Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 169

< Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Latest comment: 4 years ago by The C of E in topic Love the lead hook→March On, Bahamaland
Archive 165←Archive 167Archive 168Archive 169Archive 170Archive 171→Archive 175

Original LT solutions 2/update

Latest comment: 4 years ago88 comments14 people in discussion

So far the first option, which requires an RfC, looks like it needs to be tweaked to this:

Nominators who fail to respond to a reviewer asking for a fix within 10 days should receive a talk page notification such as {{subst:DYKproblem|Article|header=yes|sig=yes}}; instruction for this should be added to the DYK notification template. Failure to respond to that notification within another 10 days is an automatic fail. Reviewers should note at the nom that they’ve posted to user talk, providing the date. Nominators may note when nominating at the nom at any time that they will not be available during certain dates, in which case the clock will not start ticking until the date they've said they'll be available again. Instructions should be updated at Finishing the review.

Please offer suggestions to flesh this out or tweak it so we can run an RfC on this. —valereee (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I would hope that nominators can note when they aren't available even later on the nomination process: if it takes a month or more for a reviewer to show up, a nominator may not be available for reasons that did not exist when the nomination was made. Perhaps "Nominators may note at any time that they will not be available"? As RfCs take a month to conclude, I'd like to point out that there is nothing stopping reviewers right now from giving nominators a set period of time to respond (and posting to their talk page accordingly), and marking nominations with the fail icon if no progress is made. Since pings from the nomination are not always reliable, the talk page post is needed. I'd like to suggest that the initial (full) review be given the talk-page notification, and a final warning be given after seven or ten days, also with another talk-page notification. Since this will be a new way of doing things, it's only fair to make clear that prompt responses are now required. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, would you revise the statement to reflect your suggestions? —valereee (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Per comments made before, I would suggest increasing the time for either or both messages from seven days to ten, to allow for more time to respond. In addition, there's also the question of how this will affect class contributions; from past experience, a proportionally high number of "nominations that failed due to nominator inactivity" were cases where the nominator was a student editor who worked as part of a class and stopped editing after the class ended. If the nominator simply stops editing as soon as the edits are done, who should be contacted: the student or the coordinator? And perhaps in such cases, maybe it would be a good idea to mention to coordinators that the students should be ready to answer feedback regarding their nominations? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, whoever was the nominator would get the notifications. I guess I don't have an objection to ten days for each. Not sure any length of time is going to help when the class is over and the student has no actual interest in editing. —valereee (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Ten days is too long and there should be no requirement for talk page notifications. With such loose parameters, the number of nominations that fall under the criteria will probably be so small as to make the requirement pointless, at least if the object is to reduce the number of nominations. It should be seven days from the last post a reviewer made on the nomination page. Reviewers should not have to chase up nominators, if they can't be bothered tracking their own nominations, why should a reviewer have to be bothered doing it for them? Gatoclass (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Gatoclass, that's a little hard on new nominators, I think. Many time I'll discover a reviewer has completed an initial review on one of my nominations and not pinged me, and I haven't noticed for several days. I don't care whether it's talk page notifications or pings, but one or the other should be tried before failing a nom, I think. I don't have a strong opinion on how many days we need to give. —valereee (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Not to mention that in many cases, nominators sometimes disappear after nominating, which tends to happen in the case of student nominations. With that said, I have encountered cases where active and regular editors simply don't reply to talk page or ping messages despite being active elsewhere. In these cases, if the nominator is simply unresponsive despite still editing, I wonder if less leeway should be given or to otherwise treat these nominations as abandoned, because from experience in these cases the nominators rarely ever return or end up responding after all. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • There's also one thing that has been forgotten about in this section: it's not too uncommon for nominated articles to be put up for GOCE copyediting, which can takes weeks or even months. In these cases, I would suggest that the countdown not start until the copyedit request is either completed or rejected, and that the nominator should be informed of any updates to said copyedits. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Other LT solutions 2

The other three options received no opposition and don't require RfC. This is the final reading of the banns:

  1. Go to 7 queues and preps.
  2. Go to 2-a-days any time we hit 120 approved nominations and stay at 2-a-days until we're under 60 approved nominations.
  3. Do 2-a-day weekends when we have more than 60 approved nominations.

—valereee (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

The final one, 2-a-days every weekend, may not be feasible if we're going through a very slow patch; it's important to have the flexibility to stay at once daily if it's getting hard to put together enough sets. I think there have been a few times when we've actually averaged under eight new noms a day for short stretches, as hard as that is to imagine just at the moment. So no objections, really, so long as we can be flexible if needed. As for the 7 queues and preps, we'll need to coordinate the switchover with Shubinator, but that won't be difficult. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, we can totally tweak that to 'Do 2-a-days every weekend whenever we're above X nominations." —valereee (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
valereee, I think for both of them it should be "X* approved nominations"; we could have 500 nominations in total, but if only (for example) 30 are approved and ready to promote, it's hard to build balanced sets. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

None of these methods will make a sufficient difference IMO. #2 might work if it was modified to say that we go to two sets per day any time we reach X number of hooks and stay at two per day until we reach Y number of hooks. If we did that, we would at least be acting before the backlog got totally out of control. But just going to two a day for a week is likely to see us only a short distance from the trigger number of nominations at the end of the week, and would put us in danger of constantly yo-yoing between one set and two sets. Gatoclass (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

You may well be right, Gatoclass, and I have my doubts about the third proposal—I do agree that once you start two-a-day per the second proposal, it's best to keep going until you get down to a certain level, whether it takes one week or three or longer. However, regardless of what we set here, we'll almost certainly be a ways off from the first implementation of either of the last two proposals, since we need to get the backlog down to normal levels before regular X and Y values come into play. As you point out, with the second proposal, we could keep on piling week after week if we're still above "X", or shift back and forth frequently, which makes planning for special occasion hooks a pain. My thoughts on the three after further reflection:
  1. We've had all six queues and preps filled more than once over the past several days, and new prep set makers and queue promoters, so going to seven of each gives us more flexibility and makes us better able to stay ahead of the game if any regulars have to be away for a bit, without making the Queues page too long and unwieldy. I'm prepared to make arrangements with Shubinator to coordinate the switchover to seven should we decide to go ahead, since bot changes are needed along with many pages and such—I've got all the tasks planned out if we decide to go ahead—but I'd like more of a consensus than has been seen thus far. The original proposal was Cas Liber's.
  2. I would prefer Gatoclass's construction of "hit X* and run until we we're down to Z*" over —valereee's "hit X* and go for a week exactly", even if the latter implies that we start up again immediately if we're still over X*. My proposal for numbers: if we hit 100 approved, we continue until we're down to 60 approved. Or it could be 120 and 60. But it we're only running for a week, it should be 100; 120's too high for that structure.
  3. The two-a-days for Saturday and Sunday is something I'm more dubious about. If we decide to give it a try, then I'd put the Y* threshold at 75. No more than 80, certainly. If we're at 75 by Thursday noon, say, then we definitely go ahead for the upcoming weekend regardless of what happens later, because we need to plan ahead with any special occasion hooks. However, simplicity argues for either proposal two or three rather than both, and two is the only one that's structurally capable of getting the approved nom numbers back low enough.
I do think we are hitting (have hit?) the stage of proposal burnout: it's been going on long enough and there's so much text that many people have stopped engaging; I'm close to that point myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I have no objection to going to seven preps and queues, as I have said, though I still think it won't make a lot of difference. With regard to where X and Y (highest and lowest number of nominations to trigger/untrigger 2 sets per day), I haven't given much thought to it and I usually think in terms of total nominations rather than approved noms. But if you want it to be on approved noms, I would have thought something like 150/80, as we can manage 150 before the noms stop transcluding and we don't want to go too low at the other end or a lack of variety can result. With regard to 2-per-day on weekends, I am not in favour, for the reason you yourself gave, which is that it would burn through too many noms in quieter times. But also, I think it would be pretty unfair to users to have some featured for the full 24 hours and others for only 12 on a week-by-week basis, and could also be open to gaming. Gatoclass (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Gatoclass, thanks for the reply. Your points on the weekend option are well taken. There are too many disadvantages to it, and since the second option is so much more useful (and I don't think we should be doing both), I'm withdrawing my support for the weekend in favor of option two. (Pinging valereee to let her know.) However, I do disagree with you on the levels. Having a backlog of 150 approvals is simply too high: that's about 19 days of approved hooks at one a day, and we shouldn't be carrying that level of backlog. Being at 120 is a 15 day backlog; 100 is 12 to 13 days...and those numbers do not include the preps and queues that are already filled, which would be up to another 12 days (14 if we add the seventh prep and queue). If you counted approved plus prep/queue filled slots, then I could see something in the 150 to 200 range. As I type this, we have 184 approved plus 88 in queues and preps, or 272 in all (17 full days worth at two a day). Also, I can't imagine having any problem filling a prep set of 8 with 60 approved noms to choose from; indeed, 60 was a luxury back when I was an active prep builder.
The thing I really like about going to two daily at a fixed number and back to one when we drop below a lower fixed number is that we don't have to ask every time the backlog grows. Because of resistance, it always takes until the Approved page stops transcluding before grudging support is given, and it makes for longer-than-necessary periods of two a day every time. If we caught it earlier, and had a defined level for starting and stopping, it happens automatically. (We can always adjust the levels later, if these first choices don't work well.) BlueMoonset (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I could probably accept 120/60, but I think 100/60 doesn't give a great enough span between the high and low points. Again, I don't want us to be yo-yoing too frequently between one set and two sets per day. Certainly, I'd want to be persuaded that 100/60 wouldn't cause that. Gatoclass (talk) 20:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Gatoclass, I'm fine with 120/60 to start with. I've just changed "100" to "120" in the proposal. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

But if you want to look at other ways to reduce the number of nominations, here are a couple of others, one of which I suggested above:

1. For any QPQ review that approves a hook which turns out to be factually incorrect, the reviewer's own nomination for which he did the QPQ is disqualified, at the discretion of the user identifying the error. This would have the added advantage of forcing QPQ reviewers to check hooks very carefully to ensure they didn't lose their own nomination because of a sloppy review.

2. Create a directorship and appoint somebody to just give the flick to, say, 50 nominations whenever the total number reaches 350, based on hook and article quality. This would have the added advantage of improving the overall quality of nominations reaching the main page. You might want to have some sort of additional oversight for the sake of fairness, for example, the director could nominate 80 nominations for others to !vote on and the 50 which received the most !votes either to delete or keep would be respectively deleted or kept. Gatoclass (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gatoclass:
Re #1 - Eh ... we have a learner class among our reviewers, and nominations are promoted more according to balancing a set than according a chronological waiting in line. What do we do if the error is only discovered after the nominator's hook is on the main page, while the flawed review is still not closed? In theory, it sounds good. But in practice, it has the possibility of creating a bottleneck.
Regarding #2, the obvious "director" to me would be @BlueMoonset:, the one who assists by making a list of the oldest nominations, and the one who seems to be more in tune of when we do - or do not - have so much backlog that we need to change the rotation schedule. But it adds more bureaucracy. — Maile (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
we have a learner class among our reviewers
Yes I know, that's part of the reason I said "at the discretion of the user identifying the error". And you'd probably want some sort of quick review process to ensure fairness. My post wasn't intended as a comprehensive description of such a system, just a posing of the basic idea.
What do we do if the error is only discovered after the nominator's hook is on the main page - Well, I actually covered that in my initial post, but deleted it for the sake of simplicity. If the nominated article had already gone through the system, you could simply ask the reviewer to nominate a nomination of his choice for disqualification. Or you could even accept a nomination of his choice from the outset, not necessarily the nomination for which the QPQ review had been done. Suffice to say that there are a number of ways to do this that would not cause any disruption to the ongoing process.
the obvious "director" to me would be @BlueMoonset: - again, my suggestion as to how one would go about creating a directorship was not intended to be definitive, there are many possible approaches. For example, we could have, say, five people elected who all nominated 20 hooks for possible deletion apiece, and then have a wider !vote on those. And so on. Gatoclass (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I think the learner class comment is really important. Unlike other Main Page projects, DYK welcomes in the less-experienced and even first-time article writer. We’re easy(er) to figure out, and there are helper tools and helpful regulars. We leave messages on talk pages when a review isn’t going smoothly. Often reviewers will help fix an article or hook, then request a new review. DYK is the entry-level introduction to peer review. We don't want to make DYK impenetrable for anyone who doesn't nominate a hook a week. Ideally we'd keep all the newbs and encourage them in their first peer review process, and ask the more prolific nominators to maybe cut down (or learn to promote preps) while we're overwhelmed. —valereee (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Asking people to check a hook for factual accuracy is hardly making DYK "impenetrable", indeed we already expect that (once somebody has five DYKs). The above suggestion simply adds a consequence for getting it wrong - or if you prefer, an incentive for getting it right. And it's not as if somebody is likely to suffer lasting psychological damage from having one of their hooks disqualified. But regardless, I did indicate that such a system would probably need some kind of quick-review appeal process to ensure fairness. Being a "noob" at DYK could be one possible consideration. Gatoclass (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Gatoclass, one of their 50 hooks? No. Their first hook? They might never come back. —valereee (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
But it wouldn't be their first hook, we don't even require a QPQ for the first five nominations. If you think people might need more time before being held to account, fine, let them have ten hooks before they can be subject to disqualification. Again, there are any number of ways to fine-tune such a system. Gatoclass (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Gatoclass, we can't be perfectionists here. The fact none of these is 'sufficient' to solve the problem doesn't mean they won't help. Totally open to nd stay at two per day until we reach Y number of hooks. The disqualifications idea to me seems extremely complicated and hard on new reviewers. I'd be willing to try a coordinator position who nominates surplus articles to be voted off the island, but not if that disproportionately favors DYK regulars instead of newbs. —valereee (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Not "extremely complicated", at all. And I've long thought that we need more accountability for reviewers, sloppy reviewing has been a perennial problem at DYK - why do we have to do quality control at all? I've actually had this idea at the back of my mind for a long time but never bothered to propose it, but since you have persisted in asking for solutions to the issue of too many nominations, I thought it's worth throwing it into the mix. Gatoclass (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I have, on occasion, disallowed a QPQ when it was inadequate, and required the nominator to provide a new, better review. This sometimes happened after tracing a problematic review back to the nomination where it was being claimed. I would be in favor of this happening more often, and while the penalty of disqualifying an otherwise perfectly good nomination due to a problematic QPQ feels harsh to me, if a nominator's QPQs come up short in this way too often, then that might be the way to go. Of course, there's the keeping track of problematic QPQs by reviewer in some central place, which gets to be a chore, but it could ultimately be a useful one. Regardless, Gatoclass's point is one I agree with: we need more accountability for reviewers.
Maile, while I appreciate the compliment in thinking I would make a good director, I have no interest at all in being a nomination hatchetman, deciding which ones get the axe because we have exceeded a certain number of noms, even with some criteria as a basis. I'm not even sure I'd want to be a part of a DYK that did that.
The third rail appears to be hook interest: some articles just don't have the ingredients to make a good hook, yet the nominations get passed anyway. Back when I was nominating, a number of articles I was involved in were never nominated because there just wasn't a sufficiently interesting fact to build a hook around, but rarely is a nomination failed on that basis. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I think one factor for that is because the "hook interest" criterion is controversial in itself and different editors have their own interpretations of it, with some favoring a looser interpretation or doing away with it altogether and others preferring to use it more strictly. There's also disagreement of what makes an "interesting" hook in the first place, and it's not uncommon for one reviewer to think a hook fails it but another to say it passes it or vice-versa. Perhaps eventually we may need to have an RfC on what to do with that criterion as several nominations have stalled due to differing views on it, but it might be for another discussion separate from this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I think we've banged out the three original suggestions into final form. Please take a look, even if you haven't so far. I mage them big above to hopefully let people know we're nearing the end of the discussion.—valereee (talk) 17:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)starting new subsection

And those 3 would be .... what? There's a lot of yadda yadda yadda above, more than one set of which is numbered. Are they the ones in bold way, way up yonder? Please list here, in as short as possible, what those three would be. Will there be DYK user consensus required, or does it all rest on the 3 of you deciding? — Maile (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

subsectioning to make it easier to see

We're doing the best we can, here. I understand that the discussion has been absurdly long and that no one can keep up. No, no one is trying to make a unilateral decision excluding others. Yes, we are now looking for some sort of DYK-talk-user consensus for the items that don't require an RfC. These are the small potentially helpful changes that those of us still plugging away have been able to more or less agree on.

