To discuss the content or layout of the Template:Did you know page itself, go to Wikipedia talk:Did you know.

This page is to nominate fresh articles to appear in the "Did you know" section on the Main Page with a "hook" (an interesting note). Nominations that have been approved are moved to a staging area and then promoted into the Queue. To update this page, purge it.

How do I write an interesting hook?

Successful hooks tend to have several traits. Most importantly, they share a surprising or intriguing fact. They give readers enough context to understand the hook, but leave enough out to make them want to learn more. They are written for a general audience who has no prior knowledge of or interest in the topic area. Lastly, they are concise, and do not attempt to cover multiple facts or present information about the subject beyond what's needed to understand the hook.

When will my nomination be reviewed?

This page is often backlogged. As long as your submission is still on the page, it will stay there until an editor reviews it. Since editors are encouraged to review the oldest submissions first, it may take several weeks until your submission is reviewed. In the meantime, please consider reviewing another submission (not your own) to help reduce the backlog (see instructions below). Because of WP:DYKTIMEOUT, a nomination should be reviewed within two months since the reviewer/promoter may agree to reject and close an unpromoted hook after that time has passed.

Where is my hook?

If you can't find the nomination you submitted to this nominations page, it may have been approved and is on the approved nominations page waiting to be promoted. It could also have been added to one of the prep areas, promoted from prep to a queue, or is on the main page.

If the nominated hook is in none of those places, then the nomination has probably been rejected. Such a rejection usually only occurs if it was at least a couple of weeks old and had unresolved issues for which any discussion had gone stale. If you think your nomination was unfairly rejected, you can query this on the DYK discussion page, but as a general rule such nominations will only be restored in exceptional circumstances.

Any editor who was not involved in writing/expanding or nominating an article may review it by checking to see that the article meets all the DYK criteria (long enough, new enough, no serious editorial or content issues) and the hook is cited. Editors may also alter the suggested hook to improve it, suggest new hooks, or even lend a hand and make edits to the article to which the hook applies so that the hook is supported and accurate. For a more detailed discussion of the DYK rules and review process see the supplementary guidelines and the WP:Did you know/Reviewing guide.

To post a comment or review on a DYK nomination, follow the steps outlined below:

• Look through this page, Template talk:Did you know, to find a nomination you would like to comment on.
• Click the "Review or comment" link at the top of the nomination. You will be taken to the nomination subpage.
• The top of the page includes a list of the DYK criteria. Check the article to ensure it meets all the relevant criteria.
• To indicate the result of the review (i.e., whether the nomination passes, fails, or needs some minor changes), leave a signed comment on the page. Please begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed; your comment should look something like the following:

  Article length and age are fine, no copyvio or plagiarism concerns, reliable sources are used. But the hook needs to be shortened.

  If you are the first person to comment on the nomination, there will be a line :* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING  :* --> showing you where you should put the comment.
• Save the page.
• After the nomination is approved, a bot will automatically list the nomination page on Template talk:Did you know/Approved.

If there is any problem or concern about a nomination, please consider notifying the nominator by placing {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}} on the nominator's talk page.

Handy copy sources:

• Open the DYK nomination subpage of the hook you would like to remove. (It's best to wait several days after a reviewer has rejected the hook, just in case someone contests or the article undergoes a large change.)
• In the window where the DYK nomination subpage is open, replace the line {{DYKsubpage with {{subst:DYKsubpage, and replace |passed= with |passed=no. Then save the page. This has the effect of wrapping up the discussion on the DYK nomination subpage in a blue archive box and stating that the nomination was unsuccessful, as well as adding the nomination to a category for archival purposes.

• Edit the prep area or queue where the hook is and remove the hook and the credits associated with it.
• Go to the hook's nomination subpage (there should have been a link to it in the credits section).
  • View the edit history for that page
  • Go back to the last version before the edit where the hook was promoted, and revert to that version to make the nomination active again.
  • Add a new icon on the nomination subpage to cancel the previous tick and leave a comment after it explaining that the hook was removed from the prep area or queue, and why, so that later reviewers are aware of this issue.
• Add a transclusion of the template back to this page so that reviewers can see it. It goes under the date that it was first created/expanded/listed as a GA. You may need to add back the day header for that date if it had been removed from this page.
• If you removed the hook from a queue, it is best to either replace it with another hook from one of the prep areas, or to leave a message at WT:DYK asking someone else to do so.

• Don't; it should not ever be necessary, and will break some links which will later need to be repaired. Even if you change the title of the article, you don't need to move the nomination page.

• ... that during Phoebe Plummer's May 2024 jury trial over a climate protest, the court finished early on several days due to the heat? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/may/15/uk-climate-activists-convicted-in-first-trial-of-new-anti-protest-laws
  • ALT1: ... that an October 2022 protest involving Just Stop Oil member Phoebe Plummer inspired many activists worldwide to throw food at paintings? Source: https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/11/17/just-stop-oil-phoebe-plummer-prison/
  • ALT2: ... that when Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland faced trial over the Just Stop Oil Sunflowers protest, they were "unfortunate" to draw Christopher Hehir as judge? Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/30/just-stop-oil-soup-throwing-protests-moral-toddlerhood/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Zero-emission zone in Oxford, Template:Did you know nominations/CyberJoly Drim, Template:Did you know nominations/Ajah Pritchard-Lolo, Template:Did you know nominations/Alison Creagh
  • Comment: Plummer was created 27 September, though I did a 5x expansion on 2 October, added Just Stop Oil Sunflowers protest three days later, added Christopher Hehir two days after that, and added Holland on 5 November.

Launchballer 03:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Overall: Ooh, a quadruple hook. All of the articles are new enough, long enough, and well cited. There are a few places where phrasing could be a bit more neutral (I feel like inspired would be better than empowered, for example), but those may also be stylstic considerations. Earwig isn't happy, but it's the large block quote that speaks to Plummer's inspiration in that instance. Ideally Hehir's article would have a bit more on his early life, but if the sources aren't talking about it, rather difficult. (Minor quibble: the source says "unfortunately" rather than "unfortunate", but I think it works here).  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been sitting near the top of Approved for over a week. What else do I have to do to get this promoted? (For the record, I believe "unfortunately" --> "unfortunate" is covered by MOS:SIC.)--Launchballer 02:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure that Holland in particular meets the independent notability standards of WP:CRIMINAL. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She's a lot more borderline than Plummer, I'll admit that. From memory, there's significant coverage of her role in Politico at least and this Prospect piece was what clinched it for me, but I will of course take another look later.--Launchballer 16:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are dealing with a BLP, I think we should veer on the side of safety as described in WP:CRIMINAL. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had another look and I believe Holland meets WP:CRIMINAL#unusual crime.--Launchballer 00:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for another promoter's opinion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29: This nomination is over two months old. I still believe Holland meets WP:CRIMINAL, but is it worth posting at WT:DYK (though arguably this'll get another review when it's queued anyway)?--Launchballer 14:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, why not? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posted there.--Launchballer 03:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have started an AfD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination must go on hold until the AfD finishes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Sean Combs promised not to spill champagne on the Declaration of Independence?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Middlesex Regiment alien labour units

No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Hello No Swan So Fine: article created within a week of nomination; QPQ checks out; hook is interesting; no copyvio detected; source checks out. My only question: would it be better to call Mr. Combs by his more well known name of P. Diddy or Diddy? I'm not sure if I'd click on the DYK if it said Sean Combs, I'd be much more likely to do so if it said Diddy, given the recent news and memes. My only thought. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 05:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darth Stabro: I think we should respect the name he currently goes by ... but P. Diddy is certainly better for views! No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Swan So Fine sounds good! Nihil obstat. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 04:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Darth Stabro and No Swan So Fine: I have MOS:EGG concerns regarding the hook, in that no-one will know where the bolded link goes. Any way to rephrase? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 ... that during one of his Diddy parties, Sean Combs promised not to spill champagne on the Declaration of Independence?

