Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199

• 2011 reform proposals • 2020 RFC LT Solutions • All RfCs

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

I have added a new heading so the backlog mode discussion can be found more easily when it has been archived. TSventon (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting that this is not because we have few DYKNs coming in, but because DYKN is seriously backlogged. I heard a suggestion to give DYKNs WikiCup points (2.5 for submitting, 2.5 for reviewing, to avoid people who create DYKs getting "free" points for QPQ) and I think something like that would be good to try. Maybe even a DYKN backlog drive, in the style of GAN backlog drives? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trainsandotherthings, if you are interested in the question of backlog drives there was a discussion about them earlier this month here. TSventon (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion wasn't all that fruitful and now the backlog is even larger with 207 hooks needing to be approved and 63 approved hooks. SL93 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think one issue is that most of the "delayed" nominations are noms that are quite difficult to review, either due to being mostly reliant on technical sources, or due to their subject matter (usually politics). A backlog drive would be nice but given the circumstances a backlog was probably inevitable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have a mechanism all set up for dealing with large numbers of unapproved nominations per the RfC last summer and subsequent discussions: extra QPQs for experienced DYK nominators. The suggestion of a GAN-style DYK backlog drive was roundly panned at the time. Pinging EEng, who worked so hard to devise the process and shepherd the RfC to completion, to help get it rolling for real. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Me and my big mouth -- I've been dreading this day for the last 12 months. Yes, we came to a policy decision as BMs describes, but what hasn't been done (I think -- haven't been watching DYK) is to set up the automation that will identify editors subject to the new requirement. We may need to use the honor system temporarily. Give me a few days to review where we are and recruit technical firepower. EEng 06:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I'm happy to help :) fools rush in, etc. I think the most straightforward way is to add a note to the {{NewDYKnomination}} template. Something like "effective 30 May 2022, DYK is in "unreviewed backlog mode". All nominations made by editors with 20 or more prior DYK nominations will require an extra QPQ." That way, it'll appear on all new nominations (but not currently open nominations) until we remove it, and timestamps itself. Beyond that, we already use the honour system anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm vaguely remembering is we needed some new machinery for counting "credits" or whatever we called them. EEng 14:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: You mean like User:SDZeroBot/DYK nomination counts.json that @SD0001 mentioned below? —Kusma (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, you were quite insistent that "credits" were to be a thing of the past; the only thing that mattered was nominations, which were set as the determinant going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said " new machinery for counting credits or whatever" -- I remembered there was to be some change in what was counted, just couldn't remember what the change was. (I'm not Superman, you know, despite appearances.) Now that you mention it, that's exactly right. I've been reviewing the two big archived threads and there's a lot to it. It seems they ended with intentions to install new apparatus (template behavior at when new noms are saved etc.) and from other discussion some thought or work has been put into that, but not clear what still needs to be done to make it seamless. It actually sounds like others are more up to speed on the current status than I am, though I'm happy to help once I've got my sea legs again. EEng 12:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to add a note on the DYK script that most editors use? It also doesn't support natively adding multiple "reviewed" pages without manually typing, say, {{subst:dykn|ArticleA}} and {{subst:dykn|ArticleB}} in the window. Some editors might miss this otherwise. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK-helper tool is maintained by @SD0001, so that feature should probably be taken up with them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a page from which DYK-helper can get to know if backlog mode is currently active. For instance, we can adopt WP:Did you know/unreviewed backlog mode to read enabled or disabled as the case may be – which could then be used by templates/scripts. Let me know once this is created – I'll then update the script accordingly. – SD0001 (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a switch like that is added, it should also be used to conditionally display a backlog notice at the top of Template talk:Did you know. —Kusma (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:SDZeroBot/DYK nomination counts.json is already in place that records nom counts and is updated in real-time, which can be read by {{subst:NewDYKnomination}} to determine if the current user needs a 2nd QPQ. (For 9 months now, server resources are being wasted on keeping that page up-to-date despite zero use – maybe that will change now :)) – SD0001 (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001: oh, that's actually incredible, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

is there a page where the nominations themselves are available? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What would be needed to actually start the 2 QPQs per nomination rule? SL93 (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a backlog tag to at least alert people. —Kusma (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If something like this is added to the WikiCup, I'd rather go for 4/1. A DYK review isn't like half a GA review. —Kusma (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If I may be honest, I have some skepticism as to whether the planned backlog mode (i.e. two QPQs for editors with 20+ nominations) is going to help out much in the long run. One reason is basically simple arithmetic: if the number of nominations being made exceeds the number of QPQs being done, it doesn't matter if nominators are providing one or two QPQs, a backlog will still build up over time. Secondly, not all nominators meet the 20 nominations requirement: many nominations are done by editors who have 6-19 nominations and so would be exempted from this requirement. If they too make nominations without more work being done on the backlog, the backlog would still get bigger and bigger. Finally, the way I see it, it's not that people don't want to review nominations, or not enough people are doing them. The backlog isn't necessarily anyone's fault. The issue is that many nominations are controversial from the get-go owing to their content. For example, I cannot blame anyone from being discouraged from reviewing any nomination that has to do with Israel-Palestine considering how much of a hot potato that topic is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A lot of nominations are made by people with over 20 nominations. Just Gerda, Corachow, Epicgenius, Sammi Brie, Z1720, you and me together have something like 25 nominations on the page right now. 25 extra QPQs done would significantly reduce the number of unreviewed noms, and I would expect the number of affected noms to be closer to 50. I take your point that some nominations are more attractive to review than others, but I don't see how we can change that.

  The question is what else can we do? We could fail all nominations that haven't been reviewed after four weeks (like at FAC) or reject nominations where the QPQ is provided late, but (unlike the proposal) these would not change the fundamental issue that we need more reviews than people are required to provide as QPQs. —Kusma (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hopefully the planned backlog mode is a short term measure and won't need to be used too often. theleekycauldron posted a chart here, showing that the number of unapproved nominations went down to below fifty in August-September in both 2020 and 2021. DYK depends on some editors reviewing more nominations than they need to, offsetting nominations by new editors that do not require a QPQ, and hopefully backlog mode will encourage them to help. Backlog mode will probably also encourage prolific contributors to divert some time from nominations to doing reviews which can be used later as QPQs. If some of those reviews are of more difficult nominations, they will still be useful. TSventon (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I generally think we should encourage people to do QPQs before they nominate articles. Currently I count seven nominations by highly experienced nominators lacking a required QPQ, needlessly making the backlog worse. Personally I find it much less stressful to use one of my stack of QPQs than to have to scramble for one at nomination time. —Kusma (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has a bot reminding editors about late QPQs ever been considered? For example, if a nomination doesn't have a QPQ and one hasn't been provided after seven days, a bot will leave the nominator a talk page message reminding them to do a QPQ. Of course, that's only if the nominator actually needs to be a QPQ. I imagine it could be a bit tricky to code, but it could help I guess. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma Good luck with that. I just brought up the QPQ issue at the nomination of a major DYK nominator and they asked why I have it in for the nomination. SL93 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: Ugh. I think a time limit is reasonable, and another week is plenty. (Personally I usually just do not review noms that lack a required QPQ). —Kusma (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technical stuff from the old discussions

I may be way behind the times, but I believe WT:Did_you_know/Archive_182#Start and End (and following section) is (or was) a key starting point for technical implementaion ideas. Who are our techies on this? Wugapodes, for startes? Wug, can you ping other techies involved? Possibly this is entirely obsolete but it's where my brain left off, anyway. EEng 03:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Wugapodes. TSventon (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes did you see this? Who else needs to be involved? TSventon (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon and EEng, sorry I missed these pings. What's needing done? Implementing a "some people need two QPQs" system? SD0001 had some ideas in that previous thread but to my knowledge no one's worked on anything yet. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably best if we both go back to the top of WT:Did_you_know/Archive_182#RfC_Discussion:_Details_of_implementing_EEng's_propsal_"Unreviewed_backlog_mode" and review forward from there (maybe skimming it all first to see what early stuff was obsoleted by later parts of the discussion). Then we can compare notes. I don't think there's anything too hard in there, but that's easy for me to say since I'm assuming you're volunteering to do all the work (bless your heart). Shall we start that way? Oh yes, first question: What happened to moving everything out of Template space (which, some may recall, I predicted would never happen)? EEng 03:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the main things are (1) a way to keep track of "backlog" mode and (2) a way to note how many QPQs are needed for a nomination. The first we can do pretty easily by having WugBot update a page on-wiki with the number of untouched nominations. The second is slightly harder and not something I know much about. We'd need the on-wiki templates and lua modules to get the content of that page and parse it appropriately. I'm not sure how to do that. Substing the page into the template? As for moving out of Template space, I was looking today and WugBot has code to handle it, but I don't think anything's moved on that front. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can handle (2) – all that's remaining is to edit Module:NewDYKnomination to read the nom counts and the "is backlog active?" page and show a message accordingly (the module is used in a substed template so no performance issue).

