Wikipedia talk:Did you know

message: ====Background on inconsistent application of BLP policy at DYK====
In the past year, I have either witnessed or participated in several contentious discussions concerning Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy within hook nominations at WP:Did You Know that have arisen from hook proposals involving "negative" material about BLPs where the information could be perceived as an attack on the BLP or an attempt to smear the BLP's public image. While the vast majority of BLP nominations at DYK are non-controversial, the project does receive a small percentage of hook proposals on BLPs where the subject is presented in a negative light on an on-going periodic basis. These hooks are sometimes submitted by seasoned DYK participants, and sometimes editors new to the project. 
The reactions to these various "negative hook" proposals has been inconsistent on the part of the DYK community with a wide range of expressed opinions from active editors in the project as well as a wide range of responses within DYK hook review process. Negative hooks on BLPs have sometimes been rejected as violating BLP policy using rationales from either Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions and Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, or the WP:BLP policy page itself. They also have sometimes been approved by editors, have been promoted by DYK admins to Template:Did you know/Queue, and have made it to the WP:MAIN page. These various responses have sometimes been received with community support, no comment by the community other than the reviewer, or have been heavily contested either within the individual hook review template, or at DYK's talk page. Those negative hooks which have made it to the main page have sometimes been brought to noticeboards such as WP:ERRORS and WP:ANI where responses have equally been inconsistent; including the pulling of hooks due to BLP violations, no action, etc.4meter4 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Statement

message: In the past year, I have either witnessed or participated in several contentious discussions concerning Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy within hook nominations at WP:Did You Know that have arisen from hook proposals involving "negative" material about BLPs where the information could be perceived as an attack on the BLP or an attempt to smear the BLP's public image. While the vast majority of BLP nominations at DYK are non-controversial, the project does receive a small percentage of hook proposals on BLPs where the subject is presented in a negative light on an on-going periodic basis. These hooks are sometimes submitted by seasoned DYK participants, and sometimes editors new to the project. 
The reactions to these various "negative hook" proposals has been inconsistent on the part of the DYK community with a wide range of expressed opinions from active editors in the project as well as a wide range of responses within DYK hook review process. Negative hooks on BLPs have sometimes been rejected as violating BLP policy using rationales from either Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions and Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, or the WP:BLP policy page itself. They also have sometimes been approved by editors, have been promoted by DYK admins to Template:Did you know/Queue, and have made it to the WP:MAIN page. These various responses have sometimes been received with community support, no comment by the community other than the reviewer, or have been heavily contested either within the individual hook review template, or at DYK's talk page. Those negative hooks which have made it to the main page have sometimes been brought to noticeboards such as WP:ERRORS and WP:ANI where responses have equally been inconsistent; including the pulling of hooks due to BLP violations, no action, etc.4meter4 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Background on inconsistent application of BLP policy at DYK

message: It's my contention that this pattern of inconsistent response is evidence of an on-going failure of the DYK community to consistently implement BLP policy. I believe the reason for this failure is two fold. 1) The BLP guidelines in the Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions and Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines are currently poorly written, and in particular the words "unduly negative" have been interpreted as meaning the DYK community can run negative hooks on BLPs that individual editors have labeled as "bad people" because they deserve it. This has inevitably allowed for WP:POV pushing and politicization within certain hook proposals; drawing into question the integrity of the DYK platform and the encyclopedia when such hooks have successfully made it to the main page. 2) The current BLP policy page is written to address article space and does not currently address the unique format of DYK where we limit content expression to a single sentence of 200 characters or less. What is possible to do in terms of WP:BLPBALANCE within article space is not possible in a DYK hook by virtue of limited space.4meter4 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for inconsistent pattern

message: The community needs to take a close look at how DYK should interpret BLP policy within the unique DYK hook format for the purposes of DYK hook review. The purpose of this RFC is to assist DYK in more consistently following BLP policy going forward by reviewing DYK's current processes and guidelines for reviewing BLP hooks; and making any necessary changes to Wikipedia:Did you know, Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, and Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions as it relates to BLPs. To help us achieve that goal, the DYK community has assisted in gathering real examples of potential BLP violating hooks that have either run on the main page successfully, been pulled from the main page after being reported to a notice board, or failed to be promoted but with contentious and sometimes lengthy discussion. Other types of evidence have also been put forward, and other kinds of potentially BLP violating hooks  have been identified in the evidence gathering process besides just negative hooks. For this reason, I have crafted the RFC question process with some flexibility because there may be avenues of exploration raised by the community at this RFC that the community may wish to explore that could not have been anticipated earlier. It should be noted that the examples given are just a sampling of mainly recent examples of this problem, and this is by no means a thorough or complete presentation of all issues related to BLPs that have come up at DYK.
I want this RFC to be helpful no matter what conclusions ultimately are arrived at. I have my opinions, but they may not be the majority view, and my goal here is to make things better as a community space for DYK volunteers no matter what proposals are ultimately successful at achieving broad community support. I am hopeful we will come up with a better reviewing document for BLP hooks as a community which will prevent further incidents at WP:ERRORS and WP:ANI, and make the DYK review process less stressful for our dedicated volunteers by eliminating the need for repeating the same unproductive or contentious arguments in circles at DYK review.4meter4 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Why community action is needed