I like how that sounds.~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the hook needs to specify "an original copy of", and I have no opinion if the hook should say "P Diddy" or not, though depending on how he was called at the time, maybe that might be a point of discussion? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: I think "an original copy of" would be overkill as the meaning is clear without it. I'm going to suggest ALT2: ... that during one of his Diddy parties, P. Diddy promised not to spill champagne on the Declaration of Independence?; a promoter can take their pick.--Launchballer 23:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Ekin Cheng delivered his lines in his native Cantonese in the Mandarin-language film A Nail Clipper Romance?

• ALT1: ... that A Nail Clipper Romance is an extension of a 2010 short film of the same name which starred Zhou Xun? Source: ^[2]
• ALT2: ... that Zhou Dongyu learned to surf while filming A Nail Clipper Romance in Hawaii? Source: ^[3]
• ALT3: ... that Tiffany Ann Hsu made a cameo appearance in A Nail Clipper Romance at the invitation of lead actress Zhou Dongyu? Source: ^[4]
• ALT4: ... that A Nail Clipper Romance marks the directorial debut of cinematographer Jason Kwan? Source: ^[5]
• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/You Are Here (song)

Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 06:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC). [reply]

• Comment: @Prince of Erebor: A few things stand out to me: the poor critical reception/box office performance? is played down in the lead section in a somewhat ingenious way, by emphasizing the positive reviews of the short film it is based upon. I think you should fix that as it presents a neutrality issue. In other words, summarize the reception in the lead, not the previous work. The other thing I noticed is that the article says the film took place in the state of Hawaii several times. While it’s fine to say that at least once, subsequent mention should specify it was filmed specifically on the island of Oahu in and around the city of Honolulu, if the sources can support that. There are also opportunities to link to specific articles about the Chinese population in Hawaii. Leaning towards ALT2 at the moment although I wonder if it can be made more interesting than it is with other details. More later. Viriditas (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Viriditas! Thanks a lot for taking up the review, but I beg to differ with both of your current suggestions. The "positive reviews" in the lead refer to the short film, which explains why a full-length feature was developed afterward, and this is supported by multiple sources. I do not find this description to be faulty. Meanwhile, I have not found any sources that comment on or summarize the critical reception and box office performance. From the current reviews listed, I do not believe it is conclusive that the film was poorly received, as some critics have given it 3.5/5 and expressed various positive opinions on the premise, themes, and performances. Regarding box office performance, it is also subjective to judge whether it is positive or negative, as arthouse films like this one typically gross less than blockbusters. I would summarize the box office performance as poor only if supported by multiple sources, like in Miss Shampoo or The Invincible Dragon. For your second suggestion, I have only mentioned the film being shot in Hawaii once in the filming section. The other mentions focus on different topics, like casting choices or creative decisions based on the demographics of Hawaiians. There are no specific references to the filming locations in Hawaii, so I cannot specify which part of Hawaii the film was shot in. I am also unsure if mentioning the specific location has any bearing on why the crew chose to film there or why Ekin Cheng was willing to join the project. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 18:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have misunderstood me. By emphasizing the positive review of a different film in the lead, and ignoring the poor critical reception (3.5 is pretty mediocre, and there are other poor reviews and apparently bad box office results) that presents a neutrality issue. You will want to very briefly note the critical reception of this film in the lead, regardless of the positive reception of the other film. As for Hawaii, there are eight islands in the state. The film industry is in Oahu, but not all films are shot there. Given what we know so far, this entire film was shot on Oahu in and around Honolulu. This should be easy to source. I’m sorry we disagree. Viriditas (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, I believe we are on the same page. My point is that the characterization of the film's box office performance and critical reception as "poor" is not supported by sources and is purely subjective. I see this as a form of OR. But I understand your concerns, and perhaps it would be better to remove the mention of positive reviews for the short film from the lead instead? Regarding the filming location, could you please provide me with the source that confirms the film was shot in Oahu? I conducted a research quite thoroughly while writing the article and do not recall seeing this mentioned in any English or Chinese RS. Please let me know if I am mistaken or have overlooked any sources. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take it one topic at a time; my old brain doesn't multitask as well as it should. First things first: can you briefly summarize the critical reception in the lead? Viriditas (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, my answer is no, because I do not see a conclusive consensus among the reviews. Summarizing the box office performance and a handful of critics' opinions subjectively and labeling the film as "poorly received" is a form of WP:SYNTH in my opinion. But if you find the phrase "positive reviews" in the lead to be misleading, I am fine with removing the mention of the short film's reception. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think we might be speaking past each other. Is there any reason you cannot summarize the critical reception section you've written in the body of the article and add it to the lead, to the best of your ability? Just in case you don't know, we summarize "mixed reviews" in the lead all the time. Maybe check out other articles with similar reception? Perhaps you aren't aware of this, which would explain the back and forth. There's several ways to do it, but the most common involve characterizing the type of review in the first part of the sentence ("The film received mixed reviews from critics"), and then in the second part, describing the box office results ("and became a box office bomb"). These are just examples. Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas, I believe we are still on the same page. I am aware that mixed reviews exist, I have used this term in another recent article of mine (Get the Hell Out). In that case, the inclusion was based on a cited Rotten Tomatoes score of 5.9, so it does not involve original research. Many film articles lack a summary of critical reception exactly because of WP:SYNTH. An example that come to mind is Deadpool and Wolverine, where editors voted not to include a critical reception summary in the lead due to concerns about SYNTH. There are also no sources indicating that the film failed at the box office. While it may not have grossed enough to make the list of top grossing films in 2017, that does not equate to it being a box office bomb, and I still see the assertion as a form of OR. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but it appears that you are still misreading me. Please summarize the critical reception to the best of your ability (as I described above) and place it in the lead section. The specific decision and rationale not to include a critical reception section in Deadpool and Wolverine does not apply here. Further, that film received mostly positive reviews, so the dispute in that particular instance isn't really relevant. We know D&W received a positive, critical reception. One of the problems here is how accurate or inaccurate Metacritic scores are in this regard, and that led to the perception that D&W received a less than positive reception. That's really getting into the weeds, and there's no similar problem here. However, you could ask, did this film receive mostly positive reviews, did it receive mixed reviews, or did it receive poor reviews? Whatever your answer is, please briefly mention it in the lead. By describing a different film as "positive" and ignoring the critical reception in the lead, you are giving readers a false impression of what the reception was actually like. This is a problem. Viriditas (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Viriditas, sorry but I believe you are also misreading me. I have already acknowledged your concern that the term "positive reviews" could mislead readers regarding the reception of this film, and I proposed removing the mention of the short film's reception. (But if you find the phrase "positive reviews" in the lead to be misleading, I am fine with removing the mention of the short film's reception.) This should have already addressed your concerns about neutrality or misleading information. The reason a summary was not included in the D&W article is the same rationale for why I am not adding one now. Adding a summary (positive, mixed, negative, whatever) you are suggesting is purely original research and a synthesis of the sources. If there are no sources or review aggregators to support the claim that the article is generally viewed as positive, divisive, or negative by critics, then adding my own assessment of their opinions would be considered SYNTH. I am also somewhat puzzled by this conversation, as identifying OR should be WP editing 101 and my concerns about WP:V should be quite clear. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 20:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason a summary was not included in the D&W article is the same rationale for why I am not adding one now. No, it's actually quite different. It is not OR to summarize or to state the critical reception for this film in the lead and there's literally no connection to the arguments made in the D&W article, which received overwhelmingly positive reviews. This is why ignoring the critical reception in the lead for D&W is the default, as it received mostly positive, not negative feedback. I can assure you, if D&W had received a negative reception, the default would have been to mention that. By not mentioning it in D&W, the reader is not given information about negative reception. Do you see how this works? The opposite is true here. You are free, of course, to do what you like, but priming the reader with mentioning a "positive" review of an altogether different film while ignoring the poor to mediocre, to mixed reviews (and box office performance) of this film is a neutrality issue. I'm once again sorry that we see this so differently. Perhaps you will find others to agree with your position. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Viriditas, I must respectfully disagree with you. The editors who participated in the survey for the D&W article specifically discussed issues related to synthesis. While the film may seem overwhelmingly positive to you, there are also negative reviews out there. In fact, all four wording options discussed in that survey addressed the non-positive, divisive reviews. By not mentioning it in D&W, the reader is not given information about negative reception. The current critical response section also included negative reviews from like San Francisco Chronicle, The Hollywood Reporter, and one-star review from The Irish Times. So no, that is not the case. It is because reviews from an opposite stance exist, a positive/mixed reception summary would not be appropriate. This echoes my point that adding a subjective summary suggesting that the film underperformed based on what you and I think, constitutes original research. I have also repeatedly acknowledged your concern that the positive reception of the short film in the lead is misleading and have offered to remove that line. (I have rephrased it just now and I hope this address your concerns.) So I do not really see a reason to continue adding a summary of the reception and box office performance. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 20:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That's definitely an improvement, but I do want to say that I see zero relationship between the argument made in the D&W discussion, which defaults to the absence of negative critical commentary in the lead based on all of the available evidence, as well as an indication that the critical reception was first and foremost controversial, and this article, which did not receive a positive reception and where the critical reception was not controversial. There's literally no comparison. I get that you are making this comparison, but it doesn't exist, IMO. Now, if you think the critical reception of this film was controversial, I am happy to review the matter, and if true, that is indeed, a supporting argument for keeping it out of the lead. But as far as I can tell, the critics and the audiences didn't like this film and it performed poorly at the box office. By keeping this out of the lead, it gives the impression of a neutrality problem. Now, with all that said, the question becomes, does it need to be in the lead? Aside from obvious controversies where representing the critical reception is difficult or disputed (i.e. D&W), I would say yes, but with the additional caveat that local consensus, as we've seen with D&W, can override this, particularly in instances where the default position doesn't deviate from the overall reception. It might help to get clarification from the film project talk page on this. They are usually pretty active, even during the holidays. The NPOV noticeboard might even be a better place, I don't know. However, keeping it out of the lead does not appear neutral to me at all. More so, if the sources emphasize that the film was received poorly with critics and the box office. So we are still divided on this subtopic. I would prefer to work towards an agreement on this with you, but I don't think that's going to happen. One other thing: have you added critical reception to the lead before in your other film articles that notes a poor, mediocre, or mixed reception status? If so, what makes this article different than the others? If not, why not? Your careful reasoning and answer to those two questions could conceivably bring me over to your side, leading me to drop this. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Viriditas , sorry, but I still only see you asserting that critics and audiences didn't like this film and that it performed poorly at the box office. Based on what is currently in the article, there are at least some positive to mediocre reviews, and the total gross exceeds the film's budget. It is hardly accurate to describe it as having a negative reception or being a box office bomb. Labeling the film in this way is just your subjective judgement based on what you have seen about the film and it truly harms the article's neutrality. While if the reception is mixed and the box office performance is merely average, whether or not to mention these is unrelated to neutrality and I do not see the urge to add such phrases. I am generally open to adding or removing content from articles, like I would be happy to include the precise filming locations you mentioned if sources are available, but this just seems like original research to me. I also do not see the necessity to escalate this, as again, I think this is WP editing 101. But I would not object to seeking a third opinion.
• Regarding your final question, yes, I certainly do. Examples include positive reviews for Mongrel (2024 film), mixed reviews for Get the Hell Out, and negative reviews for The Invincible Dragon. My rationale for adding a summary is based on the existence of a conclusive consensus among critics' opinions. For these articles, there are Rotten Tomatoes scores, which aggregate all critical reviews and can be interpreted as the consensus of the majority of critics. There are exceptions, like 18×2 Beyond Youthful Days, where multiple reputable sources describe the film as both a box office and critical success. But in this case, there is neither a consensus summarized by review aggregators nor multiple reliable sources. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 21:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Was this film a box office success or a box office bomb? In other words, did it break even by a large amount? When you look at the budget and compare it to the raw, unadjusted revenue, it looks like the film made US $34,000 dollars. Perhaps I'm reading this wrong? Also, your own source says it did poorly at the box office and implies it lost money because in that market romantic films do poorly. We're still not on the same page. I have not fully analyzed the critical reviews just yet so I'm keeping that separate until later. But it appears that in terms of the box office, the sources say it did not do well. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Viriditas: Yes, you have read things wrong. The film had a budget of USD$386,000 (HKD$3 million) excluding government funding, and grossed approximately USD$620,000 (RMB$4.49 million). I would not classify it as a box office success, and I am not well-versed in the film industry and cannot determine how much profit or loss the production company made based on these figures. However, it is common sense that a gross greater than the budget would not typically qualify as a box office bomb. Regarding the translated source, it refers to Zhou Dongyu's other film The Breaking Ice (燃冬), not this one (A Nail Clipper Romance; 指甲刀人魔). I am the one who added that source so of course I know what was written there... I have found no sources indicating that this film was a "box office failure". Please share any you might find. To be honest, I am starting to find this discussion somewhat pointless, as neither of us seems able to convince the other. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 22:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This article (and your source) currently says the budget was HKD$4.9 million (US 629,714) which would give it a gross profit of $34k. Take at look at the article you wrote. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 4.9 million including government funding, 3 million excluding. Do you really think I do not know what I typed in the article??
• Okay Viriditas, let me be clear. I believe your request to add a subjective summary labeling the film as poorly received and a box office failure constitutes blatant original research and violates WP:V. Your concerns about WP:NPOV have already been addressed with the removal of the short film's reception (which was actually sourced) from the lead. Even if a summary were included, it would only reflect "mixed reviews" and "average box office performance", which does not relate to your concerns about misleading or sugarcoating the film's actual reception. Since not adding a summary would no longer have anything to do with WP:NPOV, but adding one could impact both verifiability and neutrality imo, I refuse to include these policy-violating claims in the article. So we can either continue the review and set this issue aside, as your concerns have been adequately addressed, or you may choose to seek a third opinion, though I believe that is totally unnecessary. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 22:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know why you think summarizing the critical reception in the lead is a policy violation. That is an extremely unusual idea. Last comment to address the previous ones I ignored: "If a film released in theatres fails to break even by a large amount, it is considered a box-office bomb." List of biggest box-office bombs lists dozens of films that made more than their budget. That is neither here nor there. To address your previous point, you said I was citing material about a different film, but looking at it again after your criticism, it appears to be referring to this film. Here’s the material I was referring to: 和关智斌、张孝全等人主演的《指甲刀人魔》票房449.9万元。事实证明，演员能不能扛票房真的不好说，有运气和选剧本的能力左右，比如吴京主演的《巨齿鲨2》票房不如第一部，还有沈腾演出的《超能一家人》票房才3亿多，所以没有演员敢拍着胸膛说自己主演的电影票房一定大卖。当然周冬雨主演票房很低的电影，其实制作成本可能也不是很高，但绝对都亏损。周冬雨很少演出商业大片，所以她的票房都不怎么样，爱情片的票房本身就不是很高，特别偏文艺片的电影。If that means something else, let me know. My reading of this (当然周冬雨主演票房很低的电影，其实制作成本可能也不是很高，但绝对都亏损。周冬雨很少演出商业大片，所以她的票房都不怎么样，爱情片的票房本身就不是很高，特别偏文艺片的电影) is that it is referring to both films. Also, throughout this discussion you have insisted that I have wanted to add a qualitative statement to the lead, but you ignored the original question mark in my initial comment, identifying that I don’t know what that statement should actually be. I’ve tried to explain this to you, but you keep repeating the same thing for some odd reason. The questions remain: "how did critics receive this film and how well did it do at the box office?" As the reader, I wanted to know the answer. When I read the lead, I expected to find out, only to discover than an altogether different film received a positive reception, not this one. That is my last and final comment on this matter. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Viriditas, yes, I have already mentioned that the source did not address this. The source lists the box office grosses of Zhou Dongyu's entire filmography, ranging from A Fangirl's Romance at USD 329,000 to Embrace Again at USD 129 million. Even if you are viewing it through Google Translate, you can still see the listings and it is separated into different paragraphs. So the statements you quoted obviously do not refer to A Nail Clipper Romance, otherwise the $129 million gross would also become a box office failure. And no, I did not ignore your statements. I have repeatedly mentioned that mixed reviews fall under SYNTH as well, but you have repeatedly focused on the poor reception you perceive in your replies, which is why I feel the need to address it more often than the other potential stances. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 23:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I said I wasn't going to revisit the above, so I won't. The problem of synth in regards to critical reception in lead sections was a specific, local consensus problem for D&W, not for other film articles. This was because of the unique set of circumstances regarding the sources. This was made clear in the responses by the participants. You are extrapolating the result of an article content page RFC out to all film leads. That's not how an article-specific RFC works at all. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. It may be wise to get some input from the larger film community over at their project page. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Addendum or coda: Derek Elley: "The film was shot back in late 2014 on Oahu island, around Honolulu. The Chinese title literally means “The Nail-Cutter Human Devil”. In the Mainland the film crashed and burned, grossing a tiny RMB4.5 million."[1] Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Viriditas, this will be my final response on this issue as well, as I do not find this conversation progressing in a meaningful way. The reason I mentioned D&W is that you brought up "other articles". Just in case you don't know, we summarize "mixed reviews" in the lead all the time. Maybe check out other articles with similar reception? Therefore, I raised another article that also has a divisive reception and involved thorough discussions among editors regarding the decision to omit the reception summary, that aligns with the rationale I am proposing here. My intention was to provide a noteworthy example, one that is more high-traffic and has a relatively large number of participants in the RFC, to ensure we are on the same page and that the summary is not left out for other reasons or merely reflecting the consensus of a handful of random editors. Of course, I understand if you view the concerns raised by the editors in that RFC as specific to that article and reflective of a mere local consensus, as context always matters. I only hope this gives you a clearer picture of my and at least some editors' perspectives about the potential SYNTHiness in the lead reception summary. D&W is just an example, synthesis is my main point, and I have explained my rationale on adding these summaries as well. Perhaps we have different interpretations of the definition of OR, which is perfectly fine, as editors often have varying views on WP guidelines. I have already offered to remove the potentially NPOV-violating weasel words that has disturbed you multiple times (since my second reply), in hopes of truly addressing the issues. However, you have ignored this and instead continue to push for the addition of a summary that you deem necessary, without fully addressing why you believe SYNTH does not apply to the reception summary in this case, convincing me that the poor reception is supported by RS rather than personal opinions, or providing a new rationale after the NPOV concerns have been addressed. Therefore, as I said, while I would not object to seeking a third opinion to move this review forward, I still find it unnecessary because, to me, this is a clear case of SYNTH, and I do not find it beneficial to continue wasting time on it.
• Regarding the source, Sino-Cinema.com appeared to be a WP:RSPWORDPRESS blog to me. But upon checking the author, I would not object that Derek Elley may be considered a SME due to his career at Variety, and the filming locations are not controversial claims that would require the best, reputable sources, so I will treat this as a SPS. It is a nice addition, as it even details the filming period as late 2014, while the Screen Daily source only vaguely suggested the timeframe. I have added it to the article. Thanks for your finding!! —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion requested. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPD poster for the 1932 Prussian state election using these documents to attack the NSDAP

