Wikipedia talk Did you know

The hook of mine in Prep 3 reads: ... that the first words in English that National Football League prospect Bayron Matos knew were "I'm hungry"? As the 2024 NFL draft has concluded, and Matos was signed by the Miami Dolphins, this should be changed to: ... that the first words in English that National Football League player Bayron Matos knew were "I'm hungry"? (word being changed in italics) Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Also, as a side note, it seems one of my DYKs ran today (Cameron Butler) but I never was notified of it?

  Done NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 23:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Missing DYK credit

BeanieFan11, I took a look at Cameron Butler's promotion to Prep 6 by AirshipJungleman29 using PSHAW, and while the DYKmake template was properly in the nomination template (see below); PSHAW didn't add the DYKmake to Prep 6, for reasons that perhaps theleekycauldron can identify.

•   Cameron Butler – BeanieFan11 (give) (tag) – View nom subpage

Can someone please take care of giving the appropriate credits for this DYK both to BeanieFan11's talk page and to Talk:Cameron Butler? The credits for Queue 6's promotion to the main page were given between 00:00 and 00:03, 29 April 2024. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I've opened half a dozen nom pages and they all have this format:

* {{DYKmake

The format that the Butler nom page had was this:

*{{DYKmake

That is, there wasn't a space before the curly bracket. I suspect that's what broke things. Schwede66 03:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The credits still need to be given. Thanks to anyone who can take this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I think I've done it, please check.--Launchballer 14:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Launchballer. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, earlier I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/YouTube Rewind 2018: Everyone Controls Rewind to Prep 3, but apparently an edit by Bruxton, in their promotion of the Template:Did you know nominations/Skyrocket Galaxy hook at about the same time, caused the other hook to be displaced. What do we do exactly? PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Put it into another set, or return it to WP:DYKNA PrimalMustelid. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Airship, but while I was looking at this, I noticed that we've got Green Bay Packers hooks in Prep 3 and Prep 5. We might want to space those out a bit more. RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I've moved it to prep 5. (Yes, I know I technically shouldn't promote a hook I've approved, but it had already been promoted, so it's had that check.)--Launchballer 16:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PrimalMustelid I appreciate you, I just want to ask you to slow down - you are promoting about one hook per minute. You promoted 13 hooks from 15:29-15:45 today - Also, it helps me always to refresh the screen prior to a promotion - does not always prevent stepping on edits, but it helps a bit. Bruxton (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask what checks you do on a nomination before you promote it PrimalMustelid? I have noticed that you promote very quickly (e.g. this set, now in queue, which you filled out in ten minutes). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Most often, I promote based on either a long hook discussion having been resolved by other reviewers or a hook that has been already been approved that has been simply sitting around. However, if the quick hook promotions prove problematic, I can slow down. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

When you promote a hook, you need to be running your own checks that the hook meets all the DYK requirements. It's not a rubber stamp of somebody else's review. RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I do already verify the hooks though by making sure that they're mentioned on the pages themselves, though I guess I can also just check the sourcings as well. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

You need to be checking all of the things at WP:DYKG. RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. Alright I will make sure to have my hook promotion process be more thorough under your command by verifying everything. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

"Under your command"? PrimalMustelid has accidentally revealed itself as a Cylon! Viriditas (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@PrimalMustelid I should have said this earlier, but thank you for helping out. I hope I didn't come across as grumpy; I really do appreciate you pitching in. DYK is a complicated process with lots of rules and everybody understands that it takes a while to figure out which end is up. RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I'll fully get the hang of DYK promotion formats and expectations soon enough. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

On a slightly unrelated note, I do have to ask, why are there 10 credits for DYK hooks instead of 9? I’ve noticed duplicated credits for a hook of each set. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Because some nominations are credited to multiple editors PrimalMustelid: so for example, Prep 7 has thirteen credits listed, because one hook has two credits and another has four. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I kicked back a Green Bay Packers hook by a prep as there were five American hooks in prep 5 - granted the guidelines say up to half a prep can be filled with these, but I interpret this as 'no more than' half, and so no more than four.--Launchballer 13:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"Up to half" should indeed be interpreted as "no more than half", which is to say up to 50%. As 5 of 9 would be 55%, it's more than half: no more than four US or four bio hooks should be included in any set. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

If set builders struggle with filling preps because of a lack of US hooks, they should feel empowered to have preps with only 8 hooks. However, this is only if they can't find other hooks to fill the slots, and it's always OK to leave a prep mostly filled and wait for more hooks to be approved. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't the solution simply be to use non-US hooks? I know the guidelines say it's appropriate to have about half of each set be US/UK-related, but there are times that may not be feasible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

My personal rule of thumb is 'no adjacent bios, no adjacent US hooks'. I did consider pulling COSMOS field on the grounds that it was discovered by the US Hubble Telescope until I realised I could just swap Harrogate and YouTube.--Launchballer 10:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Neil Sean

@Casliber, PrimalMustelid, Panamitsu, and Launchballer: Is the article Neil Sean a suitable BLP article for the main page? An IP claiming to be Sean (it is also possible they were trolling) complained at the Helpdesk here. Around half the body of the article is sourced to or discusses a comedy programme, Dave Gorman: Modern Life Is Goodish, where Gorman criticised Sean. WP:BLP says Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources and I don't think a comedy programme is a high quality BLP source. Launchballer and I discussed this at the talk page here and RSN here, but nobody else responded. TSventon (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I've said my piece there, Modern Life is Goodish would have gone through a production company's lawyers and the channel's lawyers (as evidenced by the section beginning "Gorman also questioned"), and is RS by all other measures. Both episodes (and the podcast) cite at least one editor. I'm pretty sure I'm only using him for attributed opinion and descriptions of work contents, and I've included other opinions for all three of the works he had reviewed.--Launchballer 10:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Modern Life is Goodish is reliable (I suspect it is not—why would copyright lawyers keep a close eye on whether a comedy program sticks to the facts?), its use, supporting nearly half of the article's body is totally WP:UNDUE. Seriously, 600 words to say "Guy A heavily criticised Guy B on a comedy show", sourced entirely to the comedy show in question? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I think Launchballer is saying (and I agree) that libel lawyers would be involved when an individual is criticised at length on national television. I still don't think that a comedy programme is a high quality BLP source. TSventon (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I tend to disagree (on size of segments in article). Sean appears to be a humorous author and two of the segments are about works he's written. Also material of Gorman's is posted as Gorman's opinion not "fact". Yes other areas should be a little larger, but this doesn't strike me as drastic (but should be looked at I guess). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The other point that I was making is that WP:BLP pertains to "information about living persons", and analysis of works - in front of a Doctor Who expert - does not come under this. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and nothing controversial comes from it. I've tried to expand the other sections as much as I can, so that should take some of the edge off.--Launchballer 11:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Cas Liber, I think that using Gorman as a source means that this article focuses on the two publications that Gorman found easiest to criticise, which is WP:UNDUE. Also in a comedy programme, Gorman's aim would be to entertain rather than give a neutral overview of Sean's work. I don't know whether Sean is a humorous author: "How to Live Like a Celebrity for Free" may be a work of humour, like 101 Uses for a Dead Cat, but Gorman criticises it as a book of tips, not as a parody of a book of tips. However I am happy to accept your judgement on whether the article is suitable for the main page.

