Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

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

Queue 4 (18 July 00:00)

[edit]

Meg White (nom)

[edit]

First of all, I'm always wary of lines in articles which say is considered - generally a statement like this should be attributed per WP:INTEXT, unless the fact in question is cited as being so widely "considered" true that qualification is unnecessary. But if that's the case, why not just say it directly in WP:WIKIVOICE? And secondly, leading on from this, where is this fact cited? The line in the article giving this fact is referenced by [1], which names her as one of the "best punk drummers of the 2000s" (qualified by the assertion that quite a few people might disagree with that choice). But it doesn't explicitly say she's considered a key figure in a 2000s garage-rock revival. Other cites mentioned at the nom page include [2] and [3]... the latter does say "Meg’s minimalist, heartbeat-like drumming became a signature of the early-’00s garage-rock revival" which is the closest we've come to the hook fact. If that's the true cite, it should be next to the hook fact in the article. But in any case, it's hard to know if this is one or two people's opinion or a widely held view. Pinging @Watagwaan, Aneirinn, Lajmmoore, TarnishedPath, Launchballer, DimensionalFusion, and JuniperChill:  — Amakuru (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I saw 'I'd promote' and thought I'd already checked it. My bad.--Launchballer 22:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Considered may not be as strong as saying "Meg White (pictured) is a key figure in the 2000s garage rock revival?" which, we could always reword it as that. It is indeed a widely held view for her contributions as a member of the band the White Stripes, along with Jack White. If you look at both Meg's article and the White Stripes article, there are several citations which support the both of them as being key members (not necessarily considered, because then that leaves room for doubt). Another reason it is so is because Meg was one of the most talked about drummers of the 2000s, and recently, of this decade. Her minimalistic style sparked a HUGE discussion that still goes on even today! As for strictly the 2000s, it can be supported by media of the time (which I tried to add in Meg's article) and her inclusion on a number of listings of the best drummers, such as Rolling Stone, NME, and Consequence. The band itself is often credited with the Strokes and the Hives in numerous articles. Watagwaan (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Watagwaan, have you added all of that to the article? TarnishedPathtalk 06:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given concerns and how this is two sets away from running, I've pulled the hook for now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:27, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I am open to further discussion and other ideas for hooks. There are a few others we could make from the article, such as @Narutolovehinata5's earlier idea on the topic of her not being seen in public since 2009. Being in a retirement for 16 years and not being seen in public media since then is fairly impressive — some articles even refer to her as if she's a missing person, which is kind of cool. Watagwaan (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything involving Meg, yes! Watagwaan (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, Lajmmoore left a message on my talk page that she will be unavailable for a while, so I am requesting here a new reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:38, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

[edit]

Chelsea Wolfe (BMX cyclist) (nom)

[edit]

If we were to run this hook, it’ll be dragged to Errors as boring. And that’s not for a lack of something potentially interesting. For example, DYK that the UCI ended Wolfe's BMX career through a rule change? Schwede66 19:02, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is much more interesting -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ArtemisiaGentileschiFan and Jolielover, could you please comment? Schwede66 18:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure. jolielover♥talk 18:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this change. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use then any other of the approved ones instead? Or are they boring too? NeoGaze (talk) 16:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No other hooks were approved NeoGaze. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I approved three hooks when I reviwed them; ALT2, ALT3 and ALT5. You can check the nomination to confirm what I'm saying. NeoGaze (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NeoGaze, both other hooks had already been found to have problems: the first was "unworth the odure" even for the person who wrote it (c.f. the bit on CTOPs at DYKCRIT) and the second was uninteresting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough I suppose, but then wouln't have been better to send it back to the nomination page and point the issues? NeoGaze (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTBURO: six editors approved the hook here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Me (lyme & cybelle song) (nom)

[edit]

@JuniperChill and VirreFriberg: I'm pretty sure the link "lyme & cybelle's " that goes to Warren Zevon#Early life should actually go to Warren Zevon#Early years. --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Will also edit the redirect page. JuniperChill (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: You're correct, of course. A small mistake by me. VirreFriberg (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's great that everyone is fine with that, but the link on Template:Did you know/Queue/2 is still wrong. I can't edit it. An administrator presumably is required. --GRuban (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm pretty sure it shouldn't go anywhere, given that the hook already links to Zevon's article.--Launchballer 16:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Mop needed, aisle 2. --GRuban (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

[edit]

Verona Marjanović (nom)

[edit]

