOUT and a lack of consensus regarding a hook. WP:DYKTIMEOUT generally refers to unpromoted nominations, though I think it might be better for it to refer to nominations that haven't run, since depending on how the wording is interpreted, promoting then pulling a hook could reset the timer under the current wording. Since the nomination is already over two months old, it was under editor discretion to time it out or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: It seems pretty cutthroat. I could understand if it had an explicit outstanding issue for months. Instead, it was formally approved, but the lack of a promotion for ~2 mos became a stealth unapprove. That's putting the onus on nominators to constantly pester why their approved nomination has not been promoted, for fear a last minute issue will similarly be raised and their nomination will also be killed via timeout. —Bagumba (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's why DYKTIMEOUT isn't mandatory, it's editor discretion. There are cases when even if a nomination is already over two months old, it should not be timed out if there's good reason (for example, if discussion or workshopping is still ongoing). For what it's worth, multiple editors had expressed reservations about the hook options, so I took that into account when marking the nomination for closure. Had other editors said that they were willing to salvage the nomination, the closure marking would not have happened. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation. —Bagumba (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- That's why DYKTIMEOUT isn't mandatory, it's editor discretion. There are cases when even if a nomination is already over two months old, it should not be timed out if there's good reason (for example, if discussion or workshopping is still ongoing). For what it's worth, multiple editors had expressed reservations about the hook options, so I took that into account when marking the nomination for closure. Had other editors said that they were willing to salvage the nomination, the closure marking would not have happened. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: It seems pretty cutthroat. I could understand if it had an explicit outstanding issue for months. Instead, it was formally approved, but the lack of a promotion for ~2 mos became a stealth unapprove. That's putting the onus on nominators to constantly pester why their approved nomination has not been promoted, for fear a last minute issue will similarly be raised and their nomination will also be killed via timeout. —Bagumba (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have replied to the nomination as the original reviewer; personally I think ALT8 is suitable and passes the DYK brief, but if there are still dissenting voices on this I'm happy to hear them out. Otherwise I suggest this be promoted using ALT8. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I personally am okayish with ALT8, but I agree with Hilst that it probably won't do all that well on DYK. Given that they objected to the options, it might be worth hearing their thoughts first (or from other editors) before proceeding with ALT8. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I dislike ALT8 because it's not really a fact specific to Oscar Goodman. You could swap him out for any other player from the under-17 team (or even the coach), and it would still work. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The article makes it clear that he stands out from other under-15, -16 and -17 athletes by virtue of whenever he is in a large tournament with players his age, he is always one of the best 5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- User:Hilst, see ALT9.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- The article makes it clear that he stands out from other under-15, -16 and -17 athletes by virtue of whenever he is in a large tournament with players his age, he is always one of the best 5.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I dislike ALT8 because it's not really a fact specific to Oscar Goodman. You could swap him out for any other player from the under-17 team (or even the coach), and it would still work. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the record, I'm also very baffled with the claims that there is an anti-
AustraliaNew Zealand bias on DYK or with the nomination, or that rejecting the nomination would harm DYK's "diversity". The concerns regarding interest were independent of the subject beingAustralianNew Zealander, and I imagine if similar concerns existed but the subject was instead, for example, British, such concerns would still remain. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)- Australia (population 28 million, the 54th largest nation) is not as underrepresented on DYK and this is not an Australian hook. New Zealand (population 5 million, 125th largest), which is less than 1/5th the size of Australia, and I presume it is underrepresented. That is the issue here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can't verify DYK frequency, but I can extrapolate main page underreprentation by these category sizes Category:FA-Class New Zealand articles (count 57) and Category:FA-Class Australia articles (count 478). So the WP:TFA ratio is probably closer to 1/10 the frequency of Australia, which may or may not be underrepresented relative to the US and UK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- I personally am okayish with ALT8, but I agree with Hilst that it probably won't do all that well on DYK. Given that they objected to the options, it might be worth hearing their thoughts first (or from other editors) before proceeding with ALT8. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Again, the issue isn't an anti-New Zealand or anti-country bias. The question is if there is consensus for a nomination to run. If there are existing concerns or objections, then it can't run. The issues with this nomination have nothing to do with having an anti-New Zealand bias, or wanting to prevent diversity on DYK. On the contrary, a diverse selection of topics is one of the things DYK strives for. But just because we aim for diversity or promoting underrepresented topics on DYK doesn't mean rules and guidelines should be waived or ignored. If a nomination about an underrepresented topic is rejected, it is not due to a bias against that topic, or a desire to prevent diversity, but rather an issue with the article, hook, or nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Queue 6
Zoe Smith