Launchballer, WP:BLP pertains to "Biographies of living persons", including "information about living persons" so I believe that analysis of a living person's works in a biography about them is covered. TSventon (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Greens (English restaurant)

The hook itself is fine but the sentence in the article where it appears is problematic:

At the time, they were under the impression that they would have enough money to employ a chef and that they could spend their time harassing women; having discovered that they did not, they tossed a coin to see who would learn to cook, which Rimmer lost.

There's nothing in the source about "harassing women" - this seems like a pretty terrible BLP violation. I don't think it should be linked from the main page until it's corrected. It's been there since the article was created, which throws a bit of doubt on the integrity of the rest of the article as most of it was written by the same editor. WaggersTALK 10:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Not doing very well today, clearly. Source says 'chatting up girls', which ultimately is what that is.--Launchballer 10:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Good grief. "Chatting up" and "harassing" women are not synonyms, and the one you decided on was not only not in the source (and therefore original research) but was a BLP violation, which I have immediately changed. I am considering whether to revdelete the revisions with that statement in as well. I would absolutely be concerned about the accuracy of the rest of that article if that's typical of how it's been written, though I can see no other BLP issues. (Edit: I have rev-deleted the revisions - it's just such a blatant violation). Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I checked the review, but it makes no mention of BLP issues and uses Template:DYK checklist, which does not mention BLP either. TSventon (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but we can't allow an article with such a problem to be linked on the Main Page. There was nothing wrong with the hook, but the reviewer didn't notice the BLP violation, which is why (a) it's being discussed here (because Waggers did notice it), and (b) I've removed it and replaced it with what the source actually says. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks BK. I'm happy with the rest of the hooks and, now that's sorted, I'll go ahead and promote to queue. WaggersTALK 12:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Black Kite I have two concerns, firstly that DYK checklist does not mention BLP, when it is one of the most important checks and secondly that WP:DYKPBR does not tell promoters what they need to check when promoting a hook. TSventon (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a very good point, and it probably needs to be added. It could be quite a lot of work for a reviewer though - in this example, if the source had actually supported the text it would have been OK (because it was Rimmer's own words). But he didn't say that, and the author imposed their own POV and OR on it. It was a good catch by the promoter in this case. Black Kite (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I: hope reviewers ensure that every hook they promote is fully adherent to all our core policies, and especially including the whole of WP:NOT. ——Serial Number 54129 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't BLP issues be covered under the "policyother" slot on the template? I'm surprised this isn't covered anywhere in the guidelines. --evrik ^(talk) 14:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that BLP issues could be mentioned under the "policyother" slot on the template, but I was noting that in this case the review did not specifically mention BLP, because the template doesn't do so. Regardless of the format of the review, it will always be easy to miss a one word BLP violation. TSventon (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

If it's already part of the policy, then we have to AGF and pay attention. --evrik ^(talk) 15:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Are links to the Wikipedia: namespace really allowed in a DYK (2024 Auckland Wikicon)? Maybe there's precedent; maybe it has been discussed and decided, in which case, fine. But I'm surprised this unusual step is never even remarked on in the review. Given that the Wikipedia: namespace is not part of the encyclopaedia, it seems very self-referential to link it within a content area of the front page. I don't see a prohibition on linking to other namespaces in the Guidelines, but then I personally would have thought it too obvious to state. Are all namespaces acceptable targets for DYK hooks? MartinPoulter (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing in the guidelines that explicitly forbids linking to non-mainspace pages, but given that our guidelines refer to "articles" and not "pages", I guess it could be argued that implicitly, only links to articles should be allowed. For now I've done the simplest solution and removed the link, although I'd like to hear from both the nominator Marshelec and the reviewer PCN02WPS for their thoughts as well. Courtesy pings to participants Launchballer and BlueMoonset and promoter PrimalMustelid. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

If there is uncertainty about whether links to Wikipedia namespace are permitted in a DYK hook, then I accept its removal._Marshelec (talk) 07:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

To go slightly off topic, I really feel like articles shouldn't have any non-bolded links; disambiguation pages only have one link because they want to direct the reader to one clear place, and I think we have that same interest. But definitely not projectspace links, that's not helpful for the average reader. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

"articles shouldn't have any non-bolded links"? Did you really mean "articles"? "disambiguation pages only have one link" I don't get it; I've never seen a disambiguation page with only one link (you clearly don't mean a redirect) and I can't imagine what the point of such a page would be. Totally agree with you in opposing projectspace links in DYK hooks, though. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: theleekycauldron means disambiguation pages only allow one wikilink per entry (MOS:DABENTRY). Hence she's suggesting that hooks should also only have one wikilink, or rather only the bolded link(s), per hook. Bennv123 (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks - I get it now. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Was this meant to be "hooks" and not "articles"? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

yyep, it was theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agree with @Theleekycauldron - hooks should not have non-bolded links. I have considered this seriously in the past, in particular where my submitted hook had limited views on the bolded link but many many views on the non-bolded and non-reviewed articles also within the hook. (see e.g. Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Tidy_Trax) I strongly support that only bolded links should appear in a hook. Otherwise, in the current setup, we are pushing non-reviewed article links to the WP frontpage. ResonantDis_tortion 23:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the appropriateness of the Wikipedia namespace link (which shouldn't be there), I have concerns about that entire hook. I'm not a fan of navalgazing in general but it happens from time to time. This is too over-the-top, however. This is a DYK hook on the main page about a DYK hook on the main page, and not only is it a hook, it's the most prominent image hook, with an image of someone pointing at themselves on the main page with Very satisfying to see your work featured on homepage prominently displayed in the image. This is not well-sourced either, since this "coincidence" is only supported by a powerpoint uploaded by the article's subject. That powerpoint is not a reliable source, and is about the importance of main page exposure, not exactly an unbiased source to support something being put on the main page. - Aoidh (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I've pulled the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Replaced. I'm annoyed because I thought myself involved (having promoted the hook displayed in the image), and I would have liked to review this.--Launchballer 13:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't find any rule that explicitly says you can't link to other namespaces in a hook, but it sure seems like a bad idea to me. I would also support a rule that says there can't be any non-bolded links in a hook. They just distract from the main event. RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd be against a blanket rule against non-bolded links in hooks. I get where the sentiment is coming from and ideally we'd want to avoid adding as many links in a hook as much as possible, but they may sometimes be necessary. For example, for certain hooks about things that may not be understandable to all audiences (like hooks about American football/baseball/basketball/cricket), links may be necessary to give context. While we probably should do more to encourage minimizing extra links, this should probably be a case-by-case thing rather than a blanket rule. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