  1. Go to 7 queues and preps.
  2. Go to 2-a-days any time we hit 120 approved nominations and stay at 2-a-days until we're under 60 approved nominations.
  3. Do 2-a-day weekends when we have more than 60 approved nominations.

—valereee (talk) 12:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you !! — Maile (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Sure thing! I think what we're looking for at this point is not further discussion about whether these are helpful enough or suggestions of better ideas. We're just looking for minor tweaks that would make these something people are okay with or "No, no way will I ever support anything like this." —valereee (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

7 queues and preps

The motion passes. ——Serial # 11:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


  • Support - as a simple and practical move forward. The possible flaw here, is when we go to 2-a-day, and the prep builders are trying to keep track of which will appear when on special dates. Or not ... since we have that convenient Local update times chart. Awaiting feedback here from prep builders. — Maile (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This only makes sense --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Some benefit, in terms of increasing our holding capacity; no obvious downside. Advantage of matching number of days in the week, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Practical and no flaw that I can see: prep builders should always use the Local update times chart. While I think the "matching number of days of the week" is going to be a marginal benefit—among other things, which prep goes with which day can change every time we go to two-a-day and come back out—having the extra queue and prep will reduce the frequency that we're all full up in queues or preps or both, and adding only one of each will keep the Queues page at a reasonable size without getting too long. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Note: I would not be in favor of a requirement that we assign specific queues/preps to specific days and/or require that switches from one-a-day to two-a-day (and back) be restricted to certain days in order to maintain such a system. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, why's that? One of the benefits I see is that we'd always know that during 1-a-days, Q1 is always Sunday (or Monday, depending on which we decide should be DYK's first day of the week. —valereee (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Because it ties our hands. We've had special situations where we run extra sets of hooks in a day but only for one day (the Frank Sinatra centenary, April Fools, etc.)—won't be possible without making us "off" from the day. We'd have to delay switching back to 1 or up to 2. It's also not useful: how often are we attempting to run a hook on a Monday or a Sunday without an attached date? Special requests are almost invariably for dates, not days of the week. What's the benefit here? Why is it helpful that Queue 1 is always run on a Sunday or Monday? It seems useful enough to know that Prep 1 will run a week after Queue 1. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, it probably does make it simpler. At this rate I'm despairing of ever going back to 1-a-days, though, and this minute change isn't going to do much to help in our current situation. Have you noticed how many noms came in May 10-17, the most recent completed week? It's averaging close to 30 a day. Even 3-a-days isn't enough right now. —valereee (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. And to make it easier to remember, the numbering convention should be either 1=Monday or 1=Sunday per Names of the days of the week#Numbered days of the week (sorry Swahili speakers). As a Chinese speaker I'm obviously biased towards the former, but a good rational case for 1=Monday is that it's compliant with ISO 8601. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I would prefer 8 myself, rather than 7, because when we're running two per day as now, you end up with the odd situation of it taking 3.5 days to complete a round and then having the individual queues flip flop from morning to afternoon. An even number looks easier to maintain.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
    I think we should hold off on implementing this change until we're back to one a day. Actually, you just reminded me of something. If we implement the second proposal below (automatic rate adjustment), then two-a-days are bound to pop up from time to time, disrupting the canonical mapping from numbers to days of the week (whatever we decide it to be). We'll need to come up with some way to restore the mapping in a seamless manner, or we'd be mapping arbitrary numbers between 1 and 7 to days of the week, which I do not consider to be an improvement over the current situation of 6 queues/preps. I am withdrawing my support until this issue is addressed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
    I thought about this again, and because 14 is divisible by 7, the canonical order can be maintained so long as handovers are only done at the same time every week (e.g. Monday at 00:00 UTC). So we can use the following algorithm: every Saturday at 00:00 UTC, check if the current backlog size has hit the threshold (whether up or down). If it has, give everyone 48-hour notice that the rate is about to switch. Then the set that shows up Monday at 00:00 UTC will always be from Queue 1. Reinstating my support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Amakuru maybe at some point we could talk about how to manage the queues by going up to 8 during 2-a-days, then managing the move back to 7 so that Q1 during 1-a-days is always Sunday or whatever. —valereee (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Valereee: yes that's fine with me, there's probably a way to do that somehow. The above was only an idea, I recognise that others have been thinking about this more than I have!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 7 days of the week, 7 queues sounds easier. And the extra prep/queue should help a bit with reducing the number of approved but not promoted noms. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, seven queues and prep sets is logical. It works great for when one set per day is used. I also note that two set per day is just awkward no matter how many queues or prep sets there are, at least one per day will be easier. Flibirigit (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2-a-day after 120 approved

The general principle of the motion passes. ——Serial # 11:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I too would like to have some input from the regular set builders on appropriate trigger levels, both high and low. As I said above however, I don't think we should be going any lower than 120 for the high trigger point. Gatoclass (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I want to point out that the 120 approved number (or any other) is not meant to count the number already in queues and preps. As I type this, there are 82 hooks promoted there. To me, 120 seems high, but workable. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
From my experience, anything over 100 approved hooks feels like a riches to choose from, anything under 40 starts to make achieving balance difficult. But we can easily change these trigger points at any point if it turns out we've chosen numbers that are too high or too low. :) —valereee (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Placing automatic triggers makes the most sense for me. No idea what that number should be --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Would support going lower on this limit, but it makes sense; that way there's no repetitive discussion every time this issue comes up. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. My reasoning aligns with Vanamonde's. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support general idea of an automatically floating rate, oppose specific proposed numbers. Let's contextualize them a bit. Suppose we start off with 1 set of 8 hooks a day and 60 in queue, stable at a rate of 8 in, 8 out. The rate increases to 10 hooks a day, so the net increase is 2 a day, taking 30 days to hit 120. At that point we start promoting 16 a day and net -6 a day, so we're back at 60 after just 10 days. This oscillation between 1 and 2 sets of 8 hooks is great for handling massive surges like right now, but not for when the level of new noms stays consistently near some value between 8 and 16 per day. We need more granularity. I propose an intermediate level of, say, 2 sets of 6. Here's an example of what I mean:
Current Rate Go up if backlog > Go down if backlog <
1 set of 8 100 N/A
2 sets of 6 150 50
2 sets of 8 N/A 100
The specific numbers are subject to tweaking, but this is the gist of what I'm suggesting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
King of Hearts, DYK is under certain constraints these days which prevents promoting sets of fewer than eight; while we used to run six back in the day, eight is what balances the increased size of ITN and OTD on the main page. There has been strong resistance to going above eight here at DYK, so eight is where we stand. Doing sets of six simply is not possible. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Do you have a link to the discussion about 6 vs. 8? Anyways, if it absolutely has to be 8 hooks then I would make the intermediate step be a set of 8 hooks every 16 hours (so 3 sets per 2 days). I am just worried that the jump is too wide and will lead to too much oscillation - and it's not really a problem that can be solved simply by stretching the thresholds. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
No, sorry. We periodically consult with folks like David Levy, and they let us know when we're not balancing the page. If it gets too bad, they start inserting previously run hooks to get our section to balance the rest of the page, which is far from ideal. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support in principle, though I'm still not sure what the trigger points should be, and am inclined to agree with Maile66 that 120 may be too low. Regardless, whatever numbers we adopt, we can of course change later if necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Seems the best option. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support King of Hearts I see going back to 1-a-days after only 10 days (in cases like the one you describe) as an intended feature of these set trigger points. I'd much prefer doing a couple/three weeks of 2-a-days followed by a week or two of 1-a-days rather than doing 1-a-days for two months then having to do 2-a-days for 4 months to get out from under a massive backlog. We can manage 2-a-days for a short period; we can see a light at the end of the tunnel. It's when we start with a huge backlog and even going to 2-a-days see it decreasing almost imperceptibly that it feels as if it'll never end. —valereee (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    Suppose that the rate is fairly steady at 12 new hooks per day for a long period. Then we can either run 12 hooks per day, or keep bouncing around between 8 and 16. I definitely prefer the former; if we do the latter and it becomes a predictable pattern then we might end up with people gaming the system to get their own hooks 24 hours. As for implementing a rate of 12/day, if running 2 sets of 6 is not possible as BlueMoonset says, then we can do 1 set of 8 every 16 hours. Having three tiers minimizes the disruption of switching between them IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    King of Hearts, 12 hooks a day (either 6x2 or 12x1) is a non-starter; 6 hooks is too short, 12 is too long. —valereee (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    Again, as I've said: 1 set of 8 every 16 hours. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    King of Hearts, also a non-starter as confusing. When we're on 1-a-days, the switchover is at X o'clock, everyone working DYK knows to be alert just before and after that time. When it's 2-a-days, it's Xam and Xpm. If we go to sixteen, we're constantly thinking, "When's the next update?" —valereee (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    OK, we can start with the proposed 8 and 16. If the right model is a consistent 8 (or fewer) per day with occasional surges, then this would work perfectly. If the long-term average ends up being closer to 12, then we would need to revisit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    Totally, I completely expect this to be revisited over the next few switches from 1 to 2-a-day and back. The people setting preps and moving queues will undoubtedly soon be figuring out whether the switches are happening more quickly than is productive, the approved noms are getting too low, whatever. —valereee (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I'd even go lower on the threshold to 100. Flibirigit (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2-a-day weekends

There is no consensus for this proposal. ——Serial # 11:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


  • Oppose - Iffy and dependent on someone being around to change the rotation schedule twice during a weekend. Even more, if it extends past the first weekend. IMO, this is the least desirable solution. — Maile (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as it will create two classes of users on a more-or-less permanent basis, with some getting 24 hours exposure for their hooks and "weekenders" only 12, and would be open to gaming as set builders could fill the weekend sets with other people's hooks, leaving their own for weekdays. Gatoclass (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose We really need to be going for all-or-nothing on this. Either it's 1 24 hour set or 2 12 hour sets in the interest of fairness. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think one method for dealing with the backlog is sufficient, and prefer the upper limit to switch over to two-a-day to this. It also adds complexity in terms of timing and special occasion placement, which makes it less useful. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Maile and BlueMoonset. Another factor is that fewer people read Wikipedia at the weekend, so it would be better to run 2-a-day on weekdays and 1-a-day at weekends. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Very weak support This is not a huge favorite of mine, either, because of the extra work for someone. I like the idea of regularly doing some catch-up work, and I'm not too concerned about people gaming the system, but we could literally end up doing this every weekend, and that much futzing about with the settings is likely to generate some snafu somewhere with no one around to fix it. —valereee (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose mixing between 2 different setups will get confusing. Let's find the best single solution instead. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is a clusterfuck waiting to happen. Flibirigit (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time to close the three proposals?