I always enjoy to see a Lugnuts stub being expanded. Thanks, Arconning. I read the bio because I was not sure what the hook was trying to convey. Maybe the hook is not a problem, even if I was left confused. The article is a problem, though. It’s a biography, and there is zero information what this person has done since 1998. That’s an incomplete article or a work in progress; I would not have signed off on it. Schwede66 18:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • She doesn't appear to have competed in another Olympics, and indeed I can't find anything else out about her at all - maybe there will be more in Bosnian sources. I suspect she would have been hardly notable at all had it not been for the war taking place while she was competing in 1994 and the coverage that generated. Having said that, there are very many sports bios where coverage ends after the subject retires from the sport and does not continue in another notable role. After all, very little could be sourced in those cases. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there’s always something that could be said. Did she finish her degree? Where does she work? Which country does she live in? Has she got a family? Is she still connected to the sport? Did her parents and siblings survive the war? Yes, you need sources, and with some effort, you may uncover some of it. And it may well require finding a native speaker who can look for Bosnian sources. Schwede66 19:04, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd be surprised. Check out David_Batty#Personal_life for a Premier League and England footballer; our coverage of his 21 years of post-retirement life consist of a single charity match 15 years ago and some rather silly speculation. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not surprised at all. Many sports bios suffer from this problem. And if that problem is present, I wonder whether it disqualifies an article from DYK. Schwede66 10:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not ideal, is it? There is the additional issue that she could have married and changed her name since 1998, as well. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look myself and couldn't find anything about her later life. She has a few passing mentions in Bosnian sources discussing the nation's performance at the 1994 Olympics, but as far as I can tell none describe what happened to her afterwards. I don't think it should be disqualifying. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame that nobody picked up on my confusion about the hook wording. It did come up at Errors and has now been attended to. Schwede66 23:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Baker Park

[edit]
  • ... that Robert Baker Park in Baltimore was named after Robert Lewis Baker, whose personal garden was recreated at the city's Flower and Garden Show the year after his death?

@842U, Gerda Arendt, and SonOfYoutubers: this checks out in terms of verifiability, but what it says about the park's namesake isn't very interesting, and weirdly isn't connected to the park at all. Indeed, the section "Robert Lewis Baker" composes half the article, and is surely too much detail for the article on the park; I'd honestly suggest spinning it out into a new article Robert Lewis Baker. But to return to the hook: could we have one that focuses on the article subject? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 (and courtesy ping @Gerda Arendt and @842U) I think something focusing on the Federal transportation initiatives could be interesting. I'm not very familiar with the subject, so I don't know how a hook around this would work, but that's the only other "more interesting" thing I see on the article. As for creating a new article, I have no clue if he is notable enough to be able to create a new article, but that's up to the creator to determine if they can add more information; I simply verified that there were no issues and promoted. Looking now though, there's a few issues with the sources. For example, citation 3 and 4 are duplicated, as they are the exact same source. I think a failed link of sorts occurred in citation 18. I believe this is all the issues, everything else looks fine. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I remember now why I stopped contributing to DYK; the rules constantly change making it difficult to predict the outcome, the scrutiny seems more and more restrictive -- and at least for this editor, it just isn't fun. After all this work, I'm done with DYK. 842U (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rule about the hook needing to be primarily about the bolded link rather than the bolded subject only being tangentially linked has always been a rule though. Looking at the article, I would agree that the section about Baker should be split off into its own article: I wouldn't call it a coat rack case exactly, but the section is developed enough that it could stand on its own. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:46, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But admittedly, what is my direct connection to the park, is another's tangential. This is a perfect example of what bugs me about the attitude at DYK; the "guardians" of DYK have made this all extremely... tangential. 842U (talk)
The solution is to simply create a separate article for Park, and other than perhaps making the article too short for DYK (I have not checked if this will be the case), I don't get the opposition against such a split. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have split a separate article out for Park; the first article is not too short for DYK. The formerly proposed hook could run for the biography, and a new hook could be found for the park itself; if you can to suggest a new hook for the park article, I can do the necessary bureuacracy User:842U. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about a double nom, with both subjects bold? To diminish bureaucracy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would work too. Might just IAR that; if 842U can do a QPQ, that would be great. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: can't IAR it, but if an admin can change the hook to something like "... that the personal garden of Robert Lewis Baker, who Baltimore's Robert Baker Park was named after, was recreated at the city's Flower and Garden Show the year after his death?" and add the credit   Robert Lewis Baker – 842U (give) (tag) – View nom subpage, that would be great. I'll do a QPQ later, unless someone else wants to donate one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the hook could stay as it is, just bolding the person, for even more clarity and less bureaucracy:
... that Robert Baker Park in Baltimore was named after Robert Lewis Baker, whose personal garden was recreated at the city's Flower and Garden Show the year after his death? - perhaps add "in the park" or "there" after "Show". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gerda. The interest level is fine, the double is a hook in itself and it's important to respect the wishes of the nominator. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:44, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One point: if Robert Lewis Baker is to be a bolded link, the article must be given a full DYK review. Otherwise, it will have to be a non-bold link. The Baker article clearly states that part of Baker's garden was recreated for the garden/flower show, not the whole thing as implied in both of the above hooks. Either "partially recreated" or "recreated in part" would need to replace "recreated" in both hooks if either is to be used. I don't recommend adding with "in the park" or "there" as Gerda suggests as a "perhaps", since there is nothing in either article to indicate that the flower and garden show was held in the Robert Baker Park rather than another (unspecified) location in the city. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It has been posted on the main page without a link of any kind for Robert Lewis Baker, which seems silly. Give me a moment and I'll do a review so that it can be bolded too. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:23, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed Boating Party. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A qpq is fine, but how can Robert Lewis Baker be reviewed when the nom for the park is closed, and there is none for him. Should that be created, or can we IAR and do a review right here, or in the closed nom which is not protected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt @AirshipJungleman29: Isn't all the text copied from the park article that Gerda already reviewed? I looked it over and had no concerns, so I went ahead and made a bold link. —Kusma (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I didn't know if long enough, and good enough sources for being notable (had no time to look again), but trust you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the Robert Lewis Baker article. It was mostly fine, including an Earwig check. I expanded the lead and made sure that the park was mentioned. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5