"The main event" has a different meaning in the two contexts. If a user is on a disambiguation page such as Khalili, we know they have an interest/ intention to find something connected to that name, so links that do not relate directly to that name are a distraction. When a user is on the home page, we don't know anything about what, if any, subject-specific desires or intentions they have. So it's not possible to distinguish links that meet the user's need from links that don't. We only know that they know English, and in a DYK hook they may see names or terms they are not familiar with. In line with the educational purpose of the site, they should expect to be able to click on them to learn the meaning of that word. The fact that we, the authors of the site, regard one link as more important is irrelevant. Users are at different levels of learning: for some, the interesting fact might be that Muhammad Sadiq (photographer) photographed the Kaaba; for others, this is meaningless until they learn about the building in Arabia called the Kaaba. So I would oppose any new restriction on non-bolded links and would not take seriously the analogy from disambiguation pages. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Raḥamim (newspaper)

@Bruxton, Soman, and Piotrus: The hook is a problematic "first" assertion. I can't get to the source (no preview available in Google Books). The publisher is listed as "Club "Roshnoyi-Light" & authors"; I have no clue what that means. Self-published? This is going to need better sourcing or a different hook. RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The "first" assertion appears across many sources, I included two to avoid having an exhaustive listing of refs. The publisher is mentioned here as "Organizations like the Bukharian Museum, The Association of Bukharian Jewish Youth “Achdut”, and Club “Roshnoyi–Light”, among others, are actively involved in cultural preservation efforts that include the language." The hook is supported in the article by another book, Durmuş Arık. Buhara Yahudileri. Aziz Andaç, 2005. p. 71. See also in Hebrew, [1] which states the exact same fact. See also История еврейского народа в России. Том 2: От разделов ... ("«Рахамим» — первая газета на языке бухарских евреев."), Шалом: международный литературно-публицистический журнал ... ("первой бухарско - еврейской газеты " Рахамим"), Краткая еврейская энциклопедия - Vol I (" первая газ . на этом яз . « Рахамим » ,"), Бухарские евреи: очерки ("РАХАМИМ » ( « МИЛОСЕРДИЕ » ) - первая бухарско - еврейская газета , издававшаяся Рахмином Давидбаевым в 1910-1914 в Скобелеве "), etc, etc. --Soman (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The two book sources in the article were offline as you said. Here is one I just found source The First newspaper published in the Judeo-Tajik (Bukhori) language, in the early 20th Century. This scholar refers to the name of the paper under the name variation "Rakhamim". If we use that variation we find other RS like this book. They all refer to it as the first. I can add one to the article if that works. Bruxton (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

When citing offline or hard to access sources for important claims, I recommend adding quotations to the citations (best practices). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

In this case, it's particularly difficult. It's not just that it's off-line, it's also not in English. But that's easy enough to solve by providing a translation. The real difficulty is that I don't kow how to judge if "Club Roshnoyi–Light" is a WP:RS or not. RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Bruxton's link looks good "In the years 1910–1916 in the city of Skobelev (later renamed to Fergana) the first Jewish paper in the Bukharan-Jewish language – Rakhamim – was published." from Collectivization and Social Engineering: Soviet Administration and the Jews of Uzbekistan, 1917-1939 by Zeev Levin, 2015 link. TSventon (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirect in Queue 2

Since being promoted, Taylor Made (song) has moved to Taylor Made Freestyle. The hook should reflect its new name. (My gut reaction to seeing it in prep was "didn't Drake whinge last year after AI vocals of him were used in a Munch (Feelin' U) remix", and wouldn't that make a good hook.)--Launchballer 19:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I've edited Q2 to reflect the new article title. I can't say that I understand your suggestion, though, Launchballer. Can you draft a hook with the words you have in mind? Schwede66 21:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Something like "... that a year after objecting to the unauthorised use of his own AI-generated vocals, Drake used vocals of other rappers generated that way to respond to a diss against him?" (Probably should ping @PSA, Sammi Brie, and Bruxton: out of good manners, although I should be clear I have no problem with the hook currently in queue.)--Launchballer 22:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd say that's a stronger hook than what we've currently got. Schwede66 23:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a great hook, and I endorse it. As predicted, this stuff has moved pretty quickly. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  Done I've adopted the hook as suggested above. Schwede66 22:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Forever Young (horse)

If the horse wins the 2024 Kentucky Derby six hours later, can the hook be changed from Saudi Derby to 2024 Kentucky Derby? NinetyNineDragon (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

We could have, but the horse was 3rd. Bruxton (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

How about "the first Japanese horse finished third in the Kentucky Derby" (source)? It still sounds more impressive than winning the Saudi Derby and the UAE Derby to me. NinetyNineDragon (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

On 3 May AirshipJungleman29 promoted 9 hooks to Prep 7. Ravenpuff has reverted all of these promotions to a previous set. Checking these - it appears this set did not appear on the main page so this seems to be the correct action? I am not sure what is going on here - but it looks to be all the newer promoted hooks are now sitting in limbo with status as "promoted" but none having made it into a set. See the prep history [2], and for example Template:Did you know nominations/287 Broadway and Template:Did you know nominations/Agnes Kimball. Pinging @Ravenpuff and @AirshipJungleman29. To fix this - do the 9 DYK templates promoted on 3 May need to be pushed back to the approved list? ResonantDis_tortion 21:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies – I'm not sure what exactly happened, but it was entirely accidental and might have been an inadvertent use of the "unsaved changes" function. I have restored the correct version of the prep area, which should I hope fix the issue, although I'm not sure if something else has broken in the interim. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• @PrimalMustelid and AirshipJungleman29: I have a vanity request. :-)

I am working on User:Bilorv/Challenges#Calendar. I could use a hook on the 13th. In Prep 4 there is this hook:

... that the memorial Ivančena was created to honor members of the Silesian Scout Resistance who were executed for their part in the resistance to Nazi occupation during World War II?

