Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 189

< Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Latest comment: 1 year ago by BorgQueen in topic Hmm... guess what.
Archive 185←Archive 187Archive 188Archive 189Archive 190Archive 191→Archive 195

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list hasn’t yet been archived, but it’s long enough in the tooth that I've created a new list of all 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 1. We have a total of 218 nominations, of which 89 have been approved, a gap of 129 nominations that has increased by 11 from last time. Thanks to everyone who reviews these!

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other 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. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Announcing dyk-tools

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

One of the first things I noticed when I got involved with DYK administration was that the workflow is sub-optimal. I've been toying with some ideas and came up with dyk-tools. So far, about all it does is make some guesses about which of our major categories a hook falls into (Biography or not, American or not). The biography heuristic is pretty good. The american heuristic, less so. I'm not sure where this is heading, but I've got in mind that I'll be able to do things like "Show me all the american biography hooks that are good-to-go and which I'm eligible to promote because I'm not the approver or author". I can also see it doing status alerts like "Prep 5 has two biographies in a row". Anyway, go play with it and send me your feedback.

The code is on github. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: this is pretty good! What i've taken to recently visa-v sorting is, whenever there's a couple preps or more to fill, just lumping all of the hooks i promote into a single prep first and then sorting them out afterward. I added a function to PSHAW that allows you to promote a hook into an already-full prep, so that makes it quite a bit easier. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, first of all, I like what you are doing here, and see good potential for this. Secondly ... we actually have an approved nomination out there named Cow Hell Swamp - I love that name. You know ... @Juxlos and Aoidh:, I think there is a possibility for a really cool quirky hook. And the sourcing is already there:
ALT3 ... that kayaking in Georgia can lead you to Cow Hell Swamp? — Maile (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Queue 5 (next update)

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion

... that the National Wrestling Conference's controversial KKK storyline was the inspiration for an episode of the Netflix series GLOW?

  • KKK needs to be either linked or expanded to its full name, I think. We can't assume that a worldwide audience knows what it means.

... that Gary Wilson threw his cue stick to the floor in anger at the 2022 UK Championship?

  • I have never, ever, heard a snooker cue be referred to as a "cue stick". It's either "snooker cue" or just "cue", both of which link to the current target. Black Kite (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    For KKK, I'm not sure this needs to be done in the hook (which can be slightly mysterious), but it certainly needs to be done in the article, which gives no clue which KKK it is talking about. For the other issue, I am clueless (and cueless) but wish to note that our article is called cue stick. —Kusma (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, because cue stick is about multiple types of cue and is something of an Americanism. This is specifically about a snooker cue - but as I say, snooker cues are never called "cue sticks" (especially in the UK where the story is from). It'd just be better to say "snooker cue" and pipe it to cue stick - especially as the hook currently doesn't give any clue as to which sport is involved. Black Kite (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    That proposal sounds good to me, but let's ask @Lee Vilenski. —Kusma (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    You play cue sports with a cue stick. Regardless of what type of sport you are playing, it's always a cue stick. The cues do differ between games, which is why you might hear someone call it a snooker cue, as that type of cue is used to play snooker, although you can play any with any type. It's not an Americanism, fyi, as it's a holdover from English billiards, where you'd never hear someone say a "billiards cue" (which, of course, predates snooker). "Snooker cue" is more of a colloquial expression. With that being said, I think it makes no real difference. I can't say if I care if it's piped or not, as both are true. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    FWIW, I've spelled it out on the first occurrence and included a link to Ku Klux Klan in the National Wrestling Conference article. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Another one ... that Ella Stewart Udall relayed her husband's letters to his semi-secret second wife?

Well, it does say "Ida Udall went into hiding". I wouldn't object if a different phrase was substituted for "semi-secret", but I don't think it's inherently incorrect. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Lafarge scandal

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Once pulled out from queue/prep, it was forgotten to have the nomination restored to the 'Awaiting approval' page. After 13 days I just realized the nomination is not linked from the mentioned page. Did I have to do it myself? It's not unprecedented. --Mhhossein talk 05:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Done :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Theleekycauldron. --Mhhossein talk 07:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Did I break anything?

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Now that I can reliably break the preps, I've decided to try my hand at breaking queues. I've promoted prep 1 -> queue 1. Please let me know how I did. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Looks good to me on the technical side! Since you already have PSHAW, you should be able to do it semi-automatically from the prep set :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I know you're not supposed to promote into a prep any hooks you approved, but what about queues? Does the same restriction apply there? Also, Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions#Move to Queue just talks about the mechanics. Is it also expected that I'm re-reviewing them for rule compliance before moving? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, you are supposed to re-review for rule compliance. Some people move first, review afterwards, though. —Kusma (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Oops, @RoySmith, looks like you promoted Overwatch to both prep and queue. Want to put it back in the prep in favour of another U.S. bio? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I guess that's answers my previous question :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Yep :) as for re-review, Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions#Process talks about all the stuff you have to do in verifying the set. You recheck each hook for interestingness, BLP, neutrality, proper formatting, and crediting. You also recheck each bolded article for recent instability, maintenance tagging, BLP, copyvio, bare URLs, newness, length, and the hook mention/citation. You also recheck image licensing and captioning. It also says that The admin checks can be accomplished either before or after moving the prep to queue.
Yeesh. Can we get rid of some of this? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
OK, swapped it out: Special:Diff/1126913568. I'll work on the reviews. If I may be so bold, the instructions kind of suck :-) You look for the instructions on how to move a prep to a queue and you find them. What they don't say is, "Oh, by the way, there's a bunch of other instructions you should also read". -- RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Admins should never skip checks for hook citation, BLP, neutrality, image licensing or copyvio. The others are slightly more optional in my view. Bare URLs or incorrect credits can be fixed later, and promoting an article that should have been failed on newness is unlikely to do any harm. —Kusma (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
OK, I've run through the basics for all each of the hooks in that set. Thank you everybody for the pointers. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, much of that is reminders to ourselves for admins. The actual move process is pretty straightforward (though I definitely appreciate it that PSHAW now makes it even easier) but a lot of what's in the admin instructions are what to do if something's gone wrong, as that happens infrequently enough that whoever is trying to fix it hasn't done it in a long time. Sort of an institutional memory thing.
Re: moving to queue something you yourself nominated, reviewed, or promoted. While not ideal, it's difficult to completely avoid if an admin is also an active nominator because moves-to-queue necessarily involve 8 hooks. If you're making dozens of noms in a year, not being able to move to queue anything you nominated or reviewed could mean most preps contain something you've touched at some point.
In practice I avoid promoting to prep anything I nominated or reviewed and avoid moving to queue any a prep I built, but if a hook I nominated or reviewed is in prep, I think it's okay for me to move that prep to queue. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Kim de l'Horizon

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Kim de l'Horizon was in prep as lead hook, was unpromoted only to get refs fixed, and is now in prep 4 without image. Why? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe ask me when I'm the one who promoted it? I didn't know that it was ever promoted before I got to it. SL93 (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I didn't use the image because of how many lead biography hooks have been used recently. SL93 (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
It was late when I noticed, and I was too tired to look into the history, SL93, - sorry about that. How many images of a non-binary person - and then the first to win that important prize - have we featured recently? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt I don't have the desire to try to change what was already promoted to image slots. I suggest trying to start a new discussion with people who care or just leave it be. SL93 (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

So as before, for everybody: Kim de l'Horizon (not by me) was in prep as lead hook, was unpromoted only to get refs fixed, and I wish for a non-binary person - and then the first to win that important prize, and giving a signal of solidarity to protesters and victims in Iran - to be pictured again, picturing that signal of solidarity. I care - who else? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed the photo didn't get used, because it was a high quality image. But, as far as "we should give them the lead slot because we want to promote their political views"? Well, I think WP:NPOV applies to set building just as much as it does to article writing. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking about the quality. I was thinking about the three biography lead hooks in a row and another one shortly after those. SL93 (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't have said a word if they hadn't been promoted with picture, and I was happy. Then I noticed that some refs were not properly formatted. Someone unpromoted, and now I feel guilty. Do you understand?? The refs could have been formatted while in prep, - there was no need to unpromote for a mere formality, and at the time, there was no overload of biographical images. Can you help me feeling less guilty? Run it later? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I unpromoted it for now. SL93 (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Q 6, 7, and 8 - all womens lead hooks

Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments5 people in discussion

@Theleekycauldron: I don't know if hooks got shuffled around after your promotion of them, or this was your intention. But Q 6, 7 and 8 all have women in the lead hook. Suggestions? — Maile (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Maile66: Whoops! I think that's my shuffle mistake! I'd say the easiest solution would be to move Fort Pearson (prep 4) to replace Sabrina Thompson (queue 7), and move Thompson to the empty slot in prep 5. A more robust solution, if you had the time, would be to promote preps 2 and 4 and rearrange them so that it's non-bio lead, bio lead, non-bio lead, and bio lead, but if you don't have the time either works fine. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Might I suggest dropping Template:Did you know nominations/OneLove into Queue 7? It's scheduled for "Before/on December 18", but really any time during the ongoing World Cup would make sense. And it's got a great image for the lead slot. I gave it its last tick, so I can't do it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, we could do that with OneLove, if someone wanted to promote it to a Prep first. Or, we could also swap that delicious strawberry pie up there. Or the Fort Pearson. Any of them work for me. — Maile (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Is OneLove PD in the Netherlands? The flourishes on the design throw me off theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, RoySmith, and Kingsif: Have a close look at that logo OneLove as it is on Commons. Right through the middle, the alignment seems off. — Maile (talk) 00:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I think that's just being faithful to the original: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2022/10/10/england-will-defy-fifa-banned-wearing-onelove-armband/ -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
@Maile66: Yes, it's intentional - if you're talking about the letters top/bottom. I'll take a look at it if it's the orientation or the colours! Kingsif (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
It's the line through the words that shifts it. But the original seems to be exactly the same, so maybe it's OK. — Maile (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I think maybe the line at Commons is a bit thicker than the original so it showed up, but that's where the letter shift is 'supposed' to be. I now see the PD question which seems to remark on this letter-shift: for those wondering, it's still 'simple font' and shapes even if it's not all aligned, so it's fine. Kingsif (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, I will cede the moving around to anyone who is willing. End of the workday fatigue. — Maile (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
OneLove is now in prep 5. SL93 (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: I know I wrote the hook for that, but I'm now thinking it (OneLove began as a Dutch campaign to encourage anti-discrimination in football?) reads a little inaccurate – that is, OneLove is still a Dutch campaign to encourage anti-discrimination in football, it hasn't changed in that regard since it began. (I'm also not sure how interesting it is to basically give a short definition, either.) If you're happy with the alt hook, you can sub that in instead, or whatever. Kingsif (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I placed in the alt hook. SL93 (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

What did I break this time?