The three proposals have been open for two weeks, and it's been 12 days since the most recent !vote was added. Should we get someone uninvolved to close them? As noted at the start, these aren't RfCs, so they don't need to run a full month as an RfC would. Once they are closed, we can move forward on whatever is deemed to have a green light. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

+1 —valereee (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Can someone please close this? It doesn't require an admin or even a completely non-involved editor as it's pretty straightforward, but I think I'm too involved. —valereee (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  Done ——Serial # 11:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs, would you be willing to close discussion? —valereee (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1: Freemantle Fortress

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The hook and article should be amended to read "second-most important Allied submarine base" to match the wording of the source (quoted in the nom). The Japanese had important naval bases too - Dumelow (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

  Done Yoninah (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived a short while ago, so here is an updated list with the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through May 12. We currently have a total of 373 nominations, of which 145 have been approved, a gap of 228 (and said gap has been increasing every week). Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones unreviewed from the first half of April.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Queue 6

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I have never heard of anyone described as "winning" a pole position, the text in main body of Sarah Fisher says "the first time a woman had claimed a pole in American open-wheel racing." Using claim instead of win sounds better grammatically in my opinion. Pinging users associated with the DYK review and promotion: @Valereee, MWright96, HickoryOughtShirt?4, and Yoninah: Joseph2302 (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

No opinion, other than as usual I wish there were something else interesting about this woman than that she was the first woman to do something. —valereee (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: how about "...that nine-times winner of the Indianapolis 500 Sarah Fisher started competitively teaching at the age of five?" ——Serial # 07:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Serial Number 541129 I did wonder about that age five thing...I'm not seeing the nom back here to weigh in, and it's due up in under an hour, I think your suggestion is helpful, thanks! —valereee (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, winning sounds wrong. I would suggest claim or secure. P-K3 (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Queue 1: Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Looking at the source,[1] it seems that it's the later compilation book Dreamsnake that's described as the "high point" of human–snake relations rather than Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand in particular (which is I gather is the first story in Dreamsnake). I think this probably makes the hook inaccurate, as it could have been the other stories in the compilation which gave it the high-point status. Pinging @Vanamonde93: @Buidhe: as nominator and reviewer. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The ALT1 hook is always available. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that's a bit simplistic; the source says the stories of this world, of which "Of Mist, and Grass, and Sand" is the only named example. Rewording it to accommodate "when collected in Dreamsake" would make it too wordy, I think, so I'd prefer the ALT be used in that case. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:13, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, the hook you were querying is now on the main page. Time's running out to change it. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh crikey, I didn't circle back to this one and thought people would either dismiss the point or fix it... Belatedly Changed to ALT1 now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Image Choice

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Without wanting to suggest that an actively used religious symbol is intrinsically inappropriate, I do wonder about the impact of having a very visible swastika on the Wikipedia main page right now and whether another article in the DYK template might be able to provide an image that isn't quite as likely to be triggering upon first glance. To be clear, I don't think the image is inappropriate for the project, but I think it's probably not a time to make people look at swastikas even in the handful of contexts in which they are clearly not hate symbols. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I commented on the nomination that a hook should be written to explain this blatant symbol,[2][3] but I was ignored. Yoninah (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
"Blantant symbol"? Really? Swastikas have been used across many cultures and religions. I'm not sure what's worth "explaining" about it? "Breaking news: widely used Eastern symbol is used in eastern religion"? TryKid [dubious – discuss] 21:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
What do you mean "it's probably not a time to make people look at swastikas"? When is a time? WWII ended more than 70 years ago! Swastikas have existed for thousands! Wikipedia is a global movement, even the English Wikipedia is used all over the world. Censoring the Swastika for a few people in the west is highly inappropriate. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 21:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
@TryKid: please don't assume that others know what you know. I see a swastika at the top of a religious symbol and immediately want to know what it's doing there. As a hook promoter, I do my best to match the hook to the image. I would never have promoted this image otherwise. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
sorry for that. The information about Swastika is available at its Wikipedia article. The name of the image is Jain Prateek Chihna, and that article is also linked from the image description. The first section of that article is "Swastika", which explains what the Swastika is doing there. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 21:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi. I'm the person that built the set and pushed for that specific image. I didn't ignore Yoninah's comment; it's why I made sure to change the caption to link to Jain symbols, so that if anyone cared to, they would be able to easily get more information about what the symbol was and what it meant. I had a lot more written about this matter, but since everyone expressing concern is doing so in good faith and since the DYK has come and gone without the image being changed, it's moot. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Request filed for bot to resize images at DYKN

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

FYI: Wikipedia:Bot_requests#DYKN_image_resize_bot. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1 - Wording of Do You Remember Kunan Poshpora

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The wording of the following hook is awkward, but I can't come up with a good way to fix it:

... that the book Do You Remember Kunan Poshpora? is seen as the ability of Kashmiri women to tell their own story and show resistance?

It seems like there's something missing in "is seen as the ability of" (maybe "is seen as an example of the ability of")? Also, what are they showing resistance to?
@97198, SL93, and DiplomatTesterMan: thoughts? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The Squirrel Conspiracy, so this particular hook was suggested by Yoninah. The ability to show resistance in itself, and not for anything particular, but having the ability to resist anything and everything, is what I picked up. Touching more solid ground this is what one of the the sources says:

The women of Kashmir not only remember Kunan-Poshpora but also frame a discourse of resistance around it. It is a discourse that challenges state narratives and the hegemony of the state, it is a discourse that challenges the occupation of Kashmir by the Indian state but above all, it is a discourse that also challenges the very patriarchy that runs so deep in our society today.source

Another source doesn't say anything directly related to this, but indirectly the whole article does:

Review: Giving Voice to the Silenced Case of Kunan Poshpora: Five young women use memory as a powerful weapon against the shameless attempts of the state machinery of Jammu & Kashmir and the Centre to erase mass sexual rape from public consciousness......[.....].....She hopes that this is a book that will be relevant to women beyond Kashmir, and beyond India. She believes that even if some women disagree that there is an occupation in Kashmir, they do understand how the female body has been used to propagate terror and break people. They will sympathise with how the woman’s body is abused to punish people and silence dissent.source

DTM (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
By the way, I have tweaked the "is" in the hook to "has been", as per the article's grammar usage, pending any further changes to the hook. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 06:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Prep 5: Héctor D. Abruña

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Yoninah, Narutolovehinata5, and Evrik: Thank you again for the collaboration on creating this hook! I was wondering if we could change it to say "his Cornell University electrochemistry research group" (instead of "a ...")? Sorry for not catching this sooner! – AthalGolwen (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  Done Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Do Communists Have Better Sex?

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

I missed the discussion about Do Communists Have Better Sex? which arrived at the hook now in Prep 1, quirky, naturally. I am not happy with that hook piping the title, because 1) it misses the question, 2) it thus misses to clarify that the article is not about sex in East Germany, but a documentary about sex in Germany, 3) I try to avoid the term East Germany anyway. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1: Zoltán Peskó

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

@Gerda Arendt, Starship.paint, and Yoninah: I understand that there's been substantial discussion regarding this hook, but I think that we could at least reword the facts here a little better. In particular, "centenary" seems ambiguous and should ideally be clarified, and the word order seems a little stilted and unnatural. I'd suggest:

Does this work? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 06:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Ravenpuff: - fine with me :) starship.paint (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I take it then, with thanks, but keep thinking that more readers would recognize La Scale than Stravinsky, and it's shorter ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Replaced in prep; thanks. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, today's Did You Know appears to be incorrect. "... that for the centenary of Stravinsky's death, Zoltán Peskó conducted three of the composer's stage works—The Flood, Renard, and Mavra—directed by Peter Ustinov at La Scala?" As far as I can see, Stravinksy has not been dead for a 100 years. (Sorry for the poor editing, am new to Wikipedia and am trying to learn.)Trimalchio8 (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Trimalchio8: thank you for noticing. Someone else also reported this at WP:ERRORS and it was fixed while on the main page. Yoninah (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Queue 6, needs an admin

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I read in Queue 6: ... that after joining her father's church choir at the age of six, operatic contralto Portia White (pictured) grew up to become the first Black Canadian concert singer to achieve international fame?

Reading the article, I find "operatic" misleading, and suggest to simply drop it from the hook, as I did from the article. Alternatively, insert something to the article indicating any notability in the field of opera. Once we are here, "grew up" also seems not ideal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Have removed "operatic" but what's the problem with "grew up"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1: Race winner

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
@MWright96:@BennyOnTheLoose:@DannyS712:
Sorry for my lack of familiarity with this subject, but what does it mean to win a race outright? Don't all winners win the race outright? Yoninah (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I believe it refers to winning the overall race rather than her specific section DannyS712 (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: It means that she finished ahead of every other driver in the race regardless of the category of car she was in. MWright96 (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
It is a little confusing for the uninitiated. It is an important distinction, as winning a specific classification is still called winning the race. Is there a suitable glossary link for this term? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively, the phrase "finished first" is adequate. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You're going to have to tweak it - a woman (Elena Myers) has won a professional motorcycle race at Daytona before Freiberg's win. Also, "finished first" might be a bit awkward too - she (and her male co-driver) finished second, but the winner was disqualified. Black Kite (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm returning this to the noms page for a new hook. Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Prep 7 is now live

Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments9 people in discussion

Per the close of the three outstanding DYK change questions at the top of the page, Prep 7 is now live, and is listed on the Preps and Queues page. I will be moving the contents of Prep 1 into Prep 7 after I've completed this note.

Please note that while it has also been created, it is not yet time for Queue 7 to be included on the Preps and Queues page—I will be coordinating that with Shubinator, who needs to modify DYKUpdateBot, and it should not be done until after Queue 6 is promoted to the main page tomorrow at 12:00 UTC and the next queue reset to Queue 1.

We need an admin to take care of the following tasks:

If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. I'd like to request that no one else make other changes to the code on various DYK pages, since it could have unexpected consequences in the intersection with other templates and pages. Or, if you think it's important, query here first (and ping me) so that we can make sure everything goes smoothly. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Done by Jo-Jo Eumerus --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Queue 7 is now live

Queue 7 went live a few hours ago. It is ready to receive Prep 7 when an admin gets to that point (but not before Preps 4, 5, and 6 are promoted to their respective queues). Shubinator will be updating DYKUpdateBot well before it comes time to promote Queue 6 again, so the bot knows that there's a Queue 7 next rather than going back to Queue 1. If anyone sees any issues with the new Prep 7 and/or Queue 7, please let me know. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for setting it up. As we have it right now, Queue 1 goes live Saturday at 00:00 as well as Tuesday at 12:00, completing two cycles a week. Whenever this backlog dies down and we're ready to move back to one queue per day, we should strive for a canonical mapping such as ISO 8601 as I've mentioned above (1=Monday, 2=Tuesday, etc.) to make it easier to remember. The correct place to transition (when the time is right) is for Queue 3 to be the final 12-hour set starting Wednesday at 12:00, and for Queue 4 to be the first 24-hour set starting Thursday at 00:00. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
King of Hearts, I believe strongly that this is an unnecessary complication, and that there is no "correct" or "incorrect" place to transition. That will not be part of my calculus, nor do I think it should be a requirement; indeed, I argued against it during the just-concluded poll, and it wasn't part of the conclusion at closing. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, thanks to you, Shubinator, and Jo-jo Eumerus for all the work! Fingers crossed this helps a bit! :) —valereee (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot updated for 7 queues! We're good to go. Shubinator (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Shubinator. Glad we're all set. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
One page that was missing was Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives/(Queue 7), which is linked to from {{DYKbotdo}}. I've now created it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

We now have five empty queues

With the new extra prep and queue online, we now have five empty queues (only two filled), and six filled preps with a seventh started. It would be great if some of the preps could be promoted to queues. Pinging our excellent admins—Gatoclass, Amakuru, Cas Liber, Maile, valereee, Wugapodes, Vanamonde, Cwmhiraeth, Guerillero, Kees08, and Lee Vilenski—in the hopes that we can get more queues loaded up and ready. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I have moved two hook sets to the queue as a response to this request, Prep4 and Prep5. However the position was unsatisfactory because I had assembled the hooks in Prep4, but needed to move that set to the queue before dealing with Prep5 in the normal way. I would be glad if some other administrator could check Queue4. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I did a fast check of Q4, didn't really have enough time, crossing my fingers :) —valereee (talk) 20:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Now that we've gone to 7 prep sets, we really need the administrators on board. Now there are 4 empty queues. Yoninah (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Lucky Prep 7 is the next one in line. I know there's an admin out there eager to be the first one ever to load up Queue 7... BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Aside from Cwmhiraeth promoting one queue early this morning, the queues are sitting empty while the preps are being filled. Right now we have 4 empty queues and 6 full preps. Please, @Casliber:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Amakuru:@Gatoclass:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:@Guerillero:, could you start filling queues? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Chart of update times on T:DYKQ

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Now with 7 queues, it's hard to figure out what days/times the prep sets are running. Could someone expand the chart to include the preps? Pinging Maile for starters. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah I agree completely. What you are requesting is an update of Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes. Shubinator created that template, and there are a lot of technical details therein, which seems to work off other templates. I don't know how to do that. It should probably be Shubinator to take this on, or someone who is proficient in his coding. — Maile (talk) 22:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, Maile, the problem with it is that when queues are empty, the queues will run the same time as the equivalent preps that will ultimately fill them—this is why you currently only get the preps listed along with the queues when all the queues are filled. (This was originally written back when there were six queues and four preps, so queue and prep numbers did not align as they do now.) What could probably be done is to modify the code so that when a queue is empty, both queue and prep for the same number are listed in a single entry. So you'd have the full queues, the empty queues (if any) along with the preps they'll be filled with, and then the remaining preps. Does that sound reasonable? I'm sure the coding could be managed, but it could get messy. I can give it a try and see whether I can do it—I was the one who updated Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes—and if I can't, I'd imagine that someone else can, though it may take a while. For now, the empty queues translate to the first batch of preps, and for the rest of the preps, add three and a half days to the date for the same-numbered queue, which is a pain I know. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, Maile, I have a new sandbox version available at User:BlueMoonset/sandbox2, which I believe does what you were hoping for. Please take a look and let me know what you think. If it's useful, I'll update LocalUpdateTimes accordingly. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
This looks good to me, but Yoninah is the person most likely to depend on it. — Maile (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Looks like there's a bug in there, possibly in one of the subtemplates, since it thinks queues 4 and 5 are empty rather than 5 and 6, but it should given Yoninah an idea since this was her idea. I'll wait for her reply, and check the code in the interim. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Add "Date request" field to new nominations template

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion

I've seen a couple of cases recently where an editor requested a specific date for a hook to run, but that date was missed because the hook was either 1) not reviewed in time, or 2) approved but not moved into the Special occasion holding area.

If we were to add a date request field to the template, we'd then be able to have bots track those dates and 1) alert us on this page when there's an unreviewed request with the date a week or less out, 2) move approved requests to the Special occasion holding area once they're approved.

I'm not sure if this is technically feasible, but I don't see why it wouldn't be, especially if we templatized the date like {{month=6|day=22}}.

Thoughts? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

  • As long as it's very clear that this is a special occasion date request in defining the field (so call it "Special occasion date request" or the like). The last thing we want is people making unnecessary or inappropriate date requests simply because a "Date request" field is there. (Also, sometimes special requests are made very late in the game: there's supposed to be a full week between the nomination being made and the date being requested to allow time to get reviewed and moved.) If this does go ahead, it needs to be coordinated with the DYK-helper app available from the Nominations page, since people use it to create nomination pages rather than using the editor. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
In practice such requests can be easy to miss if they're mentioned in the comments section. It's happened several times in the past that the request wasn't acted upon because the reviewers somehow missed it. Plus, this proposal would allow for some sort of notification to be done to allow such requests to be acted upon more consistently. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I think you're talking past each other. Each nomination template has, in the top section after the hook(s), a "Comment" line available just under the "Reviewed" line—it appears when filled in during the nomination creation process. (The review section, what Narutolovehinata5 calls "the comments section", is lower down.) Neither of these lines will appear unless filled in at that point, and I'm assuming this newly proposed line will be treated the same way to avoid clutter. Sometimes the idea that a special occasion might be useful occurs during the course of the review, so those will still risk being overlooked, just as it can be hard to find a QPQ if it isn't inserted on the "Reviewed" line, as sometimes happens. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Just for clarification, I was indeed referring to the "comment" part of the template and not the review section. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
The C of E what Joseph2302 is requesting that doesn't already exist is a bot: "1) alert us on this page when there's an unreviewed request with the date a week or less out, 2) move approved requests to the Special occasion holding area once they're approved. " — Maile (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
I support having this put up for vote or RFC to be implemented. Flibirigit (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Prep/Queue 3

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Systime Computers

  • ... that Systime Computers Ltd, once Britain's second largest computer manufacturer, was a victim of the Cold War?