As for moving to template space, there was agreement in the last discussion that it should be done, but some insisted that a formal RFC should be held – we're waiting for someone to start that. – SD0001 (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like data on other pages can be accessed via lua which is good to know. I'll look into modifying the module this weekend and see how far I can get with lua. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you think this new "untouched" category of nominations is feasible? Right now we've got (courtesy of your hard work) a separate page for unapproved vs. approved. Would we move to three pages, or just have the two kinds of unapproved ("unapproved, untouched", "unapproved, touched") remain on a single page? Offhand I don't see clear plusses or minuses either way (other than inventing a third page is probably more work than leaving just two pages). EEng 16:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I imagined keeping our current two-page system. The page WugBot would update would just be a counter, kinda like the next queue counter. So it wouldn't distinguish the modified from unmodified nominations on the page, but doing so is feasible for WugBot if that would be helpful. Adding a third page is extra complexity for no clear benefit, so I'd rather try page sections before moving to a 3-page system. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng and SD0001: I've modified the module and it seems to be working. Check out the module sandbox and examples in my sandbox. I still need to modify WugBot so to update Template talk:Did you know/Unmodified nomination count, but after that everything should be good to go on this. — Wug·a·po·des​ 16:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wugpodes any news? I am asking now to prevent the thread being archived after a week of inactivity. TSventon (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes might be a tad distracted over the next few days. Schwede66 17:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon Oh, I was waiting on feedback from others. Looks like SD0001 did some fixes on the template, and given EEng's silence I take it everything looks good. I'll get to work on WugBot and update you once everything's in order. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've had almost no time for WP for about the last two weeks. I have total confidence in you, Wugapoo, but if you fee=l you need me to pass my hand over something, give me a day. EEng 23:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I get being busy. No pressure to review anything, I just wanted to make sure I didn't rush something past you. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The template sandbox version looks good to me, sorry forgot to comment here before. I just added a minor check (to avoid an error just in case someone edits the page to contain a non-number). – SD0001 (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good, Wug! Questions:
  • What keeps Template talk:Did you know/Unmodified nomination count updated? Is it done in real time, or daily, or hourly, or what?
  • Same question for the nominator's count of prior nominations -- is it updated in real time (so that if a user does nom A and then immediately nom B, the module processing nom B sees a count that includes nom A), or daily, etc?

EEng 04:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Did you know/Unmodified nomination count will be updated by WugBot. I intend for it to be run alongside the approval checks, so it will be done every other hour. The count of nominations is handled by SD0001, and it looks like it occurs every couple of hours. SD0001 would know the specifics. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are some race conditions here which may or may not matter (much), and when I get my thoughts together I'll say something about them. In the meantime (and apologies if this is answered above) where exactly are the counts-of-prior-noms-made-by-each-editor compiled? EEng 00:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The counts can be seen at User:SDZeroBot/DYK nomination counts.json. There certainly are a few race conditions, and I can see two at the moment: (1) the race between WugBot and SDZeroBot and (2) the race between nominators and both bots. For (1) that can be handled by SD0001 and I coordinating a staggered run schedule so WugBot doesn't run ahead of the by-nominator-count update. For (2) it's harder given the run schedules. We'd need some way to have the update triggered by an edit to the main nomination page or just have the bots run really frequently. I don't know how to do the first one, and either could actually make the race condition between bots worse since it would become an execution time issue not a scheduling issue. There's probably some sweet spot where the coordination is tight but not perfect, and the slack could be handled by a "hey, don't bulk nominate DYKs to try and end-run the backlog mode" message. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let' start with the most obvious problem (and correct me if there's a flaw in this narrative): (a) Editor has 4 nominations (no QPQ); (b) Editor makes a 5th nomination (also no QPQ); (c) before bot updates DYK nomination counts.json, editor makes a 6th nom. This last nom should require a QPQ, but because the counts.json still shows the editor has having only 4 prior noms, machinery mistakenly reports that no QPQ is required.

Now, as I've said before we're talking about QPQs here, not someone's prison release date, so this isn't the biggest deal in the world, and at most it would happen maybe once a year. But when it does happen, consternation will follow and there will be a Talk:DYK thread opened, and a congressional investigation, and there will be gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair and wrending of garments, all for nothing. So if we can avoid it easily then we ("we" means you, of course) should do it. Tell me if this makes sense: Can the nomination processing machinery, when it reads the nominator's value from counts.json (to see if it's < 5, between 5 and 19, or >=20 -- if I'm remember the boundaries correctly) then ++ it and write it back? That would "patch" the count without waiting for the bot to run again.

There's a similar race for crossing the 20-nomination boundary which triggers the double-QPQ requirement, and this would solve this too. Also, unless I'm not thinking of something, with this in place it's really not necessary for the counts.json bot to run frequently -- once a day would be fine.

Does what I've said make sense, and can you swing the writing back of the incremented count? EEng 21:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather we not wrend garments, I just bought mine. Unfortunately what you describe is not possible. The DYK nomination template uses a Lua module, but while these modules can read arbitrary pages, they cannot write to arbitrary pages. The only way to do what you described would be using an automated system like a user script or bot. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shit. EEng 22:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above and in earlier discussions, updating of counts.json takes place in real-time. It doesn't run on any schedule. To take the latest one, Template:Did you know nominations/Adele Nicoll was created at 2022-06-24T16:39:29Z and SDZeroBot updated the count at 2022-06-24T16:39:33Z. If the difference of 4 seconds also seems too much, I'm sure we can find a way to make it faster. – SD0001 (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have made you repeat yourself; last year I was told I needed a brain transplant, and the only brain available was from a goldfish. 4 seconds is plenty prompt; just out of curiosity, how exactly does the bot find out it needs to run? EEng 18:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It uses the Wikimedia EventStreams API. Basically it asks the wikimedia server: "notify me whenever a page with title beginning Template:Did_you_know_nominations/ is created". The bot runs 24x7 looking out for such notifications to arrive. When they come, it finds out who created the page, and increments that user's count.
It's similar to the technology that enables your phone to notify you of new emails – immediately when the email arrives. – SD0001 (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can it notify you whenever someone creates a nomination with a boring or erroneous hook? EEng 21:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike being the guy who just pokes holes while others do all the work,^[1] but this raises some new questions.

• (a) So, to be clear, the bot operates only by ++ing a user's counts on file -- it never rebuilds the counts from scratch (by looking at ... I don't know, I guess by looking at every page, going back forever, of the form Template:Did you know nominations/)?
• (b) But the bot hasn't been around forever, so where did the initial counts come from?
• (c) You look at who created the nom template page, not the name of the nominator given in the template itself? (Wugapodes -- maybe those two things can't be different? The nominated by (or self-nominated) stuff in the nom template -- does your machinery enforce that the named nominator is the same as the editor creating the template?)

EEng 21:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was just oversimplifying. The EventStream API isn't perfect – it can miss a few notifications and deliver a few ones twice. To account for those glitches, we DO rebuild the counts from scratch -- every 24 hours. The process for that is simpler – it queries the database (quarry:query/59696). This is also where the initial counts came from.
As to (c), yes we only look at who created the template page. So multi-user nominations are credited to solely to one person. If we wanted to overcome this limitation, it's easy enough in the real-time update component. But the build-from-scratch component of the bot might would become a BIG task involving reading in the contents of 58318 pages, as opposed to a simple 1.5 minute database query. Is it worth it? – SD0001 (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

W/r/t (c) they can be different. Thanks SD0001 for the clarification; I also missed the part where you explained the event stream API. It's the first I'm hearing about it so I look forward to reading up on it. @EEng: So with this information, it seems like the race conditions are minimized. There is still the issue of a bi-hourly WugBot run which would be what triggers "backlog mode". That is, we'll have up-to-the-minute counts of nominations but the backlog mode would only change once every two hours. I think that might actually be reasonable--we wouldn't want it yo-yo-ing around every few minutes as things get added and removed. What do you think? — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that in June 2009, a teenage girl and her adult boyfriend stabbed her mother to death when she objected to their relationship?