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Got an error message when trying to submit Template:Did you know nominations/USS Romeo while using that DYK that appears in the drop-down of the "More" tab (not sure what the proper name is). My guess is that I screwed something up with the date, but would anybody be able to verify and/or fix it if that's what the issues is? Hog Farm Talk 20:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I think the script was unable to add the template to Template talk:Did you know (probably one of the annoying issues like loss of session data that I've had a few times today), but I've done that for you now. —Kusma (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments4 people in discussion

I think this one really needed its image, as it's a hook about a piece of art and the image shows why the hook makes sense, but if we don't use the image, could it go to a quirky? Valereee (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee I'm guessing you're talking about Template:Did you know nominations/Dangers of the Mail? I have no objection if somebody wants to move it to an image slot, but I left the image out because I didn't think it was recognizable at the small size it would be on the front page. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, that's the one.
Isn't the image in the nom template the same as on the front page? Valereee (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Yup, it is. To my eye, it wouldn't have much visual impact at that size. It's a busy image, low contrast, limited color pallatte. But if you disagree, I have no objection to it being used in another set. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I would love to see it being used as I think it's important to understanding the hook. More so than most images, really. The Palmer image is fine IMO, but I don't think it's important to the hook, for instance. I'll leave it to others, though, I really try not to argue with people building preps. :D Valereee (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
The current Robert Palmer image is certainly rather unenticing. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
What's wrong with the Palmer image? It's clearly recognizable as portrait of a man in a business suit, and visually suggestive of the early 20th century. However, I do note some prevarication about whether it is truly PD or not; somebody who's better versed at copyright law really should look at that. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
What's wrong with it is exactly that it is (like such a high proportion of DYK images) "clearly recognizable as portrait of a man in a business suit, and visually suggestive of the early 20th century". Johnbod (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@Johnbod That's a perfectly valid point, thank you. Looking back at the sets I've been building, I've been favoring those kinds of images. I'll work on looking for greater variety. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Valereee. It's fine for Wikipedia, the image is in the public domain in the US, where the servers are hosted. It is only fair use images that are banned from the main page, though I can't immediately locate the policy page that states this. Commons has a stricter requirement that the image is PD in the country of origin as well as the US. To be honest this 1911 photograph probably meets the PD criteria for the UK but I don't have the time or inclination to work it out as PD-US is fine for it to appear here. I quite like the image but if the consensus is to swap it for the artwork then no objection from me - Dumelow (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Dumelow! Valereee (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm thinking let's pull back to the approved noms page and reopen to see if we can come up with a better hook for a non-image slot. I just don't think the current hook makes much sense without its image. Valereee (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Add to DYKbox

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@BlueMoonset and Theleekycauldron: Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions doesn't seem to be listed in the {{DYKbox}} It would be helpful to list it there somewhere. I don't edit boxes and don't want to mess it up. — Maile (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

@Maile66: Hmm. I could add it, but is there any way we could not have the infobox set up the way it is? Editing a template where all the parameters have to be sequentially redefined every time we add something is... very tedious. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Hah! Just came up with something. I'll add the instructions :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  Great! Cool! Thanks for doing this, for making it handy for us to see the link..— Maile (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Theoretical question regarding a suitable hook that is opposed by the nominator

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

For example, in a nomination, there is a hook proposed by a third-party (i.e. not the nominator). Let's call this ALT1. It meets requirements for verification, sourcing, and readership intrigue. However, the nominator is opposed to this hook as they prefer their original proposal (ALT0), which discussion at the nomination by one or more editors has determined to be unsuitable for whatever reason (either the hook fails the intrigue criterion, it's not verifiable, or some other issue). In such cases, what would be the best option here? Approve ALT1 against the nominator's wishes, go with ALT0 despite earlier discussion consensus against it, or fail the nomination entirely for lack of a suitable hook? This is assuming that, in this scenario, ALT0 and ALT1 are the only possible hook options and there's nothing else in the article that is suitable as hook facts. I'm asking because there's been disagreements in the past as to how much we have to take into account a nominator's wishes in a nomination and I just wanted to clarify such cases. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the nominator should have a major influence, but not absolute veto power. Ultimately, they don't WP:OWN the article, or the nomination, or the space on the front page the hook will inhabit for a day. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
True, but let's leave it at that until we've got a real case. This is way too abstract. EEng 01:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Although I was speaking in general terms, the question was partly inspired by Template:Did you know nominations/Talia Or and to a lesser extent Template:Did you know nominations/Paleoserenomyces. I've also encountered similar cases in the past but I can't remember the exact nominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Also Germaine Bailiac, if memory serves, and I remember seeing an older case. Procedure varies – sometimes a hook is promoted over the nominator's wishes, sometimes the nomination is closed. I personally favour the latter; most of the hooks we're bending and scraping for on these noms aren't so good as to justify the interpersonal conflict, and I'd be hard pressed to find a hook that actually is. There are very few consequences in not airing a hook – if a nominator doesn't want to, there's no reason to not move towards a close. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Gene Cipriano: interesting because of oboe?

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Since we're in interesting introspection mode, what do folks think about Template:Did you know nominations/Gene Cipriano? ALT0 clearly fails the interesting test IMHO. It's "Person X played some music in movie Y". But ALT1 seems more interesting because the oboe is an unusual instrument for pop music, and I'd certainly not expect to see the oboe in connection to the Beach Boys or the Monkees. Especially the latter, which (to the extent that what they did could be called music at all) were strictly an electric guitar and drum set group. So, here's the real question: do I only find that interesting because I'm bringing my knowledge of pop music into the equation? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm commenting here instead of the nom subpage (for now) because of what I will say. To be frank, I don't find oboe with the Monkees unusual, and it's not a far stretch to the Beach Boys. I think the alt hook is the less interesting because it is just "session musician did job"; the original is not quite as you describe, it says that Cipriano played the music in-character, for a character played by someone else (i.e. a "despite" Actor X playing clarinetist Y in movie Z, the music was performed by Cipriano)… but I also don't think that is particularly compelling.
I went to the article to see if I could suggest something else, but while I agree Cipriano is notable, there is nothing at the article really besides his career achievements, so nothing about which to write an interesting hook. This may have to be a case of not suitable for DYK. And I will let someone already-involved break that to the nominator, if they agree. Kingsif (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I find ALT1 better than ALT0, but neither are very eye-catching. It's an odd article; as far as I'm seeing it mentions only one actual song, for an artist it claims is one of the most prolific woodwinders. CMD (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Hooks of the general format "[Artist] played [instrument/operatic role] in [production] in [year] (optional: and was described as [adjective])" are, in my view, not sufficiently interesting to readers without a special knowledge of music, and should be discouraged. This was my view even before the recent changes, but now the new guideline makes it enforceable I believe. I recognize that as a community we have tended to allow this historically, and there may be some resistance to changing our approach. In this particular instance, ALT1 is marginally acceptable in my view because it's making a connection to names that are very widely known. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I find ALT0 slightly better than ALT1, but still not all that great. I suggest using the fact that Cipriano "played on the soundtrack of both the original The Thomas Crown Affair and its 1999 remake." On the other hand, Thriley's suggestion might be better than any of these. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Adoration of the Magi image?

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
 
original
 
exposure pushed up

What do folks think about the lead image that's currently in prep 5? I know it's a historic painting, but as with so many of these, the colors are dark and muted, making it difficult to recognize the subject at this small size. I uploaded a new version with the exposure cranked up. It's more recognizable, but I'm not sure that's a legitimate thing to do since it changes the artistic quality of a piece of art. Maybe the original painting really is dark and muted, and this is just, well, wrong? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list has just been archived, so I've created a new list of all 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 9. We have a total of 247 nominations, of which 101 have been approved, a gap of 146 nominations that has increased by 17 in the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these!

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other 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. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Prep 3: Daily Dozen Doughnut Company

Latest comment: 1 year ago40 comments11 people in discussion

There are two sources attached to the hook fact in the article, of which this is the one that mentions the 1930s. However, it looks like it says the machine was invented in the 1930s, whereas when I read the hook and the article calling it a 1930s "Donut Robot", I take that to mean that the actual machine in the shop itself was manufactured in the 1930s. Perhaps it was, in which case we should add sourcing to that effect, otherwise probably a rewording would be in order to avoid possible misconception. Pinging @Another Believer, Onegreatjoke, Cielquiparle, Cbl62, and Theleekycauldron:. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Amakuru. How is this:
(Changing it in the article too.) Cielquiparle (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy with that if others are.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I guessing you're unaware that we had a recent scandal involving a single editor who had pushed through literally hundreds of GAs (and DYKs, now that we're on the subject) that were riddled with copyvios, unreliable sources, misuse of sources, stuff that made no sense at all, and much more there's insufficient time to mention here -- notability wasn't a focus only because there were much bigger fish to fry.

Returning to the case at hand, let's look at a random selection of the article's sources (the quotes being the entirety of what each source says about the article subject):

  • "Seattle's Best Donut Shops": All day long inside a tiny stall in the heart of the always-teeming Pike Place Market miniature rings of dough are plucked from a bath of hot oil by an aging Donut Robot (Mark II!) and served almost immediately, still hot and deliciously greasy. Sure, they only come in four flavors -- plain, tossed in sugar or cinnamon, and chocolate-sprinkled -- but they are so good you'll want at least... wait for it... a dozen!
  • "Delightful Doughnuts in the Seattle Area": Right in the center of Pike Place Market is the iconic Daily Dozen Doughnut Company, slinger of mini doughnuts fresh out of the onsite fryer. Market shoppers lured by the ubiquitous smells of fried, sugary dough form long lines to wait for a bag of these doughnuts. Grab a half or full dozen of powdered, plain or rotating seasonal specials while they’re hot.
  • "The Culinary Wonders of Seattle's Pike Place Market": The promise of hot mini doughnuts means a constant queue at Daily Dozen Doughnut Company in the Economy Market. It’s fun to watch the little pale blobs float along a river of hot oil in the automatic Donut Robot fryer, two by two — getting flipped halfway down the line — until they’re golden brown on both sides. Sharing a brown paper bag of sprinkle-topped or powdered sugar doughnuts with someone is cool, especially if the doughnuts are hot.
  • "Have you tried all 26 of these iconic Seattle bites?": USA Today mentioned this place as a foodie stop in the Pike Place Market, affirming that hot doughnuts in a paper sack are sublime.
  • "Happy 115th Birthday to Pike Place! Here's a Doughnut": To mark to occasion, Daily Dozen Doughnut Company is giving away free doughnuts and hot beverages to the first 115 people who stop by their special tent in Pike Place Market on Wednesday, August 17.
  • Fodor's Seattle: If you're visiting Pikes Place Market, Daily Dozen Donuts has adorable, made-while-you-watch minidonuts dusted in powdered sugar. (I like this one especially, because it doesn't even suggest you go out of your way, but if you happen to be visiting Pikes Place anyway, well then sure, since you're already there...)
  • 100 Things to Do in Seattle Before You Die: And don't forget to indulge snacky sweet cravings on the way out with minidonuts from the Daily Dozen Donut Company. But they're fun-sized, so go crazy with at least a half dozen. Better yet, make it a dozen, because when they're made in front of you, self-deprivation loses. And, they're cheap!
  • "America's Best Donuts, Part 2" (in Bon Appétit) consists, with respect to the subject of this article, of simply listing its name (only -- nothing more than a name and city) as one of 57 shops that readers wrote in to complain weren't on the magazine's actual best-donuts list. The article laughably misrepresents this as the business was included in a Bon Appétit feature on "America's Best Donuts".