message: ====Negative BLPs that were promoted to the main page without issue====
Incident                           	Year	Hook/comments                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    	Discussion
Murder of Jiang Ge                 	2024	... that the murder of Jiang Ge led to public debate in China over the actions of Jiang's roommate during her murder?  The living person in question is Liu Xin, mentioned in the hook and discussed at length in the article.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   	Raised at ERRORS but no response:
Going Infinite                     	2024	Hook draws attention to a negative comment made against a living person; it had to be toned down at nomination stage and again in prep.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	WT:DYK:
Diether Dehm                       	2020	Two "negative" hooks were proposed, one about the BLP employing a terrorist and the other one about the BLP being a former informer of the secret police.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        	The "terrorist" hook ran without controversy.
Hsinchu Kuang-Fu Senior High School	2024	Raised at ERRORs but alas, no pull as it was only an hour until it rolled off MP.  said "This article looks like a straight NPOV violation to me". Therapyisgood (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence

message: Incident                           	Year	Hook/comments                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    	Discussion
Murder of Jiang Ge                 	2024	... that the murder of Jiang Ge led to public debate in China over the actions of Jiang's roommate during her murder?  The living person in question is Liu Xin, mentioned in the hook and discussed at length in the article.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   	Raised at ERRORS but no response:
Going Infinite                     	2024	Hook draws attention to a negative comment made against a living person; it had to be toned down at nomination stage and again in prep.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	WT:DYK:
Diether Dehm                       	2020	Two "negative" hooks were proposed, one about the BLP employing a terrorist and the other one about the BLP being a former informer of the secret police.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        	The "terrorist" hook ran without controversy.
Hsinchu Kuang-Fu Senior High School	2024	Raised at ERRORs but alas, no pull as it was only an hour until it rolled off MP.  said "This article looks like a straight NPOV violation to me". Therapyisgood (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative BLPs that were promoted to the main page without issue

message: Incident               	Year	Hook/comments                                                                            	Discussion
HorsegiirL             	2024	Pulled from prep; original hook used the article subject's real name against their wishes	WT:DYK:
Matthew Charles Johnson	2024	Negative hook with unsourced info raised at ERRORS.                                      	
                       	    	                                                                                         	
 4meter4 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Other kinds of BLP violation concerns in DYK hooks

message: 3. Are there changes that DYK should make to Wikipedia:Did you know, Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, and Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions as it relates to BLPs?
*Comment. I would like to see language reflecting the current conversation, something to the effect that negative hooks on BLPs at WP:DYK are controversial and do not have wide community support. If it is possible to not use a negative hook on a BLP, then the nominator should make every effort to not propose a negative hook. Only in cases where the preponderance of sources on a person are negative should a negative hook on a BLP be considered. I'd further like to add a mandatory Wikipedia talk:Did you know discussion on all negative BLP hooks. They should not be allowed to be approved by a single reviewing editor but must go through a wider community vetting with a communal vote to approve. This should prevent errors and provide a greater degree of checks and balance on negative BLP hooks. 4meter4 (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Question 3

message: A quick review of the responses to Question 1 makes me think that Question 1 and Question 2 are being considered in the wrong order.  Question 1 asks whether DYK can feature negative hooks and remain in compliance with BLP policy.  Question 2 will be asked if there is a Yes consensus on Question 1, or if Question 1 has No Consensus, and is: .  I voted No on Question 1 because I do not think that there will be agreement on Question 2.  Question 1 is a Yes-No question, but Question 2 may require lengthy discussion to formulate the rules.  
When I voted No, it appeared that No Consensus would be a likely final result, in which case we would move on to Question 2.  It still appears that No Consensus is a likely final result.  In that case, we will move on to Question 2.  What happens if Question 2 results in several versions of negative BLP rules, none of which has consensus?  Then we are right back where we started, with no rule against negative BLPs, except that we know that we don't know what negative hooks are permitted.  
In my opinion, it would have been better to try to agree on a proposed rule for negative hooks before voting on whether negative hooks are sometimes permitted.  However, since we are here, I suggest that we start the discussion of Question 2 in parallel with Question 1.  If we can't agree on Question 2, then it might be a good idea to leave Question 1 open so that people know that a Yes vote means a vote on something undefined. 
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have firmly established a no consensus on Question 1. I'll leave it open in case people still want to comment on Question 1. I agree that we can move on to Question 2. It's a bit late to complain about order now that so much input has happened. The questioning process was open for input at a pre-RFC discussion for about a week. It is what it is. 4meter4 (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Are Questions 1 and 2 out of order?