Would you please swap it to Prep 7? It would be appreciated. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 04:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, so I swapped it with that set's Polish hook. There are now two World War II hooks in prep 7, which is technically allowed, but I may kick William F. Fiedler back when prep 3 is promoted.--Launchballer 07:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Our hook character limit is 200. Unless I am missing something it looks like we have a 221 character hook on the main page at the moment. that the production team of the TV series The Falcon and the Winter Soldier created a highway more than five miles (8 km) long to capture visual effects for a truck action sequence for the episode "The Star-Spangled Man"? Pings for Promotor PrimalMustelid, nominators @Dcdiehardfan, Adamstom.97, and Favre1fan93: reviewer @John Cummings: and I am not sure who the queue promotor was. Bruxton (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

What you do is to go to the page with the queues and click on the history of the bottom queue, as that's the one that was last emptied. Before it got moved to the main page, you can see that Casliber promoted that queue. Schwede66 03:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I went to the nominator's talk page and saw Cas Liber awarded credit. The set looks too long at the moment. about 100-200 more characters than our normal set size. Maybe a trim is in order. Bruxton (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I did propose "ALT9: ... that the set for the The Falcon and the Winter Soldier episode "The Star-Spangled Man" included a purpose-built five mile highway?" on that nom as a snappier version of what's currently on the main page. Not sure why I was ignored.--Launchballer 07:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

If this still needs to be reduced, we can go with ... that the production team of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier created a highway over five miles long for an action sequence in the episode "The Star-Spangled Man"? Not including the elipses or question mark, I'm counting this as 162 characters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: This edit by Sdkb will prevent the bot from updating. Please undo. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Done; my bad! (Having a page so fragile that adding documentation will break it is non-optimal; I'd suggest improving the bot's coding so that it can be re-added.) Sdkb ^talk 06:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

A page like this really should be using the JSON content model. It's still hand editable, but you also get a bit of sanity checking when you save it. It would have prevented this particular problem. RoySmith (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

don't see it wrong with it updating once every 86400<noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude> seconds, should be every 16 hours or so? would have to check the documentation... :P theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why an edit like this would be made without checking with the bot owner, Shubinator, first. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know that "a critical piece of Main Page infrastructure should probably have some notes on what on earth it is" is an unreasonable impulse – this was {{trout}}able, but I'm not unsympathetic to it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: Currently, we have 2 remaining queue sets promoted. As usual, I recommend promoting more prep sets so that we can clear the approved hook backlog. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is a backlog, or that there is any real urgency. Let's save the emergency pings for admins for when the deadline is under 24 hours, rather than over 50? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Promoting queue sets ahead of time instead of at the last hours is more ideal, could allow for a smoother process of ironing out errors. That said, instead of at 2 queues, I can notify admins when we’re at one or no queue sets left. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes in fact, further to our conversation last week, it's actually better to notify earlier rather than later, because if admins have to do a rush job to get a set ready in under 24 hours, and not do full checks, then errors can creep in.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Well I don't know about "corrected", I'm only offering an opinion  ...  — Amakuru (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I've got to say the near-constant DYK pings are annoying to the point I'm tempted to remove myself from the list. PLEASE use them sparingly. WaggersTALK 07:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2 and Queue 3 both have portraits for their lead photos. I vaguely remember a rule that we don't like to do that. RoySmith (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• @RoySmith: - Swap the images in Queue 3 and Queue 4. That would also fix the problem with the upcoming queues. --evrik ^(talk) 21:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I also propose moving Bedok Reservoir to slot two, between Gligorov and Smith, so that there would not be two adjacent bios.--Launchballer 13:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Forever Young (horse)

I'm kind of dubious about the sourcing: inside-games.jp doesn't give me warm and fuzzy feelings about being a WP:RS. I can't read Japanese so I'm going off the automated translation: "Expectations are already high that the horse will be turned into an Uma Musume." So, an unattrbuted statement in an unsigned article in what looks to be a WP:UGC fan-blog. RoySmith (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@PrimalMustelid @Storye book @NinetyNineDragon ping RoySmith (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The inside-games.jp article was published by a website called Inside, which is owned IID, Inc. [ja], a company listed on Tokyo Stock Exchange since 2015. Although it does not lead to automatic notability of the company (WP:LISTED), I believe it also proves that it is not just a fan blog. Besides, the article is signed by 茶っプリン. And it is obvious that the statement is unattributed since the article quotes the reaction from the Internet. If you are still uncomfortable with it, its owner Susumu Fujita also mentioned about its relationship with Uma Musume Pretty Derby in his interview on Netkeiba, saying if Forever Young wins the Kentucky Derby, it can become a popular uma musume ("horse girl").

Besides, I changed from "the winner of the Saudi Derby" to "the first Japanese horse finished third in the Kentucky Derby" (source) in the hook. Please revert me if it is not appropriate. Thank you. NinetyNineDragon (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it seems that I can't change the hook. If anyone who can do it thinks "the first Japanese horse finished third in the Kentucky Derby" sounds more impressive, please help me change the hook. Thanks. NinetyNineDragon (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. According to what the creator tells us, that source is OK. So in good faith I defer to their opinion of the source. Re the hook: I still approve all the hooks as they existed at the time of promotion. Storye book (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Attica (1974 film)

@PrimalMustelid, GamerPro64, and OlifanofmrTennant: The hook is confusing. It says ...directed a documentary about the Attica Prison riot in 1974 which sounds like the riot was in 1974. RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

What about:

Alt 1 ... that in 1974 Cinda Firestone, the heiress to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, directed a documentary about the Attica Prison riot?

Alt 2 ... that Cinda Firestone, the heiress to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, directed a documentary about the 1971 Attica Prison riot?

--evrik ^(talk) 21:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, the "Synopsis" section needs to be cited, as it is not a work of fiction and does not fall under MOS:PLOTSOURCE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The NYT review can be used to cite the synopsis. --evrik ^(talk) 21:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think Alt 2 would work. GamerPro64 00:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've put ALT2 onto the queue, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Richard Louhenapessy

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Louhenapessy)

• ... that due to Richard Louhenapessy's arrest, the Indonesian city of Ambon had four mayors in May 2022?