• ... that in 1931, Werner Best drafted for the Nazi Party the plans for a coup?

• ALT1: ... that under a Nazi plan for a coup, Jews were to be deprived of food rations? Source: https://www.jta.org/archive/jews-to-be-starved-out-if-hitlerists-come-to-power-boxheim-documents-were-authentic-official-statem
• ALT2: ... that a Nazi plan for a coup involved the abolishment of private income, food confiscations, and mandatory labour? Source: Press and Politics in the Weimar Republic. OUP Oxford. pp. 186–187.
• Reviewed:

Jean Po (talk) 15:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• The article was made on the 25th, so is new enough. At many times the required length, it is long enough. The article reads neutrally and properly uses in-line citations. The copyvio detector finds nothing outside of explicit quotes in the article. Both hooks are interesting and cited in-line and utilized properly from the listed sources. The suggested image is in the public domain and visibly identifiable. No QPQ needs to be done. Looks good to go! Silverseren^C 01:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean Po, Silver seren, and Crisco 1492: I have pulled this hook on interestingness grounds. There is nothing whatsoever unusual about Nazis treating Jews poorly.--Launchballer 21:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what about the original hook? I think that the Nazis were planning a full out coup, rather than their (admitted coerced through other events) political victory later, is interesting, particularly the effects that had at the time of the reveal of this plan. Silverseren^C 22:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on interestingness, but I have tagged uncited material in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean Po: Please address the above.--Launchballer 01:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citations added. --Jean Po (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jean Po: Apologies for not responding earlier. ALT2 would need end-of-sentence citations rather than just trans tags.--Launchballer 13:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Jean Po (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't.--Launchballer 02:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the physical version of Chromakopia contains an extra song?

MontanaMako (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Would suggest that new hooks be proposed. The current hook is unlikely to be perceived as interesting by non-specialist readers, as it lacks context regarding the subject and in particular why a reader should be interested in it. Plus, digital and physical versions being different is not unheard of anyway, so it's not even that unusual. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5; just added a new one. Is it any better? MontanaMako (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Please respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will leave the decision to another reviewer, but it's better than the original. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer needed. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @MontanaMako: Page is new enough and long enugh, nominator QPQ exempt, hook fact checks out. I can't approve yet, as I need a citation on Music critics characterized Chromakopia as an early midlife crisis album revolving around the concerns young adults have over their newfound adulthood. Its protagonist, St. Chroma, is introduced on the opening track of the same name. ALT1 is the only way this gets done possibly with a different wording (as an option): Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1a: ... that trucks in Tyler promoted Tyler's latest album?

Placing a DYK? icon to indicate that a review has been done. Flibirigit (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MontanaMako: Please address the above.--Launchballer 12:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: I’m sort of a Wikipedia newbie, so I’m a bit confused. Do you need me to find a source for the sentence given or need me to do something else? MontanaMako (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Singapore's first R-rated play was performed despite the police finding it "offensive"?

• Reviewed:
• Comment: The article mentions the Public Entertainment Licensing Unit, which is part of the Singapore Police Force. Source: https://www.police.gov.sg/e-Services/Police-Licences/Public-Entertainment-Licence

Imbluey2. Please ping me so that I get notified of your response 06:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Overall: @Imbluey2: Article is new enough. Hook is interesting. I made a few minor copyedits to the article. The article doesn't actually say anything about how the police were involved, so that should be added. The reader will be looking for the police connection. Also, the copyvio detector is at violation possible 49.5% with one of the sources, so some of the stuff highlighted in red there will need to be revised first. Just one more minor thing, I don't think Singapore needs to be bolded in the hook. I think it looks better as "that Singapore's first R-rated play was performed despite the police finding it "offensive"?" Nice work on the article! ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator hasn't edited in a few days and didn't respond to the above. Asking if fellow Singaporean DYK regulars Kingoflettuce or ZKang123 can help out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that American missiles were used to bomb a displacement camp in Rafah?

