Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

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

Beetle nominations, as well as WikiEdu nominations[edit]

Over the past month or so, several nominations have been made by student editors of articles about beetles. Several of them have already been rejected for not meeting the requirements, and in most cases the student editors have been unresponsive to reviews.

WikiEdu nominations have over the years been known for this, but given how there had already been discussions before with WikiEdu regarding article and DYK quality control, it's a bit surprising this continues to happen. The course handling these beetle nominations is [1]; can one of us contact the instructors and inform them of DYK standards to ensure the articles done by the students actually meet requirements, as well as to discuss concerns regarding responsiveness?

In addition, it might be a good idea to contact WikiEdu regarding this because the "WikiEdu nominations disproportionately being more likely to fail compared to other DYK nominations" thing has been a perennial issue for years. Discussions have taken place before where they promised to do something about it, but given these things still happen, it appears that hasn't been the case, and I'm wondering what else can we do regarding this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've noticed the same. I support that we contact WikiEdu. Schwede66 08:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've already contacted them multiple times in the past, and yet despite responses and even promises to change things, this still happens. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed) and Helaine (Wiki Ed), the two Wikipedian/WikiEdu people listed for this particular course. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We had an alert that told us when students nominated articles for DYK, but looking at my email archives it seems like it's been broken for a while.
I will contact the instructor for this class and remind them to remind their students that if they nominate an article for DYK they need to stick around and respond to feedback. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. But as this has been a recurring issue across years, I think a wider discussion about DYK's relationship with Wiki Edu also needs to be done to ensure this does not happen again, even with other courses. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would the wider discussion result in? I guess what I'm wondering is if it's unusual that new editors who nominate to DYK are more likely to not follow through than experienced editors, no matter how they got introduced to Wikipedia. Or said another way, what do we have to gain from establishing a formal rule or decision that treats nominations resulting from WikiEdu work in a particularly different way? If a nomination isn't fit for promotion and the nominator isn't responsive, we don't advance the nomination, and we in the end fail it, no matter what the nomination's origin is. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One argument could be that there is a WP:CIR issue with WikiEdu when this has become a recurring issue over the years. If it was just an isolated case, it may not be a problem, but WikiEdu nominations have been like this for a long time, across multiple nominations and courses. It's a project intended to teach Wikipedia editing, and if this is to be the case, it has to be done right.
One nuclear option would be a ban on WikiEdu nominations until the competence issues are sorted out. However, this would be unlikely to get any consensus and indeed even I would personally be against it. What DYK needs is more contributions, especially from new blood, not restricting it. The main reason I brought up the idea of a wider discussion is because this has been happening for years but the perennial issue has remained. Ideas probably need to happen on how to address this that isn't just simply "contacting the student and/or instructor" given the lack of success rate for the latter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the desire for a different means when clearer instruction to instructors and students has mixed results (though I'd muse that discerning the success rate seems difficult; DYK probably only notices that a nomination is from an editor introduced to Wikipedia via WikiEdu when something goes wrong; if a nomination goes well, would DYK have any reason to notice its origins with WikiEdu?). I guess what I'm wondering is what purported solutions would look like. Somehow persuading (requiring?) the WikiEdu nonprofit to add a DYK unit to their curriculum, or them requiring(?) teachers and professors to have such? I'm not sure what influence DYK could or should expect to exercise over disparate faculty's classrooms. But that might be me putting the conversation before the horse when there can be all kinds of ideas others may think of. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember Ian and the project talked before about perhaps requiring some level of quality control. Either discouraging instructors from requiring DYK as a class requirement, or ensuring that the instructors would themselves be familiar with how DYK works.
One possible idea I have in mind, one that perhaps could also be implemented on the WikiEdu side, is that if a course is planning to have DYK in the curriculum, the DYK project is already notified in advance and one of us could be used as a resource and contact person. In many cases, the instructors themselves are unfamiliar with DYK or even Wikipedia editing in general, which makes things hard. Having someone from the DYK project being involved if only as a consultant or in another role might help prevent such issues from happening. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, in the case of this Behavioral Ecology 2024 course (timeline here), it appears that while it has two more weeks to run, the Wikipedia component has no more activities (the final ones were last week), and that DYK was an optional assignment in the first full week of March, a full five weeks ago. Ian (Wiki Ed), what are your plans—or that of WikiEdu as a whole—to avoid this kind of blindsiding that those of us here at DYK have to deal with several times a year? I think it's time and past for WikiEdu to be proactive rather than reactive if DYK is to continue to be an involuntary participant in your activities. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most Wiki Education assignments get marked on the article's talk page as such. I wonder whether it's easy enough for a bot to mark Wiki Education assignment nominations to DYK? I suggest we put those nominations on hold until we have confirmation from the course coordinator that the students have been tasked with responding to reviews, and that their course timeline allows for that. Putting these nominations on hold automatically will stop a lot of reviewers from needlessly wasting their time. Schwede66 23:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Category:Wikipedia Did you know nominations by WikiEd students but it's barely been used and hasn't had new entries since 2021. If we could perhaps have a bot or otherwise require the associated template with it for WikiEdu courses, maybe that would raise attention towards them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this would only be useful if categorised by a bot. I didn't even know about the category! The bot could also place a template advising of the situation (e.g. the hold, if others agree with that approach). Schwede66 00:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The category is associated with {{Note DYK nominator WikiEd}}. I suggested before that it be made mandatory for WikiEdu DYK nominations and I still don't know why that never happened. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
an involuntary participant in your activities—are we? DYK participants choose what to review and what to ignore, what to pass and what to fail. I guess I'm struggling to see how we're being muscled into some sort of exploitative relationship with WikiEducation. Participation with nominations whose origins lie with WikiEducation seems as involuntary as participation with any nomination, or any nomination with a relatively new editor. I can sympathize with ill-prepared or unsuitable nominations being annoying, but they're annoying whether or not they have to do with WikiEducation. I can recognize there being some level of hassle hassle, but eventually it seems the injury to DYK amounts to—what? Commenting on a nomination that it's been prepared poorly, getting no response for a while, and then procedurally failing it? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If these were just isolated incidents, it wouldn't be an issue, but the fact that WikiEdu nominations have been like this for years, and despite efforts to do something about them things have not improved, it shows there is a fundamental issue going on here. It's true that nominations by very new editors tend to have a high chance of failing in general, not juts WikiEdu nominations, but when one point of WikiEdu is to teach people how Wikipedia works, what's going on means it's not meeting that goal well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do these professors even know there is such a thing as DYK to point their students at? Most of them aren't actually editors themselves. Ian (Wiki Ed)Is there a way to remove DYK from the teaching modules? Because this is burdening an already overburdened system, and frankly it's not doing a damn thing for the students. Valereee (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Valereee Long ago it was an option, so some instructors who've been around a long time know of it. We removed that quite a few years ago (although we still have a help guide that gets emailed to students when they do nominate an article).
    As for how people find things beyond that...I've had some really strange questions over the years, like "I followed the instructions [here]", and they point to some ancient set of instructions somewhere on Commons, or a YouTube video. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes, the out-of-date instructions I just found today for enabling something on my phone...thanks, that's interesting history here. Valereee (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ian (Wiki Ed): Will WikiEdu be able to commit to a solution, or at least propose one, that can help prevent this from happening again? This has been a perennial issue for years and despite multiple discussions here about them, it appears that nothing has actually been done so far. Either clearer instructions have to be given to instructors regarding how DYK works, DYK itself has to become more involved in helping out these nominations, or DYK should be removed as a course requirement until changes are made. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed) again for feedback. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narutolovehinata5 Sorry for the delay.
    I talked to Helaine about this, and we had two (overlapping) ideas.
    • It's only a small number of instructors who do this, so having a conversation with them about the problem this poses should help. I hadn't really thought about it, but it's possible that there are people who use very customised timelines, and it's possible that the block about DYK has just been copied over without us realising.
    • Changing what we do when a student does nominate an article for DYK, to something that is less just "here's what you need to know" and more something that's the start of a conversation and requires a reply.
    In addition, I've added a monthly check to my to-do list so that I will catch future instance of the notification tool breaking. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ian (Wiki Ed): A very serious and frank discussion has to be done within the WikiEdu team regarding this because it's been a recurring issue. Better instructions would definitely help, along with perhaps instructions for instructions stating that if DYK is to be included, the students and the instructor have to be responsive and also ask for help from the DYK project. The current status quo where students nominate articles, many of which are ineligible, and the students do not respond at all to reviews or feedback, drains precious resources and time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4[edit]

Destinies of the Soul[edit]

The hook says the only book that contained human skin but the article just says it was the only one of the three books that were tested. For all we know, there are others that weren't found because they weren't tested. So this needs to be qualified with something like "believed to be". RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not something straightforward like "... that Destinies of the Soul, a book in the collection of Harvard University, was bound in human skin?"-- User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Young (Blackpink song)[edit]