message: :
::@ That suggestion is a terrible idea. This was the question to ask if there was no consensus at Question 1 as outlined in the RFC plan. The fact that there is no consensus at Question 1 indicates the use of negative hooks at DYK is controversial and does not have firm community support. In order to continue to allow negative hooks on the main page we need to create some guidelines that does have broad community support. The attempt to shut community discussion down is not helpful. We need to solve this on-going community problem, and it is a problem with about half the people saying we shouldn't be promoting negative hooks. I further note, that at the WP:ANI discussion there was a mention of taking this to WP:ARBCOM. If we close this now and shut down necessary community input, I would support going forward with an ARBCOM investigation of DYK and allow them to set community policy for us.4meter4 (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think there is room for productive discussion about how to best deal with BLP issues at DYK. I wish that you would drop the focus on "negative" so we can try to find ways to give more guidance on how to deal with (or at the very least raise awareness of) other BLP-related problems like Template:Did you know nominations/Lunch (song) (perhaps unwanted focus on the BLP's sexuality) or Template:Did you know nominations/I'm really excited about the opening of Tuen Ma line (possibly unwanted attention on a vulnerable person who has been subject to abuse after a viral video). The question should not be so much "is this hook negative?" but more "would posting this hook harm an identified living person?", something where the answer does depend on how public the person in question is and how widely the information is already known (WP:BLPPUBLIC). General classes of BLP hooks that I think should usually not be posted include anything involving rumours (Template:Did you know nominations/BBL Drizzy) or accusing living people of crimes they have not been convicted for (Template:Did you know nominations/Hal Malchow). All of these are recent discussions where at least some people are trying to do the right thing, but better guidance could be helpful for everyone (and certainly more eyes and a generally more cautious approach would be beneficial). —Kusma (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @ The RFC is what it is. It was formed during a pre-RFC discussion that was open to community input and comment. I'm not going to go in and change the RFC's structure or questions after having gone through a community vetting period. That will only increase invalidity of the RFC. There's some room for further questions built in. Raise them when we get to that part in the RFC. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: To me and others, it has the appearance of a solution in search of problem.  Others have already pointed out that in spite of its minor issues due to reviewer deficits, DYK is operating at peak efficiency and accuracy.  For some reason, a certain segment of Wikipedia doesn’t want to acknowledge this.  For all of its flaws, people are doing a great job. Viriditas (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s a red herring. The issue here isn’t about accuracy or  efficiency, but repeated BLP violations; a few of which had wide community input at DYK but ended in a bad choice on the part of the DYK community. (Such as the Tate hook) 4meter4 (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t see the Tate hook as a violation, nor do a lot of other editors.  But assuming what you say is true for the sake of the argument, given how many hooks we publish and how many are problematic, what you’re describing is a drop in the bucket.  While it would be nice to have statistics, it looks like DYK is doing a good job. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to continue making your case in side threads. The Tate hook was widely condemned at the WP:ANI discussion by commenting admins, and many editors expressed regret in the related DYK talk page. Additionally, I personally have no interest in making this discussion into a broader case against DYK. As you know, I regularly contribute to DYK and am a constructive member of the DYK editing team. This discussion is not intended to become a broad attack on the project, which is something you seem to be attempting to allege. This RFC is meant to deal with a real and continuing problem within the project that happens in a limited context of hook submissions. It's specific, but it matters. I care about DYK and I want it to contine doing what it does well but also improve where it can work better. This is one of those places where DYK must do better. I find it distressing when the project does something I perceive to be genuinely unethical and against WP:BLP policy. The fact that nearly half of the people in response to question 1 also have similar views, should indicate that there is a problem. Good policies don't have such a wide range of discrepancy in an RFC. If you can't see the other side and that we are genuinely acting in good faith and with what is intended to be in DYK's and wikipedia's best interests than there's nothing I can do about that.4meter4 (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your dedication, but I also continue to disagree that the Tate hook was "widely condemned".  Well meaning and intentioned editors can often have vastly different perceptions of an elephant in a dark room.  Enjoy your day or night. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: One interesting thing I noticed about the RfC is that there's an overlap between those who saw the Tate hook as unproblematic and those who think negative hooks should be allowed (and vice-versa). The opinions are so polarized that it's clear that there really isn't any consensus here on how to handle things. Even DYK itself is divided and finding a solution is not easy. What's clear is that I disagree that "DYK is doing a good job" in this case, because if it was, it wouldn't have ended up on ANI and we wouldn't have this RFC in the first place. <B>Narutolovehinata5</B> (talk · contributions) 00:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood, and even though you and I aren’t often on the same page, I want to tell you that I truly appreciate your clear and direct communication. Earlier in the overall discussion (perhaps on ANI, or here, I can’t recall), someone mentioned metrics or at least the impression of them.  What percentage of DYK hooks have historically been a problem?  It looks like it’s far less than 1%.  Why isn’t this a sign that DYK is doing a good job?  It’s an incredible achievement. Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Most DYK hooks aren't problematic at all, and when problems are found, they're usually fixable things like factual errors, sourcing problems, or unclear wording. Rejecting nominations outright is relatively rare (and is something I and some editors wish wasn't the case if only to prevent noms from dragging out). It's one of the reasons why I'm so opposed to a blanket ban on BLPs on DYK. It would do more harm than good and most BLP issues can be resolved by our existing system. The issue has always been more to do with enforcement and quality checking rather than something wrong with BLP DYKs itself. With the Tate case, the main issue was simply the community could not agree on whether or not the hook was appropriate or even if the article should run at all. With the benefit of hindsight, just rejecting the nomination completely due to a lack of consensus probably would have been the best option; it wasn't an unreasonable one anyway, and I think a large part of what happened was due to reviewers being unwilling to say no due to fear of backlash (a fear that is to be fair not unfounded). <B>Narutolovehinata5</B> (talk · contributions) 01:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from evrik

message: The RFC must be closed neutrally and by a non-involved party. It must also give a detailed summary of the discussion for the benefit of future conversations. I am going to open up questions 3 and 4. It may not go anywhere, but lets give it a few days. 4meter4 (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing the RFC

message: I just noticed that someone moved the title of a nominated article from The Blue Angels (2024) to The Blue Angels (film). I guess the title is better, but now I am unsure how to fix the nomination. Bruxton (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: . MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 15:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciated. . Not sure why my own effort to change the nom was inadequate but it seems fixed now. Bruxton (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

text: My hooks are weak sauce - can anyone help with ideas? Template:Did you know nominations/The Blue Angels (2024). Bruxton (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I also started work on this Brian Kesselring who was prominent in the movie. Bruxton (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Our friend  helped with hooks for the The Blue Angels (2024). And the Brian Kesselring, I am just not inspired to nominate. Bruxton (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help with a nomination after an article title change 