For the Murder of Joanne Witt (nom) – this feels to me like a hook and article that is not just unusually morbid, but unusually personal. These were three normal people, whose only claim to significance is this murder – the victim wasn't an important journalist, or has other kind of notable person. Just someone who said the wrong thing to the wrong person at the wrong time. To be honest, it feels a bit like a local news segment. As such, I wanted to do an extra check that the wider community is on board with airing this hook before I promote it. Pinging @Just Another Cringy Username and MaranoFan as nominator and reviewer. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• From a DYK perspective I approved this because it was new enough, reasonably-detailed, and as such showed no concerns specifically with regards to the criteria. However I do see your point and support whatever the outcome of this discussion will be.--NØ 12:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings about this - in particular, with regard to the young age of one of the perpetrators - but I must object to the statement that these were "three normal people". There is nothing normal about a horrific crime of this nature. But if there's a concern about whether the topic meets WP:NCRIME, then I would suggest that the appropriate course of action would be to nominate it for AFD and take it from there. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to give you wikilink policies on all of this, such as BLP issues. But I think it comes down to DYK needs to decide whether or not everything offered will be on the main page, as long as it meets the basic review criteria. What do we stand for? Do we want DYK to be the main page tabloid section? Once we open the door to that, it stays open. Neither the victim nor the perpetrators are known for anything else. — Maile (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A more fundamental question is why Wikipedia needs an article on every lurid murder in the first place. EEng 19:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Duh. Because they're all white, so there's plenty of coverage. valereee (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  absolutely – I mean, isn't there an argument to be made that if none of the coverage can show any kind of impact (even just an impact on the people), it should simply be considered routine? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So ball peen hammer murders are notable, but poison murders are not? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @David Epstein: I'm not sure what you mean (is it possible you're fooling with me?) – I just meant an impact on the surrounding population. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  They're making a pun. Hammer:impact. :) valereee (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ha! Thought it might be that, it just read like a normal question from DE... silly. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Replace "every lurid murder" with "every bit of pop culture trivia" and you have my feelings on the issue. As long as we're lovingly documenting every episode of American Horror Story, what's wrong with remembering real people whose lives were irrevocably altered by real crime? I think an article with 16 different sources from the mainstream media, documenting an event which attracted nationwide news coverage, would pass AfD w/ flying colors. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Terrible example. If I were czar we'd have a 25-year rule on pop culture. But I'm a grouchy old lady. valereee (talk) 20:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  How is that a terrible example? I'm saying real people deserve to be remembered as much, if not more than, fictional ones. It'd be one thing if we didn't have an article for every single episode of AHS, but we do, so why is WP clutching its collective pearls over a murder that actually happened? I swear, some people around here need to touch grass. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Terrible example because including pop culture isn't a good rationale for including anything else. valereee (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll give you that. If I was czar, I wouldn't allow single episode articles or character pages. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Totally. valereee (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ' ' (i have, like, four character GAs, one of which is at FAC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I get it. There are editors who are very interested in creating these articles, and many do a good job, and some do a great job. The articles are, in some cases, really well done. My argument is that articles about current pop culture use a ton of energy and don't contribute anything that does much long-term for readers. I get that some of the editors who create these simply wouldn't otherwise edit, and I appreciate their work. But those who do all the other work on these articles could have used their energy elsewhere. So I do actually see current pop culture articles as maybe something that could have waited 25 years to see if, long-term, it's actually worth the energy and time. valereee (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The American Horror Story has 226 sources for the series that ran for 10 years. The sources are the proof of notability. And while the murder was horrible, the victim and perpetrators are not notable by Wikipedia notability guides (no one-time events). Bottom line, everything on Wikipedia comes down to proving notability, or somewhere down the line get deleted. It may not seem fair to you, but that's how Wikipedia works on notability and inclusion.— Maile (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not as simple as "no one-time events." Per WP:NCRIME, "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." Also, "If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead." My article meets both of those standards.

I mean, if you don't want to DYK it, then don't. I'm just trying to get some eyeballs on my article, that's all. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron I've responded to others' comments ITT, but since you were kind enough to ping me, I feel I should offer a direct response. Per WP:NCRIME, the article uses only mainstream media sources and highlights the event rather than the people.

As to the question of taste, WP features a multiplicity of articles featuring equally strong meat. A single episode of American Horror Story contains material equal to or beyond what happened here and that has not only an article for the show itself, but separate articles for each season and each episode within each season. And this is fiction! Why are we clutching our pearls over a very real stabbing which disrupted real people's lives?

Finally, as long as the current DYK page features an article on a film produced by the incel and Frogtwitter communities, I don't think there's much room to discuss appropriateness. And with that, the defense rests. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron The bulk of this discussion took place a week ago and there's been no movement since then. Are we ready to promote this to prep? Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Another Cringy Username: Hmm. Well, I'm on vacation, so I won't be promoting this either way. I don't see an overwhelming consensus to promote, but if someone else finds that in this discussion, they're free to go ahead with it. Pinging @Z1720 and SL93 for the final call. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if somebody thinks the topic fails WP:NCRIME, they should list the article at AFD. If it passes, then I see no reason why it shouldn't run at DYK. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for rejecting a nomination. Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way this would possibly fail WP:NCRIME. The story is over a decade old, which precludes it from the "breaking news" concerns which exist not to preclude these stories, but to ensure adequate coverage and reflection before they are posted. It is about the events and not the people, so that side-case does not apply either. Thus it falls up the hierarchy to GNG: it is covered by two national outlets, CBS and People, and a nationally-recognized local news source, Sacramento Bee. There is no reason to hold this up, we need to SNOW this already. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To start, a ping to Gerda Arendt, with apologies.

• ... that the German conductor Kai Bumann (nom) began his tenure as musical director of the Warsaw Chamber Opera with Verdi's Falstaff and toured with the company to Japan twice?
• ... that the Messe brève no. 7 (nom) by Charles Gounod is a 1890 missa brevis that he derived from an earlier work for only two voices and organ?
• ... that French soprano Marguerite Vaillant-Couturier (nom) created the role of Micaëla in the world premiere of Lecocq's Le coeur et la main in Paris in 1882?
• ... that Jehan Alain composed the Messe modale en septuor (nom) as a mass for Saint-Nicolas in Maisons-Laffitte where he was organist, for a septet of soprano, alto, flute and string quartet?
• ... that soprano Adalgisa Gabbi (nom) was successful in Poland and South America before she appeared at La Scala in Milan as Eva in the Italian premiere of Wagner's Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg?
• ... that "Kommt her, ihr Kreaturen all" (nom), translated as "Come all ye creatures of the Lord", was published in Regensburg in 1687 and is still a common hymn during Corpus Christi processions?
• ... that after the Italian soprano Fausta Labia (nom) worked at the Royal Swedish Opera, she appeared as Mascagni's Iris at La Fenice in Venice and as Wagner's Sieglinde at La Scala in Milan?

I don't want to cause any trouble. However – and I say this fully aware that I am probably alone in my opinion, disagreeing with a half dozen separate reviewers, not to mention a colleague I deeply admire as the nominator – I simply don't see how all of these hooks don't fail the "broad interestingness" requirement in at least some measure.

I'm not going to ask that they be discussed, nor held up. However, I also don't feel comfortable putting my seal of approval on these hooks as promoter – and given how few prep promoters there are, that has the effect of letting these nominations unfairly pile up with no reason given. So, I'm simply going to leave these here; state that based on my analysis of the past performance of similar hooks, I don't believe that these will attract a sufficiently broad audience; and ask that if others wish to see these hooks on the main page, they perform these promotions themselves. Pinging Z1720 as the other active prep promoter. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I too have long had my issues with Gerda's hooks, however, these are not all problematic. The first and last are duds IMO, the fourth is iffy, but the rest look fine to me. Gatoclass (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first, I think is somewhat quirky: a German conductor working in Poland (which should be interesting enough, no?) taking Italian opera to Japan.

(ec) We have several here that are not operatic. I have a completely different understanding of interestingness, as you know, not "will the general reader be interested in the topic?" but "is the fact interesting for the topic, and may get such reader wanting to inquire? One example: Gounod is very famous (if not Faust then the Ave Maria), and readers may want to know what he did later in life, and if not, at least we offered knowledge. To opera: that an obscure songer from Sweden is successful in Italy, even in Italian opera, tells a lot, no? - I don't want to discuss hooks here, thinking that if a reviewer approved it's not the prep builders task to question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I don't want to discuss the merits of these hook here, but I will point out that my definition is not "will the general reader be interested in the topic?", it's "will the general reader be interested in the hook, even if they're not interested in the topic?". If it were only about the topic, the hook would be meaningless – but I've never felt that to be the case. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Here are some of my thoughts on the hooks above:

• For what it's worth, I disagree with Gatoclass that the first hook is a complete dud. If anything, it's one of the better hooks mentioned here. However, if it were me, I would suggest focusing just on the Japan tour and drop the Falstaff mention.
• I think Messe's hook is workable with some rewording (right now it's hard to read, but there's a decent hook fact there if you squint hard enough). I do find it interesting that an organist composed a non-organ piece, and if that part can be emphasized I think it could make a serviceable hook.
• I'm thinking Gabbi's hook has potential, but it needs to be reworded since right now it's a bit difficult to read and the main idea (she performed at La Scala after finding success elsewhere) isn't immediately obvious.
• Kommt's hook needs rewording, but the hook fact itself (a 1687 hymn still being performed today) is fine.
• The other hooks, yes I'd agree they're not good. Vaillant-Couturier and Labia's hooks in particular are very very niche as they're essentially pure role hooks. I tried to think of alternative hook ideas for Valliant-Couturier and Labia but I couldn't find anything usable that would appeal to non-opera enthusiasts. Had I been the reviewer for both hooks I would have suggested that neither could be approved due to a lack of suitable material.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I didn't even come for "my" articles but those Ipigott created, such as the last. - Can't help repeating that RD is more rewording than all these efforts to word something. Alfred Koerppen had 1,021 views on DYK and 3,798 the first day RD (more to come today), for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at viewer stats for hooks, it always surprises me which hooks get a lot of clicks and which ones are complete duds. I do not think DYK should stop hooks from running if they are not interesting: there are eight hooks per queue on several topics, so readers are likely to find at least something interesting. I encourage nominators to propose multiple hooks on different aspects of the article so that reviewers express which is the most interesting. Z1720 (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that "interesting to a broad audience" is one of the DYK requirements. And while reviewers and nominators can argue over what makes a hook interesting to a broad audience, it does mean that hooks that are uninteresting can be disqualified. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting/uninteresting hooks are highly subjective, and it is hard for us to get a solution. I would only support closing a nomination for being "uninteresting" if there was evidence that a hook, if it ran, would be uninteresting to a broad audience. An example of such evidence would be a similarily worded hook that did not generate a lot of pageviews. Z1720 (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, an editor (I can't remember if it was Leeky or another one) did an analysis of the least viewed 25 hooks for a year (it was an entire page but I can't remember the link, maybe Theleekycauldron can provide it). Classical music hooks were disproportionately represented in the list along with hooks about radio stations and ballet music (there was another group that was mentioned but I forgot which one; I have to point out that these findings were the user's and not mine). Obviously this does not mean that any of these three topics are unsuitable for DYK and indeed multiple good DYK hooks have come out of them. In fact, there have been multiple good classical music hooks over the years and I've even defended some of them. It is just something worth keeping in mind, and it was a noticeable pattern. Indeed, based on Leeky's monthly "best viewed DYK" lists it seems that operatic role hooks make up a sizable proportion of the least viewed hooks each month. Now I'm not really a person who cares much about page views (most of my own hooks have admittedly not had spectacular numbers), but again, it's a noticeable pattern and multiple editors have brought it up in the past. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 and Narutolovehinata5: I was pinged, so I threw together this list of the mass compositions, rounds, and hymns starting from 2022 January 1. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First define your broad audience, and perhaps we should not assume that they are all interested in popular culture only, and all ignorant of opera, orchestral music, and the like. DYK is a form of advertising, and advertising works best if targeted at the right audience. Rewriting an operatic hook for a target popular-culture audience would have to be deceptive, in that such readers would click on a link apparently intended for them, and find themselves looking at something that that they are not used to. In that context, numbers of clicks do not help the audience, and they do not help WP.

With a specialist subject, we need to target those who will actually be interested, and therefore we need to use language which will resonate with those already interested in the subject. For example, the technical side of IT holds zero interest for me, and a hook saying something quirky about an IT boffin or his coding system is never going to bring me in; however a hook worded in specialist language will hook all your IT buffs out there, nicely - and they are the audience that you want for that subject, not me. So maybe we should make like the professional advertising industry and target the right audience for specialist subjects, and not try to kid ourselves that we can educate and convert all those pop fans out there to opera with a quirky hook or two.

Gerda Arendt knows how to target the specialist audience for her subject area, and she knows how not to alienate them by dumbing down hooks for that subject. Trust your specialist creators and nominators, and give them a chance to make their point. WP is not for an audience entirely of children and uneducated people. It is for everybody. Storye book (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except DYK's rules outright specify that a hook should be interesting to a broad audience. Specialist hooks are not exactly what DYK would consider a broad audience. I'm not saying that specialist hooks are bad or that opera hooks are inherently "bad" hooks. It is perfectly possible for there to be hooks about opera that appeal to broad audiences and in fact there have been multiple examples. Now, there could be some debate as to exactly if a hook appeals to a "broad" audience or not, but I don't think that "we must appeal to IT buffs only" or something similar was what DYK's founders had in mind when that rule was created. The spirit of the rule seems to be more like "a hook about IT must not only appeal to IT buffs". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I shall stick to my view that quality clicks are worth more to WP than random or deceptive clicks which irritate readers. All WP rules are to be used with commonsense - that's one of the rules. I do agree that each day's (or half-day's) set of hooks should as a whole appeal to a broad audience, e.g. some popular culture hooks and some specialist hooks, the proportion depending on what is available that day. Oh, and by the way, three of the above hooks mention Christian religious music - may I ask what is the complaint about that on grounds of a broad audience requirement? For many people in the UK and Europe, choral masses are part of the culture, whether we are religious or not. So when you talk about a broad audience, are you thinking only of a broad audience in the Americas? Storye book (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the issue has nothing to do with the topic. Christian religious music is not by itself a niche topic, and just because a hook is about Christian religious music doesn't mean it can't be suitable to a broad audience. Indeed, we've had multiple good hooks about Christian religious music. In fact, see the list of hooks above and Messe's hook could appeal to broad audiences with just a bit of rewording.

The goal is to make sure that hooks about said topic would not just be understood and appreciated by Christians alone. Even Muslims, Jews, and others can appreciate them. We do the same thing with hooks about Islamic topics. Just because a hook is about Christianity doesn't mean it should appeal solely to Christians.

As for the "broad audience in the Americas" topic, that's not necessarily true either. In fact, there have been hook suggestions in the past that have been rejected because they would have only made sense to Americans but not the broader world. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a completely different understanding of interestingness, as you know, not "will the general reader be interested in the topic?" but "is the fact interesting for the topic" - Gerda.

- and that's the problem right there. You can't decide to have your own personal definition of hook interest which is at odds with DYK rules. The rule states clearly that hooks must be "interesting to a broad audience", not interesting to a niche audience of topic buffs. The latter would be perfectly fine if you were writing hooks for, say, an opera magazine, or a ballet magazine or whatever, because the audience may appreciate the nuances. But the main page of Wikipedia is the diametric opposite of that - it's a page perused by millions of people from any number of different backgrounds and walks of life. Hooks that are appreciated by only a select few and which leave the rest scratching their heads wondering what is supposedly significant about fact x do a disservice not only to the DYK project, but to Wikipedia as a whole. Gatoclass (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good chat, everybody. Maybe we can move on to improving the encyclopedia instead of rehashing this for the umpteenth time, since, you know, nobody's going to change their mind, given that this unpleasant and acrimonious discussion has been held on individual nominations countless times already, and we're still here. Nobody is forcing anyone to promote hooks they don't want to. Bringing a specific person's hooks here while saying there's not an intention of "ask[ing] that they be discussed, nor held up" doesn't seem particularly sound, but I'd just leave the initial notification at an invitation to promote (or not). A "disservice" to "Wikipedia altogether" based on what is ultimately just one hook a day? I don't particularly buy that, but hey, what do I know. Urve (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well I originally wrote "the main page altogether", but felt that didn't get my point across sufficiently, so changed it to "Wikipedia altogether". That then seemed too strong, so I was about to change it to "Wikipedia as a whole" but then couldn't see much difference between the two. But the fact that you felt moved to criticize it confirms that my original instinct was correct. In any case, I have now changed it as I agree the previous construction somehow seemed an overstatement.

Other than that though, the fact that Gerda's approach to hook writing has been criticized many times by numerous contributors shows that there is an ongoing issue here. It's a topic I have always found difficult to broach, given that Gerda also happens to be one of the nicest and most thoughtful people on the project. But giving somebody a free pass on that basis alone doesn't seem appropriate either.

The bottom line here though is that this is about improving the encyclopedia. The main page is our most visible page, and content that is weak or uninteresting inevitably hurts readers' perception of the project - while high quality content has the opposite effect. Certainly, I could never embrace an approach that in effect says "so what if 12.5% of our output is not up to scratch? Near enough is good enough." I care too much about the encyclopedia to take such an approach, and I'd like to think the majority of Wikipedians would concur. Gatoclass (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do think we may have to lower our expectations about Wikipedia's quality a bit. After all, there's no deadline and Wikipedia will always be a work in progress. Apart from obvious vandalism/copyright infringement/misinformation/BLP violations/etc., articles not being up to scratch is not necessarily a bad thing. Okay, it's not really desirable, but again, work in progress, it's something that can be improved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Specific hooks

To get this back on track, I've taken a stab at revising some of the hooks that I think are usable with rewording or cutting out fat. Here are some suggestions:

• ... that "Kommt her, ihr Kreaturen all", a Catholic hymn first published in 1687, is still commonly used during Corpus Christi processions?
• ... that German conductor Kai Bumann participated in two tours of Japan with the Warsaw Chamber Opera during his tenure as music director?
• ... that organist Jehan Alain's Messe modale en septuor was written for a septet of soprano, alto, flute and string quartet?
• ... that soprano Adalgisa Gabbi made her La Scala debut as Eva in the Italian premiere of Wagner's Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg after finding success in Poland and South America?