I'm concerned that the article doesn't quite support the wording of the hook, particularly because it's unclear what "victim of the cold war" means. You could perhaps justify "victim of US export restrictions during the war", but even then the "victim" assigns blame in a way that the text doesn't quite support. @Wasted Time R and Waxworker: Vanamonde (Talk) 23:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps change "victim of US export restrictions" to "declined due to US export restrictions"? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I try to write intriguing hooks that will induce the reader to click through to the article. "Export restrictions" sounds like dull economics and is not very hooky. But saying a computer company ran afoul of the Cold War is hooky, because the connection between the two is not immediately obvious. As for "victim", I don't see that term as assigning blame. The primary definition at the dictionary I use is "one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent." People will say, "She planned a great picnic but was a victim of unexpected weather," there is no blame involved. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Can I get a second opinion from one of the regulars here? @BlueMoonset, Yoninah, and Maile66:? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:DYKRULES Eligibility criteria 3. "Cited hook – The fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article. Facts should have an inline citation. The article as a whole should use inline, cited sources. The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience. Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article."
@Vanamonde93, Yoninah, Wasted Time R, and BlueMoonset: We all like hooky hooks. But this one is not specifically mentioned in the article, except that this company and all others were impacted by government policies and agreements during any given time. The same could be said about all our American technology now being made in Asia. But it still has to be mentioned in the article and sourced according to the rules. — Maile (talk) 18:06, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
To me the reflection of this hook in the article is self-evident, but obviously it isn't to others. So I would suggest switching to ALT1 from the nomination, which is directly stated and sourced in the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Swapped in ALT1. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Tilly Bébé

  • ... that Tilly Bébé (pictured), a pioneer in the docile training of predators, starred with her lions in a silent film of a genre described as "exotic-erotic-escapist"?

No major issue here, but I'm wondering if "docile training" can be replaced with something less jargony. @SusunW, Gerda Arendt, SL93, The Squirrel Conspiracy, and Yoninah: (Sorry, there's a lot of you involved there...) Vanamonde (Talk) 23:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 She didn't force them to perform; she didn't use aggressive training methods, which many "lion tamers" used. No whips, no chains. Lots of the articles gave the sense that she hypnotized them somehow. I have no idea how else one would phrase that without straying from the terms the source uses. As I said before, if anyone has ideas, I'm happy to support them. SusunW (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
@SusunW: is that why simply "training" would not work? That makes sense; I do wish there was a link for "docile training", though supplying one isn't really your responsibility. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 Yes, that's why I didn't link anything and why I avoided just training. I did try to find a synonym, but the thesaurus gave me nothing that seemed usable. Make and animal easier to control and mild taming, just didn't seem right. SusunW (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived a short while ago, so here is an updated list with the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through May 21. We currently have a total of 357 nominations, of which 123 have been approved, a gap of 235. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four remaining from April.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Queue 2: Siamosaurus

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

@PaleoGeekSquared, Kevmin, and Yoninah: At first glance, the phrase "named from Asia" seems to indicate that this is this first spinosaurid to get an Asian name, but this assertion isn't supported by the source quoted in the nompage, which instead calls it the first spinosaurid to be reported from Asia. If this is what the hook actually refers to, I believe that we should amend the wording to something like "the first [named] crocodilian-like dinosaur found in Asia", to avoid potential misinterpretation. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Your alternative is not satisfactory because "named" in this instance has the specific meaning of first described. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree the hook can be interpreted as the dinosaur being named for or derived from the Asian continent. How about, "... is the first Asian crocodilian-like dinosaur named" — Maile (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I suppose we should first determine which definition of "named" is being used. Perhaps we could just omit the word if it isn't actually important here. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Simply omitting the word won't work since the subject isn't necessarily the first crocodilian-like dinosaur from Asia, only the first to be "named". With that said, the way "named" is used here sounds like jargon and might be confusing to the average reader so perhaps a different term does need to be used. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
How about "known to be from", "identified as being from" or "classified as being from" ? — Maile (talk) 13:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd be fine with "known to be from". The other two don't really work, because you don't discover a fossil and only then "identify" or "classify" it as being from Asia. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 04:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
I had hoped that @Kevmin and PaleoGeekSquared: would respond here. However, having looked at the article, I find this states "Siamosaurus is the first reported spinosaurid dinosaur from Asia". The spinosaurids are described as "crocodilian-like", but I don't know whether any other dinosaur groups are described in this way, so I suggest this ALT:
No other dinosaur groups are described as crocodile like, so the original hook passed my inspection as accurate. The alt is much less catching as it makes too much of an effort to spell out the taxonomy. "named from" is very normal wording for stating that something was officially described in the taxonomic literature, so again I saw no problems. if hte wording was named for xxx in Asia, that would be a very different meaning, and closer ot what ravenpuff is seeing.--Kevmin § 05:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
The issue is less of "inaccurate" and more of the use of the word "named" as originally written being a sense that may be confusing for typical readers. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth's ALT is acceptable to me; I'm ambivalent over the use of "crocodilian-like" versus "spinosaurid", but I agree that we should avoid the use of "named" in the hook. Considering that the hook is about half an hour away to its Main Page appearance, we should resolve this quickly. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 11:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Queue page "Local update times" table has been modified to always includes preps along with the queues

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Per a request above from Yoninah, to make it easier to determine when queues and preps will run now that there are seven of each rather than six, I have modified the Local update times table on the queues and preps page to always show all of the queues and preps.

As before, all seven queues will start the table. For those queues that are empty, which should be the last queue(s) listed, their rows will also include a link in the first column to the prep that will be used to fill that queue (they both "run" on the main page at the same time, since the promotion path is prep to queue to main page). After those are displayed, the remaining preps are shown: this can be anywhere from all seven preps if all the queues are filled, to four preps if three of the queues are empty, to zero remaining preps if all seven queues are empty.

The key point is that if you're wondering when a prep will eventually hit the main page, look at the prep and number at the beginning of the row, and the date/time is there for you.

If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you very much! That's pretty neat the way you did that. — Maile (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Dash removal in prep 3

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Per Talk:Main_Page#Next-but-one_DYK:

Queue 3, last hook: "... that a former public-school band teacher became the Archbishop of Winnipeg?" The term "public school" is not hyphenated in Canadian English. The hook was neither proposed, approved, nor moved to the prep area as such. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Please remove the dash in "public-school" in Queue 3. Thanks, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

cc Maile66, promoting admin. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Done. It was a change made in Prep - should have caught it. Thanks for pinging me. — Maile (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Non-notable persons mentioned in hooks

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

I have seen occasions where non-notable persons have been removed from mention in DYK hooks. Sorry, I can't find an example right now. Is it an accepted precedent not to mention non-notable persons? I have raised the question at Template:Did you know nominations/Lycian Way. Thoughts and comments are welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Generally yes its accepted practice not to include names of non-notable people. WP:BLPNAME is the most relevant and also shows the common exceptions to that. Generally its assessed on a case by case basis, taking into account the BLP policy and presumption in favour of privacy. If someone is non-notable, only loosely involved, then their name should not be included. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Having had a look at that specific example, you are fine with including the name. The person may otherwise not be particularly notable, but they are published as well as heavily involved in the topic - if the sources in the article are correct. If you have any doubts in future, open up WP:BLPNAME and run the person's circumstances through it. If you can make a decent argument (as is easily done in this case) that their name is relevant and involved in the article, then you have a good faith reason to include it. If you cant make a decent argument for doing so, dont include it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
This is not something I've ever given any thought to. But if this is a DYK best practice, perhaps it should be written somewhere in the rules and the reviewing guide, for consistency. It really isn't fair to the nominator to disallow part of a hook because of something not in the written rules. — Maile (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree it should be written somewhere if we're going to enforce it. But that hook could just be changed to say "a British expat" rather than "British Kate Clow". Also, the correct grammar for the current hook would be British person or Briton rather than just British. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Well it only applies to living people, and of those, the vast majority who are quoted in a DYK article are going to be significantly relevant to the subject (rather than BLPNAME's 'loosely involved'). So I doubt its a problem requiring specific guidance. If someone is being used as a source/reference in an article, then their name will automatically fulfil the criteria. Its more about family members or otherwise once-removed living people who arnt relevant to the article. If it had to be put into DYK reviewing guidance, you could do it with one line "Make sure any living named persons satisfy WP:BLPNAME." Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes and no whether or not it should be in writing. No for you, because you already know it. I didn't know it. But yes, for reviewers and promoters who are enforcing that because that's how they've seen it done. If the nominator questions that, there needs to be something specific to point to. — Maile (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree it would be helpful to have in writing, and I think User:Only in death makes a good suggestion. Flibirigit (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Queue 6

Latest comment: 4 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion
Hi all. I've re-reviewed the sources, and the wording in both books is not quite explicit enough to go with the original hook wording (although the fact that the council both campaigned against listing and campaigned for demolition is clearly implied – a pity!). Let's go with ALT1. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 12:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Switched. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I'd prefer to throw in a 'practically nothing' or something to that effect, since Bendell usually seems to leave a tiny little bit of room for optimism, but this hook works from my end. Jlevi (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jlevi: If he's not being absolutely categorical, Yoninah's hook is safer. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Vanamonde: Fair enough. In that case I might just suggest 'or'->'nor'. Looks good! Jlevi (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Switched. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations to the newest members of the 100,000+ pageviews club!

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments7 people in discussion

To Acad Ronin (page creator) and Broichmore (nominator) for their June 8 hook:

  Great! — Maile (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Technically Acad Ronin isn't the page creator, he expanded the article 5×. Brad101 is the page creator. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 21:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
And Broichmore pulled in a lot of info as well as nominating the article. The most interesting articles are often the result of a lot of collaboration. That's one of the cool things about WP. Acad Ronin (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Welcome to the club. Well done. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Statue of Mary Seacole

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Not been involved in DYK but have created the above, which has Notability as the first statue in Britain to show a named black woman, (the suggested 'hook'), and also has topicality, given the debate re. statues currently raging. Thought it might fit? A note of caution - it may prove to be contentious, although hopefully not, which might lead to some instability. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to nominate it @KJP1:. Just make sure the hook is interesting. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Iridescent - That’s interesting. Certainly it’s how the Seacole’s been described, as you’ll see from the many sources. Let me see if I can think of a more “accurate” hook. KJP1 (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
In fact, this one isn't even the first public statue in London of Mary Seacole. It's possibly a semantic argument over what constitutes a statue, as the Nicola Adams and the 2013 Seacole are in an unusual "flattened wire-frame" design rather than the conventional solid lump of marble or bronze (although more likely, someone at St Thomas's sent out a "first ever" press release in good faith because they weren't aware of the others, and the news media reprinted it without bothering to verify it.) ‑ Iridescent 19:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I have moved this discussion to the nomination page. Please post further comments there. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Photo negative casting

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I would appreciate other editors' opinions on the naming of this article. The term "photo negative casting" is used by The Guardian and the Brockett book, both times in quotes. I can find no other reference to this term on Google. Anyone who searches on "photo negative" will end up at Negative (photography). It seems to me that this subject should be included under the Wikipedia article Color-blind casting, but the nominator disagrees. Please see discussion on the nomination page. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I have already explained they are two different concepts. One is irrelevance in colour of casting, the other is deliberately switching the colour of character and actor when casting. If the name is a problem then, I have already proposed to move it to Photo negative (casting technique) to sort the issue out. I'm a little busy so won't be able to deal with this until roughly tomorrow afternoon. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  Done Page name resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Yoninah (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Police abolition movement

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
 
"Defund the police" sign held by a demonstrator at a George Floyd protest on June 5, 2020
  • ... that defunding the police is being demanded by protestors (pictured) and proposed by legislators in multiple US cities?

I'm blanking on this one, which needs a new hook for various reasons. Anyone have a brilliant idea? If not we can just pull it. —valereee (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

--evrik (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Evrik, thanks! I don't have any strong opinion on what the title should be. I think they should probably be merged at one or the other. —valereee (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, I can review it if you'd like. It may have been mistake to suggest the merge. I can withdraw my proposal. --evrik (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Evrik, meh, let's see how it plays out. The other article has also gotten very long, and I haven't read either of them carefully enough in the past couple days to know how much overlap there currently is. I trust we'll end up with the right decision eventually! :D —valereee (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A topical DYK

Latest comment: 4 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion

Seen all over tv these last few days:

Anyone want to expedite? --evrik (talk) 06:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

  • Un huh. It's an acronym for "All cops are bastards". So, I think this also requires some input from our regulars here. Wikipedia is not censored, and DYK might be even more tolerant in that regards. Quasi definition article, albiet expanded to passing. Would we put a different hook on the main page that was nothing more than a definition, " ... did you know that MF means Mother Fucker?" MF is also "written as a slogan, catchphrase in graffiti, tattoos" For that matter, so is "FU". I'm a little concerned about timing here, i.e. putting this on the main page as an adding of fuel to the fire. — Maile (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
And perhaps another way to look at this. If it's OK to put "All cops are bastards" on the Main Page, is it equally OK to put "All Muslims are bastards" or "All non-white people are bastards" on the Main Page? — Maile (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
There definately is a bit of an Innocence of Muslims vibe to this, so I would agree with that @Maile66:. We ought to hold off until it has calmed down a lot. On a lighter note, I didn't know that MF meant motherfucker. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The C of E - maybe MF is uniquely American. It's pretty widespread through the culture, especially in TV, movies, and scrawled on public places here and there. — Maile (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
One difference, if you look at the graffiti, most of it is ACAB. No real need to be profane in the hook. --evrik (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate the good work expanding this, but I'm uncomfortable putting it on the front page right now. I know we're not censored, but it feels too pointy and maybe irresponsible. —valereee (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
The hook is not interesting, I agree with that, but I want to push back on the more general opposition which seems to be appearing. WP:NOTCENSORED applies here; we cannot ignore that policy just because content makes us or may make our readers uncomfortable. The idea that we should delay it due to current events is incredibly US centric, and not a consideration I've seen given to controversies in other countries. We have a worldwide readership, and to decide mainpage content based on how it may make US readers feel quite clearly goes against WP:NOTCENSORED. To Maile66's point, if those phrases met our notability guidelines and were treated in an encyclopedic and neutral manner, yes, we should feature that content as well. But unlike this article and hook, they don't and are not. If someone cares enough to develop an article and it complies with all our project policies and DYK guidelines, WP:NOTCENSORED requires us to treat it the same as any other content. To do otherwise is incompatible with our mission as an encyclopedia dedicated to the free exchange of ideas. That means, we should not expedite the hook (because that would be giving it special treatment just for it provocative value), but that also means we should not intentionally delay it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree that NOTCENSORED applies here; that policy refers to content within articles, not whether we choose to promote something on the Main Page or not. See Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I thought the hook was interesting. Anyone have a better hook? --evrik (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I suggested 3 on the nom page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
And I don't agree with that essay for obvious reasons. The idea that DYK should censor something because of concerns about "current events" doesn't make sense because we have controversial content related to current events all the time at ITN. We already have content relating to the George Floyd protests on the main page, as well as Costa Rica legalizing same-sex marriage which is similarly controversial in the US and many parts of the world. During US election day, 2008, the TFA slot featured both major US candidates which was obviously political. I agree that we shouldn't feature something just because it's provocative, but the idea that we censor the front page due to US political concerns is spurious, and the idea that we should is wrong. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I don’t have any objection to this particular hook, what I’m pushing back against is NOTCENSORED being used as some kind of trump card, which in the past has occurred with some gratuitously offensive items at DYK. I just think it’s a misapplication of the policy. P-K3 (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I definitely agree with that, and I'm sorry if that didn't come across clearly. Thanks for bringing it up. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:04, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Wugapodes, I agree that we shouldn't intentionally delay it. Intentionally expediting feels to me to be very pointy. —valereee (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Y'all should look at the ALT hooks provided by Wugapodes as a pretty darned good solution. I'm partial to ALT1, because it makes me laugh in spite of the seriousness of the article. — Maile (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I think there are some good options. The article just got reviewed. Can we move it to one of the preps? Thank you. --evrik (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Special occasion request needs review