message: * ... that Green Bay Packers player Travis Glover started at three separate positions along the offensive line during his college football career?
The hook has already run on DYK so this is somewhat of a moot point, but how does this hook meet WP:DYKINT? It is a very specialist hook and quite reliant on American football knowledge, and if you aren't familiar with American football positions and terminologies, the hook may not be as obvious or interesting. I'm not saying the hook fact itself wasn't unsuitable but there was probably a better way to word this. Pinging nominator , article creator , reviewer  and promoter . <B>Narutolovehinata5</B> (talk · contributions) 00:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't have trouble understanding it, and I don't pay any attention to American football. My knowledge on the sport is close to nothing.4meter4 (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if it's interesting, but it's clear he played 3 positions in a sport. Whether that's because he's good at them all or because he didn't really have a purpose is less clear. Unfortunately the article does not provide commentary either way, nor any indication if this is different to the norm. If anything, I'm not sure how the hook interacts with WP:DYKHOOKCITE as it seems to be combining different sources, but counting is not usually considered OR. CMD (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure why this constantly keeps coming up. Interesting to a broad audience applies to the 400 million fans of American football/NFL in the world. You know what I don't find interesting??? "That 69 is nice". How is it interesting that a child was going to have a different name?? ("that North West was originally going to be called Kaidence"). Or "that Lock's Quest was said to feature "some of the best original music in a DS game"?" What broad audience finds the music in a video game as some of the best? DYK does not have to be interesting to everyone. Half the DYKs on the main page I could give zero crap about, find full-blown disinteresting, etc and I don't come complaining to the talk page about every one of them. Could it have been worded better? IDK, propose a different wording if you want. Starting (not just playing) three different positions along the offensive line is an interesting fact to almost any AF/NFL fan, it shows versatility and productivity. Also, literally the English couldn't get simpler. There is no jargon or terminology here, and the only possible concern is linked (offensive line). This isn't Simple English Wikipedia. We can assume that the average read understands standard English words. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  15:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We need you to cool it Zanahary (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reminder . No cursing. Responding to the points brought up. No personal attacks. But yeah, I guess I'll take a chill pill. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  17:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

text: So many BLP hooks are extremely boring facts about pretty obscure people. I notice articles about sportspeople are particularly productive in terms of bad hooks. I’m not trying to be an ass, but I think we need to be more strict about the “interesting” criterion. Zanahary (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of my "frustration" is the continual needling by some DYK regulars on WP:DYKINT regarding American football topics, likely because of a lack of interest, knowledge or understanding of the sport. However, I often stress that a worldwide audience of 400 million for AmerFoot is significant, especially considering the sport's higher interest from English-speaking language countries (and this being the English Wikipedia). I'll also note that AmerFoot is currently going through a significant expansion internationally through the NFL International Series, so this isn't an American-only topic anymore. WP:DYKINT says  This language is clearly ambiguous and provides a lot of room for interpretation, taking into account differences between populations and interests, and obviously provides room for hooks that have a general interest, but not a universal interest. I just wish that every other AmerFoot hook that comes to DYK doesn't get this type of discussion, while other topics with much smaller or less general interest from the population have much less scrutiny. It's just frustrating and tiring. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  17:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't an anti-American football bias specifically. Similar things have also been said about basketball hooks, and basketball is more popular internationally than American football. Even soccer hooks have had the occasional pushback, so the concerns about sports hooks being too specialist aren't an American football thing. For what it's worth, I'm familiar enough with American football to get the idea of the hook, but not everyone worldwide will get it. Even within America, not everyone is an American football fan outside of the Super Bowl. <B>Narutolovehinata5</B> (talk · contributions) 00:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: I guess you haven't been paying attention to the bi-weekly "mind-numbingly boring opera hook" discussions, like the one we had for a DYK that ran on the same day as Glover... And maybe it feels like AF DYKs get dragged more than other topics because, unlike every other topic, AF subjects run at DYK practically every other day? Between May 25 and May 31 we had three hooks on specifically gridiron offense players on NFC North teams! JoelleJay (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: I do not think these hooks a are too "specialist". I enjoy learning about all subjects so I often click through the links of hooks that I am not sure of and I learn. I think many people have a fundamental understanding of sports, and they would likely understand that starting "at three separate positions" means someone is pretty good at the sport. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree—as someone who has the barest understanding of American sports, I'm fairly certain that as long as you understand "positions" and "offensive" can be used in a sporting context, you should be able to understand a) what the hook is saying and b) that it's a bit unusual. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Really? I would guess most readers would not be at all surprised to hear that many offensive positions are interchangeable in a sport they're not super familiar with. A lot of sports do not make that big a distinction between positions, especially at lower levels (keeping in mind that basically only two countries even have college sports, so outside of NA readers will have very little appreciation for college feats of any kind), even in American football (e.g. the QB on my high school's team was also the kicker, probably because he was a ballerina), and it's definitely not unheard of at the professional level either. Utility players are pretty common in the most popular sport in the world -- our category has over 800 members -- and that's mostly only including players switching between offense and defense! Some of the most famous NBA players in recent history are combo guards, and in the MLB it is rarer for a team not to have someone who can play multiple positions. Utility players aren't that uncommon in gridiron either, and according to this NYT article, most American football fans apparently don't think it's that difficult for pros to switch along the O-line. And anyway shouldn't DYKINT be aiming higher than "a bit unusual", especially when the mild unusualness is not even obvious to most readers? JoelleJay (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you don't mind that I don't understand quite a lot of what you just wrote, but for me, a person with "no special knowledge or interest" in the topic, it is intriguing. Not "jump out of my bath yelling" intriguing, but the sort that makes me raise my eyebrows and nod my head. Thus, fine by me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are just trying to feature new and good content, so aiming higher with hooks is not as important. We look for what might get folks to read the article and some of us think maybe this hook will. I appreciate you POV though. Lightburst (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