Like I mentioned above, I think these hooks would have made decent hooks with some rewording. The originals were too hard to read and had too many detracting details instead of getting to the point. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this:

• Kreaturen: why not give a hint of what the German means, and with a title that may ring a bell in some heads? Because I believe that the "creatures" are important to mention, while usual hymns for the occasion focus on Jesus, bread and wine? Catholic, however is redundant, those processions only occur in Catholicism. Shortened ALT:

... that the 1687 hymn "Kommt her, ihr Kreaturen all", translated as "Come all ye creatures of the Lord", is still commonly sung during Corpus Christi processions?

I have no comment on whether or not it's better to include the translation so I will leave it to the promoter in this case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bumann is already in prep.

It's one of the hooks being discussed in this discussion so it could either be pulled in the meantime or be moved to a later prep while the final wording is being sorted out. In any case at least two editors here have raised concerns about the current hook and so it may not be a good idea to run the currently-promoted wording as-is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What we have now is

• ... that German conductor Kai Bumann participated in two tours of Japan with the Warsaw Chamber Opera?

Perhaps it's my lack of English, but I don't understand

* Why not say that he was the Warsaw Chamber Opera's music director, which was clear in the original, but any other conductor might participate.

* Why "participate" at all which only makes it longer?

If this track at all, how about:

... that Kai Bumann, music director of the Warsaw Chamber Opera, conducted the company on two tours of Japan?

But we would really have the space to mention Falstaff, which shows his taste, is a big and unexpected choice for a chamber opera, and is a FA by VivaVerdi and Tim riley, so showing the best Wikipedia has to offer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the issues with the original hooks was that they included too many details to make the hooks easily understandable and catchy. Hooks are meant to highlight interesting facts about a subject, not be summaries of a subject's life or career. Additional information to add context isn't necessarily discouraged in hooks and at times they can even help. For example, clarifying that Bumann was a music director of the Warsaw Chamber Opera works because it shows why Bumann is important to those who don't know him. However, what you're suggesting here is to mention both Falstaff and him doing the tour of Japan, which are unrelated hook facts. Mentioning both would only make the hook more complicated: for DYK purposes, it would probably be better to mention either Falstaff or Japan but not both. Your new proposal about him being music director is fine and shows the point immediately. Finally, DYK hooks don't really care about the quality of other linked articles. It does not matter if the other links are FAs or articles full of orange tags. What matters is the quality of the bolded link. This is DYK, not FA, and if there's a desire to promote an FA, there's already TFA for that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I copied the last conversation to the related thread below, answering here only to the FA bit. Falstaff appeared as TFA, of course, but I think we do DYK readers a favour if we expose FAs, to let them see what Wikipedia also has to offer. But: my key reason is memory of VivaVerdi, whose contributions were unbelievable. Take List of operas performed at the Santa Fe Opera, and all the Verdi operas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Messe modale: why passive voice when we can have the composer active? ... why not help to understanding that "Messe" means mass? ... why not give a precise location? - shortened ALT:
• ... that organist Jehan Alain composed the Messe modale en septuor [for Saint-Nicolas in Maisons-Laffitte (pictured), set] for a septet of soprano, alto, flute and string quartet?

As I mentioned earlier, I think the location was an unnecessary detail. To me the main hook fact here is that an organist composed a piece that was performed by a flutist and a string quartet. I had the thought that it was the main hook idea and mentioning for whom and where it was written added extra detail that simply distracted from the main point. In many cases, the less complicated hooks are better and I think this is one such case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Gabbi: you, Narutolovehinata5, taught me to have the climax in the end, which is Scala. If we really want it short (but why miss Poland and SA - an unusual combination?):
• ... that Adalgisa Gabbi (pictured) appeared at La Scala in Milan as Eva in the Italian premiere of Wagner's Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting late where I live, but I wrote Gabbi's hook the way I did because I think her success in South America was essential to the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the placement of the "climax" of the hook is not something that has a hard rule. It can be near the start, the middle, or at the end of a hook. It's a case-by-case thing and it really depends on what the hook fact is and how to present it. Indeed, one possible way to rewrite that hook could be the following:

• ... that after finding success in Poland and South America, soprano Adalgisa Gabbi made her La Scala debut as Eva in the Italian premiere of Wagner's Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg?

There's no hard-and-fast rule. In this case, I tried to put La Scala earlier since those who know classical music know that La Scala is a big deal and might want to see that part earlier, while flowing into the "after finding success in South America/Poland" part for the benefit of non-classical music fans. Again, there are times when it's better to put the "climax" at the end and sometimes at the start or even the middle. It really depends on the hook idea. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original Adalgisa hook is fine, as Gerda said, the hooky bit is usually left to last so swapping the content around doesn't work, and leaving out the bit about her "finding success" in a couple of different countries makes the hook bland and uninteresting. As for the Buman hook, I still think it's a dud - conductors conduct orchestras all over the world, so it's a pretty mundane fact to highlight IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been building preps on and off at DYK for several years (though not particularly active in the past year or so). Without getting too involved in this debate, I want to mirror theleekycauldron's experience when they say above "I also don't feel comfortable putting my seal of approval on these hooks as promoter". This is the same reason why I have avoided promoting 95% of Gerda's hooks over the years. A long time ago there were a couple of occasions where I stepped in to try and improve a hook to make it more interesting (or even simplify the wordiness as Narutolovehinata5 has done directly above), but this was always met with resistance, so instead I adopted an approach of ignoring and scrolling past these particular nominations. 97198 (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should define the role of prep admin and the role of reviewer. If we forget, for the moment, those reviewers who are new and inexperienced – in general our regular reviewers are experienced, and they do their job. The concept of "interestingness" is of course subjective, so that neither the experienced reviewer nor the admin has a superior understanding or ability in that respect. One of the WP principles is that we should treat each other with good faith, especially in the well-intentioned work that we all do. So if the reviewer decides that the hook is interesting, what right does the prep admin have, to unilaterally counter-decide that the hook is not interesting? I think (1) we need to trust our creators/nominators to know their subject and readers, and (2) trust our experienced reviewers to decide on interestingness, and (3) trust our fantastic and hardworking prep admins (to whom I must say we should be very grateful) to do their bit without trying to undo our bit. Otherwise what on earth is an experienced reviewer for? Storye book (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC) To clarify: Of course, I am talking about interestingness of hooks only here, and not other matters where it may be appropriate for admins to interfere. Storye book (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The role of prep builder (who is rarely an admin; admins are required to promote preps to queues) is to check all aspects of the nomination being promoted, from article quality to neutrality to hook sources to how interesting the hook is. It's the prep builder who decides which approved hook to use, even if the reviewer may have preferred a different one: the reviewer is one person, and while doing their best may not make the best choice. Prep builders typically have a wider view of things, seeing how preps go together, what makes an interesting hook from a wide variety of angles, what hooks work best with other hooks, etc. The idea that they should have to turn off that experience for one aspect, whether the hook is sufficiently interesting according to the DYK criteria, makes no sense to me; as there are people out there who don't seem to take the "interesting" criterion sufficiently seriously or have their own idea that doesn't match what the criteria say (as noted elsewhere in this discussion), having the prep builders involved in all the final checks at the time of promotion seems to me a good thing, not a bad one. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Promoters being involved in all aspects of reviewing is a good thing because they serve as an additional check. Notwithstanding the interestingness checks, promoters can also detect sourcing or article issues that the reviewer may have missed. While there's a good argument towards DYK being too bureaucratic as it is, I do think that having an extra check is still a net positive. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have dealt with the interesting criterion in relation to Gerda's hooks. There have been multiple times that I have reviewed Gerda's hooks to help clear the DYK backlog. I passed the nominations though because new ideas for Gerda's hooks are met with a long drawn-out discussion. SL93 (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't do that anymore. I just ignore them now. SL93 (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, we now need a decision on the hooks. What to do with Kommt's, Bumann's, and the Messe hooks? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, the original messe no. 7 and kommt hooks are fine. Neither of the hooks for the other messe article are up to scratch IMO, and the Labia hook is a dud. Gatoclass (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re Kommt her, ihr Kreaturen alll, I left Gerda a note at the bottom of the nomination template. Nothing wrong with the nomination. Corpus Christi, Texas is a popular tourist destination in the United States, as well as the site of multiple hurricane landings. It might be better to link Feast of Corpus Christi as is, so readers don't mistake it for a procession happening in the Texas city. — Maile (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was posted by an IP to T:TDYK and I am moving it to the proper venue.

Stop selcting articles, with the sole intent of the topic, to increase decisiveness in this country. As in the #2 and #3 examples at this moment.

And you expect patriots of America to support you? 2600:8807:5042:781E:FD80:7E58:5101:B7C1 (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

For context, these were the second and third hooks on the Main Page at that time:

• ... that Charlie Young was introduced into The West Wing over concerns of a lack of racial diversity in casting?
• ... that in 2020, Ukrainian association football referee Maryna Striletska was part of the first all-woman officiating team for a men's international football match?