The hook fact is sourced to https://sbsstar.net/, which doesn't strike me as a WP:RS. RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there also a Blackpink hook in queue 2? I recommend kicking this one back.--Launchballer 22:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses a different source, which seems to be an Indonesian news site of some kind. I'm not sure how reliable the source is, but given that the fact isn't a contentious claim and there doesn't seem to be any good reason to doubt its authenticity, the Indonesian source might be fine for DYK purposes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible reformatting of nomination wizard output[edit]

... is being discussed at MediaWiki talk:DYK-nomination-wizard.js * Pppery * it has begun... 03:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7[edit]

Chris Hill[edit]

... that despite getting an offer from his dream basketball school, Chris Hill instead chose Michigan State?

Is the MOS:EGGy link "his dream basketball school" needed for the hook? It seems that it should either explicitly mention Notre Dame, as was in the nomination, or just unlink it as inessential to understanding the hook, and it's in the actual article. Courtesy pings to the nom's TonyTheTiger and Piotrus, as well as AirshipJungleman29 (who modified the hook)—Bagumba (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see what's MOS:EGGy about it; I modified the hook because as someone who has never heard of the university, the hook was incomprehensible unti I clicked on the link (MOS:FORCELINK). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:EGG: ...links that unexpectedly hide relevant information underneath the link's label Why hide the actual school name, "Notre Dame"? MOS:FORCELINK is relevant too. Either display it and make it explicit, as the nomination originally did, or don't link it if it's not that important to make the school name visible. This isn't the bolded link, where adding intrigue might make sense.—Bagumba (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's also another angle to consider here. Notre Dame's college football program is a big deal in the US, so mentioning Notre Dame by name would surely raise eyebrows from American readers. However, outside of America, Notre Dame's significance may not be as well-known, and ultimately we follow general audiences regardless of location. BeanieFan11 is the resident American football expert so maybe he can help out here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notre Dame is popular, although Michigan State is a large program as well. In my opinion this could either mention Notre Dame with a link or just say he passed up his dream school without a link; either one works I think, though I think if we go with the "despite getting an offer from his dream school" wording, no link should be present. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about the Eggy nature of the modified hook because I have to click on the hidden link out of curiosity. I agree with Bagumba and I prefer TonyTheTiger's nominated and approved hook. The nomination hook will save people clicking on the hidden school and possibly direct more views to the target article. Lightburst (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed back to display "Notre Dame". —Bagumba (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about we do both - keep the phrase "his dream basketball school" and follow it up by a blue-linked name of the school? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minor hook issue that needs correction[edit]

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

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

Missing DYK credit[edit]

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

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

I've opened half a dozen nom pages and they all have this format:
* {{DYKmake
The format that the Butler nom page had was this:
*{{DYKmake
That is, there wasn't a space before the curly bracket. I suspect that's what broke things. Schwede66 03:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The credits still need to be given. Thanks to anyone who can take this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done it, please check.--Launchballer 14:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Launchballer. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

The previous list of older nominations was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of all 25 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 22. We have a total of 194 nominations, of which 104 have been approved, a gap of 90 nominations that has increased by 18 over the past 11 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot that alerts admins when there are no filled queues[edit]

This is just an idea, but what does anyone think about a bot that would post to the administrator's noticeboard whenever there were no filled queues? I have done this before, and it seemed to work, but just in case DYK gets to that point again, it could be beneficial to have a bot implemented. It probably wouldn't need to be used very often. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Displaced hook promotion[edit]