text: If the sources themselves don't find his switching along the O-line unusual enough to discuss beyond mentioning that he "has experience at both tackle and guard", why should WP? I should note also that the first source lists 25 other players in his draft class alone with "experience at both left and right tackle" or "both center and guard" or "had double-digit starts at both guard spots" or "played at a high level at both tackle and guard" or "logged snaps at every offensive line position ... except center" or "logged snaps at all five positions in college", and that's just for starters who played multiple games in multiple positions on the O-line, I'm not even including defensive line or other offense players, or all the players with descriptors like "[had] a few snaps at center and right guard, but [almost all] of his college snaps came at left guard" or "practiced at center and right guard". For several players the source even lists playing only one O-line position as a weakness.Also, 3/6 days last week had hooks on NFL offense players from the same division in the same conference... If we're constantly going to inundate DYK with American football hooks, shouldn't readers unfamiliar with the subject at least be able to recognize why the hook is interesting without having to click through to the article, let alone have to additionally follow each of the links on football positions within the article so they can figure out for themselves why it would be unusual for someone to go from right to left tackle (because certainly neither the article nor its sources explains this)? JoelleJay (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a slippery slope.  A lot of DYK hooks just randomly quote snippets without the source expounding on the quote or even then source of the quote.—Bagumba (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The hooks certainly, but it was disappointing when I clicked through and it was not explained in the article either. CMD (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor is it in many other hooks. We can use this hook as an example for improvement, but it's not the exception.—Bagumba (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

text: As an example, we are currently running a hook with a quote from a satirical magazine, unattributed in the hook, and no evidence in the body that the quote is at all notable or even mentioned outside of the primary source itself.  I'm all for expecting more substance in hooks, but let's not apply this only to American football hooks. —Bagumba (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh.  I was rather proud of that hook :-) RoySmith (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @RoySmith: Sorry, I didn't mean it to be personal. That is a fairly standard hook. My point was that a different standard was being proposed for Glover, which can be fine if we are going to be consistent across the board. —Bagumba (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, it's totally not interesting. I'm not raising my eyebrows either. Zanahary (talk) 02:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Travis Glover]] 

message: We currently have two NFL-related hooks and one MLS-related hook on DYK right now. That's three American sports-related hooks on the main page. That seems to go against WP:DYKVAR, which says to avoid more than two hooks about the same or similar topic per set. Can one of the hooks (probably one of the two NFL ones) be swapped out to a later set? <B>Narutolovehinata5</B> (talk · contributions) 00:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I flagged this above at #Set balance and at #Jarrett Kingston. There are a total of six American hooks on the main page, my suggestion remains to swap North West and Giovanni Manu. Prep 6 has two American hook and Aurora Rodrigues and Elizabeth Yeampierre check out and could be swapped, I can rearrange the set myself.--Launchballer 01:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three American sports hooks on DYK right now 

message: 69 is a nice number, I know. But could that perhaps be beyond the realm of Wikipedia's main purpose? Josethewikier (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we all know what 69 means. It does not surprise me to see these sort of things on the main page. It is rather tame in comparison to other hook we have run. Lightburst (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia's purpose is to share the information of the world, so this is within our purpose. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Although "that 69 is odious and pernicious" would have been quirkier, and I should have proposed it instead of promoting the "nice" hook.--Launchballer 00:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: right, that makes sense! Josethewikier (talk) 05:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  69? 

message: === Antimonumento 5J ===
(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Antimonumento 5J)
* ... that the Antimonumento 5J (pictured) was installed on 5 June 2023 to commemorate police repression during the 2020 protests in response to the death of Giovanni López?
The use of the word commemorate seems odd here... in my experience, this is generally used for remembering something in a positive light... This gives the definition as  or . Police repression doesn't seem like the sort of thing you respect and honor. Probably need to come up with some other wording... Pinging nom/reviewer/promoter:   — Amakuru (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, the wording isn't ideal, it is more an issue of commemorating the victims here. Could we do "commemorate victims of police repression" instead? --Soman (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the hook in the queue. RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks all, sounds OK now. I suppose the monument wasn't primarily for the "commemoration" in fact, it was mainly as a protest... but meh, it's good enough for me if it's good enough for you.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Then maybe we want "... was installed on 5 June 2023 to protest police repression ..."? RoySmith (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Soman are you OK with my proposed "... was installed on 5 June 2023 to protest police repression ..." wording? RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure,  "... was installed on 5 June 2023 to protest police repression ..." wording is good with me. --Soman (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I went to make this change and realized that gave us "protest police repression during the 2020 protests" which just sounds silly.  I'm going to leave it as it is now. RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

text: @Amakuru, thanks for the feedback. I updated the article so it now uses the phrase "running shoes" and mentions that he used his second pair to replace broken shoes. I also moved the two "personal life" bits you mentioned into the Career section. --Habst (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Did you know/Queue/1|Queue&nbsp;1]] 

message: (nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Antimonumento 5J)
* ... that the Antimonumento 5J (pictured) was installed on 5 June 2023 to commemorate police repression during the 2020 protests in response to the death of Giovanni López?
The use of the word commemorate seems odd here... in my experience, this is generally used for remembering something in a positive light... This gives the definition as  or . Police repression doesn't seem like the sort of thing you respect and honor. Probably need to come up with some other wording... Pinging nom/reviewer/promoter:   — Amakuru (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, the wording isn't ideal, it is more an issue of commemorating the victims here. Could we do "commemorate victims of police repression" instead? --Soman (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the hook in the queue. RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks all, sounds OK now. I suppose the monument wasn't primarily for the "commemoration" in fact, it was mainly as a protest... but meh, it's good enough for me if it's good enough for you.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Then maybe we want "... was installed on 5 June 2023 to protest police repression ..."? RoySmith (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Soman are you OK with my proposed "... was installed on 5 June 2023 to protest police repression ..." wording? RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure,  "... was installed on 5 June 2023 to protest police repression ..." wording is good with me. --Soman (talk) 00:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I went to make this change and realized that gave us "protest police repression during the 2020 protests" which just sounds silly.  I'm going to leave it as it is now. RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Antimonumento 5J]] 