• Reviewed:

Personisinsterest (talk) 12:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• I'd like to propose some alternative hooks, if that's okay:

  • ALT1: ... that the "Kuwaiti Peace" tent camp, struck by Israeli fighter jets, was located only 200 meters from the largest UNRWA humanitarian aid storage warehouse in the Gaza Strip? Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hamas-rockets-central-israel-gaza-strip-sirens/
  • ALT2:... that a viral image showing tents in Rafah arranged to spell "All Eyes on Rafah" called for global attention to the humanitarian crisis following the Tel al-Sultan attack? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/29/world/middleeast/all-eyes-on-rafah.html
  • ALT3: ... that the Tel al-Sultan attack was the deadliest incident of the Rafah offensive? Source: https://www.axios.com/2024/05/27/rafah-tent-camp-strike-biden-israel-red-line

Full review needed. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the 2017 Vocaloid song "Dune" composed by Kenshi Yonezu has a music video that was viewed over one million times over the span of less than a week on the Japanese video-sharing site NicoNico?

• ALT1: ... that the 2017 Vocaloid song "Dune" written by Kenshi Yonezu for Hatsune Miku's 10th anniversary features lyrics about the demise of life? Source: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2017/10/31/music/kenshi-yonezu-hopes-fireworks-new-album-bootleg/
• ALT2: ... that the 2017 Vocaloid song "Dune" worked by Kenshi Yonezu is much slower compared to many other Vocaloid songs, at only 95 BPM? Source: https://natalie.mu/music/pp/hachi_ryo/page/3
• ALT3: ... that the 2017 Vocaloid song "Dune" by Kenshi Yonezu describes what he considers the "desert-like atmosphere" that existed in Nico Nico at the time? Source: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/culture/2017/10/31/music/kenshi-yonezu-hopes-fireworks-new-album-bootleg/
• ALT4: ... that the 2017 Vocaloid song "Dune" worked by Kenshi Yonezu is much slower compared to many other Vocaloid songs, at only 95 BPM instead of the usual 180 BPM or 200 BPM? Source: https://natalie.mu/music/pp/hachi_ryo/page/3
• ALT5: ... that the 2017 song "Dune" worked by Kenshi Yonezu was performed by the sound synthesis software Vocaloid, but yet he himself has performed the song? Source: https://natalie.mu/music/news/241732
• Reviewed:

ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 09:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Hook is interesting and true,

I made a small copy edit but beyond that the content is fine, earwig has less then 10% overlap. QPQ not need congrats on your first DYK! Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant: Thanks! But it seems the DYK template not working well? ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 18:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokisaki Kurumi, OlifanofmrTennant, and Crisco 1492: Pulled per WT:DYK on WP:DYKFICTION grounds; as neither ALT0 or ALT2 meet WP:DYKINT (something's going to be slowest and there's no way that it's unusual for a music video to score that many views), new hook needed.--Launchballer 15:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure I agree with DYKFICTION in this instance, as it specifies that this was for her tenth anniversary, but alright.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: Well, I really didn't realize that 1 million wasn't that noteworthy, so how about something similar to "its music video was the fastest original Vocaloid music video to reach a million views on Niconico at the time"? Or something related to the fact that the author has a personal feeling about Niconico, such as "feeling the desert-like atmosphere of Niconico and it's so much different from before, so he composed this song"? (Note these hooks are not polished yet) ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 19:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added ALT3 and ALT4 (With the ALT2 mod, I think the BPM is actually an interesting point, since other music tends to have 180BPM to 200BPM then) according to the community reponses. @DYK admins: I'm not familiar with the DYK process, can I trouble one of you to help review it (both content and process)? ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 18:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: for comment. TSventon (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The speed hooks rely on knowing what BPM is. The problem with running a hook about the song's subject matter is that he could conceivably have written it about anything, which I would argue goes against the spirit of WP:DYKFICTION.--Launchballer 13:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other hook? ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 15:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What other hook? I've assessed ALTs 2, 3, and 4.--Launchballer 15:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I thought those texts following were commenting on BPM. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 17:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: I thought about it for a while, and then I did come up with another rather interesting (at least to me) hook again. Please check! ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 10:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DYKINT, hooks need to be "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest in the topic". What ALT5 ultimately boils down to is 'guy sings own song', which is uneventful.--Launchballer 15:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This was pulled from prep by Launchballer, but not retranscluded nor the initial tick superseded, so I'm doing both of those things. Where does this nomination stand at the moment? BlueMoonset (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a new hook.--Launchballer 02:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Venus at Kobe

• ... that on the ship Eastern Venus (pictured), the "Modern" suite is not in modern style?

• • Reviewed:

UserMemer (chat) Tribs 21:03, 3 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• A fairly interesting and well-written article that is both new and long enough. However, I have serious reservations about its sourcing. photoguide.jp or scheepvaartwest.be or cruisewonderland.tiyogami don't strike me as the most reliable, and this article is wholly dependent on such sources. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the aforementioned self-published sources and found better citations; all unsupported claims were removed. In addition, I removed "Castles of the Seas" as it is obviously self-published too. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 22:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingoflettuce: Please address the above.--Launchballer 02:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late response! It looks better, although a lot of the material still hinges on primary sources like VesselFinder. Apart from Cruise Industry News, do we have more reliable "third-party" coverage? At the same time, I'm not sure how picky one ought to be with cruise-related articles, so I think I could pass this if there really isn't anything else. Best, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 10:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that a squirrel once helped its owner's OnlyFans account make $800,000 in a month? Source: https://telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2024/11/07/pnut-squirrel-became-harbinger-donald-trump-return/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Moses da Rieti
  • Comment: Drive-by nom, this was way too good a hook to pass up. I'll clean this up in the morning.

Launchballer 22:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Note to the reviewer: the article is currently on the Recent deaths section of ITN, but as the disqualification only applies to bolded links in blurbs and not to RD entries, the article remains eligible for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1... that the death of a squirrel named Peanut was a Republican rallying cry in the last days before the 2024 United States presidential election? Source: Washington Post Thriley (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar! "a" squirrel Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2... that Peanut the squirrel was taken from his home by New York State and euthanized soon after? Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: Oh, that squirrel... I followed this when it was at ITN and in the pre-election hullaballoo. Article is new enough and long enough. Hook facts are all cited and interesting, though my preference is for ALT0. Earwig flags a fair bit, but they seem to be properly attributed quotes. Good to go.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd appreciate it if the alt1 hook runs. Far more consequential than making money for the owner. It was the hook I was going to use as the article creator before this drive by nomination was made. Thriley (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's me being tired of American politics, but going with a politics-related angle feels cheap at this point. It's like all those previous hooks about COVID: just because a hook is about COVID or US politics does not automatically make it interesting, especially when there's oversaturation both on and off-Wikipedia. Endorsing ALT0 instead as more likely to get readership interest, especially to those not interested in politics. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Due to concerns raised at WT:DYK, the nomination has been pulled for now. Consensus is leaning against ALT1 (the promoted hook); however, a concern has been raised that ALT0 (the hook consensus was leaning in favor of) may not be accurate or supported, and thus may need revision. The discussion did not discuss ALT2. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I changed the Express Tribune and New York Post with the Telegraph and misread it. The sentence now ends with just the Express Tribune. Should be supported now.--Launchballer 23:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ignoring a citation to an in-depth article from a reliable source and instead using a four paragraph summary of a NYPost article from a random Pakistani newspaper which doesn't actually reflect the source just for the sake of a DYK hook is what editors should be doing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed WP:RSN for "Express Tribune" and saw nothing of concern nor any indication in the article it came from the New York Post, but I've put the Telegraph back. Hmm, "helped steer viewers to its owner's OnlyFans account", cited to Vanity Fair...--Launchballer 16:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I've been out of it the last few days. ALT3: ... that a squirrel helped steer viewers to its owner's OnlyFans account?--Launchballer 15:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that sports teacher Harold Styan of Clifton House School was a gymnast who played the music halls when young, and knocked out two attackers in his old age? (155 characters)

• ALT1: ... that gym teacher Harold Styan of Clifton House School was awarded the Order of the British Empire for services to youth, but as an old man he knocked out two lads who attacked him? (180 characters) Source: The London Gazette and as ALT0
• Reviewed: Bunt sind schon die Wälder and Helen Chaman Lall
• Comment: Clifton House School was moved to mainspace by me on 4 November 2024. Harold Styan was moved to mainspace on my behalf by admin Keith D on 18 November 2024, because my pagemover rights did not permit me to override a redirect page.