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/1970 United States Senate election in New York is a special occasion request for June 23. Can someone review it? Ping me and I will promote it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I've reviewed it but requested better hooks. Hopefully Jon (nom) is around. Kingsif (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

GOCE

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A couple of times in the last few weeks, Template:Did you know nominations/St. Lawrence (restaurant) and Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Asakai, I have suggested that an editor go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests and ask for help. I had mixed results. Does anyone have any tips on what to do with a nomination that qualifies, but could be made better with some copy-editing? Thanks. --evrik (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The GOCE was a bit preoccupied with its 10th anniversary drive last month, working on the maintenance backlog. As a consequence, the GOCE Requests page (shortcut: WP:GOCER) has backed up a bit. Wait times are currently about one month (it's usually closer to 2–3 weeks). I know some people are reluctant about GOCER because you get mixed results depending on who responds to the request; anyone can volunteer there without any experience or qualification, though the coordinators do try to guide newcomers as time permits.
I'll take a look at Battle of Asakai, it looks interesting from the lead. The other DYK nom you mentioned, I agree that it would have been easier to go to GOCER, or at least to have a separate copy-editing discussion so that the nomination page wouldn't become cluttered. I sometimes run into something similar, where the article needs a substantive copy edit but doing so myself would make me a major contributor and disqualify me as a reviewer. Still, sometimes it's just easier to be bold and do stuff yourself. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1 may not have an exemplary caption

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

The caption in Prep 1 is: "An exemplary of C. brasiliensis, a species in the C. major complex". I'm not familiar with the usage of "exemplary" as a noun. Is this correct biological terminology? Paging the nominator and reviewer, and also Cwmhiraeth, who I think would know about such things. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Mandarax, I have removed it and added example to the paren in the hook. I usually opt for removing self-evident info from captions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Exemplary can be used as a noun. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
That usage is listed as "obsolete". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Scythrophrys

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

About a week ago, I approved the double-DYK nom Template:Did you know nominations/Scythrophrys. No rush, just checking to make sure I didn't accidentally delete some wikicode that might be preventing its promotion. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: no problem, there's just 200 approved nominations before yours! But I have my eye on it for an image slot and am waiting for the nature slot to come around again. Yoninah (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually, there are 100 approved nominations for prep-builders to choose from, and 240 not yet approved, a number that creates a permanent backlog which it would be nice to eliminate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

4 empty queues now

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Pinging Cas Liber, Maile, valereee, Gatoclass, Amakuru, Wugapodes, Vanamonde, Cwmhiraeth, Guerillero, Kees08, Lee Vilenski. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I have done two of them... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Amakuru. I adjusted the top of the Queue page earlier today so that it shows a backlog once there are four empty queues (more empty than full). BlueMoonset (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
In another hour or so there will be 5 empty queues. Pinging Casliber, Maile, valereee, Amakuru, Wugapodes, Vanamonde, Cwmhiraeth, Guerillero, Kees08, Lee Vilenski. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Promoted four of them. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived a few minutes ago, so here is an updated list with the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through May 26. We currently have a total of 325 nominations, of which 80 have been approved, a gap of 245 (up 10 since last week). Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the two remaining from April and those from early and mid-May.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of Queen Victoria, Valletta

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

A couple of days ago I nominated the article Statue of Queen Victoria, Valletta for DYK and it was reviewed and approved by Hog Farm (talk · contribs). After I had made the nomination, I realised that the article could be promoted to the main page on 5 August 2020, which would be the anniversary of the statue's inauguration. However, this is just beyond the six week maximum (6 weeks and 6 days from when the review was approved). Would it be possible to waive the maximum in this case in order to allow the hook to appear on the main page on 5 August please? Thanks in advance! --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I support WP:IAR on this request. Flibirigit (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Support IAR - I think we can allow a week's wiggle room on the rule. — Maile (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Of course. Moving to Special Occasions holding area. Yoninah (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Xwejnusgozo (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Man City

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have a DyK suggestion: Did you know that Manchester City FC, despite their current successes, has only won one European trophy, the 1969-70 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, over Górnik Zabrze? 2601:643:8101:64E1:ACDD:902A:3241:EDA (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK is for articles that are new, newly expanded, or newly listed as Good Articles. Manchester City F.C. is none of those, being a long-established Featured Article, so it is not eligible. Sorry. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Dirtbag left

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Dirtbag left

I left a comment on WP:ERRORS about a change to the hook by User:The ed17 on the current hook for dirtbag left, though they have not responded. Are there any admins here who are able to resolve the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan695 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

@The ed17: Your edit was wrong. No discussion here, or anywhere else that I can see. But it was reviewed, sourced, and promoted. That was our quirky slot, so it's supposed to be a little different. There is no way I can see that something in quotes could be misconstrued as "this quote needs to be contextualized (otherwise it comes across as being in Wikipedia's voice)". Apparently, this was a judgement call all on your own, with no discussion anywhere that I can see. Please explain. — Maile (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV; as y'all know, NPOV is a non-negotiable principle on Wikipedia and is listed in the DYK criteria. Cheers, and hope you're well Maile66—it's been awhile! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@The ed17: Per the original review, there was consensus that the quote was "neutral in that both admirers and critics of the article topic would be likely to find it apt." I can see your point having weight if it was spoken by someone who was otherwise attempting to disparage the subject, but the quote was given by a figure associated with the ideology. Morgan695 (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Whether or not the speaker supports or opposes a given subject is immaterial. Please see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, which I linked above: "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." Moreover, note that NPOV is both required by the DYK criteria and "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
@The ed17: and everyone else. If it's not a grammar or punctuation issue (or sometimes is), posting a note on this talk page about making a change, goes a long way towards good faith. It's just a nice courtesy for all the previous GF users involved in getting the hook on the main page. — Maile (talk) 11:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
+1. Unless there's a clear obvious mistake that no one would disagree with, bring it here or to ERRORS, and be aware that most hooks in queue represent at least four pairs of eyes so clear obvious mistakes should be rare. If the fix represents an emergency and can't wait for discussion, it's still polite to post the change to ERRORS after. —valereee (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I'm happy to leave a note somewhere in the future. But, as I said above, NPOV is a non-negotiable principle, so this definitely qualified as a "clear [and] obvious mistake." :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
With over 10,000 views, it seems many people wanted to look at the hook to find out about how the dirty dirtbag left fuck in a sleeping bag. :) The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The Lycian Way again

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion
  • ... that on the Lycian Way, a hiker can experience all four seasons in one day?

Now in Queue5, this hook was suggested by @Valereee:, and is only true figuratively speaking, as being the view of some unknown individual as to the variability of the weather. I could change it to "that on the Lycian Way, a hiker may seem to experience all four seasons in one day?" or substitute one of the other approved hooks, but it is in the quirky spot, so I thought I had better mention it here first. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, I don't think it's variability of weather but the variation in altitude. There can be snow at the top while it's summer below. —valereee (talk) 10:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
OK, but what about spring and autumn? If others are happy with the hook, it can stay as it is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not happy with the hook, because it could be anywhere, and any (short) way, instead of a long-distance trail with a focus on ancient culture. Do we expect our readers to know what Lycian refers to? We had other hooks, - why just rely on quirkiness alone? The same thing could be said for trails in Spanish mountains near to the sea, for just one example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Pinging CeeGee Yoninah Flibirigit for input —valereee (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The hook is fine as is. The experience of four seasons is due to the change in altitude, not a change weather. The word hiker makes it apparent to readers to expect an article on a trail. Flibirigit (talk) 13:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I reviewed the hook source in Google Translate and it seems to accurately reflect a hiker's experience on the mountain peaks in the trail. The hook does not need to get into particulars; readers will click on the article for that. I thought the hook was written in a very hooky way by valeree. Yoninah (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
That's not what "season" means. A season is a division of a year. That's why we can talk about "unseasonable weather". Tourism pages do not necessarily tell the literal truth when it comes to describing the appeal of a given location. "There can be snow at the top while it's summer below" - but that doesn't mean it's winter at the top. It's still summer. Regardless of how cold June in Canada is, it's still summer, and regardless of how warm December in Canada is, it's still winter. That's what "summer" and "winter" mean. You can only experience multiple seasons in a day if you have air travel to rapidly take you past the equator. (Or, I suppose, a time machine.) DS (talk) 01:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Apparently we disagree. Flibirigit (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
If there's a snowstorm in April, is it winter again, or is it still spring? DS (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The experience would be winter, which is the intent of the hook. Flibirigit (talk) 03:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
No it wouldn't. It would be wintery weather. Words have meanings. DS (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nominations/Ryan T. Anderson

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Ryan T. Anderson (currently in prep area 7) is

I think that this fails WP:NPOV/WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The source provided in the nomination is this Washington Post article, which does not call the book "anti-transgender" in its own voice, though it mentions that someone else did so on Twitter. (Pinging the nominator, @Bait30:, the reviewer, @Hog Farm:, and the promoter, @The Squirrel Conspiracy:) Cheers, gnu57 16:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to explicitly say "anti-transgender" in order for it to pass WP:NPOV. The book is inherently a critique of transgenderism. Conservative publications like the National Review praise the book for its anti-trans message. [4] In any case, here is a WP:RS that does call the book "anti-trans." [5]  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 19:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Yet another hook about a "first woman"

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Could we have some more eyes on the nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Connie Carberg? The nominator prefers a "first woman" hook; I asked for something different, the nominator asked me to suggest something, and s/he doesn't like it. Other hook suggestions welcome. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Possibilities:
... that Connie Carberg, the NFL's first female scout, made mock drafts as a hobby while growing up?
... that Connie Carberg, the NFL's first female scout, was allowed to attend Buckeyes team practices by Woody Hayes while a student at Ohio State? —valereee (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Valereee! I hope the nominator likes them, too. Yoninah (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, sorry, misread and posted here first. :) —valereee (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Prep 3:Album

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
  • ... that the original release of Queen drummer Roger Taylor's compilation album The Lot contained many typographical and audio issues?
@Pupsterlove02:@Rcsprinter123:
I promoted the alt the reviewer preferred, and tweaked it a bit, but it does come across as rather negative. I'm wondering if we could change the angle of the hook this way:
That sounds good since it adds the fans angle. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me as well, was originally going for something like that but couldn't figure out how to word it, thanks. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 14:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Substituting the hook in prep. Yoninah (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Prep 3:Film producer

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
@Kingsif:@The Squirrel Conspiracy: The hook is over 200 char. If it can't be shortened, note that the reviewer preferred the ALT1 hook. Yoninah (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
You could take out one of the film titles? Removing Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri would go a long way to shortening it, but I normally check length (without ellipsis and question mark) so it can't be much over at all. Also fine with ALT1. Kingsif (talk) 11:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, since The Squirrel Conspiracy chose this one, I'll just trim off the last film title. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, I don't think that being three characters over the limit is a problem. The hook was balanced by also having an extremely short hook above it. However, it looks like someone else has already made a "fix" and I don't have the mental energy to fight this one when it feels like every single decision I make building sets gets questioned. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: We have a limit of 200 characters—see WP:DYK#Format. And shorter hooks always have much more impact. I don't think it's the prep builder's job to break the rules when the reviewers are trying their best to enforce them. Yoninah (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
To echo Yoninah, 200 is a set limit for single-article hooks. It's one of the few we don't make exceptions to. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah, BlueMoonset, and The Squirrel Conspiracy: Easy fix here. Just change "film producer" to "producer". If she produced the named films, then it's a given she was a film producer. The word "film" is unnecessary. — Maile (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Maile. But since the nominator has agreed to leave off the fifth title, which is also the longest, I wonder if we can keep it off? Yoninah (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure. — Maile (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Prep 5 suggestion re COVID-19 pandemic in the Navajo Nation

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Template: Did you know nominations/COVID-19 pandemic in the Navajo Nation.