message: * ... that Taiwanese long jumper Lin Yu-tang qualified for the 2024 Summer Olympics by switching out his broken track shoes between attempts?
(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Lin Yu-tang (long jumper))
The article doesn't seem to say anything about the shoes being "broken"... it merely says that . Also, if the article says "running spikes" I'd have thought the hook should, rather than "running shoes". Make the match, one way or the other. As an aside to that, I'm not sure why this fact and the bit about him qualifying for the Olympics is in "Personal life"... isn't that just part of his career?   — Amakuru (talk) 20:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Amakuru, thanks for the feedback. I updated the article so it now uses the phrase "running shoes" and mentions that he used his second pair to replace broken shoes. I also moved the two "personal life" bits you mentioned into the Career section. --Habst (talk) 21:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lin Yu-tang (long jumper)]] 

message: Shouldn't this queue has a person for the picture? --evrik (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting that.  Fixed. RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew you would! Bruxton (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Did you know/Queue/2|Queue&nbsp;2]] 

message: There's a passage that is missing a citation, which I have indicated with a "citation needed" tag. This will need to be resolved before it goes on the Main Page. Z1720 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting that.  Fixed. RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew you would! Bruxton (talk) 23:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Tad's Steaks]]

message: I'm looking at WP:DYKIMG where it says  and find that description lacking.  For sure, requiring it to be "suitable" is a tautology, and I'm not sure what it means for an image to be "interesting" in a DYK context.  As for "display well", that is often a point of contention when I mention that an image isn't good.  So, what do folks think would be more specific attributes that we should mention in DYKIMG to help improve our image selections? RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: *Given the current interminable RfC, I'm okay with the vagueness. --evrik (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of that is too nebulous to be useful, I'd be inclined to yeet everything between the two 'must's. Images shouldn't be gratuitous, but I think that's covered within WP:DYKGRAT, I don't think it warrants repetition.--Launchballer 19:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

text: I would have thought the recent one on 3 June was too grainy and low quality and just another portrait. —Bagumba (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes we try to balance the availability. It's really easy to get a great shot of an existing building. Not so much an Indonesian doctor who died in 1983. That doesn't mean we should run lots of images of buildings. Valereee (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: yes. --evrik (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  What makes a good DYK image? 

message: The previous list of older nominations was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've created a new list of 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 20. We have a total of 221 nominations, of which 110 have been approved, a gap of 111 nominations that has decreased by 14 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.
More than one month old
*April 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Cora Babbitt Johnson
*April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Lunch (song)
*April 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Lineage (anthropology)
*May 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Peewee Jarrett
*May 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Bar Kokhba refuge caves
Other nominations
*May 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Qin Huasun
*May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Adnan al-Bursh
*May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Professor Layton and the New World of Steam
*May 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Homeworld: Vast Reaches
*May 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Toro de fuego
*May 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Asia
*May 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Florida Hospital Oceanside
*May 9: Template:Did you know nominations/AdventHealth North Pinellas
*May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Ann Wells
*May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Party of Revolutionary Communism (five articles)
*May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Manganese nitride
*May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Guardian Cap
*May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Ceasefire proposal for Israel–Hamas war (May 5)
*May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Grace A. Johnson
*May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Interstate 85 in North Carolina
*May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Vinland Saga (TV series)
*May 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Saleh Manaf
*May 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Sadie O. Horton
*May 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Jasprit Bumrah
*May 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Sea of Voices
*May 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Baubau
*May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/South by South Lawn
*May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Space Babies
*May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Russell Cole
*May 18: Template:Did you know nominations/East Wake Academy
*May 18: Template:Did you know nominations/I Am Human (film)
*May 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Hock burns
*May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Jan Leike
*May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Praetorium of Constantinople
*May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Jump (Tyla, Gunna and Skillibeng song)
*May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Jerzy Kosinski: A Biography
*May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Flyover (book)
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) 16:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older nominations needing DYK reviewers 

message: I just realised that Father's Day coincides with the potential timeframe of this hook being promoted, if no issues arise. I am requesting that this hook be held in the special occasion holding area for Father's Day, if other DYK contributors are in agreement. Yue🌙 01:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Which of the 32 different dates that we have for Father's Day do you think we should pick? I don't think this is a goer. Schwede66 02:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The third Sunday in June is Father's Day for many countries, but seeing that Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June will not mention it either, I withdraw my proposal. Yue🌙 03:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Did you know nominations/Friendly Father]] 

message: Considering we currently have an ongoing discussion about how to handle negative BLP hooks, this nomination may be of interest. <B>Narutolovehinata5</B> (talk · contributions) 14:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: An almost wholly negative article about a BLP subject who has ongoing criminal court proceedings? DYK shouldn't touch this with a bargepole. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I touched it. Now we'll see what happens. --evrik (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I failed the nomination per WP:DYKHOOKBLP. RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it fits the criteria you've cited. It's factual and relatively neutral. --evrik (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Factual or not, "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided"  It also says "this is a stricter requirement than BLP as a whole". RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The hook itself is relatively neutral. --evrik (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