Storye book (talk) 11:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• I'm not yet sure if I will give this a full review, so I'll just leave this as a comment for now. Although the angle provided meets DYKINT, I have reservations if it meets the guidelines. For one, both hooks may need a trimming (it might be better to focus on the "two attackers were knocked out" angle alone without mentioning the gymnast or music hall clauses). More importantly, I'm not sure if the hooks as currently written meet WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE, specifically the part about avoiding writing hooks where the bolded article is only tangentially related to the main hook fact (the hooks seem to be more about Styan than the school itself). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT0 is 155 characters. According to the link you provided about trimming, it is ideal length.
• ALT1 is 180 characters. Being 180 characters is not a trimming issue by itself.
• Styan was a big part of that school, as can be seen in the article. There is plenty of material about him in the article, because he was a big presence there. If our readers click on the bold link, they will read more about Styan there than anywhere else online. Therefore he is relevant to the hook.
• Meanwhile I'll go and find an extra hook or two, anyway. Storye book (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• ALT2: ... Clifton House School formed a scout pack which received an award from Lord Baden Powell for "best pack the United Kingdom"? Source: Neesam, Malcolm (26 February 1999). "Lord Baden Powell on the Stray". Harrogate Advertiser and Weekly List of the Visitors. p. 7 col.4. Retrieved 30 October 2024 – via British Newspaper Archive. "Lord Baden Powell was in Harrogate for the special purpose of presenting Peter's Pole to the Clifton House School Pack, which had won the award of best pack in the United Kingdom, an exceptional commendation".
• ALT0a: ... that sports teacher Harold Styan of Clifton House School played the music halls when young, and knocked out two attackers in his old age? Source as above
• ALT0b: ... that Clifton House School's sports teacher Harold Styan played the music halls when young, and knocked out two attackers in his old age? Source as above Storye book (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One issue is that, while not an official rule or guidelines, it is usually discouraged to mention people without articles by name in hooks. I'm not sure how strict that practice is, but it's been brought up many times in the past. In any case, it might be necessary to remove Styan's name from the hooks. As for the trimming part, the wording I had was something like "... that a Clifton House School sports teacher knocked out two attackers in his old age?", which is more straightforward. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your suggestion is appropriate, because this was an expensive private school, and Styan had the Order of the British Empire for his youth work. In other words, he was a hero and teacher, not a gangster. The hooks that I gave suggest that he was a complicated and interesting character, but your hook suggests that he might be just some kind of felon or that he ultimately developed dementia. If there is no specific rule against using his name, then I don't see why we should remove it. However I shall look at that section of the article and see whether there is enough there to make Styan into a separate article, then the hooks will have his name in lights, and this nom will be a double nom. Storye book (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I am separating the two articles, but it will take a day or two. Thank you for your patience. Please note that the Harold Styan link is currently a redirect to Clifton House School. I shall correct that when I publish his article. Storye book (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a rule that's formally codified and thus not in the guidelines, but I remember it being discouraged before. I think Theleekycauldron might know about it. In any case, if the hook becomes a double nom then that particular issue becomes moot. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:DYKG#C1 theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are referring to, Leeky, but the redirect is temporary on this page as explained above, and not intended for publication on the Main Page. I have nearly finished Styan's own page, and hope to publish today or tomorrow (when the redirect will resolve to a direct link). Thank you for your patience. Storye book (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me! :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Harold Styan now has his own article, so his name is now bolded in the hooks. Admin, please could we now have this as a double nom? BlueMoonset? Mandarax? Maile66? Thank you. (I shall shortly provide a QPQ for the Harold Styan article Update: second review done. See "reviewed" section above).Storye book (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second article has been integrated into the nomination template. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:14, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Mandarax! Storye book (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Both articles are now ready for review. Storye book (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the members of an alleged conspiracy to overthrow Saladin and restore the Fatimid Caliphate are said to have made common cause with the Crusaders and the Assassins?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Piri Reis

Constantine ✍ 19:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment: Not a review but the hook can be made better. Doesn't seem appealing enough but there's an underlying interest. All the best! _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 18:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Please address the above.--Launchballer 01:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer and Aafi: what am I supposed to address? If there is any specific criticism or suggestion for improvement, I'll gladly consider it, but 'can be made better' or 'not appealing enough' is little to go on. The fact that Muslims would make common cause with the Crusaders, or with a sect known as 'Assassins' of all things, is IMO plenty interesting, especially compared to many other hooks I have encountered in DYK in the past. Constantine ✍ 17:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as I said in my comment (not a review) but I do agree that the latter part "are said to have made common cause with the Crusaders and the Assassins?" is pretty much interesting. The initial part didn't appeal to me and I dropped a comment. Up to you or a reviewer, to work on this. This wasn't a serious review but a simple suggestions that this could be worked upon. _Regards, Aafi ^(talk) 17:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aafi for clarifying. How about ALT1 ... that the members of an abortive conspiracy to restore the Fatimid Caliphate are said to have asked the Order of Assassins for assistance in eliminating Saladin? Constantine ✍ 10:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Full review needed now that alt hook has been suggested. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that Oasis has been described as a "haunted" version of Minecraft? Source:[2]
  • ALT1: ... that Oasis, a clone of Minecraft, runs using no code? Source:[3]
  • ALT2: ... that Oasis, a clone of Minecraft, is run entirely using artificial intelligence? Source:[4]
  • ALT3: ... that an AI-generated Minecraft clone has been described as an early glimpse at the future of video games? Source:[5]
  • Reviewed:

Loytra (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment The disambiguation is incorrect - if this is considered a video game, then per WP:NCVGDAB it should be (2024 video game) instead (since there is already a 2005 video game of the same name). That said, I am not sure I would consider it a video game, given that it does not work according to anything but dream logic, and is more of a vague approximation of a game. Therefore, (simulation) or (AI simulation) could be a better disambiguation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's not clear exactly what Oasis is, then why would the disambiguation be considered incorrect? The software is most notable for being a clone of Minecraft, surely that should be mentioned in the title for clarity sake? Hell, half the time it's referred to as "AI Minecraft" rather than its actual name. Loytra (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is incorrect because "Minecraft clone" is overly specific and therefore goes against disambiguation guidelines. It is like using (black dog with long fur and floppy ears) instead of (dog). It must be made more broad, whether by calling it "video game" or "simulation". Furthermore, calling it a "clone" may in fact be incorrect. It is literally Minecraft, as played by interpreting the game through an AI, whereas "clone" is typically used to describe games that are similar to, but not identical to another. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of the sources referenced in the article describe it as a "version of Minecraft" or simply "AI-generated Minecraft". It really isn't commonly referred to as "Oasis"; I don't think most people would recognise the software if it was under the title "Oasis (2024 video game)" or "Oasis (simulation)". Imo it has to have "Minecraft" in the title. I know naming conventions are pretty strict but I'd almost argue that this is an WP:IAR situation. Loytra (talk) 11:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can confidently say it's not an IAR situation. After looking at the sources more, I am convinced that (AI model) is the best DAB for this as it is first and foremost a model that can be "played" using a game interface. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't think arguing over the title should block this from DYK. Only truly egregiously wrong titles would cause that kind of problem, and the current title is clearly not that bad - as noted, the COMMONNAME is something like "AI Minecraft". (And I don't think the case is as open-and-shut as Zxc thinks it is, either.) Zxc, you should file a WP:RM and see what the community thinks IMO. SnowFire (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Its now time to keep discussion in this template related to DYK reviews and any discussion about the name of this article, should take place via an RM and any discussion about improving this article should take place at the relevant talk page. Article titles are outside the scope of a DYK review. side note: sounds like I'm a forum moderator at this point JuniperChill (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A reviewer is needed for this nomination. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - Forbes Sites is not a reliable source per past consensus; Decrypt Media seems a bit borderline, but regardless of reliability the link needs to not be directly to the CEO's article. Backdash seems to be a how-to website, so also in need of replacement. 80 Level seems to be a clickbait outlet for a jobs hiring platform.
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - See above on sourcing.