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Separate from me removing the comment to this talk page, I'd like to respond to the IP by noting:

• Hook facts, the facts included in a DYK set, must be cited in the articles they come from. The first article's hook fact is cited to Vanity Fair [1], and the latter is cited to a Spanish sports publication.
• Like articles, hook facts are subject to our neutral point of view policy. Both of these hooks are neutral, in addition to being directly cited. They were reviewed by other editors experienced in DYK according to our DYK rules.
• In what way does an article on a Ukrainian football (soccer) referee try to stoke divisiveness in the United States? Would you have said the same of a Spanish or German or South African referee? (You might wish to know that we have a policy that no more than half of a DYK hook set can be about United States topics.)

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're increasing decisiveness in this country. :D Those poor patriots. valereee (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's even funnier because Wikipedia isn't US-centric. SL93 (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, I would like to self-nominate Mandla Lamba that has just been 5× expanded (actually, completely rewritten), but:

• it is currently under AfD — the rewrite was a personal WP:HEYMANN of sorts, as the article content had been completely disjoint from reliable sources uncovered in the discussion
• unstable: there has been edit warring / vandalism coming from accounts that created and AfD-defended the article — I would hardly be surprised if there was UPE/COI involved

Can the seven-day timeframe for nomination be waived in view of the circumstances?

I am also aware that the article falls under WP:BLPCRIME and would welcome assistance from experienced editors to scrutinize for issues in that respect.

Lastly, what is the preferred way for me to create the nomination page? I used draftspace last time round, is that okay or would it be better to do it some other way.

Thanks, — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you nominate right away. It's seven days even if the time is spent at AfD, and those deletion nominations can go on for weeks. If the AfD fails, the already-created nomination proceeds; if AfD succeeds, then the nomination closes because the article is no longer there. Since you do not have a username, you cannot edit in Template space, so if draftspace worked last time, it makes sense for you to continue with that methodology. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done: nom page at Draft:Did you know nominations/Mandla Lamba for now (requires move) and listing at WP:DYKNOM#Mandla Lamba. Thanks! — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Template:Did you know nominations/Mandla Lamba.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  14:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there ever exceptions to the seven-day cutoff requirement? William H. Davis (educator) was recently promoted to GA on 7 July; however, I was not able to submit a DYK nomination in the time since. I know it is unlikely, but I wanted to see if it was possible for me to still nominate this article. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We tend to be a bit forgiving of delays that are a couple of days late, so I don't see how three days is going to hurt. I do suggest you do it as soon as possible because the longer you delay a possible nomination the less likely IAR will be granted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Narutolovehinata5, thank you so much for your response. I will work on submitting this DYK nomination ASAP accordingly. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK now has 120 approved nominations. It is time to switch to two-sets-per-day. Flibirigit (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Pinging @DYK admins: . SL93 (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We still need to wait 11 hours until we make the switch. —Kusma (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but the notification now is better than last minute. I didn't state the 11 hours information since I figured that the DYK admins would already know from earlier. SL93 (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that in Prep 6: Norman Osborn (Sam Raimi film series) was requested for July 22. After the changeover, it would be appreciated if this could be moved to the corresponding prep. I don't think there are any other hooks that are requested dates. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that there are currently only two approved queues, which is only 24 hours' worth at two-sets-per-day, so more queues need to be approved fairly urgently. TSventon (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done UTC midnight is lunchtime for me; easy to do this change. I'll now move Norman Osborn (unless somebody else has already done so). Schwede66 00:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Queue 4:

• ... that when crossing out Rubicon, the time to die is cast later in roundworms and female fruit flies?

Nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Rubicon (protein), nominator: Prodigiousfool, reviewer: TompaDompa.

To me, this is a horribly failed attempt to be clever. The irony is that the actual fact – that lifespans are increased – is interesting, but it's obscured by the contorted phrasing ("the time to die is cast later", which is intended to mirror what Caesar supposedly said upon crossing the Rubicon). And does "crossing out" even make sense in this context? It shouldn't be phrased that way if it's less accurate just for a play on "crossing the Rubicon".  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  01:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that doesn't work for me either. Another issue is that the reviewer suggested this hook and then signed off on it. I suggest we pull it and reopen the nomination. Schwede66 02:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we change it to ALT1 on that page: "that genetically crossing (out) the protein Rubicon (shown) reduces hallmarks of aging in roundworms, fruit flies, and mice?"

Agree that this hook is obscure; it was the result of some back and forth with the reviewer. Prodigiousfool (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this isn't a lead hook, "(shown)" should not be included if ALT1 is used. Is there any way to avoid the parenthesis with "out" in it? Whatever we do, the hook needs to be modified or replaced entirely in the next 19 hours; what's in Queue 4 now isn't acceptable. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just admit that the whole crossing/Rubicon thing is a strained attempt at being clever that simply doesn't work? I doubt any scientist would see "crossing out" as an acceptable term. The source uses "knockdown" or "knockout". Also, I think the fact that it actually extends lifespans is more interesting than reducing hallmarks of aging. This is why reviewers shouldn't approve their own hooks. I agree with Schwede66 that it would be best to pull/reopen.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  06:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer here: I honestly don't think that the fact that performing a specific knockout extends lifespans in Caenorhabditis elegans and female Drosophila melanogaster is terribly interesting in itself; these animals are used for genetic studies because it's practical (short lifespans and so on), and there is no reason to expect this to translate to humans (it doesn't even translate to male D. melanogaster). But yes, by all means pull it. As I said in the review: it's precisely because there are additional layers of checking that I am comfortable approving it. TompaDompa (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled the hook and reopened the nomination form. Schwede66 09:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of all 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 10. We have a total of 239 nominations, of which only 138 were approved, a gap of 129 nominations, down 16 over the previous nine days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than three months old

• April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Zionism as settler colonialism

More than two months old

• May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Enkeli-Elisa

More than one month old

• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Franco-Greek defense agreement
• May 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Dijon Talton (reviewer needed for ALT2a)
• May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Arming teachers
• June 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Florida Right To Clean Water
• June 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Religious education in Kerala
• June 14: Template:Did you know nominations/CIA activities in Japan
• June 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Gita Sarabhai

Other nominations

• June 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Margrethe Parm
• July 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Guns don't kill
• July 3: Template:Did you know nominations/The Kreutzer Sonata (painting)
• July 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Tashy Bohm
• July 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Paleoflora of the Messel Formation
• July 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Blasingame
• July 3: Template:Did you know nominations/David Davies (test pilot)
• July 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Ari Nagel
• July 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Arthur Samuel Garretson
• July 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Hana wa Dare no Mono?
• July 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Covey-Crump (two articles)
• July 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Transgender genocide
• July 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Hector d'Andigné de Grandfontaine
• July 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Herb Wong
• July 7: Template:Did you know nominations/List of carillons in Belgium
• July 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Sohagpur massacre
• July 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Don't Wake Me Up (album)
• July 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Brent Ladds
• July 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Dmitry Kolker
• July 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Lake Brunner
• July 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Reflections (concert residency)
• July 10: Template:Did you know nominations/United Socialist Party (Romania)
• July 10: Template:Did you know nominations/United Nations Special Envoy on Myanmar
• July 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Werner J. Dannhauser
• July 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Farooq Rasheed
• July 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Ferver
• July 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Gdańsk

Please remember to cross off entries 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) 05:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a note to say that I replaced the above hook at 08:44 on Sunday morning, as issues were raised by Doug Weller regarding the article's NPOV status, and he is proposing some rewriting. Just querying whether the nomination should be reopened, or whether we just move on at this point, as it was on the main page for a while. Pingign @Theleekycauldron, BlueMoonset, BuySomeApples, and FacetsOfNonStickPans: who were involved with the hook. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it has been on the Main Page for almost nine hours, perhaps we should just move on. —Kusma (talk) 12:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it had almost 9 hours on front page of the 12 hours it had been scheduled for. Would be unfair to run it again, especially when we have a backlog of 120 approved nominations with decent hooks. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't get another crack at the main page after running there for over eight hours; let's leave it closed. Thanks for letting us know about it being pulled. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It had its moment on the front page imo, so running it again doesn't seem necessary. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK great. Thanks for the feedback all.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination page: Template:Did you know nominations/Shireen Abu Akleh

Concerns have been raised regarding if the hook is suitable for DYK and the main page. I invite editors to comment on the proposed hook's suitability (ALT5a). Please keep the discussion on the nomination page so that everything is in one place. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the 2001 concert residency Regine at the Movies was restaged seventeen years later?

Nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Regine at the Movies

@Theleekycauldron, Pseud 14, and Tbhotch: and other interested parties - I have a quick query about the label "concert residency" applied to this topic. Are there any cited sources that call it that? I suppose according to the definition at the linked article, it could be that any series in one venue with 10 or more performances is automatically a residency, but I'd prefer it myself if it were actually cited. Also, there's the issue that it actually wasn't just in one venue, it switched from the Music Museum to the Onstage Theater midway through the run. I would normally reopen the nom page, but perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree or there's a quick solution here! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru, Theleekycauldron, and Tbhotch: addressing the above queries. First point, I suppose back in 2001, the term concert residency wasn't as popular or widely known, I think it used to just be referred to as "Vegas residency", because of the assumption that musicians perform in the strip when their career goes to die, it wasn't until Celine Dion's A New Day... that concert residencies sort of became a norm in concert experience. However, going back to 2001, sources I found would only describe it as a "concert series" in the Philippines. I suppose being synonymous, we could identify it as a residency or we can stick to concert series in the hook. Second point, on the concern about venue, there have been concert residencies performed in multiple venues during its run, I would point to Bruno Mars at Park MGM, a concert residency which was performed at the Park Theater, Park MGM in Las Vegas and The Theater at MGM National Harbor, Oxon Hill in Maryland. Hopefully that help clarifies your query. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3 has six hooks, prep 4 has two hooks (one of them had an issue raised), and the last five preps are empty. I will get back into prep building, but I'm not filling everything by myself. We need more prep builders very soon with it being at 2 sets a day. SL93 (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: currently starting a vacation, so I'm going to have highly reduced activity for a couple of days or more. Hopefully, I can jump back in by the end of the week. On another note, two-a-day shouldn't be gospel at 120; the prep set team should be responsible for as many sets as it is able to build with attention and care. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 14:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron I would agree about the 120 approved thing, but we are currently at 147 approved hooks and it was higher earlier. SL93 (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finished three sets. I would appreciate it if other preppers could do a set or two, as there are some hooks that I cannot promote. Z1720 (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 Thank you. I just filled the rest of prep 6. SL93 (talk) 00:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will be on standby. Bruxton (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Sean Hurson has a date request that coincides with the (currently empty) Preparation area 1. Don't know if it's too late... If it is, would the same time next day be possible? --Gaois (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of transparency, I am listing the tweaks I made to hooks when promoting to Q2. Pinging the nominators Gerda Arendt and Sammi Brie.

Kai Bumann

Firstly, I changed the Kai Bumann hook from:

• ... that the German conductor Kai Bumann began his tenure as musical director of the Warsaw Chamber Opera with Verdi's Falstaff and twice toured with the company to Japan?

to

• ... that German conductor Kai Bumann participated in two tours of Japan with the Warsaw Chamber Opera?

The revised hook is based on the ALT proposed by Narutolovehinata5, as follows:

• ... that German conductor Kai Bumann participated in two tours of Japan with the Warsaw Chamber Opera during his tenure as music director?

- after objections were made to the original hook, which was apparently erroneously promoted while discussion was ongoing. In promoting it, however, I decided the additional phrase "during his tenure as music director" added nothing of interest and only detracted from the main point, which is that a German conductor toured an Asian country twice with a foreign opera company. I might add that I still think this hook is pretty weak, but weak hooks are generally a lot less distracting if they are short.

There was a related discussion further up which I copy to here for ease of reference:

What we have now is

• ... that German conductor Kai Bumann participated in two tours of Japan with the Warsaw Chamber Opera?

Perhaps it's my lack of English, but I don't understand

* Why not say that he was the Warsaw Chamber Opera's music director, which was clear in the original, but any other conductor might participate.

* Why "participate" at all which only makes it longer?

If this track at all, how about:

... that Kai Bumann, music director of the Warsaw Chamber Opera, conducted the company on two tours of Japan?

But we would really have the space to mention Falstaff, which shows his taste, is a big and unexpected choice for a chamber opera, and is a FA by VivaVerdi and Tim riley, so showing the best Wikipedia has to offer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of the issues with the original hooks was that they included too many details to make the hooks easily understandable and catchy. Hooks are meant to highlight interesting facts about a subject, not be summaries of a subject's life or career. Additional information to add context isn't necessarily discouraged in hooks and at times they can even help. For example, clarifying that Bumann was a music director of the Warsaw Chamber Opera works because it shows why Bumann is important to those who don't know him. However, what you're suggesting here is to mention both Falstaff and him doing the tour of Japan, which are unrelated hook facts. Mentioning both would only make the hook more complicated: for DYK purposes, it would probably be better to mention either Falstaff or Japan but not both. Your new proposal about him being music director is fine and shows the point immediately. Finally, DYK hooks don't really care about the quality of other linked articles. It does not matter if the other links are FAs or articles full of orange tags. What matters is the quality of the bolded link. This is DYK, not FA, and if there's a desire to promote an FA, there's already TFA for that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not understand, sorry, why we can't have two fact about the rich life of a person who recently died, to have a bit of a broader picture. Many tour to Japan, even twice, that in itself is really not specific about this person. If you absolutely have to have it short

* ... that the German conductor Kai Bumann began his tenure as musical director of the Warsaw Chamber Opera with Verdi's last opera Falstaff? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

or, pointing at his international work:

* ... that the German conductor Kai Bumann was musical director of the Warsaw Chamber Opera and a Swiss youth orchestra at the same time?

The orchestra has no article yet but that could be changed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

we would really have the space to mention Falstaff, which shows his taste

These are classic reasons for not adding information to a hook. The criterion is that hooks must appeal "to a broad audience" and nobody but an opera buff is going to know that doing Falstaff "shows his taste", indeed, that seems to be no more than your personal opinion anyway. Likewise for is a big and unexpected choice for a chamber opera. The new hook proposals also do not pass muster in my book, the first because, again, it means nothing to the average reader that he chose Falstaff for his first project, and the second because it's not unusuall for a conductor to be musical director of two groups of musicians at the same time.

Many tour to Japan, even twice, that in itself is really not specific about this person - indeed, that's why I described it as a weak hook. But then, why did you include this information to begin with? Gatoclass (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But since we now seem to agree that the current hook isn't much good and can't agree on the others, here are a couple more possible ALTs (with arbitrary alt numbers):

• ALT5: ... that in 2021, the German conductor Kai Bumann was named Professor of Art by Polish President Andrzej Duda?
• ALT6: ... that the German conductor Kai Bumann had many ties to Polish cultural life, and in 2018 conducted the world premiere of one of Krzysztof Penderecki's last works? Gatoclass (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is ALT5 but I wouldn't oppose ALT6. Having said that, one issue with ALT6 is the mention of the composer who may not be well-known outside of Poland or classical music circles. On the other hand, the addition of "many ties to Polish cultural life" thing could resolve that reservation. Another possibility could be an ALT7 which mentions both the ties to cultural life and the Professor of Art thing: to me that seems to be the more natural combination than the cultural life+the world premiere. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well after initial hesitation I thought ALT6 reads quite nicely, but we've spent far too much time on this nom already, so here's your suggested alt:

• ALT7: ... that the German conductor Kai Bumann, who had many ties to Polish cultural life, was in 2018 named Professor of Art by President Andrzej Duda? Gatoclass (talk) 08:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:JOBTITLES prefers "Polish president". Bazza (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only suggested ALT7 as an option, my preference remains ALT5. Regardless if you're familiar with the person's music career or not, being given a title by a country's president seems interesting enough regardless of a reader's background. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted ALT5. Thanks all for the feedback. Gatoclass (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: is that substitution allowed? I thought editors aren't supposed to replace hooks with their own, or to promote their own hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are not supposed to do so unilaterally. In this case you approved the hook, so it wasn't a unilateral substitution. Gatoclass (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda says she prefers ALT6. Since as a general rule I favour respecting the nominator's preferences where possible, would it be acceptable to you Naruto if I substituted that instead? Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I originally said that I wouldn't oppose ALT6, upon further reflection I think ALT5 is still a more solid hook in this case. I think ALT5 has a broader appeal than ALT6 since ALT5 isn't reliant on being in the know when it comes to classical music. ALT6 isn't a bad hook and had ALT5 not existed I would have been fine with it, I just think ALT5 is better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about this again, I think I'm fine with ALT6. I still prefer ALT5, but ALT6 is a decent enough hook and in any case is better than the original proposal. I'm not really a fan of the "conductor conducted" part, but I'm thinking the "one of his last works" part rather than the composer's name will attract attention. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions)

Thank you Naruto. Just one more thing - would you mind verifying ALT6 please? As I can't verify a hook of my own - thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the issue with ALT6: technically, the source does not outright say that Lacrimosa No. 2 was one of Penderecki's last works. The source simply states that Bumann conducted its premiere. Even if it's true that Lacrimosa was one of the last works, saying so in the article without the source saying so would be synthesis. Obviously, this means that ALT6 as currently written cannot run because the source doesn't support it.