[edit]

Always fun to do this, especially when the set has some very strong hooks! I did bump two back on DYKINT grounds:

  • ... that Ahmed Hamada was part of the first Bahraini Olympic team and later became the first Bahraini gold medalist at the Asian Games?
  • ... that the British indie rock band Girl Ray named themselves after the surrealist visual artist Man Ray? (repromoted by Airship)

As always, no objection to anyone else promoting or stamping them, just not something I'm going to sign off on. [Lately I've been mentally testing and workshopping hooks by imagining telling the hook or something similar out loud to a casually interested observer, like a friend or family member. doesn't map perfectly on every case, but it's a helpful visual!] I'll start reviewing the remaining hooks throughout the day. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:55, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

avery r. young (nom)

[edit]

@Miraclepine and Guerreroast: Hook checks out, but I'm iffy on the the citations to poetry foundation. I know they publish an edited magazine, but how are poetryfoundation.org/poets biographies written, and are they fact-checked or even edited? It's not clear to me that those get the same amount of scrutiny, I can't tell where they come from. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:46, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Guerreroast, I'll note that the article wasn't created on June 19 and nominated on June 21, it was moved into mainspace on June 21 and nominated just outside of 7 days on June 28. Miraclepine, a few hours isn't a big deal, but do try to hit within the seven-day limit if you can :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:56, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Well, the organization does have an editorial team (not just for the magazine). And I've been doing some QPQs a few days in advance to make up for potential delays caused by RL commitments. ミラP@Miraclepine 13:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, but without bylines or a clear editorial policy, it's not clear whether the editorial team vets the blurbs or who writes them. I'm going to make a post at RSN, and in the meantime, I think I'm going to bump this back a few sets. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:34, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: FWIW the discussion says that for living poets, the info comes from the poets themselves and may be at the least reliable for basic biographical info. I usually treat it like I do a faculty bio for a professor. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:21, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd tend to agree with that – working off WP:ABOUTSELF, I'd cut the last sentence of the poetry section as non-basic biographical information, but other than that, think it's good :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:23, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Done. ミラP@Miraclepine 19:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
restored to the last open spot in Q5 – thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Franklin (song) (nom)

[edit]

Everything checks out here, but I wanted to say – TarnishedPath, are you sure you don't want to save this to use the alternate hook for April Fools? It looks like a solid suggestion to me, but it's your call. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron, the nominator stated that they included ALT1 for the potential of April Fools. I personally don't find that hook as interesting. What I would find more interesting for April fools is a slight modification of ALT0 ... that Ben Franklin was inspired by an internet meme?
I'll leave it to your judgment. TarnishedPathtalk 08:10, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me! Leafy46? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:17, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, that hook is much better for April Fools' than the one I've created lol. I'm happy to roll with it, even if it's a little bit of a stretch. Leafy46 (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(For the record, "named after" would be a bit more accurate than "inspired by", though it may lose some of its charm that way) Leafy46 (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ps, the hook currently in the que has "Internet" upercased and I'm not sure that it should be. While the "Internet" is a proper noun, "internet meme" is not. TarnishedPathtalk 08:18, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
put back into the April Fool's queue with a lowercase 'i', so, resolved! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Tengatenga (nom)

[edit]

@Dclemens1971 and Arconning: Covering a controversy is hard, and I think this is close enough to accurate that I'm not quickfailing this nom, not by a long shot. But this does miss the mark in a few key ways, and I'm leaning very strongly towards pulling this because rectifying those issues might take more than a few days and should ideally come with input from others and a new reviewer.

