Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines

clarification?

At Rules_for_evaluating_other_people's_hooks_and_articles we forbid reviewing a nom you're involved with, and while we don't say it, in practice the people setting preps avoid moving a nom they either nominated or reviewed to a prep. I stopped setting preps once I started moving preps to queues because I didn't think I should be moving to queue a prep set I'd chosen most of the hooks for, but now I'm wondering if I also should be avoiding moving to queue any prep set that includes an article I either created/expanded/took to GA/reviewed for GA/nominated for DYK/reviewed for DYK. Because I've just moved a prep to Queue 1 that includes a hook for an article I reviewed for GA, and I've at least a couple of times before moved to queue a set that included a hook I nominated or reviewed. --valereee (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Can a reviewer intervene?

I was wondering if, as a reviewer, I can edit a nominated article that I'm currently reviewing if the nominator has difficulties fixing some minor issues. I see @Valereee: addressed this in the previous entry, does this apply even for edits to address language issues? ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 07:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Elie plus, yes, it's fine for you to edit an article you're reviewing! I'm sorry, I must have missed your ping last year! :D A better place to ask questions is at WT:DYK, it has a ton more traffic. (You can see that my query above from almost two years ago was never responded to.) —valereee (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing requirements (D2) for worked examples

The rule for having at least one inline citation per paragraph excludes some material which can be thought of as self-sourcing: the lead or other paragraphs that summarize later sourced content, and plot summaries of works of fiction. What about worked examples, in an article about a method for calculating some value? According to WP:CALC, such material does not count as original research, as long as it is sufficiently "obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources". But it is not one of the exceptions listed under D2. And copying an example from a source, in order to have an example that can be sourced, might be seen as too much close paraphrasing to be acceptable. If an article has an unsourced worked example as a standalone paragraph or subsection, is it disqualified from DYK?

I don't have such an article that is eligible currently but I hope to have one soon (a GA nominee), so it would be helpful to have an answer to this before I need to nominate it. The worked example in the article I have in mind was added at the explicit request of a GA reviewer, and is not unusual for articles on similar topics, so I don't think it's reasonable to invoke WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and require its removal. If this issue prevents DYK then it is an example of the GA and DYK processes coming into conflict with each other. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I would be fine adding "routine calculations" to the list of exceptions under D2; it seems in the appropriate spirit. XOR'easter (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

+1 —valereee (talk) 11:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• Is it Fib No? EEng 00:14, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  Fib? No. Too much unsourced material there to be ready for GA. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  Well, um, Dr. No, do you want me to keep guessing, or can you just put me out of my misery? EEng 04:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, I thought it would be easy enough to find by looking at what is under review at WP:GAN. It's bucket queue. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  And (at the risk of questioning the obvious) is the example you're concerned about the one in the ===Example=== section? EEng 08:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

  Why, yes! —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

• It's fine to add CALC to the D2 exceptions, but I don't think CALC is applicable to an example of this complexity, even with CALC's provision that Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation, particularly for articles on mathematics or in the hard sciences. I think it's preferable to use an example from a source and do what you can to jigger the presentation in deference to copyright. (There might not be much you can do to the presentation, but if there's not much that can be done along those lines, there's not much that can be done -- is there a math equivalent of scènes à faire?) EEng 12:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think the existing examples (from Berlekamp or Varghese) are suitable: they are intended to illustrate Dial's algorithm more than the underlying bucket queue data structure and so don't have any complication in their sequential searches: it's always just look at the next bucket, there it is. There's also an example in Edelkamp & Schroedl but it's just static (a picture of the structure with no operation). The other problem with this nomination, of course, is finding something hooky about the article that could appeal to a general audience. Maybe we'll just have to give it up as a case of DYK sometimes being unable to highlight new GA content, and of even reaching GA not being sufficient to be highlighted in DYK. It's too bad, because I think this is an important structure that all programmers should know, and deserves more publicity. But all programmers ≠ all Wikipedia front-page readers. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

    Hmmm. It seems to me this must be a problem with a lot of algorithms, in that you do run into one whose sources only point you in the right direction without providing a complete example suitable for stealing. EEng 01:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

D7 anchor

@Theleekycauldron: The parenthetical anchor for D7 says "main point", which doesn't seem to fit. Was that a mistake (possibly duplicated from C12)? I feel like it should read something like "complete". I'd change it myself but I'm not sure how these anchors work; don't want to break something. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

ah, yep! fixed :) thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

J5

I've just made a BOLD edit to J5 in an attempt to clarify the rule. It formerly read:

J5 (us maximum, biography maximum): Because of the disproportionate number of US-related hooks and biography hooks, it is usually appropriate to have roughly 50% of hooks in a given update on both US and biography topics, but no more than half. That is to say, in an eight-hook update you should have roughly four hooks per update on US topics, and four on biography. These are not mutually exclusive, for example if you have two US bio hooks that would count as both two US hooks and two bio hooks. Note that "roughly 50%" means just that – this is not an absolute; you can have less of either if there are not many currently available such hooks to choose from on the Suggestions page. Note however that as a general rule you should almost never have more than 50% of hooks on US, biography or any other topic.

It now reads:

J5 (topic maximum): No topic should comprise more than 50% of the hooks in a given update. When a hook covers two or more topics it counts toward the maximum for each. For example, an eight-hook update can contain four hooks on United States topics and four on non-US biographies, but an update with four US biography hooks should not contain any other US or biography hooks.

I think this preserves the intent while clarifying the slightly convoluted language of the original, but I'm happy to discuss. A.D.Hope (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope: thanks for making the change! I think my one hang-up is that topics that rent u.s. or biography are usually limited to two hooks in a set, not four. Also, you're cordially invited to check out WT:DYK, where I've started a discussion that redrafts this page :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I didn't catch that, thanks for pointing it out! I've been BOLD again and tweaked the rule to clarify the point:

J5 (topic maximum): No topic should comprise more than two of the hooks in a given update. When a hook covers two or more topics it counts toward the maximum for each. For example, an eight-hook update can contain two hooks on fish and two on cooking, but an update with two hooks about cooking fish should not contain any other hooks related to fish or cooking.

Exception: topics related to the United States of America and biographies are permitted to comprise up to four hooks due to the volume of nominations related to these topics.

To be clear, this is just me thinking 'that rule was a bit confusing to read, I reckon I can simplify the language'. I'm not trying to change the substance of the rules in any way. I'll certainly have a look at your discussion, is it this one? A.D.Hope (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

That's great, works for me! Yes, that's the discussion :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)