@BennyOnTheLoose, AmateurHi$torian, and SL93: I don't think it's on to have a hook that implies someone's lazy per WP:DYKHOOKBLP. Misplaced Pages's birthday is on 15 January and this article mentions this site - why don't we run a hook mentioning it on that date?--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: I'd added a couple of alt hooks when approving the nom, we could also use those. The Misplaced Pages birthday thing sounds great as well :) -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree about the WP:BLP aspect. I've swapped in ALT1. If somebody wants to go to the trouble to schedule this for her birthday, I won't object, but I can't get too excited about it. RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- What's there now works.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but Smith seems to have embraced the nickname - it's included in her official Twitter and Instagram handles, for example. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Given the standards given on WP:SOHA, it's probably not a good idea to schedule this on January 15 just because of Misplaced Pages's mention. It seems like a rather flimsy special occasion. We've rejected arguably more deserving occasions in the past, so I can't see why this rather weak connection should be given a pass. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- What's there now works.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
2024 attack on the Bangladesh Assistant High Commission in India
@Za-ari-masen and Surtsicna: Article does not mention the word 'monk'. Also, the lead could do with expanding, but that's technically not a DYK issue.--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Launchballer I added the word "monk". SL93 (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- And I added an end-of-sentence citation. This should be fine.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I still can't get over how certain end of citation rules are pointless - like this one. Just thinking out loud a bit. SL93 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- When I'm checking a hook, this is one of those rules I'm willing to play a little fast and lose with. As long as there's a citation pretty close, and it's obvious what source backs up the hook fact, I'm good, even if it's not strictly at the end of the sentence. So sue me. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I still can't get over how certain end of citation rules are pointless - like this one. Just thinking out loud a bit. SL93 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- And I added an end-of-sentence citation. This should be fine.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Autoflow
First hooks are notoriously problematic. This one seems fine as earlier patents would have been rejected by law (and indeed one was), but I'm opening this to the floor just in case.--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to think this is OK. The source says "The patent grant was made possible by a decision last year by the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals", so at least there's a small window of time in which an earlier software patent might have issued. And apparently this was followed extensively in the industry press, so it's unlikely an earlier one just wasn't noticed. This is mentioned in Martin Goetz, and I also found a bunch of other citations. RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
References
- scholarship.law.columbia.edu https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1271&context=faculty_scholarship. Retrieved 12 January 2025.
{{cite web}}
: Missing or empty|title=
(help) - "Software patents 'a bit of a mess' says Martin Goetz, the first man to get one". the Guardian. Retrieved 12 January 2025.
- "June 19, 1968: First software patent awarded to Martin Goetz". Patrick J. McGovern Foundation. Retrieved 12 January 2025.
RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
John Roach (bishop)
@Kingoflettuce, Darth Stabro, and Hilst: Not sure how comfortable I am with this on BLP grounds; while Roach is dead, we don't know if Casey or Schwartz is. There was a suggestion at the nom page of receiving a standing ovation for admitting to his alcoholism and I think we should go with that.--Launchballer 17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Casey is dead, cannot find anything for Schwartz.
- Perhaps as an ALT1: "... that Archbishop John Roach received a standing ovation at World Youth Day 1993 when he admitted to being an alcoholic?" ~Darth Stabro 20:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- There may be some way to work in the drunk driving incident without being too wordy, but I haven't figured one out. ~Darth Stabro 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the drunk driving aspect would quality for WP:DYKTRIM. If you're alright with the slightly more concise ALT1a: ... that Archbishop John Roach received a standing ovation for admitting his alcoholism?, I'll swap it in.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds good. ~Darth Stabro 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the drunk driving aspect would quality for WP:DYKTRIM. If you're alright with the slightly more concise ALT1a: ... that Archbishop John Roach received a standing ovation for admitting his alcoholism?, I'll swap it in.--Launchballer 21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- There may be some way to work in the drunk driving incident without being too wordy, but I haven't figured one out. ~Darth Stabro 20:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Queue 1
Thamirys Nunes/Minha Criança Trans
@Skyshifter, Sammi Brie, and AirshipJungleman29: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation for "an organization dedicated to defending transgender youth".--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Done. Skyshiftertalk 21:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- AGF fine.--Launchballer 21:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Darryl De Sousa
@Queen of Hearts, Generalissima, and Hilst: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Sigh, done. charlotte 21:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- My concern has been resolved.--Launchballer 21:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Zhao Chongguo
@Vigilantcosmicpenguin: One of the notes needs a citation.--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wonder if the note can just be removed completely. I don't see many readers knowing what the wuwu year is. SL93 (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Pinging nominator Generalissima. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Removed these Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fine by me.--Launchballer 10:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Burt (crocodile)
@CFA and WikiOriginal-9: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 21:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Done. SL93 (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fine by me.--Launchballer 10:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note This hook is now at WP:ERRORS. Black Kite (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
10 hook sets?