text: I've invited comments from WP:BLPN. I don't see a neutral hook in the article. Everything is either about pending charges, or it's attributed to Law himself. Rjjiii (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were to write on say ... Charles Manson, even a neutral hook may be perceived as somewhat negative. --evrik (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ... that the Beach Boys did a cover of a Charles Manson song? RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll approve that hook when you write the article. --evrik (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is written, that's where the hook came from.  I'll keep it in mind if it ever reaches GA. RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Saw this through the BLPN notification. Regardless of whether WP:DYKHOOKBLP applies, putting an article on the mainpage about someone who is  for fourteen counts of murder seems like a terrible idea. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rejected. This seems to be another Tate case. Almost identical: Law himself says he sold the stuff. Ping to . Valereee (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why this is a terrible idea. People do bad things. If the person is notable for doing bad things, the hooks may be uncomfortable. Also, I don't think this should have been closed as it does a disservice to the author. --evrik (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Evrik, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that you think every borderline nomination should be accepted. You should be aware that this is a fringe viewpoint. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've never said that. What I've seen in the last month is a hyper focus on the negative BLPs. I think we've lost perspective. Also, I don't appreciate your negative personal attack. --evrik (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are correct , I said it. Can you point out that negative personal attack you refer to, perhaps keeping this nomination in mind? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going down this rabbit hole. --evrik (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, so will you strike that WP:PA accusation? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You strike your comment. I'll strike mine. --evrik (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Negative? I thought this was interesting. :D Valereee (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

text: If the person in question had been convicted of doing terrible things, I might have a less strong opinion, but until Law's trial is actually concluded he is notable for being accused of doing terrible things. The fact that people look at this hook an conclude "this man has done bad things" before the court has actually determined whether he did or not is precisely one of the main reason that this seems like a terrible idea. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Did you know nominations/Kenneth Law]] 

message: ===Laura Veale===
 As with most "first" hooks, I'm dubious.  I'm not convinced a plaque from a historical society is a WP:RS.  We should be saying "said to be", or "claimed to be" or something like that.  In any case, the plaque says "first Yorkshire woman", which got turned into "first Yorkshire-born woman", which isn't the same thing; "Yorkshire woman" can also be used to describe somebody who has lived in an area for a long time without necessarily having been born there.  I don't have access to the Neesam book. RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The traditional meaning in Yorkshire, of "Yorkshire woman" is Yorkshire-born woman". Yorkshire has always been a parochial area with its own identity, and during previous generations being born there was part of the identity. Even these days - I have lived there and contributed locally for over a quarter of a century, but am still considered an outsider (and consider myself so), because I came from Kent. The Yorkshire dialect is not just an individual sound. Like all dialects and languages, it is a way of thinking. If I understand correctly, that way of thinking used to affect the Yorkshire cricket teams during previous generations (though probably no longer), in that you once had to be born in Yorkshire to play for Yorkshire. Malcolm Neesam, a traditional Yorkshireman, wrote the text on that brown plaque, and Yorkshire-born is what he meant, for sure. Veale was not the first qualified woman doctor to practice in Yorkshire - but it is agreed by local historians that she was the first Yorkshire-born woman to do so. I have checked thoroughly with Harrogate Civic Society, and they all agree with that, strongly. Storye book (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "I talked to somebody who said it's true" isn't a WP:RS. RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its fine either way. --evrik (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't an RS either. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Re "Veale was not the first qualified woman doctor to practice in Yorkshire": So she's not the first female doctor in Yorkshire. And the source definitely isn't good enough to state that she is the first female doctor born in Yorkshire, because the language is too ambiguous. That goes beyond the problem that sources for such hooks often get it wrong by overlooking someone else with a stronger claim. Are we confident that they went through all the birth records of all the female physicians in the UK (or the crown colonies, or the world), checking whether maybe one of them was born in Yorkshire, or did they only find a listing of female physicians in Yorkshire, check through which of them were actually born in Yorkshire, and when finding one said "she's the one"? I don't think this hook is rescuable. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced this with another English biography hook by Story book from Prep 7.  People can sort out the problems with this one on the nomination page. RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

text: "With the main leader of the party Spiridonova imprisoned at the Kremlin it fell on Kamkov, Karelin and Proshian to represent the Central Committee in bearing responsibility for the July debacle at the 4th party congress.[1][10] [...] Spiridonova addressed the gathering through a letter which self-critically reviewed the actions of the Central Committee.[1]" --Soman (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks.  The hook said "jail", so that's what I searched for and found "The main leader of the party Maria Spiridonova was in jail at the time, but addressed the gathering by a written letter." RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Did you know/Queue/3|Queue&nbsp;3]] 

message: As with most "first" hooks, I'm dubious.  I'm not convinced a plaque from a historical society is a WP:RS.  We should be saying "said to be", or "claimed to be" or something like that.  In any case, the plaque says "first Yorkshire woman", which got turned into "first Yorkshire-born woman", which isn't the same thing; "Yorkshire woman" can also be used to describe somebody who has lived in an area for a long time without necessarily having been born there.  I don't have access to the Neesam book. RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The traditional meaning in Yorkshire, of "Yorkshire woman" is Yorkshire-born woman". Yorkshire has always been a parochial area with its own identity, and during previous generations being born there was part of the identity. Even these days - I have lived there and contributed locally for over a quarter of a century, but am still considered an outsider (and consider myself so), because I came from Kent. The Yorkshire dialect is not just an individual sound. Like all dialects and languages, it is a way of thinking. If I understand correctly, that way of thinking used to affect the Yorkshire cricket teams during previous generations (though probably no longer), in that you once had to be born in Yorkshire to play for Yorkshire. Malcolm Neesam, a traditional Yorkshireman, wrote the text on that brown plaque, and Yorkshire-born is what he meant, for sure. Veale was not the first qualified woman doctor to practice in Yorkshire - but it is agreed by local historians that she was the first Yorkshire-born woman to do so. I have checked thoroughly with Harrogate Civic Society, and they all agree with that, strongly. Storye book (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "I talked to somebody who said it's true" isn't a WP:RS. RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its fine either way. --evrik (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't an RS either. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Re "Veale was not the first qualified woman doctor to practice in Yorkshire": So she's not the first female doctor in Yorkshire. And the source definitely isn't good enough to state that she is the first female doctor born in Yorkshire, because the language is too ambiguous. That goes beyond the problem that sources for such hooks often get it wrong by overlooking someone else with a stronger claim. Are we confident that they went through all the birth records of all the female physicians in the UK (or the crown colonies, or the world), checking whether maybe one of them was born in Yorkshire, or did they only find a listing of female physicians in Yorkshire, check through which of them were actually born in Yorkshire, and when finding one said "she's the one"? I don't think this hook is rescuable. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced this with another English biography hook by Story book from Prep 7.  People can sort out the problems with this one on the nomination page. RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Laura Veale]]