It's all like that -- nothing but routine list-of puffery. Oh, yes, there a single source on a flag-display controversy. If this place is notable, then every donut shop and hot-dog stand anywhere is notable, as long as it's in a town with a local newspaper.

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Daily_Dozen_Doughnut_Company was closed Keep by an inexperienced editor in a textbook case of an AfD filled with vague-wave comments (e.g. The Pike Place Market is one of the most visited tourist attractions in the world -- hyperbole, much? --and almost everyone who goes there sees this weird donut booth) by people who obviously didn't actually look at what the sources say. If I've missed the sources lending notability, please point them out. In the meantime I suggest this hook be pulled. EEng 22:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

the hook can be pulled if someone starts an AfD – DYK usually defers to AfD in determining article notability, since notability is not an explicit requirement for being featured at DYK. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
OK, well if in the next 24 hours no one's pointed out which are the WP:GNG-qualifying sources, then I'll be opening an AfD. So put that in your cauldron and smoke it! EEng 23:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Ping me; I'll be there with my delete !vote. What a disaster of an article. It's certainly possible to have WP:SIGCOV about a local restaurant. For example this article that ran a few days ago in the NY Times (but it's the only such coverage I can find, so no GNG soup for you). The sources in Daily Dozen Doughnut Company are all just trivial coverage, and a lot of trivial coverage doesn't add up to being notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Wait. WTF? This passed GA??? A defective AfD paired with a defective GA. Let's not compound that with a defective DYK. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
More fools us: turns out notability isn't a GA criterion. 23 hours to AfD. EEng 00:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
So, what we've got is pablum. Well formatted, grammatically and orthographically correct, carefully referenced, MOS compliant, copyright free pablum. And, since you mentioned hot dog stands, Walter's Hot Dog Stand is a few miles from my house. I'm not convinced the sources justify WP:N, but at least it's on the NRHP, so that's something. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks EEng, guess you found the energy after all. Well, there we go! I shall reserve further comment till the AfD. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 12:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
You poked the bear. EEng 15:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
The reason I voted !keep in the AfD discussion is indeed because of the 2012 feature article in Seattle Gay News, "Our flag at the Market: Doughnut vendor ruffles feathers displaying pride banner". I would add to that the review in the Serious Eats book (a well-rounded review including a competitor mention and acknowledgement that the process results in "a little more oil"), and the widely syndicated Chicago Tribune article that describes how the doughnut robot works. I did not participate in the GA process, but I have said from the start (as many have commented) that the tone of the article was overly exuberant, so I have now tried to balance out the gushing praise for the donuts, with a bit more recognition of just how much oil is involved. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle thank you for this comment. Most of the comments in the AfD were patently absurd; vague handwaves to GNG and/or personal comments about how somebody feels about the store. Not to mention a link to a google search for the name of the store asserting that since the search returned a bunch of things, the store must be notable. Your note here does what a !vote should do at AfD (and which most failed to do): presents several specific WP:RS and explains why you think each one contributes to WP:N. I'm still not sure I agree this passes GNG, but at least the argument is on a sound footing now. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:13, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Christmas set

Latest comment: 1 year ago41 comments10 people in discussion

Is this a thing we're doing this year? I still have some ideas left over from last year I could work on if so. Kingsif (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kingsif: That time of year again already? yeeesh... I'd be happy to assemble a set if enough nominations show up, of course. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm still stuck in summer, too :( Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm intending to do a Nativity pic; I realize it's last minute... Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I should be able to bring a Christmas-related military history article to the table. Might be able to submit it for approval tomorrow - Dumelow (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Might I suggest rather than a "Christmas set", we do a set that has hooks celebrating Christmas, Chanukkah, Kwanza, Tết, Hijri New Year, Indian New Year's days, etc. I'm not sure how you would make that all work under DYK rules, but I'm a little uncomfortable with a project that prides itself on "anybody can edit" showcasing one particular religion. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
I like this idea, but there might be limitations. Hanukkah this year is Sunset, 18 December–nightfall, 26 December. Kwanzaa would fit into the timetable. I don't know about the rest. — Maile (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I don't think anyone would be opposed to having hooks about other celebrations; if recollection serves from last year, I don't think we had any candidates to that effect. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Likewise, the next Islamic New Year is for 1445 AH, beginning 19 July 2023. I'm sure things will be done then. I'd imagine that many Muslim readers would take offence if Islamic holidays are coralled in with Christian ones! Don't forget that 25 December always has the lowest views of the year, with the whole of the holiday season views rather depressed. Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm working on two pieces of music, a mass and a cantata, one for 24 December (probably the mass), one for 25 December. Both begun, but need more detail. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Nominated: Template:Did you know nominations/Messe de minuit pour Noël, midnight mass, therefore best on 24 Dec, and Template:Did you know nominations/Vom Himmel hoch (Mendelssohn), for 25 Dec. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I also present Template:Did you know nominations/Morgan's Christmas Raid - Dumelow (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I see the Starbucks one has a Taylor Swift hook, if we use that hook, we'll probably get accused of being Taylor Swiftopedia again. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Taylor Swift clearly owns us. Kingsif (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Also, Template:Did you know nominations/Death of Marc Bennett… Kingsif (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
And Template:Did you know nominations/Guapi, Cauca, too. Possibly Christmas Eve, though it's about an evening-in-time-for-Christmas-Day thing. Kingsif (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, thanks - see Template:Did you know nominations/Adoration of the Magi (Signorelli). Johnbod (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Reviewed, approved, how about the others? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Repeating: Template:Did you know nominations/Messe de minuit pour Noël, midnight mass, therefore best on 24 Dec, and Template:Did you know nominations/Vom Himmel hoch (Mendelssohn), for 25 Dec, still need a review. Also: The set for 24 Dec is already full, and one hook is by me. Could that please be exchanged? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt I can exchange it once the Dec 24 hook is approved. SL93 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt It is now exchanged. SL93 (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
After all that, we seem to be running a pic of a paper cup on 25 Dec. 03:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Johnbod It was already promoted before I got to yours. It doesn't have to be set in stone and you can state your case here for someone to change it. Comments like this make me dread filling preps. Pinging Kingsif to see if they are fine with replacing their lead Christmas hook with Template:Did you know nominations/Adoration of the Magi (Signorelli). SL93 (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: Please! Yeah, I asked because as much as I love a Starbucks it is more backup image, isn't it. Hopefully the Mendelssohn hook will get approved soon and then you can pick between paper cup, horse nostrils, and fluffy-haired composer, whichever you think is more Christmassy. If you want my opinion, the Adoration of the Magi hook also discusses the image, so that seems the obvious choice! Kingsif (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Done. SL93 (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

After Gerda's hook is approved and promoted, there will be two open slots for Christmas Day. Hopefully we can get it filled with Christmas related hooks. SL93 (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

You already know there's some of mine that can be subbed in if needed, best I can offer without it being more articles I've worked on is to look through the recent changes of the Christmas task force and see if there's any to push for noms. Kingsif (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
I didn't realize until now that there was such a taskforce. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: Yeah, pretty nifty. Sorting through the ones that qualify, I have nominated article created by others (credited): Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Mary Wells and Template:Did you know nominations/Drummer Boy (Justin Bieber song). Kingsif (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Kingsif I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Drummer Boy (Justin Bieber song). Now just needs a promoter. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Boxing Day set (26 December)

I don't see the subject relation to Boxing Day besides "mass shopping", and all the hooks focus on Hermes, no Boxing Day there, either? Kingsif (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Exactly, yes. It's just vaguely to do with shopping after a day of not shopping. It's not religious and has nothing to do with actual Boxing Day...but just felt like a way to possibly juxtapose something culturally different. It's actually fine if this timing request gets rejected...but I would really appreciate another set of eyes on the hook! ;) Cielquiparle (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with reviewing the hook, @Kingsif! Just closing the loop here so it's clear that it's done. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Of course. Kingsif (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Although described as a Boxing Day match it was actually played on 27 December (as Boxing Day was a Sunday that year). Potentially it could work, but just though I'd mention it - Dumelow (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
It's currently in the prep for 27 December, if you want to check on it? Kingsif (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if changing the link to state "27 December 1920" rather than "Boxing Day 1920" would make the connection clearer, otherwise readers will be wondering why we didn't run it the day prior - Dumelow (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@Dumelow: We may need to use one of the other hooks to fill up the Christmas Day set, but otherwise, that is the kind of uncontroversial improvement you can make yourself :) Kingsif (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Late Christmas Day entries

Latest comment: 1 year ago41 comments10 people in discussion

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.

Apologies for the lateness of these - I just threw together a quick DYK for the Christmas set last night, and then this morning verified another DYK which would be very appropriate for the set. The entries are:

The Santa Claus hook I wrote to replace the very un-Christmassy Andrew Planta hook. The Mother and Child hook could replace the Gene Cipriano hook.

Please note that the Santa Claus hook still needs review so it can be promoted. Pinging @DYK admins: for assistance in getting these two nominations completed, though anybody is of course welcome to help (particularly with the hook review). Thanks all, Gatoclass (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

FYI, admins @BlueMoonset: and others. I would be OK if we ran a set of ten hooks on Christmas day to accommodate these two entries. Is that possible? The Santa Claus hook would be great for the quirky slot. — Maile (talk) 04:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
If the Cipriano gets bumped to let the Christmas hook on vom Himmel hoch in, then these two additions (one replacing Planta) would only take it to nine, right? Kingsif (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I honestly can't see why either the Planta or Cipriano hooks need to be in the Christmas set, neither of them relate to Christmas and they could be run any day of the year. So personally, I would just replace them and run a standard eight-hook set. Gatoclass (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
We could move Cipriano to prep area two to make way for Xmas. Bruxton (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I wouldn't mind if the hook about someone being found dead on Christmas got bumped to a different day. For me, it destroys the mood of the entire set. I'd rather have a hook completely unrelated to Christmas. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
That is a valid point Mandarax Bruxton (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Bruxton, and thanks to Kingsif for agreeing to delay the hook for the good of the set, and to Gatoclass for replacing it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy for Planta to be moved out of the way and into a later set for Christmas. He was a Protestant minister, among other things, but I don't have any Christmas anecdotes about him. —Kusma (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for noticing. Mother and Child is for New Year's Day, as the nom says, a day of Mary and of naming and circumcision of Jesus. Please don't use it tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Instead: Template:Did you know nominations/Vom Himmel hoch (Mendelssohn) also still needs an admin or Santa to place it in the Christmas queue. And BlueMoonset can't do it because she made the compromise hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Explaining further: "Vom Himmel hoch, da komm ich her" means "From Heaven on high I come", being spoken by the angel announcing to the Shepherds, which makes little sense any day other then Christmas. It's also classified as a Christmas cantata, btw the only one by a famous composer besides Bach. Mozart didn't write one, nor Schumann, nor Reger, - it's something rare, meant as a gift ;) - (This was a red link for years, and I'm so proud I finally managed.) - Mother and Child, however, explicitly celebrates motherhood in general, and the climax, with temple gongs, calls Atma, a Buddhist concept, - that's not for Christmas, if you ask me, Gatoclass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Kingsif - would it bother you if we moved Death of Marc Bennett to another day to make room for Vom Himmel hoch? The former is not terribly Christmassy to say the least, and it would still be a good hook - arguably a better one - if the Christmas angle was dropped. Gatoclass (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I vote whatever works best - I do not mind at all. Kingsif (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

