User talk:Theleekycauldron/Archive/2023/January

A barnstar for you!

		The GA barnstar
		For your work on Rosa Diaz article. Nine Nine, yeah!. FrB.TG (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much, FrB.TG! One assumes Rosa is probably a wikipedia writer, too :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Claudia Meier Volk

On 1 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Claudia Meier Volk, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Minnesota legislator Claudia Meier cosponsored a bill freeing women from having to take their husbands' last names, and then took her husband's last name? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Claudia Meier Volk. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Claudia Meier Volk), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2023 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Happy New Year!
		Hi Theleekycaldron, Looking backwards, looking forwards, best wishes for the New Year. Happy wikifying! Thanks for all you do, especially DYK. It's people like you who keep this place wonderful. (Regardless of UTC, it is still January 1 where I'm posting!) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh thank you, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz! Happy new year :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the formatting tip. I had to go back to all the pages I posted greetings to and fix my message so it wouldn't cause problems for the owners. {Sigh}. This is why I just work on content! All those codes... :) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

A spitball thought

@SL93, RoySmith, and Bruxton: I think we know that the community will not want to institute any kind of reform to make it easier for promoters unless the scope of the problem begins to affect the nominators. There's any number of things they could do – nomination expiry, 2 promotions : 1 QPQ credit (1 week expiry), adding a promotion to the QPQ requirement, buffer prep sets, backlog drives, you name it – but as long as their nominations are being processed, they assume it must not really be that much of a problem.

But it is a problem. It's a problem that our heaviest hitters are all gone or burning out. It's a problem that there's a limit to how much work we can do, even when we want to. It's a problem that very few want to try, and when they do, fewer want to stay. It's a problem that the prep sets are so fragile as to lock promoters into more work than they reasonably want to handle.

"But it's a volunteer project, you don't have to do any work!" What if we said that if – by February 10 (enough time to discuss and RfC) – the community doesn't implement reforms to make prep building easier or add more prep builders, we would withhold our labour from the prep sets? Let the process grind to a halt and show how unhealthy it is that the process depends so heavily on so few people. (It would be lovely if the promoting admins also refused to promote to queue in solidarity, with the exception of the one admin who'll have to start rerunning old sets, but we're not there yet.) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggested to close the project if we can't come to a solution. So I am fine with a strike and hopefully it happening during the beginning of the Wikicup will make quite the statement. SL93 (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I must admit, the idea of a strike has occurred to me. More than once I've almost typed, "If we go back to 2-per-day, I'm going to work on something else", but keep pulling back from saying that in public. On the other hand, I know how I work. I get sucked into things and then start to feel guilty when I'm not doing more. Often the only way to break the cycle is to go cold turkey. Call it a strike. Call it civil disobedience. Call it rage quitting. Whatever. But I really hope we don't get there. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It is a time consuming enterprise. The first day I spent twelve hours of near continuous promotion. I am not sure what the solution is, but it seems like one set a day is doable. If we were at two a day I am sure it would be too much for me to keep up with. Bruxton (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@SL93, RoySmith, and Bruxton: Gotcha. I don't think we should aim to strike, but I think that we should let the community know that our continuation at the preps depends on them pulling through real solutions for us, and give them the best tools we can to do that.

What about a two-part RfC? We identify problems (too many nominations per promoter per day, too much time spent on problem noms, etc.), and solutions that pertain to that problem. The community understands all the while that the participation of its active promoter force depends on them producing real results, and not "no consensus" or symbolic closes. The nomination expiry proposal still has a real shot under the circumstances, as do a lot of other things, I think it's worth a try... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no experience with these matters- rfc and such. On topic, I can say when I woke up this am I was relieved to see two new prep builders. But I agree with the comments above it is only a temporary reprieve and it is not tenable to wish and hope someone decides to help. Bruxton (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm annoyed at the problem noms. I don't understand why we are expected to keep certain nominations open for months. I listed three nominations that I marked for closure at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#DYK approved on and after December 30 and an editor already has an issue with two of them. One of them has needed a citation in the article since November. The other one has had no action since November 28 and it has already been pulled via Errors before. SL93 (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I get that. You and Leeky have been putting your heads down and making this thing work for too long without help. Bruxton (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

i need help

my notifications bell is showing i have a notification, but when i click on it there is no new notifications. please ping me when you respond Justyouraveragelechuga ^talk 17:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Justyouraveragelechuga: I am unsure how to help you with this issue. Please check at the Wikipedia:Teahouse Bruxton (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Fuccboi (novel)

On 4 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fuccboi (novel), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Fuccbois' crew won awards, while Fuccboi's prose received both praise and criticism? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fuccbois. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fuccboi (novel)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Fuccbois

On 4 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fuccbois, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that Fuccbois' crew won awards, while Fuccboi's prose received both praise and criticism? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fuccbois. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fuccbois), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 17,154 views (714.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Measure VY