message: * This is missing an end-of-sentence citation for the hook fact. RoySmith (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "With the main leader of the party Spiridonova imprisoned at the Kremlin it fell on Kamkov, Karelin and Proshian to represent the Central Committee in bearing responsibility for the July debacle at the 4th party congress.[1][10] [...] Spiridonova addressed the gathering through a letter which self-critically reviewed the actions of the Central Committee.[1]" --Soman (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks.  The hook said "jail", so that's what I searched for and found "The main leader of the party Maria Spiridonova was in jail at the time, but addressed the gathering by a written letter." RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Fourth All-Russian Congress of the Party of Left Socialist-Revolutionaries (internationalists)]]

message: So, the Barron Trump hook got pulled because it was AfD'd, but the reason it was nominated was discussion at WP:BLPN#Barron Trump and Talk:Barron Trump#This whole article is written like some sort of joke, which includes valid concern over the article itself, which was stuffed full of iffy content. Here is the diff of the version that ran vs the current version with much of the problematic content pulled out, and I have to agree the article should have raised red flags here long before it ever got anywhere near the main page, and it didn't. Valereee (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Does DYK have any guidance to reviewers about notability checks? —Bagumba (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not, but the concern for me was more that red flags should have been raised over all the negative stuff in the article that was really about his father, not about him. Valereee (talk) 10:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We do, articles with questionable notability deserve , which is a disqualifier per WP:DYKCOMPLETE. I suggest adding a line to WP:DYKRI.--Launchballer 11:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We do say no tags, but we don't call out notability expressly. We also don't call out BLP violations expressly. Valereee (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

text: Given that the AfD was not WP:SNOW closed as a delete or redirect, I don't think it's egregious that such a long bio with many footnotes not from Daily Mail-like sources wasn't challeged at the DYK review. —Bagumba (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Reviewer instructions does mention "BLP-compliant" but maybe this needs its own line.--Launchballer 11:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're talking two different issues here; the notability question, and the original concern of BLP vios that led to the AfD. I'm much more concerned that we ran an article that was full of negative stuff about his father that was only tangentially related to the article subject. Valereee (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what solution could be added here. DYK is a mostly single reviewer process that mostly focuses on the hook, and it sounds like the issues in question were unrelated to the hook. On the wider bias point, that is bias in the line of what I would expect the bias of en.wiki to point to, and those are the biases that are both less likely to be picked up and harder to deal with. CMD (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We could demand a more explicit BLP compliance check to ensure reviewers do not just look at the hook. You know, replace "new enough, long enough, not copyvio" by "new enough, long enough, not copyvio, no potential BLP issues". It would help if we could guide QPQ reviewers to open a thread here (or at BLPN) if there is any doubt about BLP compliance of either hook or article, so any such issues could be caught and discussed much earlier than the point when admins promote prep to queue. —Kusma (talk) 14:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support that. Valereee (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The DYK process went fine? It was on the main page for like 23 hours before it was pulled. Which leads me to why would we put it into a holding area for re-running? It had nearly the entire day. Valereee (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree that the nomination should remain closed if it ran for nearly an entire day before being pulled. The fact that it's currently at AfD is irrelevant. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a case of running something up the flagpole, you see who salutes and you see who shoots. Sometimes the issues we debate here won't become apparent until something goes before the broader audience.--evrik (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP discussion/Barron Trump 

message: I think we need a new hook for this one:
* ... that Brad Banducci stepped down as CEO of the Woolworths Group after walking out of a TV interview, causing national headlines in Australia?
How about something like:
ALT1: ... that starting at age 16, Brad Banducci was named top sewing machine salesperson three years in a row?
I can't get to the article to verify, AGFing that, but it would be nice to clarify...I assum it means he was his company's top sewing machine salesperson? 
Pinging , , . Valereee (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy with that. GMH Melbourne (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine by me, might be worth adding 'future Woolworths CEO' or somesuch.--Launchballer 11:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced, used 'future Woolworths CEO'. Thanks, all! Valereee (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6|Prep 6]] [[Template:Did you know nominations/Brad Banducci|(nom)]] BLP/neg concern 

message: created Bjarne Store-Jakobsen which is slotted into Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_1 with the hook 
* ... that Sami politician, activist, and journalist Bjarne Store-Jakobsen "mythical love story" is the subject of the 2014 film Bihttoš
I created Esther Tailfeathers, and suggested we combine the hooks into one with two targets: 
* ... that the "mythical love story" of Sami politician Bjarne Store-Jakobsen and Blackfoot physician Esther Tailfeathers is the subject of the 2014 film Bihttoš?
Would anyone object if Ornithoptera does that review, to move it along a little quicker? They know the sources and the content, but had zero to do with the writing of the article. Valereee (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure this was best practice. I've left a comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Esther Tailfeathers. (No need to reopen Template:Did you know nominations/Bjarne Store-Jakobsen, and courtesy ping to promoter AirshipJungleman29. regarding potential hook change) CMD (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about review