BTW @DYK admins: - the Santa Claus (clipper) hook has been verified and is ready for promotion to the Christmas set. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

BTW: The Vom Himmel hoch hook is still waiting for an admin, - don't know whom to ping: Gatoclass, Maile66, Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, any helpful soul around? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Another note, Template:Did you know nominations/Elizabeth Mary Wells is now also GTG for Christmas, though I don’t think there will be objections if any leftovers are run in the days between now and 6 Jan. Kingsif (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I have substituted Vom Himmel hoch for the Marc Bennett hook. Please note that somebody still needs to add the Santa Claus (clipper) hook in place of the Andrew Planta hook - I cannot do it as it is my own nomination. Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Added Elizabeth Mary Wells but tweaked the hook to say "amputated" as "cut it off" is too grisly for Christmas. Gatoclass (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

  • @DYK admins: - admin still needed to substitute the Santa Claus (clipper) hook for the Andrew Planta hook, with Planta going back to prep. The rest of the set is otherwise completed. Thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    It was brought up by Theleekycauldron at the nom that Santa Claus ought to be italicised,per the MOS on ship names, and we only usually relax adherence to the MOS on April fools day. I'd also much prefer an encyclopedic term like "feces" rather than "poop", particularly when the article mentions poop in a completely different context elsewhere and the term is not used for feces in many parts of the english speaking world. This confused me initially until I read the nom. I wouldn't mind promoting if the hook is tweaked a little along these lines. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Question I cannot find Gene Cipriano in any of our holding areas. Was he disappeared out of the set and into the abyss? Bruxton (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Nope, you just looked a bit early. He's in p2 now :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Forget it. The Christmas set is fine as it is - the clipper hook can be run some other time - I can't quite persuade myself that a hook about poop is appropriate for Christmas day anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2022 (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.
Gatoclass, I'm sure you wrote the article specifically for this purpose, so I'd like to see it run on Christmas. How about substituting "coal" for "poop"? It's very Christmas-appropriate for Santa Claus to be delivering coal. (This would just require a duplicate citation at the end of the sentence.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Mandarax and Gatoclass: ouch yes, I feel bad now, I didn't want to ruin this and seems like me splitting hairs was not very in the festive spirit. Happy to roll with coal or even poop of whatever, let me know if you want to go for it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru, Mandarax, and Gatoclass: I like coal in the hook. Certainly peaks interest. Bruxton (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I've done a minor tweak to the article, so the coal part is now DYK-compliant with no need for a duplicate citation. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Bruxton, Mandarax, and Gatoclass: what do we think then? ... that Santa Claus at one time delivered coal? ... Go or no go? We have 54 minutes but I'm happy to promote if someone approves.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru: How about we drive it home a little more? ... that Santa Claus really did deliver coal once? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron@Amakuru, I think it is better without "the". And I think it is good to go. —Kusma (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I believe the article has been approved so I think yes. Changing to coal is a good compromise. Bruxton (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
OK   Done, thanks for the good effort everyone and wishing you all a very merry Christmas, it's just turned over to the 25th here in the UK! 🤶🎄  — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Well heck, thanks guys, but there was really no need, I wasn't at all bitter about not getting my nom featured on Christmas day, in fact I only wrote the article in the first place because it looked as if we were going to be short of Christmas hooks, and the last-minute flurry fixed that. Gatoclass (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

BTW, would it bother anybody if I moved the Santa Claus hook back to the quirky slot where it was originally intended to go? I had already decided that the "poop" hook would be an inappropriate one to end the set with, but now it's been changed to "coal" I think it would work very well as a quirky, and I was always a bit uncomfortable with ending the set on an amputation hook, which isn't altogether upbeat. @DYK admins: ? Amakuru? Gatoclass (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Gatoclass, it's been quite a while since your post, and nobody else has moved it yet, so if you're still around, you should go ahead and do it yourself. I completely agree with you that it would be a much more appropriate hook for the final slot than the amputation one. And thanks, everybody, for making this happen. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 04:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Mandarax, I'll consider that my DYK Christmas present :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

New Year

The hook from the top of the thread, Mother and Child, would - as discussed there - be best on 1 January, which is Prep 5 and full, however, I have a hook in it about a singer and suggest to replace that one. I'd not be permitted to do that myself. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

That's fine, just go ahead and do it. Gatoclass (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
It's not fine if I do something about my noms, no-no. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
  Done DanCherek (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Question on the "interesting" decision (I'm sorry)

Latest comment: 1 year ago52 comments13 people in discussion

Really just asking if it applies to anything nominated before the RfC outcome, because today's Taylor Swift hook is "John Mayer didn't like one of her songs" which ... that's not interesting to anyone, right? If the outcome is not backdated to prior noms just going live now, all's good. If it should apply, though, do we already have a problem? Kingsif (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I mean, it's "John Mayer didn't like the song about him", although the hook might not make that clear. Although Taylor Swift hooks do tend to flop regardless... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
in before EEng proposes another RfC on the subject of retroactivity :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I would never propose an RfC on the subject of retroactivity. I'd open an RfC on whether we should have an RfC. Jeesh. EEng 05:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, the hook does not make that clear, and it doesn't suggest why Mayer has an opinion either, not that I'm sure I'd be convinced even if both were present. Instead, the hook actually makes it sound like Mayer chimed in/Mayer's opinion matters because he is a musician. Anyway, unless I misunderstood the RfC outcome, a hook has to be interesting with no prior knowledge, right? So, (using the hook) musician Name1 Lastname1 dismissed Name2 Lastname2's "Song Name" as "cheap songwriting"? needs to be inherently interesting whatever the blanks are... Kingsif (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. The hook has to be intriguing even to people unfamiliar with the names mentioned. "... that John Smith did not like Joseph Moe's songs?" is not an inherently good hook. However, a hook that went "... that when reviewing Joseph Moe's album Canary, John Smith said he would rather listen to an electric drill?" would be much better and intrigue even people unfamiliar with Moe or Smith. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I can't help saying that I'm feeling particularly pleased with myself right now, because the new criterion seems to be working well. But there's no need to fall all over ourselves to apply it strictly right away. It will take time for people to acculturate to it anyway. EEng 05:26, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
There's a new criterion? How are DYK participants supposed to find out about it (if they don't read this Talk page regularly)? Would it be possible to send a notification to all recent DYK participants within a specific date range? Cielquiparle (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
There was a clarification of an existing criterion, the broad process remains the same. CMD (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
And I just needed a clarification on the clarification, again, sorry… Kingsif (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps a note at WP:VPM or The Signpost? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
@RoySmith Yes please! Cielquiparle (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Done -- RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Nice pitch! Schwede66 20:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I think putting something in Signpost is a good idea. It might encourage some of the people who gave up on DYK back when it ran 300+ dull-as-death hooks on every creek and stream in Pennsylvania, appearing at a rate of about 3 per WEEK to give it another look. EEng 22:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
The new phrasing is just a clarification of what is expected. Whether submitted a few weeks ago or a few seconds ago, if a hook can't meet the current phrasing it should be rejected. The entire point is that we shouldn't running boring "so what?" so-called hooks.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:42, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Several hooks that never really met either version of the criterion slipped through anyway, particularly if the reviewer wasn't aware of the criterion, so perhaps some announcement to reviewers stating the change would be useful. Just for the next review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
If they slip through, that means prep set builders are promoting the problematic hooks rather than sending them back for more work. If a hook doesn't meet the criteria, the nomination shouldn't be promoted regardless of the reviewer's tick. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
This has always happened though, because there's a general mindset, at least among some of the reviewers and prep builders, that all qualifying articles will get a hook eventually, none will be outright rejected. I had asked in the RFC for the question of whether all articles get a slot in DYK to be clarified, but ONUnicorn did not rule on this point in their close... Because really, if they the goal is to give all qualifying articles a space, then the new wording doesn't really improve that much over the old because some articles simply don't have a hook that is "unusual or intriguing" by any sort of global standard. Conversely, if reviewers and promoters are empowered to reject an article outright, then that should really be codified. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
They are empowered at the moment, it just isn't a fun thing to do, which isn't something that can be codified away. CMD (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
CMD has it about right. Closing a nomination for lack of an interesting hook takes much back-and-forth discussion because the nominator is generally allowed to exhaust all possible avenues, including disputing the rejection and coming up with any number of ALTs. It's not impossible, it happened recently, but there's not really an efficient way of doing it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:27, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I've been saying this for a while now but I think we really need to be open to the idea of rejecting nominations and accepting that nominations can be rejected for a lack of a good hook, even if it is painful on the part of the reviewer and/or nominator. It can understandably be disappointing for a nominator to not to see a nomination on the Main Page (I admittedly recently experienced this myself), but that's how Wikipedia works. We can't always get what we want and things don't always turn out the way we hope. The interest of the readership and the encyclopedia is above other considerations, even if it comes into conflict with our own. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I've done it a few times, that is, rejected noms where there aren't possible interesting hooks. Some nominators take it much better than others, so I wouldn't be too worried about asking for it to happen more. Indeed, there have certainly been more qualifying articles I've worked on than those I've nominated, knowing that I don't think I could make an interesting hook for the ones I don't bother with. Kingsif (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
If we are just going to run every new article submitted, then there is no point to having a hook at all. Just put a link to the article. Otherwise just tell the nominator, "Your hook is boring, bland, and pointless. Find better or just drop this nom." --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Concentricities (I'm sorry)