  • The article doesn't mention that Tengatenga personally opposed Robinson's nomination. (For those playing along at home, Tengatenga is an African bishop and V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, was nominated and confirmed to be a consecrated bishop in Los Angeles. The controversy came when Tengatenga was nominated for a lead ministerial post at Dartmouth College.)
  • The article doesn't mention that Tengatenga never retracted his opposition to Robinson's nomination. All it says is that his views have "evolved" (which is too closely paraphrased from the source), but to the extent they have, it's basically only his views on gay rights and institutional discrimination. His detractors point out that he pretty carefully avoided stating his actual thoughts on gay people (which you might argue the public is not entitled to, but the sources don't entirely agree).
  • The article cites an op-ed by Randall Balmer, a bishop publicly aligned with Tengatenga, for a very challengeable assertion of fact.
  • More fundamentally, the article pretty much only gives airtime to Tengatenga's defenders, and while the sources do seem to tilt that way, they do quote people inside the college opposed to Tengatenga leading the Tucker Foundation as well and this article pretty much doesn't.

So, yeah, I think this needs more work before it's ready for the Main Page, but overall the article is still well-written and I think that should happen back at DYKN with a new reviewer supervising. (Even if you did manage to fix all of those issues tomorrow, I'd still want a new reviewer to take a look.) Let me know if there's anything else I should consider, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:40, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, alrighty then. Arconning (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
okay, pulled for further discussion, see nompage :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claude-Charles Bourgonnier (nom)

[edit]

@Kimikel, Surtsicna, and JuniperChill: bumping this one out because I don't think museum collections or auction houses do super-rigorous fact-checking? I know they're basic biographical details but it'd be nice to get them in a more solid RS. (Also, the hook would need some hedging, because it's a bulletin of the society that banned him, not an impartial source.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the skepticism regarding auction houses (Christie's, though?), but I would be surprised if museum collections were not reliable. What hedging would you propose? Which part might the society have misrepresented, the barring, the tearing, or the displaying? Surtsicna (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do museum collections and auction houses have editorial control and fact-checking? I have no idea what the Society may or may not have represented in a 100-year-old stub in a foreign language, but we should it attribute the fact in the hook and article to them because they have a pretty clear conflict of interest. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:55, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don Elliot Heald (nom)

[edit]
  • ... that Don Elliot Heald's voice was heard on an estimated 12 million phone calls a day in 1971?

@Sammi Brie, Miraclepine, and Darth Stabro: I don't want to force anyone to do anything in under a day – happy to bump it back if changes can't be made before showtime – but I'm not comfortable with just the word 'estimated' when the estimate is from the company that operated the phone service. Is there a way to reword the hook that makes that connection a bit more apparent? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron we can link to Audichron: Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 09:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let's go with that and thanks! ミラP@Miraclepine 19:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron It seems the issue with this hook was resolved, but it was forgotten to be readded back to the prep area, which recently was promoted to queue 3 (soon to be queue 2), so I think it should probably be added back now. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SonOfYoutubers: mm, i think you forgot to check in one place :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron Whoops, I didn't even notice it was already fast tracked into today's (just now yesterday's) DYK, sorry for the ping! SonOfYoutubers (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing comments on nom

[edit]

I couldn't seem to see why the comments are appearing on the talk page, but not the nom page. JuniperChill (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because they were added to the talk page rather than the nomination; I moved them and called for a competent reviewer. Also, I did wonder what "Not for EU" was about, so thanks for bringing this here.--Launchballer 15:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that was why. And guessed I accidentally taught readers what the label meant, which is what DYK is for. JuniperChill (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admin edits to hook

[edit]

'The admin moving the hooks to the live template may edit or reject any hook at their discretion.'

Including by making them POV? Seems like a bad idea. 78.154.14.90 (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about?--Launchballer 08:02, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usual nonsense about Chelsea Wolfe (see above). Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing word in hook in P5

[edit]

"... that the Coronation Street Christmas Day episode was only 30 minutes long as opposed to its usual 1 hour Christmas episodes?"