On 5 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Measure VY, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Culver City's Measure VY would have allowed 16-year-olds to vote, but it fell short by 16 votes out of over 16,000? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Measure VY. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Measure VY), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The WikiCup

Please see my comment on changing the rules and scoring in the WikiCup here. I did wonder whether somebody who is technically competent would be able to take over the running of the scoring bot. The last time I contacted Jarry1250, he commented that it was remarkable that the programme he wrote so long ago still worked! Would you be interested? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: yes, I'd be happy to help! I'll get started with the code, probably over this weekend :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Okay, so I'm thinking that GalliumBot is going to have three functions here:

1. Setting up the table from the signups sheet
2. Assessing and vetting user scores
3. Resetting the table and user subpages with every new round

Is it okay if I create some new table templates? I've got a lot of ideas for streamlining here... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I normally set up the table manually and am part way through doing this, so I wasn't anticipating you doing point 1, this year anyway, but points 2 & 3 are what the bot usually does and where your input would be most useful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: This is quite the large project – I imagine that we'll have to stick with LivingBot for at least a few rounds. My apologies :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

When I contacted you, I was not anticipating that you would write a completely new code to do the scoring, but rather that it would be useful having someone active in Wikipedia in control of the bot rather than someone who has largely stopped editing. As it happens, Jarry1250 did log in and commented on adding peer reviews, so we are OK for the time being, but in the long run, and if we want to make any significant changes to the Cup, the present position is unsustainable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Ah, well, I'm not fantastic with PHP, and I figured I'd fixed some bugs I'd noticed while I was at it :) to clarify, do you think it would be beneficial for me to continue with this, since the current mode is unsustainable? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I had to look up what PHP was. The position is that if no (or minor) changes are made to the Cup and its scoring, it will creak on. If large changes were to be made, it would not. You could liaise with Jarry and see what he thinks of your rewriting the whole script. I am not technically minded and can't do anything myself and Sturmvogel does not currently play an active role. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello Theleekycauldron/Archive/2023,

New Page Review queue December 2022

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Template:Did you know nominations/Sheesh!

theleekycauldron, I found it odd that your objections were never addressed by the subsequent reviewer or the promoter; the hook was initially promoted to Prep 4 and subsequently moved to Prep 1, which is the next one in line to be promoted to queue.

If you do feel the sourcing is an issue, you can always post to the GA review, though if you wish to do so, I'd do so soon: it looks like it's wrapping up. The reviewer may disagree with you, but you'd get another pair of eyes on the issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I think that's, like, the third or fourth time this week I've had an objection summarily overruled without comment? I'm not sure if it's just an illusion of volume, or if my comments have had trouble sticking lately. Anyways, I think the current article issues are grounds for a pull if they are not rectified. If Flibirigit and BorgQueen did their due diligence in reading the outstanding issues on the talk page, and then judged that they were not prohibitive, I'm not going to spin my wheels more than that. Thanks for the heads-up :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh I must have misread something. Sorry about that. Pulled the hook and re-opened the discussion. BorgQueen (talk) 06:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, no worries, thanks! I'll put together a thing for clarification. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Theleekycauldron!

Happy New Year!

Theleekycauldron,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy new year, @Abishe! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy new year from me as well! Looking forward to it, let's have a good one.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

International Women's Day

I was trying to get a hook ready for IWD, and to that end I started this article (still in draft). But for the life of me I do not see a hook yet. Could you look for me and see one jumps out at you? Bruxton (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Any ideas @RoySmith and SL93: or I write another article. I can trade one of my QPQs for a hook. lol Leeky is MIA ATM Bruxton (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Nothing really jumps out at me, sorry. I was working on something around being 2022 CEO of the year, but it looks like 4 different people shared that award. So she was one of four 2022 CEOs of the year? Not very hooky, I'm afraid. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton: I think I'm with RoySmith – the biography seems a little too straight forward for anything hooky to jump out. Maybe I could search around the sources, see if there's anything we can shunt in there? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. Bruxton (talk) 02:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI Leeky and @RoySmith and SL93: I may have found a hook in there, we shall see. I mean everyone's life has to have a hook right? I was just thinking that this am. Bruxton (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Love your latest Claudia!