In the context. I nominated Concentricities on 19 October. The hook was approved on 4 November. A prep builder questioned it. To keep it short: three alternatives were offered, all not to the liking of that one person. Now it was closed. It must be my lack of English, reasoning in short: the topic alone is interesting, and the reviewer also found the hook interesting. Help? We still debate that was seems interesting to one isn't for another? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, nominations are a consensus thing. Just because a reviewer approves a nomination does not necessarily mean that their decision is final. That's why prep builders and sysop checkers exist, to serve as additional checks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Okay, let's step back for a moment. Less than a month ago, we had a discussion about the nature of the interestingness guideline because of a nomination like this one. There was a request to loosen the guidelines to allow these hooks, and it did not have consensus. Hooks that, despite making it past the odd reviewer (I personally don't want to review a nomination when it doesn't interest me), have consistently fell short of intriguing the not-well-acquainted audience – an opinion shared by those who saw that the only reasonable avenue was to advocate for a change in the rules. To argue for a change in the rules for the betterment of a set of hooks, and then turn around and say that those hooks passed the original guideline the whole time, no sweat, makes me feel like that whole discussion was someone having a little laugh. If there was never any issue, what on earth was all that talking for?
This is the first time in quite a while in which one of Gerda's nominations has failed on interestingness guidelines; looking back at some of her other hooks that have aired this year, is it really true that every hook that got past a reviewer, promoter, and admin actually met the guideline? I'm not so sure. Yeah, I said the hooks weren't interesting, over the objection of the nominator and reviewer. No satisfactory hooks could be agreed on, so an uninvolved editor closed the discussion. He could've overruled me – anyone could've stepped in and said "hey, I think you're wrong, and here's why". To my knowledge, that hasn't happened. It may in this thread, but I've yet to see any reason to withdraw my objection. By definition, prep-building means holding back a nomination even when a reviewer has approved it; otherwise, it's just scheduling with some dinner theatre.
Before the discussion, I said we had two choices: we either enforce the rules on the books, or we change them. Not only did the RfC not accomplish its intended purpose of loosening the guidelines, it clarified and slightly tightened them. And now, we need to enforce them. If we hold Gerda's hooks to the same lax standard we always have, in which we look the other way while hook after hook fills out the bottom of the stats pages, then we've effectively created two sets of guidelines: one for the people who are willing accommodate prep builders by withdrawing nominations and trying to make new and better hooks, and one for editors who are willing to go to bat whenever they don't get to air their preferred hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I have little time today (RL), so just short: How would "anyone" would have noticed the problem, with this hook sitting on the approved page? First little wish: when disapproving an approved hook, please put it back to those waiting for approval. Second little wish: while I am aware that one person's review can be questioned, it would be nice if the disapproval (at least for a closure) wouldn't rest on one voice alone. Everything else - that the article subject may already raise curiosity (vs. some John Miller article which would need context), and this is one of only six clarinet-cello-piano trios with an article, has been said in the nom, please check. People who don't know what a clarinet is should not even be lured into an article like this, imho. - How is this: you revert the closure and bring it back to the waiting noms, for further discussion? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
People who don't know what a clarinet is should not even be lured into an article like this, imho. We just had a long RfC whose end result was discouraging hooks that are exactly like this. The point of the "likely to be perceived as intriguing or unusual to people with no specialist knowledge" criterion was to ensure that hooks would not need to appeal only to specific audiences. Saying that a hook "would not lure people who don't know what a clarinet is" directly goes against the point said criterion. If a hook is proposed that outright does not appeal to people not knowledgeable about the topic, then it doesn't meet the criterion and should be rejected. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand. Do you really believe "clarinet" is specialist? - Anybody knowing what a clarinet is, then also knows: this is about music (genre until then unspecified). They can care and keep reading, or not, - this has nothing to do with "specialist knowledge", just explain what the subject is about, needed for something that could mean anything (a book, a monument, ...) vs. a subject that says so-and-so Bridge or Piano Trio No. 66, and you know already where it sits. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I brought it up because you used it as your example, but my point was meant to be in general terms. If a hook is written that can only be understood or appreciated by people with specialist knowledge (for example, the fact that opera singer A performed role B in opera C, or a hook where singer A talks about singer B and the hook doesn't make much sense unless one knows both singers), then such hooks don't meet the criterion and can thus be rejected. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Reading over the discussion, the clarinet bit was not the issue. The hook was actually at its most interesting at the part where it mentions a "Clarinet-cello-piano trio". I note you say in the discussion that this is already unusual, and I would agree even without specialist knowledge (helped by there being a dedicated article on the topic). The issue is that the hook then drops off into dry and esoteric explanation, which weakens the appeal. There are probably creative ways to spin something, but they did not come up in the discussion. CMD (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 
Spiraling birds
 
Rings in water
 
Avebury stone circle
Actually I think we can save this nom.
ALT0c: ... that Concentricities, a 2019 clarinet-cello-piano trio by Graham Waterhouse (pictured), was inspired by a common theme of circular, spiraling, or oscillating concentric phenomena in nature and human structures.
ALT6: ... that Concentricities, a 2019 clarinet-cello-piano trio by Graham Waterhouse, musically depicts a theme of circular, spiraling, or oscillating concentric phenomena in nature and human structures.
I think there was a language issue here, as Gerda mentioned. There's not really a pun or portmanteau with 'cities'. The word is just a coined form of concentric, I think? Which would be difficult for a non-native speaker to see.
The theme is built around things that are "concentric" in that the spiraling of a flock of birds taking off, the rings caused by a pebble dropped in water, the growth of a city as it expands around its central core, the intentional circular shape of Stonehenge etc. are all concentric around a central point. Personally I do find it intriguing to have that theme expressed in music. I don't think the image is particularly compelling as it doesn't illustrate the hook, maybe we could add an image to the article and use it. Valereee (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC) ETA: I've added these three images to the article. Valereee (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Meant to ping @Gerda Arendt as she'd mentioned being short of time. Valereee (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
My thoughts on potential hooks leaned more towards linking concentric patterns in cities and nature, or something about giving voice to stone circles. CMD (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Valereee, could you reopen the nom and place your hook there? Pictures used in a nom also have to appear in the article, and as for all 5 movements, the concentric element is not depicted in illustrative sense, but just the starting for music, I would not have added pictures of birds of prey or a stone ring, there, but thank you for being inventive. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the illustrations help...um, illustrate what we mean when we discuss concentric. Valereee (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, where Gerda's hooks usually fail is that she insists the topic is interesting on its own, and it might be, it just needs explaining to the majority of people. The hooks would then need rewording to get that across, but too often you see Gerda explain why "singer performed role at Opera house" is just neat to the reluctant reviewer and, once the reviewer has agreed it's not as bland as it reads, the hook goes through as-is.
The other issue is that Gerda often wishes to use hooks to promote the most outstanding part of a person's operatic career, even if it amounts to the opera equivalent of "Meryl Streep was in Sophie's Choice" - I'd guess a decent number of people can make the connection that Streep won an Oscar for that seminal film (though I still don't think that would be very interesting when written out). Fewer people have heard of opera singers and their roles, so that connection doesn't happen. And I recall Gerda saying it would be a waste of a DYK to pick a smaller moment in the subject's life, even if it's very unusual sounding. This is if something like that can be found, as many of the opera biographies are basically proseline filmographies, with little biographical detail, so much that I question if they actually pass GNG.
All this boils down to, one has to assume, Gerda generally finding the most impressive facts about opera the most interesting herself, even though those two things don't necessarily correlate (especially for people who don't care about opera). Or: score as many runs as you like in cricket, people who don't care about cricket still don't care; break your leg bowling? Well that's just weird in general. If we can just accept this and gently encourage better hooks, that'd be neat to me. Kingsif (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
@Kingsif: That's about what I think as well, but I'm also somewhat not interested in the autopsy yet. We can litigate this until we're blue in the face – in fact, we already did last month. We had a discussion that basically boiled down to "should we loosen the rules to give Gerda a carte blanche to continue doing what she's doing right now?", and the answer was "no, we should not". That necessarily means that Gerda's hooks need to improve from the pattern you've described here, which is using the main page more as a "this is neat and maybe impressive if you know the field" rather than a "this is actually intriguing, and stands a chance of getting people to dive into a new field they may not have otherwise touched". Now, how to improve Gerda's hooks is an interesting discussion as well – but as of now, Gerda has not signaled a willingness to work with that situation, leaving somewhat of an all-or-nothing. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I think we have to be more open to the idea of promoting third-party hooks even if Gerda objects to them. Yes I know we often take a nominator's desires into account, but as noted in a related discussion here, ultimately nominators do not own their nominations and do not have total control over the process. The "intriguing to a broad audience" criterion is already a requirement, and if Gerda's hooks continue to not meet this criterion, they can be rejected in favor of more suitable options, regardless of her wishes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
It's been a long-running issue with Gerda's hooks. If Gerda needs to explain in nomination pages why the information she wants to share in hooks is actually intriguing or unusual, then that's a bad sign since it means that the hooks need explanation to people without special knowledge or interest, instead of the hooks being understandable regardless. The thing is, in some cases, the article actually had usable information that could have worked as "intriguing to non-specialist audiences" hooks but she would almost always veto suggestions regarding them. In the past, her hooks could probably still fit the old rules since "interesting to a broad audience" was such a vague criterion. However, now that we have the new criterion that explicitly requires that hooks appeal to non-specialists, it has to be made clear to her that if she proposes a hook that is too specialist, the hook can be rejected as not meeting DYK rules. Similarly, if she continues to disapprove of alternative hook proposals that are geared more towards non-specialists, the nominations may also be failed for lack of a suitable hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
hooks being understandable – Just to be clear, unusual or intriguing doesn't necessary imply understandable. An example would be ... that the Vicar of Brighton got shot in the twitten? The intrigue there is that most readers won't know what a twitten is, and may click to find out just what part of the clerical anatomy that is. So they don't understand the hook, but they're intrigued. EEng 15:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I think NLH5 is talking about the fact that the point of some of the hooks simply cannot be understood (in terms of why it is in DYK?). There's a difference between interesting-unknown "huh, what's that!" and confusing-unknown "huh?" (and it's generally in the phrasing). Or, one doesn't need "twitten" explained in the hook to "get it", and you're right that it's better without; when a hook does need to be explained to "get it", people might well click through just to resolve their own lingering sense of "huh?" Which I suppose works but maybe doesn't retain readers the same. Kingsif (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
@Kingsif This is similar to the question you asked me this morning about the word "map". I don't think people need to understand how gamers use the word to get the gist of that Among Us VR's only map is a sequel to the original game's first map? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that's at all similar; in that nom, I just read your review before looking at the hooks, and it did sound like you were saying "levels" might be more appropriate to the uninitiated, so I asked for clarification on if the hook was still good. Also, as I just wrote above, one unclear word within a hook that still makes sense and has general interest, is not a problem (and not the same kind of thing as a simple statement lacking inherent appeal and not exhibiting its point). Kingsif (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I made this a separate discussion, and will not have time for it until next year, behind with Christmas and New Year's work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I mean, my comments were replying to leeky to give my view on some of their fresher concerns, I think I'd rather it stay that way rather than you refactor my comments to rebut them. Kingsif (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Accepted, tried to restore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