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - Forbes Sites cannot be used for the citation. ALT2 (sourced to BoingBoing) is acceptable.
• Interesting:

Overall: Sourcing needs serious work. Once resolved, ALT2 should be good to go. SounderBruce 02:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You pinged me on my talk page @SounderBruce: but this is not my nomination, I just created the article. I can take over the nomination if you'd like @Loytra: but that'd be up to you. Johnson524 03:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't notice the separate byline here. SounderBruce 03:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Since the concerns were sourcing based and not hook based, I figured it'd be fine do finish them. Good catch on Forbes, it has been removed from the article. As an added bonus, while finding alternative sourcing for Forbes in the article, I stumbled across a few instances of copyediting-gone-wrong, where the correct sources citing some sentences were accidently removed and replaced with the wrong citation. Those instances have been corrected as well! The Decrypt Media link has been fixed, and some of the wording on the about page for 80 Level did seem pretty concerning, hinting at little editorial oversight, and has likewise been removed. I am a little hesitant to remove the Backdash source though, as it appears to be a website dedicated publishing gaming articles, does not claim to be a blog, and has credited authors. I really don't see what the issue is. Do you think this DYK can pass now? Cheers! Johnson524 04:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for clarification, has the title issue been resolved yet? It's not a DYK issue but it would be nice to get some clarity before it runs on the main page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sourcing concerns still remain; it seems that some new ones were added. Maginative seems to not be suitable as a reliable source, while Cybernews has editorial standards and could pass for the non-controversial statements it is being used for. SounderBruce 02:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was asking if there's been clarity regarding what the article's title should be. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Oh sorry for the late reply, I completely forgot to respond earlier 😅 Since nobody has raised concerns over the article's title recently, I believe the current title is suitable, also because while they are officially unrelated, the common name for Oasis by most sources covering it refer to it as 'AI Minecraft', 'Minecraft clone', or something along those lines. Because of this, I believe 'Minecraft' should stay in the title in some capacity, but please let me what you think! Also, @SounderBruce: the Maginative source has been removed, an editor other than myself added that recently. Can this nomination be passed now? Cheers! Johnson524 18:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Backdash is still a potentially unreliable source and I do think it needs to be replaced. SounderBruce 02:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said earlier in the discussion that a little hesitant to remove the Backdash source though, as it appears to be a website dedicated publishing gaming articles, does not claim to be a blog, and has credited authors. I really don't see what the issue is. Can it be kept? Cheers! Johnson524 21:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the Japanese band Gohobi describes themselves as having a tofu mentality? Source: [6] ("「自信がなくて何が悪い 男女混声豆腐メンタル五人組」")
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Ivan Ivan (ice hockey)
  • Comment: Up to the reviewer if there should be quotes around "tofu mentality".

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• @Narutolovehinata5:, Thanks for the article. This is a suggestion: could you expand the article slightly to give some idea of what it means to have a "tofu mentality"? For those of us who won't be able to read the original sources if we click through, the current Wikipedia article gives no explanation of the hook. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the sources regarding the band only use "tofu mentality" without further elaboration (other than it was a term they gave to themselves), so I can't really add more to the article without doing original research. Technically, in Japanese, the term "tofu mentality" means something similar to what English speakers would call a "snowflake", although the article uses a literal translation of "豆腐メンタル" rather than the translated version (which is probably still accurate since the literal meaning is correct in Japanese). The full explanation about what the term means would probably not work for the band's article since it would delve into original research or even WP:COAT, but that's the explanation for context. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

jp:豆腐メンタル maps to Snowflake (slang), so maybe a piped link to Snowflake (slang) in the hook would suffice?

have created redirect for tofu mentality, and updating hook below -Bogger (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT0A... that the Japanese band Gohobi describes themselves as having a tofu mentality? (same source) -Bogger (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the link would distract from the main article and divert clicks, so linking in the hook might not be a good idea. Should be fine for the article, though. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"tofu mentality" ..? -Bogger (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned in the original nomination comment that I'd leave it to the reviewer if "tofu mentality" should have quotes or not since I wasn't sure if they were necessary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is organized into centers descended from ones created in 1980, except for two founded in 1914 and in 1899?
  Sources: [7] [8] [9] [10]

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Muntañola Cvetković
  • Comment: Since NIOSH is part of CDC, I have a COI and I request an experienced editor to check the article.

John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Not a review, but the hook as currently written doesn't seem to be very interesting. At the very least it doesn't seem to meet WP:DYKINT. Can different hooks be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@John P. Sadowski (NIOSH): Pinging for a response. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT1: ... that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was just one center until 1980?
  Source: [11]
  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J. F. Reichardt

• ... that the melody for the song "Bunt sind schon die Wälder" (Colourful are the forests already) that Johann Friedrich Reichardt (pictured) created in 1799 has remained popular? Source: [12]
  • Reviewed: David Hilchen

Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• I shall review this. Storye book (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall: Thank you for this interesting article. I would like to hear this one. A few comments:

• Earwig finds only quotations and proper names. No problem there.
• The hook citation (above) for ALT0 was not in the article, so I added it there. I also gave the article a very minor copyedit. That does not affect this DYK review.
• One issue: The citation given above for ALT0 does not confirm popularity. Popularity is mentioned in the name of the website, but not in the main text of the website. Also, the website name says (if I understand correctly) "popular and traditional lieder", so according to that, this piece could be in traditional style (which does not imply popularity). So I think we need to EITHER find another citation OR another hook. Storye book (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Storye book: Not really a fan of the proposed hook, since the context given does not seem to make it clear why it is important that it has remained popular, and the context of it remaining popular is not clear (what is intended by "remained popular"?). I was going to suggest a hook involving Schubert, but the meaning of "different setting" is not clear: does it mean he wrote another melody to the song, or that Reichardt's melody was later re-used by Schubert? If it's the latter then perhaps that could work as a hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wording I had in mind was something like "... that the melody of "Bunt sind schon die Wälder" (Colourful are the forests already) by Johann Friedrich Reichardt (pictured) was later used by Franz Schubert?", but I'm not sure if that was the intended context of the "Schubert wrote a different setting" part. That suggestion could probably still be worked on, I just threw it out here for brainstorming purposes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - both - for thinking. I am open to rewording. Grammar: in German, "und" says that something is both, both traditional and popular", - if it was only one, German would use "oder". As you will have seen, there were multiple melodies, before and after, but this is the one in most publications, recorded, sung. Take Hannes Wader, a singer-songwriter himself: singing that old melody. (yt at the bottom) - Schubert wrote a different setting (= different melody + different piano), which didn't become popular, - note that only one of the uses mentioned has his version, - it remained for art singers and higher school education. What word would you choose instead of "popular" for: is the one that people know and sing? Schubert is really only a side note here, his setting didn't get popular in any sense, it's not Erlkönig. I didn't know he wrote a melody, but now he wrote 700 (as DYK once informed us). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help to add that it was recorded among the "80 most popular Volkslieder" [13]. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The new reference given by Gerda Arendt is satisfactory, and it explains the meaning of popularity in the article's context. Gerda, could you please give us an ALT1, and put the new sentence and citation in the article? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Storye bookYou mean a sentence about that collection? (In another nom, someone mentioned "promotional". Anyway, ref added, which supports "remained popular. Will search for more. As a little gift: a children's tv version ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added two more indications of popularity, a 2011 poll and a 2017 collection. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT0a: ... that the Volkslied "Bunt sind schon die Wälder" (Colourful are the forests already) has remained popular with the 1799 melody by Johann Friedrich Reichardt (pictured)?

to avoid the impression that only the melody remained popular. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Gerda. The citation is now in the article, and I approve ALT0a, with image. Storye book (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pulling this per this discussion. Jlwoodwa raised concerns that the hook was hard to understand. In addition, the hook at best probably borderline meets WP:DYKINT. Some possible alternative suggestions:

• ALT1 ... that "Bunt sind schon die Wälder" placed second in a 2011 poll by MDR on the most beautiful Volkslied?
• ALT1a ... that "Bunt sind schon die Wälder" placed second in a 2011 poll by MDR on the most beautiful German folk song?