This doesn't seem entirely accurate to me. I can understand that the second mayor came into office due to Louhenapessy's arrest, but the third and fourth seem to have taken office for unrelated reasons, because their predecessors as acting mayor couldn't be in that position any more or were replaced. I suspect a small tweak would be fine, to remove the causality and just highlight that there were four mayors overall. Pinging @Juxlos, Narutolovehinata5, and Bruxton:  — Amakuru (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe replace "due to" with "after", then? Juxlos (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that also works. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, late reply - yes, it almost works, although given that Louhenapessy himself is also one of the four, that might need a slight re-tweak. WIll think about this shortly.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe:'

• ... that the Indonesian city of Ambon had four mayors in May 2022, including Richard Louhenapessy who was arrested?

Juxlos (talk) 00:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Elvio Porcel de Peralta

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Elvio Porcel de Peralta)

• ... that after receiving his record 97th ejection, footballer Elvio Porcel de Peralta went to the referee and punched him?

Small point, but I have never heard the term ejection being used in a football (soccer) match before. Sending off is the usual nomenclature, at least where I come from. I could understand if it were an Americanism or something, but it looks like the article is written in British English, given that it says Honours (rather than Honors) and uses dmy dates... @BeanieFan11, Launchballer, and PrimalMustelid:  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Amakuru: I'm admittedly not an association football expert (I understand the sport enough that I was able to write the article - but I usually follow a different type of football (which is where ejection is used)) – happy to have it changed to "sent off" or another term if that's what's generally used. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  We should use whatever term the source uses, preferably translated by a native speaker of Spanish. RoySmith (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  "Sent off" is correct. Source: "fue expulsado en 97 partidos"; per WordReference, expulsado = sent off. Our (unreferenced) Ejection (sports)#Association football notes "The act of ejection is referred to in the sport as "sending off"." Note that "receiving a red card" or "being shown a red card" are synonyms. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Then I think this would be: ... that after being sent off for the record 97th time, footballer Elvio Porcel de Peralta went to the referee and punched him? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  I would trim it to ... that after being sent off for a record 97th time, footballer Elvio Porcel de Peralta punched the referee? I doubt he needed to "go to" the referee, who was likely right next to him. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the above suggestion. --evrik ^(talk) 15:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

  Done, thanks, that works. Just on a small point of order, I would have to take issue with the suggestion that "We should use whatever term the source uses, preferably translated by a native speaker of Spanish". That is almost the opposite of what we should be doing - per WP:PARAPHRASE and other guidelines, "Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words". If there are various terms for "ejection" that are clearly synonyms, then we should choose the one that matches our MOS and other prose factors, not just blindly use the same terminology as the source - more particularly when that source isn't even in English in the first place. Anyway, doesn't really affect anything here, just thought I'd reply to that!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

When I nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Stonewall Inn to DYK last month, I requested that the DYK run on June 28 to coincide with the first full day of the Stonewall riots. At the time, I forgot about WP:DYKSO, which says that The nomination should be made ... not more than six weeks in advance. Exceptions to the six-week limit can be implemented by way of a local consensus at WT:DYK. I'm cross-posting this here to get consensus on this request.

Also pinging Generalissima, the DYK reviewer, and AirshipJungleman29, who first brought up the DYKSO issue. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The article topic and the requested date have a strong resonance, both because of the day and in some countries because of the month (Pride Month). The hook even includes a picture of the topic at a historic moment (when it was commemorating its new status as a national historic landmark) which would make for a great image for DYK that day. This is a reasonable request for an exception to WP:DYKSO, and I support it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• I support this request. --evrik ^(talk) 02:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• 10-11 weeks is a long time, and longer than the 8 weeks we've discussed a few times, but this is clearly linked to the Stonewall riots article, and it will be the 55th anniversary. (Will propose that article appears on OTD, last appearing there on the 50th anniversary). CMD (talk) 04:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion at [3] was quite unusual regarding pulling "... that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy were all gymnasts and ten-pin bowlers?". I was based on "The girls also have tackled bowling and gymnastics, Linda McCarthy said." this source.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• It seems like there were objections to

1. the use of the word all in the hook (which could have been removed).
2. the fact that the hook was not mentioned in an unbolded article (which seems a bit irrelevant)
3. noting a contextually peculiar hobby on the main page from User:Fram, which User:AirshipJungleman29 deemed a serious offense to the main page. Then User:TenPoundHammer confessed to reviewer error. So User:Schwede66 pulled the hook.

Hooks of the flavor that Person X who is now famous for Alpha once used to do a contextually peculular thing Beta, is an extremely common hook form on DYK. I don't see what the rub was.

• Also, I have no understanding what User:Cremastra's comment "A DYK about a link is pointless—it doesn't highlight a specific article. Besides, the sourcing was suspect regardless of the article"

1. Is the Chicago Tribune no longer a WP:RS?
2. What is the meaning of specific article not being highlighted?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

   My bad, by comment was confused, but the original concerns are still valid. Cremastra (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

   User:Cremastra, If so couldn't you have removed the word All and delinked Jenny. Don't understand the third.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

   Yes, specifically the one about the hook not being supported by the RS it cited, a reason I note is absent from the above three objections. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

   User:AirshipJungleman29, Not understanding how "... that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy were all gymnasts and ten-pin bowlers?" is not cited by "The girls also have tackled bowling and gymnastics, Linda McCarthy said.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

   I tackled football and cricket as a child; that didn't make me a footballer or a cricketer. These words mean that you are proficient at the sport—the definition of "gymnast" is "a person who is skilled in gymnastics, often someone who competes in gymnastic competitions". I could also say "I and my friends all tackled rugby as children", where they played for county level and I did nothing more than catching the ball once and subsequently being bulldozed. That is something I could mention in an interview but which is out of scope for an encyclopedic article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

   User:AirshipJungleman29, This is all a matter of tweaking a hook. I am hearing you say that having been a gymnast and or a bowler is different than having done gymnastics and bowling, which is a tweak issue for a hook. I.e., I think you are saying that the source supports ALT1"... that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy did gymnastics and ten-pin bowling?", but not "were all gymnasts and ten-pin bowlers". In terms of an article about a subject who is WP:NSPORT as athlete, youth athletic activity is well within scope as it presents the evolution of her reason for notability. In fact, there is no athlete bio where I could present any youth athletic activities where I did not consider it within scope to do so. What is wrong with this logic.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

   Your changed hook is them simply not interesting. The DYK definition of interesting is "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest". Children having hobbies is not interesting in the slightest. The original hook falsely claimed that they were all proficient in gymnastics and bowling, which is interesting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