Here's something I found from those days: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3424590 BusterD (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Why thank you, BusterD! Lovely to hear from you :) and heck yeah, another source to use! I'll peruse as soon as possible. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

There's a second page but Jstor doesn't have it and I haven't yet been able to find it via internet scholar... I'm sure source exchange could help. I did a newspapers.com search on her but she seems to have largely dropped out of public life, though she seems a tireless writer of opinion pieces. BusterD (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@BusterD: The opinion pieces are some of my favourite, I wish someone did some aggregate coverage so I could add them in. Let me know if you find anything else :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Help with Stan Polovets article

Hi. I work for Stan Polovets and the Genesis Prize. I recently put up an edit request to tweak the nationality descriptive in the lead of the article. Would greatly appreciate your help with this. Thank you AKarlin for GenesisPrize (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

PSHAW issue

When I click on Load/prep queue, the Load/prep queue button greys out and nothing happens. SL93 (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Characters played by Steve Carell has been nominated for deletion

Category:Characters played by Steve Carell has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

dyk-tools api

I got side-tracked on a bunch of random things, but finally got back to this. If you go to (for example) https://dyk-tools.toolforge.org/display?template_name=Template%3ADid+you+know+nominations%2F2022+New+Mexico+Bowl, there's a link for the API version of that page. It gives you back a JSON blob with all the data about the nomination neatly parsed. It's way too slow for production use, however. I need to figure out what's going on there. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: that is, indeed, quite slow. Is your code readable by others on toolforge? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

it's great work nonetheless, to be clear :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Click the "See what makes it work" link at the top of the page :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

PS, I just figured out how to wire up the Flask profiler, so hopefully I'll be able to figure it out. I'm assuming lots of serialization of API requests. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: oh cool! Hmm, you might be able to save a bit of time by not iterating over every image link in the page, and by not checking it twice:

def is_approved(self) -> bool:
  for image in self.page.imagelinks()[::-1]: #iterate through imagelinks backwards, since we only care about the final tick
    if image.title() in APPROVALS:
      return True
    elif image.title() in DISAPPROVALS:
      return False
  return False #unapproved by default

I doubt that's the problem. All that really matters is API calls, and as far as I can tell, all of that's done locally. In any case, I've added some caching. It needed to happen eventually anyway, so this seems like a good time. I thought pywikibot gave you page caching for free, but apparently not, or maybe I just don't have it configure right. In any case this should be a lot faster, once the cache gets warmed up. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Moral of the story: instrument your code. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

So, it turns out the slowest thing was groveling over Category:People and person infobox templates. Now that gets done once on the first access and cached. There may be some more minor tweaks possible, but it's pretty good now. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: coolio, thanks! I'll see what I can get GalliumBot to do with this API. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources

Like I said on the DYK talk page, I'm not talking about articles being based primarily on those sources. I'm talking about the ban on all uses of them on BLPs. I don't understand the confusion. SL93 (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@SL93: Well, my point was that Tamzin isn't wrong – it's not common sense to write BLPs with an overabundance of non-peer-reviewed, non-independent sources that are too opaque for us to understand whether they actually take input from the employed artists they're writing about. That's not an assumption of bad faith, because Tamzin's not accusing anyone of deliberately breaching the policy with malice of forethought. They're just saying that for someone to say "this policy doesn't apply to my set of <works for which this policy definitely applies>" is a pretty clear lapse of judgement. (I don't want to put words in their mouth, but that's how I'm reading it.)

To clarify, because I see you talking about this a bunch – it's not a blanket ban, because there's a possibility that they could be considered "published by the subject of the article" (in which case WP:BLPSELFPUB still applies), but the fact that we can't tell whether that's true or not just speaks more to the unreliability of the sources at hand as legit scholarship. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I never said it was "common sense to write BLPs with an overabundance of non-peer-reviewed, non-independent sources". Like Storye book said and I have said repeatedly, we were never referring to basing an article on those sources. SL93 (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@SL93: Storye book's argument in the inception of the discussion at Talk:Elena Manistina is that opera company listings (not her specifically, but those listings) are exempt from WP:BLPSPS because they are reliable, peer-reviewed, and objective sources. She is arguing explicitly that the Manistina article is fine in its current state because BLPSPS should not apply to the sources currently in the article. That's what Tamzin meant by "claiming to be exempt" – not that Storye book is personally exempt, which would be an assumption of bad faith, but that Storye book is erroneously arguing that her sources are more reliable than they really are. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not exactly as you and Tamzin say. Vanamonde93's new comments on the DYK talk page disagrees that it is established practice for everything with those sources on BLPs. It must not be if many such articles are created by established users, and a subset of those get through DYK repeatedly. It is an old discussion point that BLPs are only separated from non-BLPs so that Wikimedia cannot be sued for libel. SL93 (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Now Tamzin is saying on the DYK talk page is that it's only about excessive usage, which I certainly never disagreed with. SL93 (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@SL93: to explain your question about BLPSPS and BLPREMOVE, BLPREMOVE is about what needs to be removed immediately. In most cases where you see articles with poor sourcing of any kind, you're not gonna put your finger on the trigger right away – maybe the sourcing's out there somewhere. But a BLP with a contentious statement has a lot of impact in the here-and-now, and it's more important that we get it right or don't have it at all. BLPREMOVE isn't about how the article should ideally look, it's about damage control. The other guidelines on the page spell out more cautious handling for adding content, which is what BLPSPS is about. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Please stop directing me here. SL93 (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