Should add "2023". Otherwise, it sounds like that was the show's only Christmas Day episode ever, something at odds with the last part of the hook.

And make it "one-hour" per MOS and it being a modifier used this way. Daniel Case (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 22:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've just boldly swapped the hook with ALT0 as I think the original hook was stronger and that ALT1 is just slightly more specialist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is multi-hook length exemption still in effect?

[edit]
Resolved
C3 (multi-hook length): A hook introducing more than one article is an exception to the hook length rule: subtract from the overall count the bolded characters for each additional new article beyond the first. If the result is 200 or less, the hook length is probably acceptable. Otherwise the hook may still be acceptable (on a case-by-case basis) if it is reasonably compact and readable.[C 3]

This is the old version of the supplementary rules. Is it still in effect, and is it documented anywhere? Asking for Template:Did you know nominations/How to Cook in Palestine. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to look this up haha (nominator). It apparently is as it is still in WP:DYK200. What puts the hook above character limit, however, are the two ndashes, 6 characters each. The counter does not know what to make of them. Surtsicna (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An unusual offer, do you know who the most interesting woman is?

[edit]

Did You Know that Edinburgh's "forgotten heroines", Eliza Wigham, Jane Smeal, Priscilla Bright McLaren, and Elizabeth Pease, were associated with the Edinburgh Ladies' Emancipation Society (logo pictured)? Ten years ago Wikimania was in Mexico and @Rosiestep: and I (who had met at DYK) decided to launch a project to address the gender-gap on Wikipedia. The project was a much bigger success that we imagined and it became known as Women in Red. The project was launched with a hybrid talk and a feature DYK hook (above) on the main page. As part of the ten year celebration (and achieving 20% women!!) we will be giving a talk in Nairobi at the Wikiwomen event on 5th August. Women in Red has created a list of the "100 most interesting women"... and we have a good list of 99 or so with Eliza Wigham as No.1. It occurred to me that it would be cool to again have a feature DYK about a leading woman at DYK and this woman could be number 100. But its much too late to create and nominate a feature hook by August 5th, however there may be someone who already has an article/DYK hook in development. Ideally we need the article to have a photo and not be an American or a Brit ((or a bloke! but otherwise we are trying for diversity), an African woman would be ideal. If you think that you might help then do have a go. Maybe drop a note on the Women in Red talk page Victuallers (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps somebody could get Eve up to GA status? I know we don't in general like "first" hooks, but this would be a good one. RoySmith (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Current nominations that could be viable include: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We ran a set full of women and women-related hooks for International Women's Day in March (Wikipedia:Recent additions/2025/March#8 March 2025), perhaps we could do something like that again for the 5th?--Launchballer 16:42, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are some great contenders here and Eve would be strangely apt. I'm so pleased that this has caught someone's attention. Thank you. I'll leave it to you guys to decide which it is going to be... if it turns out to be more than one then it will be no different to the first DYK where Eliza Wigham was accompanied by her mates. Victuallers (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been bold and I've put a comment on the DYK noms that @AirshipJungleman29: identified. Maybe we might find one or two who are willing to help celebrate Women in Red at the Wikiwomen event in Nairobi. Thanks for your attention. Victuallers (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Victuallers, thanks for the heads up! I'm honored to have my DYK nominated here, and I offer my support for the project. I'll be attending Nairobi so feel free to hmu for assistance, or writing new articles for additional hooks. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for considering Alaíde! I don’t know that she’s the most suitable of the candidates on that list, mostly because I don’t think there are any PD/CC pictures of her (and she’s not African), but she is certainly an interesting woman. Just let me know if she’s still what you’re looking for, I guess? Spookyaki (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also might not hurt to check out current GA noms that could be reviewed then nominated. I think my nom of Elvia Carrillo Puerto might be a better candidate than Foppa, for example, because she does have a PD picture. Other possible candidates could include Jimena Fernández de la Vega or Shreen Abdul Saroor. Spookyaki (talk) 11:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This week I nominated Erna Meyer and four of her projects: Stuttgart kitchen, Munich kitchen, The New Household, and How to Cook in Palestine. Surtsicna (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ms Meyer is more than welcome! and Jeromi's offer.. yes please! Our ten year old DYK quoted above started as a simple nomination and then over a few days extra articles were added to the original nomination. I'm so please the idea is being taken up. Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was pinged here, I think it'd be neat to have my nomination (Enriqueta Duarte) featured on August 5, although there are definitely other good candidates. Probably the most "interesting" woman I have written about is Mirsada Burić, though that was already featured at DYK not too long ago. (DYK...that runner Mirsada Burić survived a concentration camp, an attempted rape, and snipers' bullets before she competed at the 1992 Olympics?) BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer, she is certainly a great candidate. Mirsada Burić is also very interesting but sadly lack of a free photo prevents her from being a visible woman. I'm not sure of the procedure but I think you need to move your offered hook to the special event area at the bottom of the DYK hook list mentioning 5 August. @Surtsicna: @Spookyaki: @Jeromi Mikhael: If we have more than one offer (and it looks as if we will :-) ) then I will let the person creating the DYK set for that day decide who goes where. I will choose one for our 100 interesting women list. Thank you to all. Roger aka Victuallers (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