where Gerda's hook did not fail

I had a hook yesterday, ... that in Canticle II: Abraham and Isaac, Benjamin Britten assigned the tenor of Peter Pears to Abraham and the alto of Kathleen Ferrier to Isaac, with both singing in homophony as the voice of God? It was placed as quirky, God knows why, with the voice of God and the singer who died of cancer prematurely in it. I was pleased that the piece garnered 1,603 views, the composer 2,739, his partner 756, and the alto singer whom I wanted pictured but didn't get it, FA by Brian Boulton, 2,023. I conclude that people are not necessarily frustrated when there are links offered besides the bolded subject, and are interested more in people than in compositions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the statistics quite bear out that way. Canticle II: Abraham and Isaac's haul of 66.7 views per hour was a markedly underwhelming performance – of the 105 non-lead hooks aired this month, that puts it at 102nd. At 105th, for the record, is Bernardo Adam Ferrero, and at 100th is Concerto for Piano and String Orchestra. As for views for the non-bolded articles, they simply don't count. They're not new or expanded content, and DYK's purpose isn't to give them attention (see WP:DYK#Aims and objectives). It would be far too easy to stack the views of any hook by including as many non-bolded links as possible, because that doesn't take any effort. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't follow sorry, I don't talk about "stacking" views, - I'm simply happy that Ferrier got noticed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Gerda, since you've brought up that specific nomination, which I promoted, let me offer some insight into what helped it get promoted. Many of your hooks are difficult to review because you just say "Source: several". From my perspective as a reviewer, that means added work because I need to go digging through the article to find which sources I need to be looking at. As a practical matter, that means I'm not going to bother and I'll just move on to submissions that are easier to review. On this particular hook, you included a link to the exact source, which made it easy for me to verify.
Reviewing your work is sometimes complicated because you use sources written in German, which I can't read. I'm not saying you shouldn't use German sources, but you should recognize that most of your reviewers on enwiki won't be able to read them in the original language, so you should put in the extra effort to make things easier on them. I wrote an essay, WP:LANGCITE on this topic a while ago. You might consider when you use a German source to also include an English translation of the relevant passage. You write the citation once, but it gets read by many people, so your investment pays off over and over. In particular, your submission needs to get past three consecutive reviews (initial, promotion to prep, promotion to queue) to make it out the door. At any of those steps, if you've make it hard on the reviewer, you increase the chances it'll get passed by in favor of something that's easier to review.
I don't fully agree with the people who argue against your hooks for stylistic reasons, i.e. what makes them interesting or not. But if that's the kind of hook you want to write, at least don't stack the deck against yourself by also making your submissions difficult to review from a technical standpoint.
Also, try not to push to win every battle. I was rather confused by your actions on Talia Or. This was a long and complicated discussion. At one point, I jumped in with a question, but after it was answered to my satisfaction, I restored the tick. You should have left it there, but instead continued to argue. I then worked to elicit agreement from the other people who had reviewed it earlier and again issued another approval. You should have left it alone at this point, but again you picked up the argument, confounding the situation. I've spent a lot of time in my life passing reviews of various kinds. At some point you need to accept that here, today, right now, your goal is to get somebody to sign off on what you want them to sign off on. Once they do that, stop arguing. Smile, thank them, and move on to another battle. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Smith (lawyer)

Latest comment: 1 year ago32 comments8 people in discussion

@Valereee @Kingoflettuce @Muboshgu I've promoted prep 6 to queue 6, but there's one problem somebody needs to look at. The sentence Smith is a competitive triathlete despite not becoming a swimmer until he was in his mid-thirties. is cited to an interview on his swimming club's blog/website. Not a WP:RS. There's also a citation to the Wall Street Journal, which is behind a paywall so I can't read it. If somebody with WSJ access could verify that fact, it would be great. If not, then I think we need a better source for this. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The WSJ article says he is an "avid triathlete" but does not mention taking up swimming in his thirties.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
OK, so we need a better source. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but the aquatic club (which you already say is his swimming club) info is "from the horse's mouth". It seems to be a well-established club too. Unless we're imagining they made up the whole interview or miswrote his responses. At worst, just remove the "mid-thirties" trivia. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
"From the horse's mouth" is pretty much the same as "not an independent source". I agree that we could just drop the "mid-thirties" part as trivia, and go with what we can verify from the WSJ source but that would leave us with "... that Jack Smith, the special counsel appointed to investigate Donald Trump, is an avid triathlete". I'd personally be OK with that, but I suspect a lot of people would say it fails the "interesting" criteria. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
As the original reviewer, I believe I expressly signed off on the original hook, which to me is interesting and not exactly common knowledge. Ironically, I find the triathlete bit "boring" in comparison. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
(Even with the age-related embellishment) KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Honestly I agree that triathlete is not the most interesting hook, and not just because it wasn't my proposal. I don't think it being sourced to himself is the worst thing, but if we'd have to change the hook to "he says he's an avid triathlete", that makes it way weaker. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I think this is a reasonable self-source. It's not like someone else is saying he's a criminal. I think we can take his word for it, myself. Valereee (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Wait a second. What he said in the interview is I am an adult onset swimmer and could not swim a length of a pool until my mid-thirties}. That's not the same "not becoming a swimmer until he was in his mid-thirties". And did no one take my despite rant to heart? If people don't start paying attention I'm going to have to start kicking ass and taking names. EEng 22:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
How is it not the same? It doesn't say he was a nonswimmer until he was in his midthirties. It says he didn't become a swimmer until then. Lots of people who can swim well enough not to drown aren't swimmers. They aren't nonswimmers, either. I mean, we can tweak it, but he's certainly saying he didn't swim well enough to swim the length of a pool until then. Which makes him...well, not a swimmer. I don't think I know a swimmer who can't manage the length of a pool. YMMV. But at any rate, I like the Liverpool hook. Valereee (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I think we should keep debating it just as a matter of principle. EEng 16:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Maybe an RfC? Valereee (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
You're going straight onto the naughty list. EEng 19:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I wrote the naughty list. Valereee (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 
Just to be clear, Kingsif, is this your plan?
What I'd really like to do is have a beer and put in some quality time binging YouTube videos. But, I'll take option 1 as a reasonable alternative. For the moment, I'll leave the hole in queue 6, but I'll see what I can find to fill it. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Reviewer wanted

Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments6 people in discussion

At Template:Did you know nominations/Vom Himmel hoch (Mendelssohn). Pretty sure everybody at the nom has proposed at least one hook, someone come intervene and help us please. Kingsif (talk) 00:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I've jumped in :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
still needs someone with courage --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt, Theleekycauldron, Kingsif, and Grimes2: Tell us where we are on this. Is this ready to be promoted with Alt3? If so, it probably should be Prep 5. — Maile (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
We only need feedback/OK from @Narutolovehinata5:. Grimes2 (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Today, we have ALT3a, by BlueMoonset. Anybody willing to look? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Kingsif approved it and I am grateful. What else is left to be reviewed for Christmas? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
One has been reviewed and is in the set, the other has been reviewed and has some likely un-resolvable issues (my bad, really, I picked a satisfactory but in-process WikiEd article). Once vom Himmel hoch has been put in the set, it will be one short of all hooks being Christmassy. I could look for another quick candidate, we probably don't want to overload the Christmas set with articles I worked on, but that's another review to be done on short notice and I don't want to demand too much. Otherwise - and ping @SL93: since we've already discussed this - with just the one gap we could pick the more generally Christmassy hook for the article I made that's currently in the December 27 set. I don't think that is the preferred option, though. If you have further suggestions for Christmas hooks, please make them, either here or in the thread above! Kingsif (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The set is now in the queue, and Vom Himmel hoch is not in it. It would need an admin. Regardless of other considerations: it would look pretty out of place any other day, with the annunciation to the shepherds the topic of the title. Maile, you asked above? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

PS if someone wants to review the last two Christmas noms, it would be appreciated. Kingsif (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@DYK admins: @BlueMoonset: Gerda just pinged me above. We have a problem, as far as an available queue, assuming this is ready to go. Somebody needs to promote this nomination template directly to Queue5 for it to be on the Main Page for Christmas. Even if we are OK with bypassing the promotion to Prep step, we have no slots open on Queue5. Where are we on this? — Maile (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggested below moving the Cipriano hook in queue 5 to queue 6, solving an issue that presented itself there, too. Looks like Roy picked a different hook instead. So, move Lucille Abreu back to prep 3? Kingsif (talk) 00:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I can do this; I have a few minutes. Do I see this right that the following should be done?
Schwede66 00:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
... and where are we now? about 24 hours left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: I would say it's probably better to put Cipriano back in prep and promote Von Himmel hoch to queue – keep it simple :) PSHAW can help with the latter step. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
That's the idea, but whatever works! Kingsif (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments10 people in discussion

If my count is correct, the hook that just appeared on MP is my 100th DYK and it just made me think of all everyone's contributions here. I would just like to extend my warmest wishes to you all. That's all. Have a good one, DYK'ers. Kingsif (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey, that's awesome. Thank you for all your contributions! -- RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Congrats on your 100th DYK! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's awesome. Keep up the good work. — Maile (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Merry Christmas everyone 🎄 :) Shubinator (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Marry Xmas Kingsif. I was looking for a Christmas related hook, maybe you can conjure one up rather quickly? JK. Congrats on 100, it is a milestone. Bruxton (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I think it's TERRIBLE you're making all that work for those poor overloaded prep builders. EEng 02:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
And here I wished you a merry Christmas! Bah humbug Kingsif (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, to all around who celebrate, and thank you for your 100th, Kingsif! My offer today: Messe de minuit pour Noël, - best clicked towards midnight ;) - Hope to sing it tomorrow, will depend on cough going away enough, or not. Same condition: close to midnight, we'll sing - fittingly - Angels' Lullaby. - Merry Christmas --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Fwiw, I was a little tipsy when I left the message, but the sentiment stands: I look upon my milestone and it makes me think of how many more contributions so many other users have made and are still making, and I am just happy to have shared or share the effort for this little corner of the MP with these users. Proud of everyone. Kingsif (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
And god bless us, every one! :) Valereee (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
(: Merry Christmas, y'all! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Queue 7 replaced?

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments4 people in discussion

@Valereee: with this edit: [1] the hooks in Queue 7 were replaced, even though they haven't run on the Main Page yet. Should this edit be reverted? Z1720 (talk) 18:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron FYI, this looks like something PSHAW should check for and warn about. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Since the hooks are still in prep 7, I decided to WP:BEBOLD and revert the edit myself. Please ping me here if there are any problems. Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Z1720, no problems, except that I'm not sure what I did! I was at P7 and, intending to add Philip Mogur, stupidly opened PSHAW at the prep instead of at the nom template. And then some sort of black magic occurred and suddenly I realized I'd managed to move to queue something that wasn't ready to be moved to queue. The history told me it was possible to undo the edit, so I did. Valereee (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: Looks like the edit to Prep 7 was reverted but the promotion to queue 7 was not. Might be something for leeky to look into when they get a chance. Z1720 (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
lol I was looking at that reversion and thinking...did I go crazy? Because I checked that the undoing had worked and then edited that prep after I made and undid that mistake, and those edits are still there. But this was about the queue not getting reverted. Too many moving parts! Valereee (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I think this whole process also caused the prep count to be wrong, so I undid Valereee's edit there and I think we are back on track. Z1720 (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Jeez, sorry, Z1720. Clearly I should not be operating this machinery. :D Valereee (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! I'll get right on this – thanks for the heads-up :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I think tlc is excited about a problem to solve...? Valereee (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: Nope, it's more of a "what nightmare hath I wrought" – i'm just whimsical :) I've fixed up the code, it should now throw an error if the relevant queue is full or if you promote a queue out of order. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Idiot-proofing it, since I'm involved. :D Valereee (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Everyone's an idiot at DYK, it's just a matter of how much you're willing to admit it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

DYK-Tools-Bot incoming

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I've got DYK-Tools-Bot to the point where I'm going to start doing limited testing on enwiki. See WP:Bots/Requests for approval/DYK-Tools-Bot for more info. You should start seeing nomination templates get {{DYK-Tools-Bot was here}} added to them, along with zero or more of {Category:Pending DYK biographies, Category:Pending DYK American hooks}. See this page on testwiki for an example.