This has been a major time-sink. The article was not polished and I think somewhat incomplete because of nominating time restrictions and an upcoming vacation. IMO it is better to collaborate to fix problems, and I hope most of them are fixed now. Bruxton (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

		The DYK Barnstar
		For all your hard work cleaning up WP:DYKSG -- RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Why thanks, RoySmith! Quite the fun dive through DYK history :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Ain't to proud to beg (a boon of thee), sweet darlin'

I've been asked to help others shepherd a new user splash screen with the Wikimedia Foundation folks. Kudpung is taking a breather and has asked us not to copy his work to date. I ask you for help. You have youth and inexperience going for you. You are 15 years newer than me... I'm old and set in my ways, a big disadvantage. You may be uniquely qualified to help us find (some genuinely new, active, and talented) users with fresh eyes. And it's always more fun if you're on the trip. Please consider putting aside a few minutes a week for this. There's a meeting this Thursday afternoon at 0100 UTC (technically Friday) if you'd like to sit in or later watch the recording. BusterD (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@BusterD: A regular old Walter Mondale am I! I'd love to help out where I can, if you'd like to keep me posted about meeting links and times :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Link to meeting info. Don't make too much fun of Mondale. I'm old enough to say I voted for him. BusterD (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@BusterD: Oh, 1am friday? Ugh... I have two classes on Thursday and one of them is the 50 minutes right over that timeslot. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

No big deal. First things first. I expect this to be a process taking several months. We don't have to make every stop together. Just as long as you're along for the ride. Thanks for offering. BusterD (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK noms

Just letting you know, I think both George Charles Hoste and William Nicholas (officer) should pass the 1500 character limit easily now. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ficaia: looks good to me! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

GalliumBot's name

Hi @Theleekycauldron, and I just wanted to say that I love the name "GalliumBot"! Gallium is my favorite element. When I saw that there was a bot called "GalliumBot", I automatically knew that this would be my favorite bot. (Sorry, ClueBot NG!) ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 03:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hah, always nice to find another gallium admirer, Helloheart! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, and a request

I've used your set-building tool a few times now, and I wanted to say thank you for creating it! It makes the tedious parts of promoting so much easier. Also, at the risk of being greedy; I would find it extremely helpful if it could also reverse the steps of promotion, that is, pull a hook. The thought of needing to do reopening, replacing, and relisting makes it substantially less likely that I'll deal with the queue when I have only a little time to spare. It's in no way a priority, of course; just letting you know it would be appreciated. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hey there, Vanamonde, I'm glad PSHAW is a help for you! Rest assured, I've been working on a way to pull a hook – a tricky endeavour at the best of times, mostly because of retransclusion. I also gotta de-kludgify all the code, it's super messy right now and that makes it difficult to add new stuff. Thanks for the suggestion! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

PSHAW - not sure what went wrong

I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Concerto Barocco using the pshaw tool and it promoted the hook, but it didn't close the nomination for some reason. SL93 (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@SL93: not a PSHAW issue, really, more of a "someone mangled the wikitext on the {{DYKsubpage}}" issue. Regardless, fixed that up for ya :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. SL93 (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

DUPrefs

Per your question, yes. I generally reference every assertion while I'm actively working because that way I can move stuff around without worrying that I've moved it without its reference or inserted information between an assertion and its source. I even think it's a positive to leave an article that still needs work that way, as it helps the next person along. If someone decides, for instance, to split the final sentence off of a paragraph and expand a new paragraph from it, unless all the sources at the end of that sentence are easily available, how do they know which sources to leave at the old paragraph and which to bring to the new one? So I just drop my sources as I go. Valereee (talk) 17:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: Gotcha, that makes sense :) feel free to restore the tags if you'd like. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Meh, for those particular ones, after pretty much exhausting what's readily available to me in online English sources, those particular paragraphs are all sourced completely to a single source, so there's no confusion at this point. I just wanted to explain that there was indeed a method to my madness. :) Valereee (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Some help

Hi @Theleekycauldron, I'm trying to improve DYK on Urdu Wikipedia and I need some help. I'm good at both languages. I am trying to setup and update ur:ویکیپیڈیا:کیا آپ جانتے ہیں؟ first before planning to move forward. What pages should I get ready on Urdu Wikipedia to make the nominations happen on talk page. Best, ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, TheAafi! Damn, that's a super interesting question... I think – at bare minimum – you're gonna want a place where nominations are made or collected and a place where sets are assembled and finalized.

Behind the scenes of DYK, a lot of bots, scripts, and templates do some of the heavy lifting necessary to make DYK. I think you'll probably want to design a system that requires as little technical knowledge as possible. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)