interesting?

[edit]

Queue 6 for Sunday:

  • ... that operatic tenor Klaus König, who performed for more than 30 years, also worked as a painter?

-- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan of the new hook working, not because it is uninteresting, but because it removed "house" from "house painter". Saying he was just a "painter" is vague since readers might assume he was an artist rather than a house decorator. Pinging AirshipJungleman29, who trimmed the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. Will readd. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility, given the discussion at AirshipJungleman29's talk page, could be to instead go with a variant of ALT4f, which at least mentions that König was an important tenor during his life.
... that opera singer Klaus König, once described as one of the most important tenors of his generation, also worked as a house painter and decorator?
Any mentioning of specific roles like Tannhauser was explicitly rejected in the nomination, so that is not an option. The main issue is that this hook is a lot longer than the current one, so it may be better to leave it to consensus on what wording to use. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with that, although I'm not sure where the "and decorator" keeps coming from. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's apparently the full title of the job. Even the article is at "house painter and decorator", as seen in the above link. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, because it's illegal to call yourself a house painter, or have the sources describe you as a house painter or even a painter: if a Wikipedia article is titled "house painter and decorator" then everything else must fall in line. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We've been running lots of hooks of the form "Before/after doing the thing they were famous for, Person X also did something else that was mundane":
  • that Chad McCharles, before becoming a bishop, moonlighted as a school bus driver?
  • that Jim Lankas retired from professional boxing and wrestling to enter farming?
  • that after playing just one game, Michael Basinger retired from the NFL and became a country music performer?
I think that whole style of hook is uninteresting and we should stop running those. RoySmith (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:26, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I don't necessarily see that as an issue. In many cases, they are genuinely the most interesting thing or at least the most hook-worthy thing that can be said about a person. It's more the contrast that is unusual, not simply that they did something "mundane". Maybe I'm personally biased as several of my own hooks follow this format, but I actually think that all of the examples you mentioned are interesting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep areas needing moving

[edit]

@DYK admins: Just 2 queues filled currently, waited a little bit to see if anyone would update but none so far, so I'm pinging to let yall know. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DYK admins: Sorry for the ping yet again, but there is still just 3 queues filled while almost every prep area is full. The approved nominations are also beginning to stack but there's no space. Can someone please fill it up a little more? Thank you. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6

[edit]

Bésame (Alejandro Sanz and Shakira song)

[edit]

... that Alejandro Sanz and Shakira promoted their song "Bésame" with kisses, sparking rumors of romance and jealousy?

not sure about the sourcing now that I take a second look; anyone else feel it looks a little tabloid-y and comes close to WP:NOTGOSSIP? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that hook uses those buzzwords uncomfortably vaguely for something that's meant for the main page. Departure– (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bumped. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Curtesy ping @1arch, @Surtsicna, @Sammi Brie and @Femke. TarnishedPathtalk 06:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could see an angle about the promotional kiss causing Sanz's girlfriend to unfollow him. It does get into BLP territory though. While most of the sources are probably generally reliable for news (Milenio, Infobae, El Economista), I'm unsure about their track record in celebrity news. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not interesting?