Normally I'd suggest that the hook could be revised to state that Bumann conducted the premiere without saying the "last works" part, but the issue here is that I think the hook's interestingness is dependent on the "last works" part. Without it, we'd probably have to go with ALT5 or ALT7 instead (especially if there's a desire to highlight the Polish connection). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am short on time today, will leave home soon. Can this please wait until tomorrow? I'd really hate to give some Polish politician prominence, not the Warsaw Chamber Opera (which is much more precise than a vague "many ties to Polish cultural life"). - I'll probably write the Lacrymosa article. Penderecki is already a better name for the Polish connection than the politician. - If you can't wait, add the year to the premiere, but it's really enough that this foreigner was given the world premiere anyway, last or not last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can wait - but please try to get it done tomorrow or I will have to pull the hook. Gatoclass (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that we are writing for general audiences, not classical music fans. Keep their interests in mind, not just a niche's. I really don't think the Penderecki mention would appeal to broad audiences without the "last work" part. If that doesn't work out, either go with ALT5/ALT7, or the hook should be pulled for further discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow I'll do Alice Harnoncourt who died today. RD is always first for me, and I don't manage more than one a day. Pull the hook. I came to say that the piece is planned for 22 July, and there's no source for the vague sentence about the Polish connections, that's just a summary, - no DYK material. 2018 is of cource one of the last works by Penderecki, as he died in spring 2020, but that's not to go in detail into the conductor's article. - See, Bumann had his days on RD, - DYK should be the chance to say somewhat more about him than just a name. Why reduce that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's wrong with highlighting being given a citation by the President of Poland. That is saying something "more about him". It's highlighting one of his accomplishments and I'm sure it's something that he was very proud of. Why do you think that highlighting his award is a bad thing when it's a representation of his accomplishments during his career? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gatoclass: Is there any reason why we can't just go with ALT5 instead of the hook being pulled altogether? As much as ALT6 would have been nice, it can't be used for reasons I mentioned earlier and it seems no amount of sourcing or wording changes could resolve the issues. ALT5 is an interesting hook, is cited inline, and is verified in the source (I don't speak Polish so I had to use Google Translate, but the translation confirms the information). If we already have a suitable hook, why the need to pull? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't hurt to wait. "World premiere" still makes it a viable hook, and getting two articles out of the way in a single hook is always useful. I will pull the current hook for the time being and we'll see what Gerda comes up with. Gatoclass (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd only support the double hook if the other article is about Lacrimosa. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lacrimosa is planned for Tuesday. I will be away over the weekend, possibly no access to the internet. Tuesday is a funeral day, so Lacrimosa is good. Thank you for pulling. You might explain how an honorific doctorate (ALT5) would be interesting to our broad readership, many of whom may not care about academia at all, but Falstaff, a Shakespeare character with a cute name, would not be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KTPT

The second tweak I made was to the hook:

• ... that a South Dakota radio station once stunted by playing nothing but recordings of "Amazing Grace"?

- which I changed to:

• ... that a South Dakota radio station once played nothing but various recordings of "Amazing Grace"?

Reasons for the change are that the source doesn't actually say this was a publicity stunt, so I saw it as an accuracy issue. I also added the word "various" just to emphasize the fact that these were different recordings, not just one or two. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think removing "stunting" is the right thing to do here. People may get confused by the term since they might think that the station "stunted" (in the sense of having stunted growth) rather than the intended meaning of "doing a publicity stunt". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Did you know#Instructions for reviewers is unclear to me as someone who used to be very familiar with the DYK process. After adding to the nomination page, does anything else need to be done? Does a bot automatically know to transclude the nomination on Template talk:Did you know/Approved, or does something else need to be done? Either way, the documentation needs to say have some sort of call to action. Schierbecker (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else needs to be done. A bot automatically adds it to the approved nominations so I'm not sure what the call to action would be. SL93 (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the clarification. There needs to be some finality to the instructions. Even microwave popcorn lists "Enjoy!" as the last step. I was reading on to the "Advanced procedures" step below that section and despairing about whether I had to do all that for QPQ. Schierbecker (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Step 1: Collect underpants. Step 2... ???" Step 3: Profit!" Schierbecker (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hook 7 in Queue 3 includes "the Morris County Park Commission of Morris County, New Jersey". Can we please eliminate the redundancy by replacing "of Morris County, New Jersey," with "in New Jersey"? Note that with an added conversion, the hook is currently a bit over the 200 character limit. This goes live in less than four hours, but I'm reluctant to list this non-error on WP:ERRORS.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  20:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was fast. Thanks!  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  20:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hook 7 in Queue 3 includes "the Morris County Park Commission of Morris County, New Jersey". Can we please eliminate the redundancy by replacing "of Morris County, New Jersey," with "in New Jersey"? Note that with an added conversion, the hook is currently a bit over the 200 character limit. This goes live in less than four hours, but I'm reluctant to list this non-error on WP:ERRORS.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  20:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was fast. Thanks!  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  20:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I noticed this duplicate, I immediately thought "this must be the work of EEng!" Upon checking the history, I saw that my hunch was correct.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  16:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The unmistakable hand of the master. When I was in high school, everyone thought I had such a brilliant future. Now look at what I've been reduced to. Sad, really. EEng 18:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK template didn't update. Pinging @DYK admins: . SL93 (talk) 00:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stink. I'll do a manual update. Schwede66 00:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYKUpdateBot is back in action, sorry for the interruption! Shubinator (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Shubinator. I've done almost everything. Not sure what steps 7 and 8 of the manual update process mean and would appreciate if other admins could see to that. And maybe tell me what that means. Schwede66 00:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Step 7 is essentially cleaning up Step 1 for the outgoing set. More details about step 1 here. Step 8 adds the file tag, here's an example from DYKUpdateBot. Shubinator (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete update at noon today

Pinging @DYK admins: to finish the update, which includes starting with step 5 of the manual update process to clear Queue 4, setting Template:Did you know/Queue/Next to 5 (from 4), and so on. (This includes posting credits; I believe someone has a tool that makes doing this efficient.) Shubinator's been informed that the bot didn't complete the update, but probably won't be online until after the midnight bot run, so it would be great to have an admin around at midnight to make sure things run okay. Shubinator, can you let us know if we need to fix something here? Thanks to all. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleared Queue 4 and updated the Next Queue counter. I think @Mandarax has handled all the credits. The bot seems to have done the archiving so I think the last update is finished. I won't be around at midnight for the next update, sorry! —Kusma (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kusma. Yes, I've taken care of all of the article and user credits, as well as tagging the previous image file.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  16:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've started up DYKUpdateBot again. Both this interruption and the previous interruption show "badtoken" in the logs, which indicates the issue is with pywikibot or Mediawiki or the integration between them. Hopefully third try's the charm... Shubinator (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shubinator, DYKUpdateBot didn't run at midnight—not even through a few steps in the update process—so we're nearly 85 minutes late on the update as I write this. Apologies for yet another ping, @DYK admins: , but it looks like we need another manual update to the main page. Also pinging Mandarax, in case the admin doing the update isn't able to also do the distribution of credits. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Started it up again, DYKUpdateBot is currently running the update :) Shubinator (talk) 01:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, it crashed again with "WARNING: API error badtoken: Invalid CSRF token" on the credits. Shubinator (talk) 01:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll handle the credits, gives me a chance to troubleshoot this. Shubinator (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation

(creating a new subsection to zoom out) My hunch is these errors started cropping up with the release of pywikibot 7.5, which was published yesterday. A task matching our errors was fixed today and merged to master. Seems like pywikibot is preparing to release 7.6 soon with the fix (a lot faster than the standard monthly cadence). Sorry for the disruption everyone. Shubinator (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've started up DYKUpdateBot again, this time against pywikibot's "core" instead of "stable", which will hopefully pick up the above fix. Shubinator (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if anyone else has a problem with the way the nomination format reports QPQ? Right now QPQ is supposed to be reported in a line right under the hooks called “Reviewed:”. That location or title appears to be easy for the reviewer of the nomination to miss. In recent weeks a DYK of mine was initially rejected as not having done QPQ, when in fact it was reported there in the “reviewed” line. A few weeks earlier I made the same mistake myself, saying in a review that QPQ had not been done when in fact it had. Might we want to change how that is labeled to make it clearer? Maybe “QPQ review:” or “QPQ done:” instead of the nonspecific “Reviewed”? That might also make it clearer to the nominator where they are supposed to report their QPQ, although I think eventually they all figure it out. Just a thought. MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @DYK admins: We are down to one filled queue, with lots of filled preps. Any help with promoting to queue would be appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done one but one or two more would be useful. Gatoclass (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bot appears to be down. @DYK admins: , please check at 12:00 UTC (about three hours from now) and be prepared to do a manual update if necessary. Note that I will not be around to take care of the credits.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  09:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the update, in the middle of doing the credits. —Kusma (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done the credits. Fellow @DYK admins: we will need more preps promoted to queue, and people who can be around at midnight to check if the bot it back. Pinging @Shubinator for awareness that the update was manual. —Kusma (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering whether this needs some consideration. The video in prep2 (due to hit the Main Page on 24 July at noon UTC) has subtitles. Do those subtitles get automatically protected or is there a manual step necessary? Does manual media protection via Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection work for a subtitles file? If we need the help of a Commons admin, the only one who I know is Podzemnik. Schwede66 10:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't watch WP:AN, User:The C of E is appealing his DYK topic ban here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]