The first goal of the trial is to make sure the bot isn't breaking anything. If you see anything that it's making a mess of, please don't hesitate to block User:DYK-Tools-Bot and notify me. Block first, ask questions later. The secondary goal is to verify that the classification of nominations as Biography and/or American are correct. If it gets any of those wrong, ping me (no need to block the bot for that). If you like, you can add or remove the categories to override the bot's evaluation with your own (please ping me on that so I can track things). If you do override something, please leave the {{DYK-Tools-Bot was here}} in place; that's what tells the bot not to touch the nomination again. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I think it would be nice if the documentation on {{DYK-Tools-Bot was here}}, or the displayed text when the template is used, or the user page of the bot, explained the point of this bot since it does nothing for most DYK hooks. People just see You may manually remove any categories it added (or add ones you think are missing), but it's unclear from that what sort of categories a DYK would have. I see from here it's either going to be Category:Pending DYK biographies or Category:Pending DYK American hooks but at least for me this wasn't obvious until I read this section of the talk page, so I think this should be clarified elsewhere cause this was the third place I checked. Umimmak (talk) 00:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Good point, thanks. I'll get something better written up as things progress, but for now I've added a link to the BRFA from User:DYK-Tools-Bot which will at least provide some information. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
RoySmith Should we ping you from the nomination page? I noticed that Template:Did you know nominations/The Promised Neverland is in the American hooks, but it is a Japanese hook. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a bug. https://github.com/roysmith/dyk-tools/issues/4. Pings from the nomination page are fine. Pings here are fine. I'll see it either way. Thanks for the report. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

QPQ question

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
COMPLETED
Question was answered Bruxton (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2023 (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.

What are the rules surrounding QPQ for self-nominations versus nominations by others? I have four self-nominations, and I've had one article that I expanded nominated by someone else. Am I expected to provide a QPQ for my next nomination, or does QPQ only apply after five self-nominations? The main DYK page isn't clear on this, and searching the archives of this talk page brings up contradictory answers. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: the rules were changed last year, and implemented this year; you get five free nominations – nominations for articles you didn't create count towards the limit, creations for articles you didn't nominate do not. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:49, 29 December 2022 (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.

Admins needed to promote preps to queues

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments7 people in discussion
COMPLETED
Problem was solved by BorgQueen Bruxton (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2023 (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.

Pinging @DYK admins: —the preps are full, and the Template talk:Did you know/Approved page is so full that the last dozen or so approved nominations are not transcluding.

Please promote a few preps to queues so that prep set builders, who have been keeping all seven preps filled lately, can start filling preps again and the approved page can fully transclude all noms there. We're rapidly approaching the point where we're going to have to go to two sets a day to keep the Approved page from getting overwhelmed, so to maximize the number of filled queues and preps before doing that is highly desirable. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Done. BorgQueen (talk) 06:48, 30 December 2022 (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.

Prep 3: Casablanca Protocol (nom)

COMPLETED
Hook was changed after discussion Bruxton (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2023 (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.

@Onceinawhile, Piotrus, and Bruxton: could you tell me what the quotes around "binding" are doing? They seem kind of like scare quotes. Also, if I were told that a protocol like that existed without further context, I would probably just assume it's the only one doing that particular function – is there something unintuitive about the hook that I'm missing? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile and Piotrus: I will wait to hear from the nominator and reviewer. Bruxton (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Bruxton @Theleekycauldron Good catch, I didn't think much of it at first but now I'd recommend removing the quotation marks from that word from the article and the hook. Let's see if the author concurs? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I think that's wise. While we're at it, why are we using the formal name redirect and not just using and linking the common name? Don't we tend to avoid redirects in hooks? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Firefangledfeathers: Piped links don't count as redirects, but I'd agree that there's no reason we shouldn't be using the term "Casablanca Protocol". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
D'oh! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi all, thanks for all the good questions. Responses as follows:
  • Quotation marks: the article and sources note that despite in theory being binding, its "its implementation was inconsistent" and "in practice it has had limited impact". In other words, it was binding in name but not in practice.
  • No other binding resolutions: There is an assumption floating round the topic that the Arab States as a group mandated that citizenship must not be given to Palestinians. This is a highly sensitive topic in many countries (see Palestinian refugees#Arab states), but not the subject of a binding resolution
  • Full name: It has the benefit of explaining what it does. If we use Casablanca Protocol in the hook, I think it would then need an explanatory clause.
Onceinawhile (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: I'd say that scare quotes probably shouldn't be used to convey the tone you're going for there – it seems to undermine the credibility of the hook. I'd say that the back half of the hook does the explaining, and that "Casablanca Protocol" is a catchier name. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi leeky, OK, I am fine with the changes. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:31, 1 January 2023 (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.

Prep 6

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion
COMPLETED
Explanation was given regarding links in the hook Bruxton (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2023 (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.

Could the wikilink to Australia in the Brihony Dawson hook, in Prep 6, be reinstated per WP:DYKSG#C2? Happily888 (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Happily888: Standard practice these days is to not link the names of countries in DYK hooks, and usually states where we can avoid it. C2 suggests that geographic context should be given in prose – it's never been interpreted to require a link to said country. There's no useful information in Australia necessary or even helpful to understanding the hook, so I'm not sure why you'd want to send viewers there instead of the new content you want to showcase. Plus, the vanishingly small number of people who don't know what Australia is don't have the necessary worldly knowledge to understand the hook anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I'm unsure, whilst most readers will likely understand the hook, there is still the potential for some readers, such as those who might be reading in their second language, to misinterpret the term with other ambiguous meanings if left unlinked. It potentially could still accidentally be thought to refer to the continent: Australia (continent), Austrialia, or Australasia, all of which would be inaccurate and make the fact incorrect. Happily888 (talk) 07:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the hook is perfectly clear as written. If anybody is really confused, they can click through to the main article for clarification. Getting somebody to click through to the main article is, after all, the whole reason for DYK. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
We try to limit links to those that are necessary for most people to understand a hook. Valereee (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2023 (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.
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
COMPLETED
The result was that the hook was tweaked. Bruxton (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2023 (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 think this part of the lead hook in Prep 4 reads funny: ... that it is thought that a number of early medieval Irish bell shrines were hidden in bogs or church walls to save them from Viking raiders? Can someone render an opinion on that Thanks Bruxton (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps: ... that many early medieval Irish bell shrines were hidden in bogs or church walls, possibly to save them from Viking raiders? Z1720 (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree the repetition of "that" is jarring. Just drop the second one: "... that it is thought a number of early medieval Irish bell shrines were hidden in bogs or church walls to save them from Viking raiders?" -- RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I changed it to "that it is thought" I think based on the nomination "it is thought" was an important part of the hook. Bruxton (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2023 (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.

Fuck The T*ries (nom)

Latest comment: 1 year ago34 comments16 people in discussion
COMPLETED
Hook was pulled after discussion Bruxton (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2023 (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.