[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Julia Hagen or who rules about what our readers may see and what not? I watch that topics get excluded from DYK, and it feels like censoring. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yah no, the "non-interesting" as a fad is getting stupid beyond belief. The use of INT in that nomination was whole outside of the scope of what INT as a rule means. A situation that has been called out before. DYK:INT needs to go, as its being hyper-abused in a scope it never was intended and way past even gross rules creep.--Kevmin § 16:00, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it’s way too complicated for an average reader to understand (I have no idea what’s special about the hook) but I’m not sure if DYKINT applies. EF5 16:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A hook being too complicated for an average reader to understand is a textbook definition of a DYKINT fail. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the shorter alternatives, EF5? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The background to the present DYK:INT issues is the international rise of populism, and that in turn primarily promotes the interests of the lowest common denominator. Populism has been lowering the standard of teaching in schools since the mid-20th century in my country, when selective education (such as grammar schools) was replaced by a misplaced ideal of "equality". In the new enormous comprehensive schools with huge class sizes and few teachers, the interests of struggling kids was of necessity prioritised, and the potential of bright kids had to fall by the wayside. I was there and I was obliged to watch it happen. I cannot speak for other countries, but a quick glance at current world politics tells us a lot about populism in certain countries which have the strongest influence on en.wikipedia. But poor education does not make people unintelligent or uncurious. Intelligent people work things out for themselves, and they relish a challenge. If you only ever give them hooks aimed at people with childlike minds, and block them from chancing on a new article about e.g. opera, all those WP readers who are trying to teach themselves more than their school taught them will switch off. Storye book (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no anti-opera bias on DYK. We run articles on opera regularly just fine, and in fact there is one on the main page right now. If the two main goals are the same, which are to advertise opera performers and music on DYK, and to encourage readers to click on the article, then what is the difference to you between "Klaus König played Tannhauser" and "Klaus König was a house decorator"? If the latter hook gets more people to read about König and learn about how accomplished and successful his career was, is it still not mission accomplished even if his hook did not mention Tannhauser? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:05, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but "opera guy did opera" is not an interesting hook. And definitely not the thing to use to try to interest people in learning more about opera. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I accidentally archived this while browsing on my phone. Gerda, I thought the hook for Klaus König turned out quite good. Do you think there is merit in changing your approach? Viriditas (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
König is a thread above. (I ignored the hook today. I'll add it to the archives of projects opera and Germany tomorrow.) We talk here about Julia Hagen, and the rejection of the nom - an original hook and four ALTs - by one person, before I could even request a different reviewer. I am interested in how others feel about this. I have explained my stance here for some years, - that's really less interesting ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, perhaps if you explain your position for the 500th time, you will find consensus. :-) Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, to respond to the above: there are no rules against running opera/classical music hooks on DYK, so there is no censorship going on. Many articles on the field have run on DYK just fine, including König. The issue was simply this: if a hook does not give a good reason for readers to want to click a bolded link and learn more, they won't. For example, a hook about a violinist that readers have never heard about before, that is about them playing a song they have also never heard of before, is unlikely to attract readers, and experience has shown that this is indeed the case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a happy medium. The trick is in driving people to your article by getting them interested in learning something new and unusual. I'm not very good at it, but I'm trying to learn. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much. For example, a hook about an opera performer that instead focuses on their side job as a licensed physician, as opposed to a hook about them playing a certain role at a prominent opera house, still accomplishes the same mission: getting people to read about them and learn about their career and accomplishments. A hook about Max Mustermann playing Siegfried at Bayreuth might not encourage readers as much a hook about Mustermann being a surgeon in addition to his opera career. However, the latter will surely make more people know about his accomplishment playing Siegfried than the former, plus encourage more readers to read his article and learn more about his career. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are perfectly illustrating what I mean by "censoring": tolerate the person's name but propose to omit what concerns their main interest. I just had an opera singer on ITN; 25k+ views. Don't tell me that readers are not interested in opera singers. The next one is on now, David Rendall. May I remind you of this being a thread about a cellist, and not discussing hooks as much as a rejection of five hooks by a single person. You can move the opera reflection to the König thread, perhaps. Today is Bach's day of death, and I remember on my user page by a collection of hooks (mostly) about his works, from the past of course. You can inspect them and see how I like to write hooks: something essential to the subject, with some indication of place and time. Example in my story. The last work is "peace". - I have work to do regarding his works, with a FAC open. I'll look here again tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that people are not interested in opera singers or classical music. Interest is not the same as familiarity. The point here is that a hook about a subject does not always need to be about their main claim to fame. It just has to highlight something unusual or eye-catching about a person. The point is the same regardless if the subject is an opera singer or a cellist, or whatever their field is. It's the reason why, when DYK ran a hook about Winston Churchill, it focused on his little-known love for bricklaying. He may be the most famous British prime minister of all time, but his hook did not need to be about his political career. Same with Prince William, whose hook was about a funny anecdote about his education as opposed to his role as King Charles's heir. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"You are perfectly illustrating what I mean by "censoring": tolerate the person's name but propose to omit what concerns their main interest. I just had an opera singer on ITN; 25k+ views. Don't tell me that readers are not interested in opera singers."
So, just to clarify, you're perfectly happy with a link to the person's name and a complete omission of their main interest at ITN so readers have no idea what they clicked on, but at DYK that's censorship? Or perhaps do you believe that the 25k+ people who clicked on the link knew and were interested in Ms Uria-Monzon, but would somehow forget who she was if she was mentioned (with slightly more context) at DYK? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case there were 10k views before the article was even mentioned at ITN. Recent deaths tend to cause externally driven traffic. Generally I find it interesting how well OTD or ITN items do compared with DYK -- in this example, the first blue and green spikes are DYK, the later spikes are OTD. I think that DYK hooks often serve to prevent people from clicking on an article, because the hook already tells them everything (or gives them a strong hint that they will not be interested in the topic). —Kusma (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6