We switched to 9 hooks per set a while ago. That has certainly kept us closer to keeping up with nominations, but we're still falling behind and having to run in 12-hour mode once in a while to keep up. I suggest we try 10 hooks per set and see how that goes. RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Not worth it. The current rate will even out over time. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if one extra hook per set will help much if at all. I do think that more prep builders would help. SL93 (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not mind going to 10 hooks a set. If we start running out, we can always return to 9-a-set at a later date. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nine is already more than enough IMO. Apart from the extra work required in verifying a 10-hook set, it becomes much harder not to repeat topics with longer sets, and longer sets just tend to look cluttered. 12-hour mode has long been a staple of DYK anyhow and one extra hook per set is not going to change that. Gatoclass (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we're getting to the point where DYK is at risk of getting so long that hooks won't get the attention they deserve. I'd rather not move to 10 unless the overall backlog situation gets worse. —Kusma (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list hasn’t yet been archived but it has only a few unreviewed noms remaining, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 3. We have a total of 270 nominations, of which 147 have been approved, a gap of 123 nominations that has increased by 11 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
More than one month old
- November 19: Template:Did you know nominations/2019 NFC Divisional Playoff game (Seattle–Green Bay)
- November 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Sun Haven (video game)
- November 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Doug Hamlin
- December 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Tellus (app)
December 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Prius Missile- December 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Step by Step (Braxe + Falcon song)
- December 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Browning
Other nominations
December 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Wu Zhong (general)- December 24: Template:Did you know nominations/2024 drone sightings
December 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Scientific Research Institute of Medicine of the Ministry of Defense in Sergiyev PosadDecember 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Frederick W. Hinitt- December 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Special Operations Brigade (PLA Navy Marine Corps)
- December 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Their Highest Potential: An African American School Community in the Segregated South
- December 30: Template:Did you know nominations/20–50 club
December 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Chauburji (Agra)- December 31: Template:Did you know nominations/List of things named after Julius Caesar
December 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Jindřich MarcoDecember 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Julier Pass- January 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Penstemon harringtonii (two articles)
- January 1: Template:Did you know nominations/WLOK (Ohio)
January 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Pantropiko- January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Dirini
- January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Klerykal fiction
- January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Roll-A-Palace
January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Line of Duty- January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Chinese sanctions
January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Langar Ki Masjid- January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Elisheva Biernoff
- January 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Jailson Mendes
- January 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Tanzania. Masterworks of African Sculpture
- January 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Wielka, większa i największa
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Queue 2
Donum Montford (nom)
@Generalissima, PCN02WPS, and SL93: both the article and source make it clear that Montford only "likely" purchased his own freedom; the hook needs to be adjusted accordingly. If it fine if I drop a "likely" before "purchased"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Go ahead, apologies. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Star Trucker (nom)
I don't want to restart the kerfuffle we've seen on this page recently, but I'm honestly not sure if this hook violates WP:DYKFICTION. Opinions requested, and courtesy pings @CanonNi, JJonahJackalope, and SL93:. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29:, after reading through the special considerations section of the Did You Know? guidelines, I would probably agree with you that a hook on this article should be more focused on a real-world topic than the current hook is. I apologize for that oversight on my end, just let me know what I should do moving forward with this submission and I await feedback from the nominator. Thanks, -JJonahJackalope (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- While it probably constitutes a violation, it's an entertaining hook that does link to two topics pertaining to real-world physics, namely warp drive and maglocks - which serves our educational purpose. Perhaps we could WP:IAR this one? Gatoclass (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I thought that those two things could count as the real world information. SL93 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Warp drives are definitely fictional. Maglocks, while real, seem very prosaic, at least judging from the linked article; no idea why they were chosen ahead of space suits interestingness-wise. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I meant maglocks and the “look like American semi-trucks from the 1970s?” I just woke up. As for the space suits, I don’t see such a hook suggested. SL93 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, warp drives are fictional, but if you read the article, it includes an entire section on the physics related to the idea. Maglocks might be "prosaic" but I've never heard of them so they tweaked my curiosity. Not sure what your comment about spacesuits pertains to, but everybody knows what a spacesuit is. Gatoclass (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Warp drives are definitely fictional. Maglocks, while real, seem very prosaic, at least judging from the linked article; no idea why they were chosen ahead of space suits interestingness-wise. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I thought that those two things could count as the real world information. SL93 (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I could add more to the article from the XboxEra source to do this hook ... that Star Trucker "can be as relaxing or sweaty as you like"? SL93 (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 sorry for the late reply. If the current hook isn't suitable, would something like "... that players of Star Trucker have to control three axes at once?" work? The source would be this article. Thanks. ''']''' (talk • contribs) 11:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)