   Why are you assuming their youth activities were hobbies? Competitive gymnastics starts at a very young age. The source is silent on whether they were hobbyists or competitors. There is some reduced intrigue with the downgrade of the hook from "... that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy were all gymnasts and ten-pin bowlers?" to ALT1"... that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy did gymnastics and ten-pin bowling?" but this hook has embedded intrigue in the fact that Oh My!!! I did not know Jenny McCarthy had a notable sister. So there is that element of the hook the retains intrigue. For those that know who Joanne is, there is intrigue in that wow we actually know something about her athletic background, what else does the article tell us. Removal was a bit inappropriate in the sense that it removes all record of this appearing in the archive. I assure you if you put the downgraded hook back on the main page for the 5 hours it got shorted yesterday it would have enough intrigue to get viewers. It would also rightly appear in the archive for being in the closing version of a DYK run. Since this got over 7000 views even though it was slighted 5 hours, it deserves to at least be in the archive. It may not be the most intriguing hook ever, but it does deserve to be in the archvive, which only happens by being in the closing version of the DYK run. Can we just put the the properly revised version back on for the last 5 hours of todays set so it can make the archive.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Restoration on main page request for WP:DYKA appearance as ALT1"... that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy did gymnastics and ten-pin bowling?". @AirshipJungleman29, TenPoundHammer, PrimalMustelid, and Cremastra:-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• @Schwede66: Also meant to include on this discussion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

1. In fact doing gymnastics might give one a penchant for performing on a stage in front of an audience of fans and judges might make one inclined to want to perform on other types of stages for fans and critics like Jenny did. This topic could even be added to Jenny's article and be within scope.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

   I have in fact, just added this to Jenny's article.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

   As alternative suggestions for phrasing this in an interesting way, perhaps:

   • ALT2A"... that basketball player Joanne McCarthy also did gymnastics and bowling?"
   • ALT2B"... that basketball player Joanne McCarthy and her actress sister Jenny did gymnastics and bowling in their youth?"

   I think while there is a way that mentioning all four sisters could be interesting it's harder to find that phrasing than just honing in on "person notable for A used to do B", which the earlier versions of the hook don't sufficiently directly highlight. I do think this hook fact can be and is interesting. I admit to finding that saying calling someone a "gymnast" necessarily implies a minimum level of proficiency seems an overwrought reading; a gymnast can be a mediocre hobbyist at gymnastics, and a a filmmaker can be lousy at the making films. Lacking major skill doesn't require one to say the person just 'does filmmaking' or 'does gymnastics'. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

   User:Hydrangeans, I agree that a bit much was made of this quibble. Although notability is not WP:INHERITED, and we don't necessarily want to port Inherited intrigue, there is intrigue in noting that Jenny McCarthy has a notable sister and having both links in the hook increases likelihood of a clickthrough. I prefer to have all the sisters listed, but including just Jenny is prefered to not including her, IMO.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

If you really need a completely different hook,

1. ALT3"... that when Joanne McCarthy retired from basketball, she moved to Los Angeles to be a makeup artist?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks fine. Cremastra (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: This hook got pulled from the main page over a questionable quibble, which means it got short changed 4+ hours and did not make the WP:DYKA. Can you decide on one of these ALT hooks and restore this to be in DYK at the close of a run so it can be in DYKA.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

If there's consensus for this to be given another 4 hours of airtime, I'd be most happy to arrange that at 20:00 UTC. Schwede66 03:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy for this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm supportive of this, with thanks and kudos to Shwede66 being up for arranging it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Is ALT1 OK or do we need to look at this more closely?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• P.S. it got pulled at 19:56 UTC so it was shorted 4:04. So if we could confirm an ALT by 19:56 today that would be great.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi all. This is a weird case. Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season was an existing article created in main space in 2008. It remained for several years until it was merged/redirected (without a discussion that I can find) to 1993 Atlantic hurricane season in 2011. The old article's history is still extant in the Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season article. The article was recreated in a much improved version recently. Is this new? A 5x expansion? My understanding is we go off existing article history, so I would guess it would be a 5x expansion given that the old article is still there in the history and there are overlaps in content between the new and old versions. Also, do we ignore the bulleted text for a timeline page, or do we count it when looking at prose count? All opinions welcome in helping to clarify how we should handle this nomination.4meter4 (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• @4meter4: After 13 years, I'd say you could make the new case. 2011 - 1816 characters (283 words) - 2024 4085 characters (612 words): --evrik ^(talk) 18:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@evrik It isn't 5x longer. If we discount bulleted text, the original prose count is 1,816 characters of prose making the required 5x expansion 9080 characters. The article currently has 4,085 characters not including bulleted text. If we include the timeline itself and its bulleted text (the majority of the article's content is presented this way), the gap widens even further by a significant amount. I'd be ok with overlooking the bulleted text because that seems in keeping with policy. I am less inclined towards considering this new because it is clearly an article on the same topic with overlapping points in the timelines, and most importantly both versions of the article share a single article history. I think we need to consider that this wasn't created as a new page but is a restoration of an old one with a single article history. That clearly shows it isn't a new page. Calling it new would set a bad precedent.4meter4 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Whatever. I'd say it's new. --evrik ^(talk) 18:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@evrik I can understand why some editors might view it that way, which is why I brought it here. I'm sticking with the need for a 5x expansion, but could respect the decision to consider it new if that is the majority view. Let's get some more opinions to arrive at a WP:CONSENSUS.4meter4 (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

After over 12 years of absence, I'd say that the article should be considered new, but that any reused material from the 2011 incarnation does not count toward the minimum 1500 prose character requirement. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset That seems reasonable. Are we counting bulleted text in the new prose count?4meter4 (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

4meter4, bulleted text never counts as prose. DYK check gives the current total as 4086 prose characters, all of them in the intro paragraphs. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm supportive of considering this a new creation rather than an expansion of a prior version of the article, after more than a dozen years of the namespace being a redirect and there being effectively no live version of the article displayed to readers. Especially on comparing the current version to the 2011 version and seeing how improved the current version is compared to the 2011 version, I think considering the nominated article a new creation falls within the spirit of DYK highlighting a wide range of fresh content on Wikipedia. I support allowing this nomination to proceed. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• It looks like a clear consensus to treat this as a new article. So, that's what I will do in my review. Thanks all for the input. 4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The previous list of older nominations was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 33 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 29. We have a total of 196 nominations, of which 91 have been approved, a gap of 105 nominations that has increased by 15 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