@FrogginFroggy, Jayen466, and Yoninah: I looking through the preps, and noticed this hook, based on information from May 19, 2020. The source would seem to be CNN Coronavirus-us-maps-and-cases. The Navajo Nation pretty much is the Four Corners area of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and (I think) Colorado. When I look at the current stats on the CNN map, it shows an area in Buena Vista County, Iowa that (as of today) has a per capita rate of 8,491 per 100,000 - which looks like more than any of the Navajo nation. Since CV-19 tracking is a fluid situation that varies from day to day, could we get a hook that is more flexible? — Maile (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe something like "DYK the Navajo Nation has a higher per capita COVID-19 infection rate than any state in the US?" I looked into other county rates and it seems there are several US counties with per capita infection rates higher than the Navajo Nation. See this NY Times page. However, no state has an infection rate higher than the Navajo Nation. The Navajo have over 3,000 cases per 100k people with New York coming in second with jst over 2k per 100k. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrogginFroggy (talk • contribs) 19:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, the point is, that those figures are fluid and change everyday. By the time this hook is on the main page, there could have been a huge outbreak somewhere else. Something of this importance on the Main Page, should not be outdated information. If you wanted to have a hook that said something like, " ... as of (a given date) ... " that might be workable.— Maile (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Maile66: Something like, "DYK During the COVID-19 pandemic, as of June 11, 2020 the Navajo Nation have a higher per capita infection rate than any other state in the U.S.?" FrogginFroggy (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: I think if you change "has" to "had", the hook is workable. — Maile (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
However, the NN has tested over 26% of its population - no other state comes close (New York is next with 19% I believe, and most of the rest are much lower i.e. Florida 6%). I think you'd have tweak the wording to reflect that. Higher testing means that you pick up the asymptomatic cases as well as those presenting at hospital, whereas states with lower testing don't. Black Kite (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Maile66, Black Kite, and Yoninah: I'm good with that if you all are. Thanks for all of your feedback! FrogginFroggy (talk) 01:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
We're really trying to write a hook here, not a news item. I don't find the ALT2 hooky at all. I think we should return this nom to the nominations page for further work. Yoninah (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
  Done Since the set is about to be moved into the queue, I've returned the hook to WP:DYKN and copied this discussion on the template. Yoninah (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

We're down to 46 approved noms

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

We can continue to build prep sets, but we're scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of balanced sets (see earlier post). Is it time to put on the brakes and run 1 set a day? Pinging @Maile66:@Valereee:@Cwmhiraeth:@BlueMoonset:. Yoninah (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah, yes, I believe we agreed we'd move back to 1-a-days at 60 approved, then back to 2-a-days when we hit 120. We were going to reassess whether those are the right numbers once we'd experienced it, so if 60 is too low, speak up. —valereee (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: well, we're below 60, so let's just switch over now. Yoninah (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely, 1 set a day. — Maile (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, switch back. The backlog looks clearer now, obviously lot fewer people are contributing after the start of COVID upturn in nominations. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
After the next set is promoted at 00:00 UTC (just under four hours from now), we'll need an admin to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400. When we went below 60 today, that was the triggering factor. Just be sure it's done after midnight and not before! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Pinging admins Maile, Amakuru, Wugapodes, Cwmhiraeth, Lee Vilenski, and Gatoclass to make the abovementioned change to User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates right away (and absolutely before 12:00 UTC). Thanks to whoever gets there first. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
  Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

July 4 DYK image

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

We currently have a Statue of Liberty image hook in Prep 3 scheduled for July 2, and an Australian image from Prep 5 scheduled to appear on July 4. I feel it would be appropriate to switch these images for the occasion of the American Independence Day on July 4. I feel that any country's national holiday is a special occasion. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Makes a lot of sense,   Done. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Sounds sensible. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Definitely better than the picture of Andrew Jackson's cottage I had suggested for Boneybefore, which was in the 4 July holding area. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Kronstadt-Toulon naval visits anniversary

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hi all. I've just noticed that 23 July will be the anniversary of the first of the Kronstadt-Toulon naval visits. Would it be OK to run one of the hooks related to the first visit (ALT0 or ALT1) on that date and insert "23 July" into the article link? The nomination page is here: Template:Did you know nominations/Kronstadt-Toulon naval visits. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks The Squirrel Conspiracy, I've done this - Dumelow (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
The Squirrel Conspiracy, Dumelow, nominators should not move their own hooks to the special occasion section—someone independent (like a reviewer) should determine whether the nomination is appropriate to be a special occasion, and that person should move it. This certainly appears to be a suitable special occasion, but sometimes they aren't. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Just for clarification: is there consensus for nominators not to move noms to the special occasion section? There have been cases in the past where the move was done by the nominator (usually if the request has been approved by the reviewer). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyone need a WP:QPQ?

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I don't know if this is allowed, but Evrik did it (Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 168 § Trade QPQ), and he's smarter than I am, so it probably is.

I hope to get a review for Template:Did you know nominations/Disini v. Secretary of Justice, which has languished for 20 days. In return, I'll review one, two, even three DYKs. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 13:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Will do, thank you! I also ticked pill mill, and read through it and made some fixes. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 15:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I've donated many WP:QPQs through the years. I am happy to share if more are needed. Wear a mask and be careful out there! Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Q7 June29

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

===Template:Did you know nominations/Ryan T. Anderson===

Bait30Hog Farm

I'm reading the source to say the book hit the bestsellers list, not that it topped it? —valereee (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC) NM, found it, sorry! —valereee (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Queen Elizabeth's Oak, Hatfield House

Dumelow

There isn't a citation on the support sentence. There's one on the following sentence, which is very closely related, and I'm assuming that's the source, but I can't get to it and don't like to add the citation when I can't get to the source. —valereee (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I always forget that is a DYK rule, sorry. I've added the duplicate ref to the article - Dumelow (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
No worries, the rule is pretty counterintuitive for anyone using citations in the normal way. :) —valereee (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Başakşehir Çam and Sakura City Hospital

CeeGee, the article says this was true at the time it was built? Do we know that it's still true, and can we put that into the article as "as of 2020" or something? —valereee (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  • That facr was added by Reidgreg. I guess he is more familiar with that topic. I would say it is still "the largest base-isolated building in the world" taking into account that the building was opened only two months ago. I will add "as of 2020" as asked for by you. CeeGee 15:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I realized now that a phrase as "at the time of its opening" is already there. It must fulfill your requirement. CeeGee 15:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) The source is an engineering/construction publication dated 10 June, it's quite recent. I can't say absolutely that there hasn't been something bigger since, and left the timeliness issue to the promoter. (Hook ALT1 states it with more of a qualifier.) – Reidgreg (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
    Checking, the source states it was the biggest base-isolated building on 21 May, the time it was opened. I believe that I stated it as the 'time of construction' in the article because it was being opened in phases (in order to accommodate COVID patients) and I felt that its 'opening' was ambiguous. It's about double the size of Apple Park which was the largest in 2017 (Engineering News-Record, oft quoted by other sources; it notes four of the top-ten at that time were other hospitals in Turkey). – Reidgreg (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

What's the DYK community's feelings about trying to get a DYKReviewerBot replacement?

Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

In 2016, there was a bot, User:DYKReviewBot, that did a pre-review of DYK submissions. It reviewed:

  • Article age (and valid 5x expansion status)
  • Character count
  • All paragraphs having at least one citation
  • No outstanding maintenance tags
  • Pre-ran the Earwig copyvio checker
  • Hook length
  • Whether a QPQ is needed and if it is, whether one is present
  • Checked if the image was free use
  • Possibly other things that I missed

It laid out its findings, and then a human would come in, verify everything, and review the remaining pieces. Here's an example of its output, in the last submission it ever reviewed.

There's a well held maxim that the easier you make it for someone to do the thing you want, the more likely they are to do it. I believe that having a bot do some of the initial lifting, and flag any obvious problems early, would make the QPQ system run faster and smoother. However, before proposing it at the bot requests board, I wanted to get feedback from other DYK regulars.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems like a good idea. Does anyone know why the bot was discontinued? Flibirigit (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I always liked seeing what the bot came up with, it was rather handy. I am also at a loss as to why it got discontinued and I'd love it to be brought back. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Probably because its owner stopped editing. Bringing it back seems like a good idea though. Regards SoWhy 12:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Would be quite helpful especially in helping clear out the backlog, provided that (just like before) it would be made clear that its findings would be preliminary and wouldn't be a substitute for a full review. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Did the bot actually save any time? Because I ended up checking almost everything the bot checked anyway, so didn't feel like it saved much time. And it had lots of problems/false positives e.g. "copyvios" with quotes, that example above it's checking against incorrect criteria (it's listed as a 2x BLP expansion not a 5x expansion), and it made every DYK nomination really long (and page size on the nominations/approved is often a problem for us). In principle, I would support a bot for this, but the things mentioned would be need to be considered. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
That could be because at the time it was running, the 2x unsourced BLP expansion requirement was still in place. In any case if the bot is to be revived, the code would have to be updated to reflect that criterion being phased out. As for the false positives prospect, one possibility could be for the bot to only check the more menial DYK requirements (such as newness, article length, QPQ, etc.) but leave the more serious checks (such as sourcing and paraphrasing) to human editors. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The bot will make for unnecessarily long nomination pages, which will in turn cause the Approved page to overflow much sooner than it has done. I always found the pages much harder to read and was relieved when the bot stopped running. I doubt reviving it will make the reviewing backlog clear out any faster, and as I remember it, people were more likely to rely on the bot's pronouncements than check or recheck themselves, and missed issues. In short, I don't favor its revival. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I like the idea as a starting point for a human review. --evrik (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Queue 5: SiIvaGunner

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

An issue was raised at WP:ERRORS concerning this, in that Kingoflettuce wanted to re-nominate it for deletion. While I agree with the response by Hut 8.5 there, that the page should not be re-nominated at this time, there is also a problem that following a big clean-up yesterday, the prose size at 1312 is now insufficient for DYK. Not the fault of the nominator, who may or may not agree with the pruning, but unless it can be expanded today, I'm tempted to pull it and push it back to the nom page. Pinging OmegaFallon, Sillyfolkboy and Yoninah who were involved with the nom.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Between the length and the AFD issue, I think this should be sent back to the noms page. Yoninah (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The problematic content was added after my review (differences with version I checked). I'm happy just to revert to that version. A renomination for deletion at this time seems inappropriate given the very recent conclusion of the previous one. I also see no issue with the previous version's usage of primary sources (for basic descriptions of channel type, examples of content, public third party reactions etc). Calling things like that an issue of original research is excessive and if applied consistently would severely limit the utility of this site. SFB 14:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting a renomination for deletion, as the previous discussion was so recent (although there are several problems inside it that are self-evident). But, I did remove the original research, and there was a massive amount of it. Even the previous version referred to by Sillyfolkboy was mostly original research. Given the notability issues, the weak sourcing, and the fact that the article in any form has problems, I don't see how it can be included on the front page of Wikipedia. There's plenty of time to improve the article, the sourcing, and nominate it again later. I'm in favor of pulling it off DYK and waiting for the improvements. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, the article has been at 1312 prose characters for over 36 hours now, and is due to hit the main page in about 28 hours. Please pull it from Queue 5 and reopen the nomination. If you can, please promote one of the hooks from a prep to the queue to replace it. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  Done thanks. I am sympathetic to SFB's point that the pruning of primary sources for simple fact-checking may have been unnecessary here, but that's something that can be hashed out away from here, without the spectre of the article appearing on the main page in a couple of days. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Prep 7

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
The Cock sign

In prep 7, @Yoninah: changed the hook for The Cock sign to one I think is inferior, less hooky and almost ruins the rich ground for the hook. I would propose that it be returned to the original hook that was in the set or moved back to the quirky slot as @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: said to @Joseph2302: when reviewing it. The Royal C (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  Done No problem. The original hook was very like a hook we're running 2 days earlier in Queue 2. Returning to noms area for further work. Yoninah (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it's got a very similar hook to The Cock, so happy for this to wait. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Pauline Monastery

Can an admin please change the name of Pauline Monastery to Monastery of St Lawrence at Buda. there is a discussion here, Talk:Pauline Monastery, and it seems there is consensus. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Queue 5: Handala

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see that Handala is in Queue 5, so expected to be up in a couple of hours. Could it be moved to Queue 2, scheduled for 1 July? That is the day that the Israeli government is expected to begin the annexation of Palestine, so the topic will have a higher profile and be more relevant for readers.

It is doubly elegant because the image of Handala represents how Palestinians will be feeling on that day. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid this request was made far too late; Handala is already on the main page as I type this. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

We currently have the Statue of Liberty in Prep 5 for the July 4 special occasion, followed by Art Tomassetti from Port Chester, New York in Prep 6, then followed two days later by Aaron Judge of the New York Yankees in Prep 1. That makes three images related to New York City in four consecutive DYK prep sets. I am sure this is unintentional, but it really should be avoided. Any preferences here of what to move? Flibirigit (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd say move the Port Chester so we avoid a deliberate follow on and leave the Yankees one as that would result in a few days separating them which I would say is reasonable. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
NOTE: Switching Art Tomassetti with Prep 3 would avoid the consecutive New York images, but then we would have people images in three consecutive days when considering Queue 1 and Queue 2. Flibirigit (talk) 09:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree we shouldn't have 4 NYC images in a row. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Once Prep 3 and Prep 4 get promoted to queues, the Art Tomassetti lead hook could be moved to one of those newly cleared prep sets, preferably the latter to space out the person images (and maybe the Prep 6 spot be replaced by a woman, so we don't have four men as person lead hooks). We might also want to space out the two British buildings leading Prep 7 and Prep 2 a bit more by moving the latter to a later prep set when they open up. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, and The Squirrel Conspiracy: the usual prep workers. Flibirigit (talk) 08:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
As the person that chose both the P5 and P6 images, it didn't even occur to me that Art Tomassetti was a "New York" hook because his notability had nothing to do with his birthplace. I've moved the baseball pic from 1 down to 3, which is now a 48 hour delay, and swapped in a typewriter from someone associated with South Carolina and London. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

GOCE

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A couple of times in the last few weeks, Template:Did you know nominations/St. Lawrence (restaurant) and Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Asakai, I have suggested that an editor go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests and ask for help. I had mixed results. Does anyone have any tips on what to do with a nomination that qualifies, but could be made better with some copy-editing? Thanks. --evrik (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

The GOCE was a bit preoccupied with its 10th anniversary drive last month, working on the maintenance backlog. As a consequence, the GOCE Requests page (shortcut: WP:GOCER) has backed up a bit. Wait times are currently about one month (it's usually closer to 2–3 weeks). I know some people are reluctant about GOCER because you get mixed results depending on who responds to the request; anyone can volunteer there without any experience or qualification, though the coordinators do try to guide newcomers as time permits.
I'll take a look at Battle of Asakai, it looks interesting from the lead. The other DYK nom you mentioned, I agree that it would have been easier to go to GOCER, or at least to have a separate copy-editing discussion so that the nomination page wouldn't become cluttered. I sometimes run into something similar, where the article needs a substantive copy edit but doing so myself would make me a major contributor and disqualify me as a reviewer. Still, sometimes it's just easier to be bold and do stuff yourself. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I was think more of a formal notice that we can add to a nomination. More of a 'timeout' if you will. Something to say, this needs copyediting. Maybe even adding it to the {{DYK tools}}? --evrik (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/F. Scott Fitzgerald

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Could another editor kindly take a look at this? It has been stuck since April with little progress due to disagreements over the article's GA promotion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The GA promotion is currently being reassessed, as noted on the DYK nomination page. Once the reassessment has concluded, the nomination can proceed (or not, should the nomination be delisted). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Roger Poole

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I'm told (above) that there is a consensus against moving one's own nominations into the special occasions section. I've noticed that Roger Poole could feature on the 74th anniversary of his birth (11 July) or 5th anniversary of his death (3 July) and it might be nice to mark one of these? - Dumelow (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Dumelow I've added as special request for 11 July. Preps for 3 July have been done already, so 11 July will be easier for people. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Is there? I've never heard of that one, there's nothing in DYKSG about it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I've encountered this. It wasn't about the person, but more about the process. --evrik (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
    We've actually discussed this recently, and the broad consensus was that it represented a possible COI for noms to be able to move to spec occ themselves. They're allowed to come here and nag, though. :) —valereee (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Prep 5: Hook too long

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
@Drmies:
I liked the hook so much that I didn't realize till after I promoted it that it's way over 200 char. Could you suggest something shorter? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, thanks--how about "... that Joseph Crews, a Republican official in South Carolina who organized a militia to mobilize African American voters, was assassinated by whites in the run-up to the 1876 South Carolina gubernatorial election?" I have that at exactly 200 (leaving out the name and the wikilinks and all that). Thank you so much! Drmies (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Drmies: without the ellipses and question mark, the character count is now at 210 characters. How about:
ALT2: ... that Joseph Crews, who organized a militia to mobilize African-American voters in South Carolina, was assassinated by whites in the run-up to the 1876 gubernatorial election? Yoninah (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@Drmies: or if you want your longer hook, just delete the second South Carolina from the piped link. Yoninah (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, let's go with your ALT2, thanks--it's really a copy edit, so that should not be a procedural problem. Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
  Done OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived a few minutes ago, so here is an updated list with the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through June 3. We currently have a total of 317 nominations, of which 72 have been approved, a gap of 245. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones remaining from March and April.