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for ALT 1 or 1a, subject to Gerda Arendt's approval. Storye book (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that I wrote so misleading. Not true. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: As far as I can see, you have not written anything misleading or untrue. Please explain? Thanks.

Regarding the word, "popular", in the discussion someone appeared confused by the word, presumably because they lived in a world so narrow that they did not know that "popular music" is a subsidiary meaning of "popular", which has for hundreds of years just meant that a lot of people liked something. Storye book (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The poll had 20 suggestions without Herbstlied. IT was No. 2 of the additional ones. - Please word for me. A song with a 1799 tune is still popular. The song hast a longish title in German, which I thought was good to translate. The title could mean anything, so we have to say what it is if you ask me. As you will not have noticed the hook is a bit quirky because with a composed melody it's not what you'd expect a Volkslied to be. Why would we not credit the composer who won over Schubert in popularity? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2 ... that the folk-style melody for "Bunt sind schon die Wälder" was composed long ago by Johann Friedrich Reichardt (pictured) and it is still liked by many?

ALT1b .... that radio listeners voted "Bunt sind schon die Wälder" second in their suggested list of the most beautiful German folk songs? (See Gerda's comment above, regarding this one). Storye book (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third party required to approve ALT2 and/or ALT1b only. Storye book (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think ALT1b would get us into trouble with ERRORS because it's more No. 22, and tough to explain with the 20 from the station. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think ALT2 as currently written is going to work out. It's rather vague and basically says "did you know that this song written long ago is still popular?", which actually isn't all that uncommon. It would be like a hook saying "that the folk song "Yankee Doodle" from the 1700s remains popular?" I still think something about the poll would be the best option here, although if that really can't work out then either a completely different angle be suggested here, or the nomination be rejected for lack of a hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I really don't think that slamming down the hopes of a nomination which bores you (and bores you alone, so far) is a constructive way to contribute. If this subject matter bores you, go and contribute to a nomination about your own favourite music, sport or whatever, and leave us to work productively on this one. Thank you.

Controversy about which tune is the "right" one for a favourite set of verses can be a powerful force, and can cause concerts to be spoiled or cancelled. For example, in the UK (and possibly Europe, I don't know), a favoured tune for Psalm 23 is Crimond. There are many competing tunes for it, including Brother James' Air, which allows more fancy choral settings. However, when some people (including me) hear that tune used instead of Crimond, they become very angry. There is nothing wrong with Brother James' Air, but Crimond is loved for sentimental reasons. I can assure you that the subject matter of ALT 2 is far from boring. Storye book (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT3 ... that the melody for "Bunt sind schon die Wälder", composed by Johann Friedrich Reichardt (pictured), is still preferred by many, even though the famous Franz Schubert wrote a tune for it? (176 characters)

Third party approval still required for ALT2 and/or ALT3. Storye book (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could go with some variation of ALT3 (we probably need to reject ALT2 however due to WP:DYKINT reasons). However, the issue with ALT3 is that it is not directly stated in the article or the source (there is nothing in the article that directly says that people prefer Recihardt's version, just that it exists and is popular while one by Schubert exists). If that could be addressed, ALT3 would be a suitable option.

As for the "bores me" aspect, for what it's worth, Gerda's nominations and hooks have long had a reputation among several DYK regulars (not just me) for failing to meet the interestingness criterion, so it's not just me who has raised concerns. Other editors such as 4meter4 and CurryTime7-24 (incidentally both also classical music experts) have also raised concerns about her nominations and hooks in the past. While one could argue that DYKINT is by its nature a subjective criterion, the fact that Gerda's reputation exists, along with how the current wording of DYKINT was a direct response to one of her nominations, can't be discounted. For what it's worth, I have no issue with classical music as a topic itself and there have been plenty of acceptable hooks about the field from Gerda and other editors like 4meter4 and CurryTime among others. The issue has usually been the hooks themselves, not the field. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Are there any citations available, to support ALT3? Or is there any content in the existing citations, which could be added to the article in support of ALT3? Storye book (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Broadly speaking, classical music is that European vocal and orchestral music composed mostly in the 17th and 18th centuries, the name being reflective of that era's interest in the classical arts, such as Palladian architecture. Classical music tends to be emotionally controlled, with certain formal rules. Then you get transitional composers such as Beethoven who take the mickey out of classical music and play with more emotional stuff. Full-blown 19th-century orchestral music, and music for trained singers at that time in Europe, is called Romantic music, partly because it breaks with the previous century's emotional control. So we are not dealing here on this nom with classical music. It is music from the Romantic era. The confusion arises from today's usage of the word, "classical", where it has come to mean "not pop music". That is to say, when used in that way, the word has little real meaning. Storye book (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Packing for return trip. Will be about a day. Hate editing mobile. - Sorry, Schubert takes us too far away. The 2 melodies don't compare. Schubert's is an art song, with no chance to become popular. The composer of such a successful thing deserves mentioning by name, imho. - After edit conflict: indeed, Not classical, but POPULAR. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt, Storye book, and Narutolovehinata5: What is the status of this nomination?--Launchballer 02:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could use a reviewer who sees that it is noteworthy that this particular old song is still popular (while most others from the time arens't) and that it is due to a specific person's melody. Or first a person to word a better hook for that fact? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ps: the concerns were archived: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 203#Bunt sind schon die Wälder (nom). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would rather recuse from commenting on this nomination further; however, I've struck ALT2 due to the vagueness I mentioned above. My final comment is that my concern about ALT3 being unsupported remains unresolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: As I understand it, the review of the article itself has been completed as a green tick, and has not been challenged. However the hooks are still under discussion. We need a third party reviewer to review the remaining hooks (as I write, ALT3 is the only remaining hook, although the struck hooks could be unstruck if considered interesting). Also, those who contributed to the article need to check that ALT3 is properly supported by citations in the article, then tell us whether we should keep, rewrite or strike ALT3. Storye book (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see where ALT3 is in the article. Also, where is your reference for the sentence beginning "The first"?--Launchballer 15:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded the sentence beginning "The first", and provided a citation.

ALT4 ... that the melody for the song "Bunt sind schon die Wälder" (Colourful are the forests already) that Johann Friedrich Reichardt (pictured) created is the one commonly used today? Storye book (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see where ALT4 is in the article and you could probably say it about every song ever written.--Launchballer 21:58, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: The sentence in the article which represents the hook is " The melody that became popular was composed in 1799 by Johann Friedrich Reichardt".^[1] Re your comment "you could probably say it about every song ever written.", the original point of the hook was that one would have expected the Schubert setting to have been the popular one because Schubert is famous (and a jolly good composer), but in fact the Reichardt setting has been more commonly used. If you want that fact put back in the hook, that would be very helpful. Storye book (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]