• March 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Centurion C-RAM
• April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Mabe Fratti
• April 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Obonga-Ottertooth Provincial Park
• April 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Gherardo Gambelli
• April 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Bed of nails defense
• April 21: Template:Did you know nominations/The Sign (Bluey)
• April 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Drake–Kendrick Lamar feud
• April 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Samuel Kummer
• April 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Teeth (musical)
• April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Stacy Hollowell
• April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/DarkZero Esports
• April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Gyōji
• April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/The Sheep Eaters (film)
• April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Taiyin Xingjun
• April 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Giovanni Manu
• April 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Theo Benedet
• April 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Noel
• April 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Southern Railway Building
• April 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Ilie Purcaru
• April 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Travis Glover
• April 27: Template:Did you know nominations/NBV21
• April 27: Template:Did you know nominations/What a Devastating Turn of Events
• April 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Albert Wesker
• April 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Travis Clayton
• April 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Delta (emulator)
• April 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Lineage (anthropology)
• April 28: Template:Did you know nominations/The Days of '98 Show
• April 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Jarrett Kingston
• April 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Meat diaper (two articles)
• April 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Eurovision Song Contest 1991
• April 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Camping in Alaska
• April 29: Template:Did you know nominations/DellaXOZ
• April 29: Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Southeast Asia heat wave

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) 18:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

"Coming out of my cage / and i've been doing just fine!" theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello! --evrik ^(talk) 23:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Li Zhaoxing (nom)

• ... that Li Zhaoxing (pictured), a former Chinese minister of foreign affairs, has published more than 200 poems and was known as a "poet minister"?

@Toadboy123, Makeandtoss, and AirshipJungleman29: I'm not sure I trust this seemingly government-connected source for the claim it's making about a government official in the hook. Is it independent/reliable? Also, citation 4 to Deseret News is incorrect; it's to a history.com source, which would be unreliable. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed citation 4. If there are concerns on the reliability of the source of the hook, we can replace it with another sources such as these [4], [5], [6]. Toadboy123 (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Toadboy123: do any of these verify "poet minister"? Having trouble with access... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Source 4 which is by South China Morning Post confirms that Li is a prolific poet and has published over 200 poems but does not mention that he is called 'poet minister'. However a source in the article by People's Daily mentions that Li is called 'poet minister'. Toadboy123 (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It says he is called a "poet diplomat", which the hook might need to be adjusted to? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

List of Green Bay Packers NFL All-Decade Team selections (nom)

@Gonzo fan2007: I'm struggling with the notability factor here, particularly on WP:LISTN. Are there any independent sources that give notability to the Packers' prevalence on the All-Decade Team? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron I'll note that WP:LISTN specifically states that it is not an all-inclusive guideline (One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable...) (my emphasis). I think this list clearly satisfies WP:LISTPURP, specifically because it is grouped by theme and provides navigation between articles with related qualities (being selected for the same type of recognition). From a WP:LISTN perspective, the topic of "Green Bay Packers players All-Decade Teams" is discussed. Here is a Packers.com piece that provides the full list of the specific topic. Other news organizations also develop their own "All-Decade Team" for specific teams, like the Packers. 247 did it here, Forbes notes that five Packers were selected for the PFF All-Decade team, USA Today did it for the Packers and all of the news articles reporting on the selection of Aaron Rodgers include his Packers teammates, like here. Obviously the HOF lists each All-Decade Team member by team and is the most notable, which is why it is used for the basis of this article. Hope this helps. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

2024 opening of regular sessions of the National Congress of Argentina (nom)

@Cambalachero and SounderBruce: Hmm, I'm not sure that this is notable under the relevant guideline of WP:NEVENT. I'm glad to see non-U.S. politics getting the U.S. politics treatment, but unfortunately, we do have pretty high barriers in this area because of U.S. politics cruft. Also, I trust that Infobae is a reliable source? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:08, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Those speeches are the Argentine equivalent of the State of the Union address in the United States. And it seems in {{State of the Union}} that Wikipedia has articles for all and each one of those. Cambalachero (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That's true, but notability isn't transferred that way – SOTUs are so notable they're widely assumed to pass NEVENT without a hitch. The sources currently in the article don't demonstrate the same thing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Many of those links are not Wikipedia articles, but Wikisource entries. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Infobae is a fairly reliable source. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Ground Round (nom)

@Sammi Brie: ooh, an interesting foray for you! Can I suggest this alternate hook?

• ... that at the restaraunt chain Ground Round, customers were allowed to drop their peanut shells on the floor?

Thought it might be cute :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Ooh, my childhood! The peanut shells on the floor are one of the first things I remember about that chain. That and the cartoons on the projector. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

There are some other chains that did that (I remember once eating at Logan's Roadhouse, which did similar). This is fine; I don't know if it's completely unique. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That is true Sammie, many places still feature the peanuts shells on the floor. Texas Roadhouse for instance. Bruxton (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The hook appeared on the Main Page today but I have received no message on my talk page as such despite being the hook nominator. Please do take up the issue for consideration. Looking forward to the issue being resolved. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot was just a bit slow off the mark today. It arrived at 12:24 UTC. Schwede66 01:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I noticed at one of my recent DYK noms it created with the random text "{{DYKsubpage |monthyear=May 2024 |passed= |2=" at the top. I don't think that's supposed to be there? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone took out "Post-promotion hook changes [[User:GalliumBot#darn|will be logged]] on the talk page; consider [[Help:Watchlist|watching]] the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.}} from somewhere, which causes a }} to be missing. --Launchballer 01:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It's this edit by @Theleekycauldron: that did it. I've reverted it, but I don't speak Lua, so someone who does should make the edit again leaving the }} in.--Launchballer 02:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It's been done.--Launchballer 02:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't really know Lua but I'm fairly sure that's the answer, so I've gone ahead and done it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I got involved in this nomination and I think we need help with hook ideas to proceed. Bruxton (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I added Alt2. --evrik ^(talk) 03:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for the hook ideas. Now we wait. Bruxton (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this hook does not flow well and it is not approved in the nomination. ... that Ronald Reagan only acknowledged AIDS in 1985, despite it having killed thousands in the U.S. since 1981? The part I am not fond of is "despite it having killed thousands". The hook in the nomination flows better in my opinion .. that despite AIDS being identified and causing thousands of deaths since 1981, President Ronald Reagan did not publicly acknowledge AIDS until 1985?. Despite is used in both hooks and it appears in WP:WTW so we need to decide if it should be used.