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1: COVID-19 pandemic in the Navajo Nation

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@FrogginFroggy, Maile66, and Yoninah: Hi, I'd just like to point out a minor note regarding this hook – Navajo Nation currently links to Navajo, the tribe, but we also have an article about the Navajo Nation itself, which is the subject of the hook and a more intuitive target overall. Is there any objection to changing the link as suggested? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 18:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  Self-trout And I'm the one who brought this same thing up on the DYK nom template. My error, now fixed. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Astrid Gjertsen

Latest comment: 4 years ago23 comments6 people in discussion

I'm asking for some assistance on Template:Did you know nominations/Astrid Gjertsen. The article was reviewed by TheJoebro64 and marked as fine (DYKtick added), but another user (Dyveldi, who doesn't appear to have ever had a DYK according to the QPQ check tool), has come out of nowhere and marked it as failed. I'm not sure how to proceed, as the article does meet all the DYK criteria, would otehr editors be able to look at this article and see what you think? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry I probably did not follow the correct procedure.
- The article basically stops 1986 and she died 2020 which means that 44 years of her life is missing. The taxi-receipts is given Wikipedia:Undue weight (sources)/Wikipedia:UNDUE since this seems to be the reason to put her on the front page and it is also given far too much space in the lead. Most of this story is missing from the article as well. This article is really not more than a draft / a rough sketch that should be worked with a lot more.
- The reason I am sure of this is when I found she was dead and added this to the article [[6]] I also noticed that the article was not in a good state and started looking for sources. The Norwegian article also needs some serious revision. I had the English on my watchlist and followed that to, but it sort of got nowhere important slowly. Our national library have scanned basically all books and newspapers and all of this is available on the netsite nb.no. I work slowly though and are nowhere near ready to rewrite the article. There are just too many sources to work quickly.
- Putting the article on the front page really should mean that it is representative of her life which this article is not. Using the scandal with the taxi receipts as an excuse is to me sensationalism. It was all over the newspapers and it turned out it was so clumsy it had to be discovered and it was a personal tragedy related to her husbands illness. This was understood and she was thouroughly forgiven, but obviously could not continues as minister. Her political life was more or less over, but the rest of her life did countinue and she did not stop making a difference. --regards ツDyveldi ☯ prat ✉ post 19:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
You seem to have DYK confused with Featured Articles. These are the criteria for DYK:
  • Was the article created, expanded (5x), moved to mainspace, or promoted to Good Article status within 7 days of the nomination?
  • Is the article at least 1500 bytes long and not a stub?
  • Does the article contain at least one citation to a reliable source for each paragraph and direct quote?
  • Is the article free of material copied from other sources?
  • hook fact is backed by a source.
  • hook reasonably interesting?
  • If the hook has a picture, is it freely licensed?
  • Is the picture used in the article (hook image may be a crop of an article image)?
  • Check to make sure the nominator did a proper QPQ.

Astrid did appear on the main page ITN June 22, but it was under "Recent Deaths" and not a bolded link. — Maile (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

No I am not thinking of featured articles, please see comment on Template:Did you know nominations/Astrid Gjertsen. I am thinking it is not ok to have an article on the front page when the article is not ok. I am really seriously concerned about the article. Especially since the lead and the text meant for the DYK have tilted and so much is missing in the article. regards ツDyveldi ☯ prat ✉ post 20:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Maile, I think Dyveldi may be referring to Rule D7, which refers to whether the reviewer thinks the article is start-class or not. I've looked at the article and while it does leave out certain blocks of years, it covers both her personal life and her career with a broad stroke. This is enough for DYK. Yoninah (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. We are not putting the article on the main page, just the one-sentence blurb. It already had a link on the main page on June 22, so it's not like we're giving anymore access to the article than ITN did. — Maile (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
The question I have is whether the hook about the taxi receipts is a BLP issue: is it appropriate to put that fact on the front page? (Hooks giving a negative impression regarding other politicians have certainly been nixed in the past.) The other hook is probably more appropriate under the circumstances. I was also wondering about the Pavle Jovanovic hook in Prep 2: is this really a BLP-appropriate hook to be running? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: neither of those people are living. Yoninah (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, please see WP:BDP: The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death. As both of these were people whose articles were nominated within days of their death, the BLP rules still apply to their articles and hence their DYK nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thanks for enlightening me. Yes, the hook is negative. I'll ask for a new hook at the nomination page. Yoninah (talk) 12:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, thanks for pursuing this. Any thoughts about the Pavle Jovanovic hook? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah I sent you an e-mail which incorporated what I was able to find out. Google translate is a useful, albeit imperfect, tool. Maybe that suggests a more balanced approach. While the expense voucher/taxi receipt thing is a catchy hook, given that this is essentially a substitute for a recent deaths mention, we ought to look at her whole life and work, and not overemphasize a 40 year old conviction. Doing so is giving it undue weight. Hope that helps. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps a lot. Moving this discussion back to the nomination template. Yoninah (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
If we aren't running the Astrid Gjertsen hook then the same has to apply to Pavle Jovanovic (bobsledder): that article is also a recent death (<2 months ago) and the hook is also focusing on a negative aspect (drugs ban). If that hook stays then that is just double standards. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
We're changing it. Just waiting for User:7&6=thirteen's reply. Yoninah (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Different facts. I would also say that the article on Pavle Jovanovic as I drafted it had even more explanatory (and comparative) material about steroids in OTC products being sold to competitive athletes. Some of our esteemed editors didn't like the contextual material, and opined that the 'skater tangent' wasn't relevant. I disagree. That he tested positive for a banned substance was true; but his intent was not to cheat, but only to compete. I would also add that Pavle's article was in the DYK process for an extended period; and evidently I (and the nomination) am being sniped at because I answered the call for perspective on this article. I had no interest in this article, but did try to help.
Of course, perverse results in Wikipedia (e.g., see the results at recent deaths in WP:ITN, including Jovanovic) come with the territory. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: do you have any more insight here? Yoninah (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Pile on. You too an keep Pavle Jovanovic (bobsledder) off the main page. Again. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, I was thinking we could go with the "feared brakemen" quote from the first line in Career (source 6 has the original), either with or without the U.S. Olympic team officials (not sure we need a link to "bobsleigh" when there's one for "Bobsleigh World Cup"):

Thanks. I'm fine with either. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

2 queues are ready to be loaded

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Casliber:@Amakuru:@Vanadmonde93:@Lee Vilenski:@Guerillero:@Valereee:. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC) Re-ping @Vanamonde93: Yoninah (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Q3 2 July Concern about Fielding Wright hook

Latest comment: 4 years ago20 comments7 people in discussion

Some research into Dixiecrats earlier led me to the Fielding L. Wright article, where I posted about some concerns I have about how the article covers (or rather minimizes) the hardline segregationist, racist stances of the former governor and Dixiecrat VP candidate. Saw that it's also up for DYK, and want to register concern about the hook: "... that Mississippi Governor Fielding L. Wright had a $50,000 lawsuit filed against him by an Imperial Emperor of the Ku Klux Klans of America?". It's not wrong, so perhaps it can be chalked up to nominator/reviewer discretion, but it's worth pointing out that it's somehow highlighting the one fact from the article that can make it seem like he's somehow not closely aligned with the Klan (who were, of course, among his supporters). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: this nomination has been promoted, and the hook is in Queue 3, which is set to hit the main page in three days. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
Presumably I am alone in seeing an issue with this? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm British but I'm not seeing anything wrong with it. The hook is sourced and in the article. What's the problem? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
As I wrote above, the problem is an article about a hardline segregationist and overt racist appearing on the main page with a hook that makes it seem like he was at odds with the Klan. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
For transparency, I've posted about this at WT:BLM. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
It just says he got sued, not that he endorsed the Klan or not. We do need to remember that WP:NOTCENSORED applies at all times and especially to history where values were different back then (no matter whether we agree with them or find them abhorrent). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Fielding L. Wright Pinging nom Jon698 —valereee (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I do not like that hook. It is boring and there is nothing unique about it. How about we just add "segregationist" or "anti-civil rights" to my hook before Fielding's name? - Jon698 talk 21:23 30 June 2020
ALT2: ... that (segregationist or anti-civil rights) Mississippi Governor Fielding L. Wright had a $50,000 lawsuit filed against him by an Imperial Emperor of the Ku Klux Klans of America?
"Segregationist" and "anti-civil rights" isn't in article? —valereee (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: The article states multiple times that he opposed civil rights legislation. He was also the vice presidential nominee of a pro-segregation and anti-civil rights party. - Jon698 talk 21:31 30 June 2020

Template:Did you know nominations/Qibla observation by shadows

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, I nominate a Qibla observation by shadows hook for 15 July spot because it's about a twice-a-year phenomenon that will happen on that day (the other day has already passed for this year). I admit I was kind of late to nominate it, and it might not be reviewed in time. Could some one be kind enough to review it soon? HaEr48 (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  Done I reviewed the nomination and moved it to the Special Occasion holding area for July 15. I also reserved the image slot for it in Prep 2. @HaEr48: Just a heads-up: because of our 24-hour schedule, the article will start its appearance on the main page in the evening hours the day before in the United States. But there's not much that can be done about it, except holding it over for July 16 UTC 00:00. Yoninah (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Thank you very much! I don't think timezone is a problem. The actual event happens on 12:27 Saudi Arabian Time, which is 9:27 UTC on the same day, so it is still good for July 15 UTC. It only happens on that one moment of the day, not throughout the day. HaEr48 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Q1 July7

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/The Ickabog

Joseph2302

Using "featured" here confused me. The article says "wearing a dress containing the "lost manuscript" of The Ickabog." The source says 'attended her 50th birthday fancy dress party as a “lost manuscript” and wrote on a dress most of what was then an unidentified book.' Which to me sounds like she dressed up in a costume that portrayed her as a "lost manuscript", and that she'd created the costume by writing the words of the manuscript on her dress. At any rate, I'm wondering if we need to clarify both at the article and hook, or if this is perfectly clear to everyone else? —valereee (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: How about: ... that the "lost manuscript" of The Ickabog was seen on the dress? Yoninah (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Fine by me, I was using featured as a synonym for seen, but I guess seen would be clearer for non-native English speakers (becaused featured has many meanings). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Ya know, I can live with 'was featured on', so compromise YAY. —valereee (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Currently, on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors at "Errors in Did you know ...", the "Next DYK" points to Queue 6 and "Next-but-one DYK" points to Q1, which should now be Q7? JennyOz (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@JennyOz: the issues was in the Template:Did you know/Queue/After next, which was assuming there were six queues and hadn't been updated for the switch to seven. I have now fixed this. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing @Amakuru:! JennyOz (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

WugBot and DYKUpdateBot

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

@Shubinator and Wugapodes: When User:DYKUpdateBot place a DYK notice, can we have it remove or deprecate the nomination notice left by User:WugBot?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evrik (talk • contribs) 15:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Repinging Shubinator and Wugapodes, since pings attempted without a sig in the same post are not sent. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I don't think this is something WugBot could reasonably do itself since it doesn't really know what happens on the main page. It would probably need to be added to the update bot. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Not my request, Wugapodes. I was doing the ping as a courtesy since the original requester forgot their sig. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Wugapodes and BlueMoonset. --evrik (talk) 04:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Latest comment: 4 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

So the article that is the subject of this nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Pauline Monastery (Budapest) changed names three times in a 24 hour period. After we settled on a name, I went back to fix the internal links on the template. As it is, right now, the links point to a double redirect to a disambig page. I have been reverted 2x by another editor who says I am editing againt policy. This has also affected Template:Did_you_know/Preparation_area_7. So, what policy a I breaking and where is it listed? Thanks. --evrik (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

evrik, it says not to edit right on the closed template you keep trying to edit: The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. You were modifying the page, so I reverted you. Twice. For Prep 7, the hook and the DYKmake there do get updated when articles are moved (I only reverted you there because the article hadn't been moved yet and there was no guarantee it would move), but we don't go back to already closed DYK nomination templates. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • BlueMoonset, you are correct, that's what the template says - but I think some discretion in fixing the internal links may benefit the work we do. Just saying. --evrik (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Evrik, the instruction is at Template_talk:Did_you_know#How_to_move_a_nomination_subpage_to_a_new_name —valereee (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Local update times

Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments7 people in discussion

Hi all

Just wondering what people think about the idea of moving the UTC column at Template:Did you know/Queue/LocalUpdateTimes to be the first, ahead of Los Angeles time? Personally I would find this quite useful because UTC is the main timezone used by Wikipedia and it would enable me to tell at a quick glance without having to scan along the list, which date we're associating with that queue/prep, for special occasion hooks and suchlike. As things stand, using LA time, the first date you see in the table is always one day prior to the actual Wikipedia date of that set (except when we are running 2-per-day and it's the afternoon).