[edit]

@SonOfYoutubers: Aside from the fact that quote marks shouldn't be bolded anyway, I explicitly requested running Michelle Pfeiffer (Ethel Cain song) as an WP:DYKAPRIL hook, where the quote marks could be ignored. I also suggested above keeping that set clear for women-related hooks (Ctrl+F for 'set full'), although this might be a different prep are given that we're at six queues.--Launchballer 23:49, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not see any mention of april fools on the page, that's my bad. I put the quotes in bold because it gave an error when it was not in bold. I'll pull the hook. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer Adding ping SonOfYoutubers (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the April Fools' Day request was not explicitly approved in the nomination, so there is not necessarily an issue with the hook being promoted "prematurely". I also do not think that it must run on AFD at all, it works just fine as a regular quirky. If it gets promoted "early", it is not an issue at all. We as DYK editors need to be more flexible and be open to our requests not being granted. We can't always have our way. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1953–1954 royal tour of New Zealand

[edit]

In this DYK nomination I have been asked to expand the article for WP:DYKCOMPLETE sake and another user has asked me to expand it but says that it is not because of DYKCOMPLETE. I don't believe there is a problem with completeness for it to appear on Did you know. The article has over 2,000 words according to DYK check. It feels more like a good article review to me than a did you know review. I do not want to expand it any further because I've got other things to do. Input from others would be appreciated. ―Panamitsu (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 3. We have a total of 301 nominations, of which 134 have been approved, a gap of 167 nominations that has increased by 6 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than three months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

After constantly scrolling past at least a dozen or so hooks in the approved nominations page that are Olympics-related, I'm wondering if maybe there could be an entire prep area/queue that is only composed of Olympics-related hooks? I have no clue if that's possible, which is why I'm asking, because there seems to be a huge spike in Olympics hooks, and it would take a while to clear them because I can only ever add one Olympics hook to a prep area, skip another area, and then add another, and so on. It would take weeks to clear all the hooks, unnecessarily extending their length before inclusion on the main page. If it's not possible, would it at least be possible to include at least 2 or 3 Olympics-related hooks per prep areas until the backlog of these hooks has been reduced? Thank you! SonOfYoutubers (talk) 18:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seems to be that themed sets are generally disliked. Even the themed set for Queen Elizabeth's death had haters. WP:DYKVAR would allow two Olympic hooks per set, but then there really shouldn't be any other sport-related hooks probably. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 18:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good then. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was 2026 or 2028 and the Olympics were going on, then yes we could have have at least one full Olympic set. As Darth Stabro has said, full themed sets outside of holidays are generally unpopular, so having one is not necessarily a feasible or realistic solution. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the olympic hooks are firsts and I've been scrolling past a lot of them. TarnishedPathtalk 01:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was brought up with the nominator before, and it would probably be a good idea to move away from those "first" or superlative hooks given the issues with them. Granted, unlike other "first" hooks, most of them are relatively straightforward to prove, so it isn't as big of an issue as other superlative claims, but still. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the first hooks are ok, when they include other interesting details but hooks of the sort '... A person was the first person to represent B country in C at the olympics' is overdone to the point of banality. TarnishedPathtalk 06:32, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath @Narutolovehinata5 I definitely agree that there's way too many (currently) "first person of country" hooks, I think they should definitely be restricted temporarily for now. Perhaps you guys can go notify nominations about this, so they may create new hooks as soon as possible. SonOfYoutubers (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the Olympic hooks were by Arconning; I've left them a message inviting them to this discussion. I've also pulled Ahmed Hamada owing to concerns about it being a "first" hook, as well as interest concerns raised by Theleekycauldron. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, shall change the hooks once I'm pinged in the nominations. I'm incredibly busy irl so I'll get to them as soon as I can. Arconning (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1303142348"