After reading the hook I looked at Earwig. It looks like quotes caused a 77% Earwig score. Courtesy pings to promotor @AirshipJungleman29: Nominator @Wasianpower: reviewer @Buidhe:

If we need some hook tweaking we can do it here; alternatively if nobody sees this hook the way I did, we can leave it. Bruxton (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I actually think that the modified hook reads better, while the original is perhaps too long and a bit clunky, while burying the article topic in the second half of the hook.

"Despite" is ok in this case, because it's the sources making the connection not the wikipedia editor. Otherwise it would be OR. (t · c) buidhe 04:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree that it is generally inaccurate to say AIDS killed people as people die from AIDS complications (diseases caught with a compromised immune system), not AIDS itself. I’m not sure there’s a way around using a “although/despite” type word here, and it’s worth noting that the contrast drawn here is very common in literature on the subject. Possible compromise hook:

that Ronald Reagan only acknowledged AIDS in 1985, despite AIDS causing thousands of deaths in the U.S. since 1981.

🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Also just realized, it's important that the word "public" is used here, as he had private meetings on the subject in 1983.

... that Ronald Reagan only publicly acknowledged AIDS in 1985, despite AIDS causing thousands of deaths in the U.S. since 1981.

🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bruxton and Wasianpower: I have no opinions on the killed/caused deaths dispute (seems much of a muchness to me, and reminds me of this) so this hook is fine, but I do feel that my rearrangement, as buidhe noted, improves the flow of the hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not fond of that hook from a neutrality perspective, it reads as taking a very deliberate stance on something the lead says is a "source of controversy". The hook implies a continuous period of deliberate ignorance for that period, and while that is probably true for some of it, the disease didn't even have its name in 1981. The "Reagan administration response" section starts only in October 1982. The hook also doesn't read that clearly without background knowledge about the history of the disease (coming to the US some time in the 1970s but only being clearly defined beginning in 1981) and of American political history (inauguration in 1981). CMD (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Despite appears to be editorializing because it sets up an accusation that Reagan willfully ignored the crisis. With that said, I think the wasianpower hook idea is better. Bruxton (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

It isn't WP:OR editorializing when this contrast/despite is something reliable sources have pointed out. The controversy the article mentions is not about whether Reagan was as president publicly silent on the matter of AIDS until 1985, as that's uncontroversial fact part of the public record and in reliable sources. The controversy is over the appropriateness of that silence and whether as president he should've taken a public stance on addressing the public health crisis or whether his administration's action/inaction was normal/fine. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm obviously biased because it is my hook, but I disagree that it is implying deliberate ignorance on Reagan's part. The hook is about his public silence in the early years of the AIDS epidemic, which is an uncontroversial fact. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

What is the distinction between public silence and deliberate ignorance here? The article suggests he didn't understand the severity of disease until 1985 (deliberately or not). CMD (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The distinction IMO is that public silence is concrete, and we can and do have factual historical record of it. Whereas deliberate ignorance would require us to see inside Reagan's head to know what he knew and what his motivations were. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The link between the two that creates the implication is the framing. "...only...despite...killed thousands...", not a bald statement of uncontroversial fact. CMD (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Is the framing controversial?

• The first news reports about AIDS surfaced in 1981 — just months into the Reagan presidency — and within a few years, thousands of gay men had died of the disease. Yet Reagan didn’t make an early push to fund expanded medical research and didn’t make his first public comments about AIDS until 1987, at which time more than 20,000 Americans had died of its complications. (Associated Press)
• More than 6,000 Americans had already died. Yet the budget for AIDS research was a fraction of what the U.S. government spent on diseases that were far less threatening. President Ronald Reagan had yet to even say the word AIDS in public. (NPR)
• President Reagan famously (though, not famously enough) didn’t himself publicly mention AIDS until 1985, when more than 5,000 people, most of them gay men, had already been killed by the disease (Vanity Fair)
• the Reagan administration blatant refusal to deal with the issue of AIDS while thousands of Americans were dying from the disease. (Democracy Now)
• This was an era largely defined by President Ronald Reagan’s refusal to acknowledge that the virus was destroying lives due to social determinants or to intervene in ways that were necessary. Though his administration was aware of the epidemic, it was not until 1985 that he would even say the word AIDS publicly. (The Body)
• the years of silence from President Reagan as tens of thousands of people died gruesome, horrendous deaths. (KQED)
• Throughout the decade, the epidemic proliferated all over the United States, leaving a searing trail of death in its wake. On July 8, 1982, the CDC reported 452 diagnosed cases of AIDS, and 177 AIDS deaths. By decade's end there were almost 115,000 diagnosed cases, and more than 70,000 deaths. ... the president's handlers advised against engagement, however. AIDS was affecting marginalized subpopulations, and they told the president it was a "lose, lose" issue. Reagan would not utter a word on the matter, even as it became a hotbed political and cultural item in the national discourse, until the summer night he took to the podium by the Potomac. (Greg Berhman, The Invisible People: How the U. S. Has Slept Through the Global AIDS Pandemic 25–28)
• by the time he finally addressed the epidemic in earnest — in 1987 — nearly 23,000 people had died of the disease. (Washington Post)

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 06:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Whether or not the framing is controversial is an entirely separate question to what the framing is/does. Your hyperlinks show a mixture of different wordings, some more obviously pointed than others, but they include some good examples of being bit more contextualized/specific. For example, the Vanity fair framing of just year looking at 1985 and deaths at that point is a lot clearer and sets up a simpler point than suggesting the same situation existed across five years. CMD (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see how the Vanity Fair example here is any different than the others. The AIDS epidemic in the United States is considered to have began in 1981, which is also when tracking of infection and death numbers begin. All that Vanity Fair is doing is making that implicit rather than explicit, which only exacerbates your point about required background knowledge on the history of the disease. As shown in the examples Hydrangeans kindly provided, this kind of wording and framing is very common across reliable and neutral (AP, NPR, Washington Post) literature on the subject, so I guess I don't understand what the issue here still is. I can see how you may personally view this fact as reflecting negatively on Reagan, but even those who defend Reagan's AIDS record do not dispute this fact. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we can dispassionately state the facts and the hook is still interesting. Despite is a word that injects blame when the word is not needed - a reader can draw their own conclusions. I also see the word "only" which also leads the reader. As an example, here are two hooks about Nero, ...that the Roman emperor Nero Fiddled as Rome Burned? or ...that despite the fact that Rome was burning, Roman emperor Nero only played his fiddle? Do both say the same thing? Yes, but one tells the reader what to believe and one allows the reader to draw a conclusion.Our article on Nero states that it may not be true so this is just an example. Bruxton (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)