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

Put it into another set, or return it to WP:DYKNA PrimalMustelid. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Airship, but while I was looking at this, I noticed that we've got Green Bay Packers hooks in Prep 3 and Prep 5. We might want to space those out a bit more. RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it to prep 5. (Yes, I know I technically shouldn't promote a hook I've approved, but it had already been promoted, so it's had that check.)--Launchballer 16:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) PrimalMustelid I appreciate you, I just want to ask you to slow down - you are promoting about one hook per minute. You promoted 13 hooks from 15:29-15:45 today - Also, it helps me always to refresh the screen prior to a promotion - does not always prevent stepping on edits, but it helps a bit. Bruxton (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask what checks you do on a nomination before you promote it PrimalMustelid? I have noticed that you promote very quickly (e.g. this set, now in queue, which you filled out in ten minutes). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most often, I promote based on either a long hook discussion having been resolved by other reviewers or a hook that has been already been approved that has been simply sitting around. However, if the quick hook promotions prove problematic, I can slow down. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you promote a hook, you need to be running your own checks that the hook meets all the DYK requirements. It's not a rubber stamp of somebody else's review. RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do already verify the hooks though by making sure that they're mentioned on the pages themselves, though I guess I can also just check the sourcings as well. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be checking all of the things at WP:DYKG. RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Alright I will make sure to have my hook promotion process be more thorough under your command by verifying everything. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Under your command"? PrimalMustelid has accidentally revealed itself as a Cylon! Viriditas (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PrimalMustelid I should have said this earlier, but thank you for helping out. I hope I didn't come across as grumpy; I really do appreciate you pitching in. DYK is a complicated process with lots of rules and everybody understands that it takes a while to figure out which end is up. RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'll fully get the hang of DYK promotion formats and expectations soon enough. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On a slightly unrelated note, I do have to ask, why are there 10 credits for DYK hooks instead of 9? I’ve noticed duplicated credits for a hook of each set. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because some nominations are credited to multiple editors PrimalMustelid: so for example, Prep 7 has thirteen credits listed, because one hook has two credits and another has four. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I kicked back a Green Bay Packers hook by a prep as there were five American hooks in prep 5 - granted the guidelines say up to half a prep can be filled with these, but I interpret this as 'no more than' half, and so no more than four.--Launchballer 13:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Up to half" should indeed be interpreted as "no more than half", which is to say up to 50%. As 5 of 9 would be 55%, it's more than half: no more than four US or four bio hooks should be included in any set. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If set builders struggle with filling preps because of a lack of US hooks, they should feel empowered to have preps with only 8 hooks. However, this is only if they can't find other hooks to fill the slots, and it's always OK to leave a prep mostly filled and wait for more hooks to be approved. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the solution simply be to use non-US hooks? I know the guidelines say it's appropriate to have about half of each set be US/UK-related, but there are times that may not be feasible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My personal rule of thumb is 'no adjacent bios, no adjacent US hooks'. I did consider pulling COSMOS field on the grounds that it was discovered by the US Hubble Telescope until I realised I could just swap Harrogate and YouTube.--Launchballer 10:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Neil Sean[edit]

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

I've said my piece there, Modern Life is Goodish would have gone through a production company's lawyers and the channel's lawyers (as evidenced by the section beginning "Gorman also questioned"), and is RS by all other measures. Both episodes (and the podcast) cite at least one editor. I'm pretty sure I'm only using him for attributed opinion and descriptions of work contents, and I've included other opinions for all three of the works he had reviewed.--Launchballer 10:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether Modern Life is Goodish is reliable (I suspect it is not—why would copyright lawyers keep a close eye on whether a comedy program sticks to the facts?), its use, supporting nearly half of the article's body is totally WP:UNDUE. Seriously, 600 words to say "Guy A heavily criticised Guy B on a comedy show", sourced entirely to the comedy show in question? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Launchballer is saying (and I agree) that libel lawyers would be involved when an individual is criticised at length on national television. I still don't think that a comedy programme is a high quality BLP source. TSventon (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep area 1 Queue 1[edit]

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

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

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

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

Not doing very well today, clearly. Source says 'chatting up girls', which ultimately is what that is.--Launchballer 10:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief. "Chatting up" and "harassing" women are not synonyms, and the one you decided on was not only not in the source (and therefore original research) but was a BLP violation, which I have immediately changed. I am considering whether to revdelete the revisions with that statement in as well. I would absolutely be concerned about the accuracy of the rest of that article if that's typical of how it's been written, though I can see no other BLP issues. (Edit: I have rev-deleted the revisions - it's just such a blatant violation). Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the review, but it makes no mention of BLP issues and uses Template:DYK checklist, which does not mention BLP either. TSventon (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we can't allow an article with such a problem to be linked on the Main Page. There was nothing wrong with the hook, but the reviewer didn't notice the BLP violation, which is why (a) it's being discussed here (because Waggers did notice it), and (b) I've removed it and replaced it with what the source actually says. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BK. I'm happy with the rest of the hooks and, now that's sorted, I'll go ahead and promote to queue. WaggersTALK 12:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite I have two concerns, firstly that DYK checklist does not mention BLP, when it is one of the most important checks and secondly that WP:DYKPBR does not tell promoters what they need to check when promoting a hook. TSventon (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1222026887"