Sort of like this:

UTC Los Angeles New York London (UTC) New Delhi Tokyo Sydney
Queue 3 22 November
00:00 		21 November
16:00 		21 November
19:00 		22 November
00:00 		22 November
05:30 		22 November
09:00 		22 November
11:00

Thoughts? Too controversial? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It looks a little confusing. The first box is July 2, the second box is July 1, and two boxes later is back to July 2. Personally, I can work with the current way the chart looks. Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Flibirigit (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, maybe we could just color that column something different, or bold it, so it would be easy to scan. I always have to do the same thing -- scan over to see which date I'm working on. —valereee (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Valereee that certainly sounds a good suggestion. My point is that UTC is the "main" time that should be shown, and it's the only one I really want to read from that table. I think most of us have probably internalised the calculation from UTC to our own timezones anyway (I know it's always the same in the winter and +1 in the summer for me), and all other dates on Wikipedia are always rendered UTC. If we can get consensus for the bolding of the UTC column I'd support that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, what about a single-column table for UTC, then beside but not part of the same table a multi-column table so people could find their own time zone? That's basically what you're looking for but would prevent any confusion. —valereee (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Amakuru, Valereee, Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, and BlueMoonset: Taking in mind that prep buiders also use that chart. Personally, I don't go by the UTC column, but generally across to the appropriate one for a special date. UTC column is not one I necessarily look at. What do the prep and queue builders think? This would visually work better if you moved Los Angeles and New York to the right side of Sydney, instead of moving UTC. Just switching UTC to the far left by itself is confusing. — Maile (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I always look to the UTC column, but that's primarily because UTC is aligned with GMT. I'm happy with it how it is now, or having the UTC column highlighted in colour would be good. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I personally would find it confusing to have the times out of order, rather than increasing from left to right. It could be decreasing left to right, I suppose, but please don't cross the date line in the middle of a row. UTC has a bit of emphasis because it's a bold wikilink up top. I suppose we could bold the UTC column, if people are having trouble locating it in the table (I don't advise a background color)—the coding might be annoying, but I'm sure I could add the bolding if people agree it's a worthwhile feature. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand your statement, Maile. I just had a nomination that wanted to run on July 15 at 9:27 UTC. With the chart the way it is presently, all I could offer was July 15 00:00 UTC, which of course would be the evening hours of July 14 in the United States. Since we're only running one set a day, a July 15 special occasion request would have to run on July 15 00:00 UTC. I don't see any benefit to pushing the UTC time to the front of the line. Yoninah (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah I'm not the one who wants to push the UTC time to the front of the line. That's Amakuru. Unless I misunderstand his original post, he wants to move the UTC column to the first column on the left. I don't think he's suggesting altering the time itself - only flipping the columns around to what he wants to see first. All I'm saying, which is what I think BlueMoonset is also saying, is that it would knock the visuals out of chronological order, and be confusing. In the case you are referring to, Amakuru's change would not affect that, nor would keeping everything as is (which is what I'm saying). — Maile (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's keep everything as is! Yoninah (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd actually find bolding the UTC column helpful, especially now that the table is so long. —valereee (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Fivefold expansion time limit?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi over at Template:Did you know nominations/Buffalo police shoving incident I queried the character count because the article was created with text from another article. It was close but it wasn't fivefold expanded. The nominator has now expanded the article a bit more and put it over the fivefold boundary, so I am wondering if this is a case where not exactly applies and I can continue with the review. Thanks for any help. Mujinga (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I answered on the template. Yoninah (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Great thanks, in that case I'll carry on with the review. Mujinga (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Did You Know

Latest comment: 4 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

That Wikipedia is nakedly partisan, calling Trumps rally a photo-op? Or that they make bad low jokes about birds? And that they attack the president the day after the Fourth of July? Shameful. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I’m not trolling, and I’m not joking: there needs to be a serious discussion as to how this was allowed on the front of English Wikipedia’s main space. Who allowed this? And why did no one object? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
CNN (among many others) called it a photo-op. Wikipedia didn't invent that just to have a hook on the main page. It's sourced. We don't censor. Click on the link and read the article, and all the sourcing. That's your answer. — Maile (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
So we are blaming the media’s partisanship for this? Sad that Wikipedia presents it like it’s a “fact”, when it’s not. And what is the explanation for the poor humor? It’s not even April 1, when such jokes are held for. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Probably not a good idea to mention CNN in relation to this. Personally I don't like that title either, especially if we are relying on a CNN report for it given they aren't exactly unbiased when it comes to President Trump. However that being said, NOTCENSORED has to apply here just like it does for any other article. DYK has to be a level playing field for all articles, no matter how controversial they may be. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@The C of E:, with all due respect to you personally, the day he did this, you couldn't turn on radio or TV or most any other American media - local and national- without hearing a discussion of the "photo-op". That term was the description numerous media outlets used in its coverage. I said "among others". CNN was but one of the sources in the article. We don't hide our sources. I would also make the argument that "unbiased" modern media - either direction in almost any country - is as rare as hen's teeth. And if anyone thinks Wikipedia should not use a given standard media outlet, then perhaps take it to Jimbo's talk page. — Maile (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
We are indeed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, I think you're off-base here. If you have issues with the article, take them there. As for the DYK process, you could have weighed in at any time. As for the substance, it speaks for itself. --evrik (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes it does speak for itself, it speaks to the abandoning of NPOV on the main page of Wikipedia. It also speaks to a disrespect for the project and it’s goals. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
What specifically was NPOV about the hook or the article? It was reported as a photo-op all over the place. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
”Did you know people were injured so the president could take a picture?” That’s what Wikipedia calls a “fact” now? No discussion of how they tried to destroy a historic church? No context at all that the president was standing against mobs that are destroying American culture, churches, statues, history? Nope! Just “president needed a selfie, so chemicals used on crowd”. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Take your issues with the facts to the article. The main page hook was neutral, and based off the article. --evrik (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The "discussion" and "context" you talk about are not relevant to the hook itself, which was factually accurate. Chemical dispersants were used, the crowd was peaceful. The vast majority of sources called it a "photo-op", and there was consensus at the article talk page that the title was appropriate. And Trump's reasons for going there are discussed in the article. P-K3 (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • The fundamental issue here is that we define neutrality not based on what the general public believes to be neutral, but on what reliable sources say. As such Judgesurreal's concern is understandable, but has no basis in policy, and in fact reflects a disagreement with core Wikipedia policies more than anything on that page. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

History

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The south African constitution has never been adopted by any country? Tshidi ke Tshidi (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Error message from DYK Update bot

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"Invalid credit template:   3rd Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) – Hog Farm (give) (tag) – View nom subpage" The template is exactly as it was on the nomination template before promotion, so I don't see what is erroneous about it. — Maile (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when the very incorrect DYKmake template was corrected in the nomination template's second edit, instead of "subpage" being the parameter of the final field, it was entered as "nompage". As "nompage" is not a valid field name, DYKUpdateBot naturally threw an error. Maile, I see that you've issued the appropriate credit on the article's talk page; can you please also do so for its creator? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I just added the credits on the article page and the editor's page. It's been a very long time since I've done that manually, so I hope I got them correct. — Maile (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Former TFA as DYK

Latest comment: 4 years ago30 comments11 people in discussion

Should a former featured article (indeed, once “today’s featured article”) - but since demoted - be eligible for DYK? For example if it later attains GA status. Should the nominator disclose its history? 82.132.229.97 (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, the article's talk page has its entire history in that regard. Hopefully, the nominator would not delete the talk page templates that show that history. But this does bring up a different question. DYK eligibility criteria only says, "If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, it is eligible for DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility." I don't find any rules about for a former TFA being excluded from a subsequent DYK nomination. — Maile (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be a very miniscule number of articles that would get to FA status, feature on the main page, then lose that status completely. So I see no problem with this little quirk IF it ever occurred since as Maile said, the rules don't prohibit it so we should default to that old common law adage: everything which is not forbidden is allowed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

“IF”? “Hollaback Girl” is on the Main Page right now. It was a featured article for nine years. It seems very much against the spirit of DYK to me, even if it is not written down in “The Rules” (more what you’d call guidelines, really).

Ok, so today’s top tip to those seeking DYK glory: look through the list of former featured article and find a few that can be “upgraded” to GA status without too much effort, for some quick wins. 82.132.229.97 (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

What exactly do you think you "win" for an article being on DYK? Certainly nothing of physical value. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I guess the question is ... why does this bother you? One of the outstanding objectives of DYK is to get editors to improve articles. That happened. If any wins are to be had here, it was Wikipedia, that got a cleaned up and improved article out of this. — Maile (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
That's exactly what I would say. Between this and last month's bickering about fivefold increases on articles which were longer at some distant point in the past, I really wonder what people think we're here for and why the desire to throw so many bureaucratic hurdles at editors who just want their work to get some space in the limelight. I think most articles demoted from FA would be in poor condition at that point, so if someone has later gone through the hoops of improving it back to GA then good for them.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm rather dubious about this - most articles demoted from FA in recent times still meet GA status, or very nearly so, indeed there have in the past been discussions as to whether they should sometimes/usually go straight to a GA status - obviously this wasn't adopted. The work involved in formally getting GA status for an ex-FA may well be pretty minimal. I'd imagine with the right article & right reviewer some would make GA without any work at all, especially if some was done for FAR. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
If you look at the talk page history, it wasn't so simple. It was demoted over 4 years ago, had a failed GAC in 2016, and went through Peer Review and GAC in 2020. And then again, it could have just been a music fan who wanted to contribute. — Maile (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
We're talking about the general principle, no? I haven't looked at the specific case here. Johnbod (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I see. OK. Got it. 19:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to ban former FAs from DYK per se; it's a relatively small number of articles anyways. However, TFAs are another matter and should be banned based on the spirit of criterion 1d, which is that articles which have already shown up on the Main Page should not appear again as DYK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Well ... you could start an RFC section on the talk page here. BlueMoonset I think you've been at DYK longer than I have. Do you know why TFA (or TFL) would not be specified in the rules as not eligible based on a previous Main Page appearance? — Maile (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
    It also doesn't Prohibit previous POTD entries from appearing on DYK. And of course things can always appear several times in the opposite order. DYK -> ITN -> TFA -> OTD -> POTD  — Amakuru (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, but who's going to be so pedantic to do all that? We're talking about a very very small chance that a tiny percentage of editors are actively hunting former FAs to make them DYKs purposfully. Please not another RFC, we still haven't got over that last one that's still going. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)
  Idea:Maybe we could have an RFC for DYK to cease and desist RFCs during a given time, to keep editors from punching their mouse thingies and moaning, "No ... no .... stop the madness..." :-) :-) — Maile (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Maile, the reason the rules don't mention former TFAs is because when DYK started, the only possibilities were new articles or newly expanded articles, and no former FA had a chance at qualifying as either. With GAs added to the mix in recent years, then it suddenly becomes possible for a former TFA to be delisted, and the article to later be improved to the point that it becomes a GA (and thus eligible for DYK, assuming it had never been at DYK before). TFL wouldn't have been specified because lists are not eligible to become GAs and thus they couldn't qualify for DYK barring a 5x expansion, which I doubt would be feasible. (I also think TFL is a comparatively recent addition to the main page, so it wouldn't even have been a possibility when the DYK criteria were put together. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with this. Especially a TFA, which has featured on the main page in the most prominent spot and had an entire section devoted to it. If we hadn't specifically forbidden it, it's because it wasn't possible before given the DYK process. In recent times we have added OTD to ITN in order to stop that back door; there's no reason not to add TFA to that list, or even be more general to prevent DYK from being allowed if the article has been a bold link in any of the main page sections (exempting, of course, where the link is part of Recent deaths or OTD birth and death links without any accompanying text). I'm not sure whether all of them could be checked, however. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Suggested re-wording. BTW, Shubinator will need to code Did you know/DYKcheck to include a previous TFA or TFL in its check. — Maile (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, "Today's Featured Article", "Today's Featured List" or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, it is eligible for DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.""
Maile. I'm pretty sure this comment isn't placed where you wanted it, but I'm not absolutely positive... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Oops! - Thanks for catching. — Maile (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
If we're changing it, can we also add an explicit mention of recent deaths still being eligible? This comes up every 2 or 3 months for me. Not helped by the fact that DYKcheck sees the "In the news" talkpage banners for recent deaths, and so the check suggests the article isn't eligible. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I oppose this because it is very much using a sledgehammer to crack a nut here. We are talking a minuscule number of articles that utilise a little quirk in the rules which is fairly harmless and doesn't hurt the project. It seems a lot like WP:CREEP here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

This proposed change is not rules creep. It is filling a loophole.

As I understand it, the principle behind the rule is that each article gets just one chance to be featured at DYK, but not if it has already been featured prominently elsewhere on the Main Page. What goes for ITN and OTD should apply, a fortiori, to their bigger siblings, TFA and TFL and indeed POTD. If the article has been a bolded link anywhere, it doesn’t get on again. (This is not the first former featured article to appear at DYK - for example, Richard Feynman and Starship Troopers; there may be others.)

Pointing no fingers, but as a dispassionate observer, it is disheartening to see the spirit of entitlement and rule-lawyering that surrounds DYK. If there is any rules creep, it is because of people trying to rule-lawyer around the edges of the basic principles to get a reward that apparently does not exist. It is a privilege not an entitlement. Let it go. 82.132.231.187 (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link where Richard Feynman was on the main page as DYK, after he was TFA? The talk page on his article says he was DYK on August 31, 2016, even though the Aug 31, 2016 archive does not list him . Two years later, he was TFA on his 100th birthday May 11, 2018. Nevertheless, DYK guidelines do not affect what TFA does with its own section. — Maile (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Maile, Feynman was in a multi-article hook that was archived on September 1, 2016—we were doing one set a day during that period, so the August 31 set was archived on September 1, when it came off the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2016/September#1_September_2016 --evrik (talk) 04:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I nominated Richard Feynman. It had appeared as TFA back in 2004, but had been completely rewritten by the time I nominated it for DYK after it was promoted to GA for the second time in 2016. It's having previously appeared on the DYK TFA was duly noted at the time. See Template:Did you know nominations/Matthew Sands. The reviewer noted that this possibility had come up when GAs were added to the DYK eligibility, and the rules were not changed at that time. I'm surprised that Maile would query this, being the reviewer in question. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 that's what made me question it, as I vaguely remember doing the review. But I could not find the links to verify it. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 10:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Love the lead hook→March On, Bahamaland

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Just want to say I love the music file in the lead hook. Wish we would get more like this. — Maile (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and I must say it's a pretty darned inspiring anthem for a tiny country! Gatoclass (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_169&oldid=1149612701"