@ISD and Llewee: Looking for wider community input on this nom – it's the third time we've had a hook about a profane anti-Tory song from this band, following Boris Johnson Is A Fucking Cunt (nom) and Prince Andrew Is A Sweaty Nonce (nom). Is this a "we've done this twice, it's clearly fine" situation, or a "repeated insertions of profanity onto the main page should be scrutinized" situation? I'm not overly familiar with positions taken around the hooks of the C of E, so I'd love to hear some input. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron I had assumed everything was fine, but there is still a problem it does need discussing. One thing to mention is that the article has since been moved to Fuck the Tories, so that needs amending. ISD (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I've adjusted the relevant links on the nompage – the nompage itself doesn't get moved, so that's about all. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
@ISD: Is there another hook that could be found? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I doubt it. If people don't want it to go forward onto the main page, fair enough. ISD (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I think it is cute how the original title censors the nasty word. —Kusma (talk) 09:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
We wouldn't want to expose horrible things like T*ries to our kids, now would we? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  • It's a bit of a fine line. In the case of The C of E he was making those nominations apparently with an intent to provoke, as well as it being colored by his own political interests. With this particular nomination and the other anti-Conservative Party ones, it depends on the motivation of the nominator. If the nominator nominated them simply because they found the song interesting or if they're a fan of the band, that's not necessarily a problem. However, if they did the nomination because they oppose the Tories, well that does raise at least some concerns (for the record, I would have had similar thoughts if the song was anti-Labour/Democrat/Republican/whatever instead). Basically, there's a fine line here, but I'd be worried if the nomination was done to push a specific political agenda (which apparently is what The C of E did and led to him being banned from DYK), but less so if the interest in these songs was for other reasons (although with still some reservations, just not as strong). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  • How are "Band is hoping they reach #1" or "Band has issued song with title predictably like prior titles" intriguing or unusual? EEng 14:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
    On Wikipedia it is. Usually we get "Band is hoping to recruit a drummer", "Band is hoping to settle on a name", and "Band is hoping to score a paying gig". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    I'm somewhat ignorant of UK politics; are we going to run into a problem with the Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided rule?
  • More generally, we're in a mode now where we've got more nominations than we can handle (and I'll repeat my plea that we not go back to 2-per-day), so if we've got a questionable submission, I'd be inclined to reject it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Leeky makes a god point that it may be time to scrutinize - there is a pattern of repeatedly nominating songs with profane titles. I was also against the Dick hooks from the C and E: although they were in the vulgar category. Bruxton (talk) 15:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I am in the UK and am absolutely no fan of the Tory party, but this does strike me as drifting towards the stuff that we topic-banned the C of E for. Black Kite (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I respect Leeky's point of view, but I'm not sure I would ascribe divine qualities to it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
oh you... -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
well, good thing i'm cool with non-believers, then :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, then something better be done soon so we don't have to go back to 2 sets a day. The discussion that you started is doing nothing. SL93 (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • This is an easy fail of WP:DYKNOT which states that DYK is not "A means of advertising, or of promoting commercial or political causes. While it is fine to cover topics of commercial or political interest, DYK must not provide inappropriate advantage for such causes (e.g. during election campaigns or product launches)." A run for the Christmas #1 is a type of product launch and the political profanity makes matters worse. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  • On 14 Dec the nominator said plainly that "I should say, that personally I would prefer the hook to go out sooner than Christmas Day, as the battle for the Xmas No. 1 ends on 22nd December". It's not clear to me why the nomination then stalled but we should make it quite clear that such promotional attempts to influence music sales are not acceptable. The track is presumably still for sale and the general policy of WP:NOTPROMOTION still applies. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  • My vote is to lean more heavily against peurile attempts to make DYK either shocking or promotional, rather than interesting or informative. Show me an animal with a tongue as long as it's entire body, or a would-be killer whose bullet ricocheted and killed him instead, not an umpteenth blatant attempt to put a dirty word on the front page, highlight a middling band again, or say something nasty about a disliked political group. BD2412 T 15:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
This ^ Bruxton (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with Black Kite, above. Much like with C of E, the "dirty" titles are overplayed and getting to be uninteresting --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Just as we're trying to be cautious about too featuring too many Taylor Swift hooks...featuring too many songs from the same band pulling a repeat stunt seems...well, repetitive. Also, the hook was tied to a specific timing and that window has now closed. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I can see the consensus is probably moving against me but my view is that it's fairly unlikely that anyone is going to have their voting intentions changed by seeing that hook not least because UK fringe/youth culture has tended to be fairly anti-conservative for a long time now and it's hardly been an impediment to them winning elections. At the same time, I didn't know the person who suggested that hook has been banned now and that possibly makes things slightly different.--Llewee (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Reading the discussion above, if the hook was proposed partly as a result of a campaign, then yeah I can see why the nomination was a bad idea especially if promotion was at least a partial consideration. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • On top of everything "song wants to reach number one" is boring as hell, and besides being a sweary sequel, there is nothing else to say about this song. Does it really even meet GNG? Kingsif (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, it meets GNG quite handily, with articles about it in the Independent, Metro and NME amongst others. As you say though, there's really nothing interesting here. Black Kite (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    Having read the article, it does only mention the aim for number one and the history of the band's similar songs. There may be articles about the song, but I'm not convinced it is really notable independent of the band and their aims. The longest paragraph in the article is actually just the band criticising LadBaby (in an interview nominally about this song, that isn't). The next mostly just discusses swearing in music. Kingsif (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    We've always taken a narrow view of the rule on DYK, banning such things only during election campaigns. Is there one on in the UK? I seem to recall the government changed there recently. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    There isn't a current election campaign. Of course, who knows when that'll change. Kingsif (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
All righty, I'm seeing a fairly sharp consensus against running the nomination. I've marked the nom for closure; if no one objects, someone else'll have to follow through on the close. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I've just gone ahead and closed the nomination, although if anyone objects to the closure feel free to revert it with a comment or message. To answer Hawkeye7 and Kingsif's questions, there is currently no upcoming election in the UK so technically this hook would be just fine according to that rule. The issue instead would be about the hook falling under DYK's "no promo" rule, and also potentially the rule against hooks presenting one side of a dispute. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:57, 31 December 2022 (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.
Latest comment: 1 year ago54 comments16 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Involved close, since no one else seems to want to do this and the RfC isn't overly contentious. Consensus seems to be that TFA, ITN, and OTD should all be eligible for DYK; there is also consensus that there should be some time-based moratorium, but no consensus as to how long it should be. Rule implementation will not proceed until a consensus is reached on a time limit. There is no consensus at this time to allow repeat DYKs; a fairly strong contingent of users felt that DYKs should not repeat at all. This RfC was rather chaotic, however, and more focused discussion at a later time could shift this outcome. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

For articles previously featured as bolded links on the Main Page (i.e. TFAs, non-Recent Deaths ITN appearances, or OTD blurbs), how long should it be after their appearance before they can be eligible for DYK? and which bolded links can and cannot be eligible for DYK? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Background

Per a previous RfC that has just been closed, there is consensus to relax the currently existing guidelines regarding DYK appearances by articles previously featured as bold links on the Main Page. Prior to the discussion, an article would be ineligible for DYK if: 1. it had been featured on DYK before, 2. it was a bold link in ITN (note that Recent deaths articles do not count and thus are already DYK eligible), and 3. it was a bold link in OTD (bolded names mentioning those who were born or died on that date didn't count, and so again are DYK eligible). However, while there was consensus to relax the rules, there was no consensus as to what exact timeframes would be involved, nor which bolded link appearances would their relevant restrictions relaxed. Per Valereee's suggestion, I am starting a follow-up RfC to clarify these matters. I will be splitting the discussion into two !votes, one for timeframes, and one for which bolded links in particular. The discussion above mainly focused on ITN and OTD, as there appeared to be less appetite for allowing former DYKs to appear again on DYK, so for the purposes of this discussion I will primarily be focusing on TFA/ITN/OTD with regards to the timeframe option, although I am including DYK as an option in the "Bolded links" section. Note that discussion will assume that the current pathways to DYK (i.e. a new creation, an article split, a converted redirect, five-fold expansion, and promotion to GA status) remain the same, so the only way a former TFA would be allowed on DYK in the first place is if they lose their featured status but are later promoted to GA status. In addition, because consensus has already determined that the rules will be relaxed, the option of opposing the relaxation of rules will not be discussed in this RfC. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Pinging all participants of the previous RfC: @Skdb, Unlimitedlead, Jengod, Theleekycauldron, Schwede66, Chipmunkdavis, Extraordinary Writ, Amakuru, BlueMoonset, Tamzin, Kusma, Bluerasberry, Jayron32, Cessaune, CapnJackSp, Joseph2302, Maile66, Epicgenius, Graeme Bartlett, Mx. Granger, RoySmith, and Mandarax: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Reping due to typo: @Sdkb: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Timeframe

Please state below your preferred timeframe on how long a former bolded link should wait before it can be eligible for DYK.

  • Option 1 - 6 months
  • Option 2 - 1 year
  • Option 3 - some other timeframe frame (either shorter or longer)

!Votes

Please state below which former bolded links should be eligible for a DYK appearance after some time has passed. Note that you can specify multiple options.

  • DYK
  • ITN (note: this refers to articles that are bolded links in ITN blurbs, take for example Artemis 1. Articles that were on Recent deaths are already DYK eligible).
  • OTD (note: this refers to articles that are bolded links in OTD blubs, such as Vlad the Impaler. Births and deaths, for example Chinua Achebe and Omayra Sánchez, are already DYK eligible).
  • TFA (this refers to TFAs that have been delisted but then become eligible under normal DYK rules, more likely via GA and less likely via 5x expansion)

!Votes

  • ITN, OTD, TFA. Oppose former DYKs re-running except via IAR per a WT:DYK discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  • OTD and TFA – ITN only if the article existed at least six months prior to its Main Page appearance. I don't want to run created-because-it's-ITN articles, but I think World population need not be excluded. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
  • All four. If an article qualifies for DYK by the criteria, and it's been at least a year, let it go. --Jayron32 12:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • ITN, OTD only. DYKs shouldn't run twice ever, and TFA is a better place for newly promoted featured articles, so we should encourage them to be posted at their proper location, rather than at DYK first. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • All four - 5 years for former DYKs, 1 year for ITN/OTD, no limit for TFA. I don't see the harm in rerunning former DYKs iff they are eligible after their initial appearance on the main page, but if a DYK has already run relatively recently, it should not appear there again for at least five years (which is similar to TFA's "no repeats within 5 years" rule). For ITN and OTD, I'd shorten this to one year to prevent relatively recent OTDs/ITNs from reappearing in such close succession. Former TFAs should be eligible at any time - they cannot appear on TFA again unless they have been promoted to FA status, but barring that, former TFAs should be able to appear on DYK if they meet the GA criteria. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • ITN/OTD/TFA, ITN and OTD are unrelated to quality/improvement (aside from base competence), there doesn't seem a strong reason to prevent them from being on DYK and this is just another thing for a reviewer to check as it stands. Former TFAs, why not, it's good to encourage some article rescue. No firm opinion on prior DYK at the moment. CMD (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • All four The way I understand it, a former DYK can make a second appearance via 5-time expansion. If that is the intention, I can't see anything wrong with it as that would be a significant amount of new content. Schwede66 03:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  • All four - @Schwede66: the two routes I can imagine are the one you mention, i.e. a creation with 2000 bytes of prose, and then later expanded to 10,000 prose for a 5x expansion. The other route would be an initial creation and then elevated to GA. In theory an article could be listed four times - initial creation at 2,000 bytes, expansion at 10,000 bytes, another expansion at 50,000 bytes and then GA. In general I'm supportive of this, if the goal is to encourage work on articles. My only caveat would be some sort of mechanism to avoid "gaming the system" by putting a GA-class article up for the original DYK and then simply nominating it again unchanged once it has the GA tick. There should be substantial work done between the two iterations, and probably a longer time interval too.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  • All four per Schwede and Amakuru, and also because it's the simplest option. I will assume that we won't look kindly on gaming. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  • ITN/OTD, providing there's a wait time of at least a year. Let TFAs shoot for FA status again if they've lost it, and DYKs generally shouldn't run again and certainly not within months or a year or two of original appearance. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • All four for simplicity and to encourage the development of high-importance articles. I see no valid reason to exclude any specific module in which an article previously appeared — allowing it at DYK will still encourage expansion, and will still be novel to 99% of readers. However, if an article has previously run, I think we should have a higher standard for interestingness — if the hook isn't compelling and/or the topic is overrepresented, we shouldn't be afraid to reject it. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
  • ITN,TFA, and pre-2011 DYK. ITN blurbs usually do not repeat (unlike OTD), and improving a delisted TFA is not a small task. DYKs should not be recycled unless they are old (predating the current review system). Joofjoof (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • All four to reduce edge cases --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

With any delay, the page for DYK is no longer new. Perhaps it could have been in a holding area for a special event. But if a delay time is approved, I do not think that DYK nominations should sit around until the specified time has expired. So with delays, really only the GA passes could get in. Former TFAs seem very unlikely for a fresh good article pass, as they very likely passed GA earlier in their lifetime. There is also the issue of a DYK being approved, but then making an ITN appearance on the mainpage before the entry in the queue progresses to mainpage. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This proposal does not affect the delay time for DYK nominations following new work, so any work should still be new. As for the ITN appearance, that is a potential issue under current rules too, but I haven't seen it happen. If we need to clarify an article should not be nominated here if it is nominated at ITN, we could do that separately. CMD (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The current practice is that if an article is nominated for both DYK and ITN and it appears on ITN, the article loses DYK eligibility. This would remain the case even under the proposed changes since the clarification would still be "an article that has appeared on ITN/OTD cannot be nominated for DYK within X amount of time from their ITN or OTD appearance". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, when TFAs are being mentioned in this discussion, it's referring to former TFAs that have since been delisted. It's not referring to newly-promoted FAs, only TFAs that have been delisted but have since been promoted to GA status (or perhaps less likely, received a 5x expansion). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: Re-ping due to typos above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The proposal won't change the eligibility period of DYK nominations. Articles will still be eligible for DYK for up to 7 days after their creation, expansion, or promotion to GA. This proposal only involves changing the rules to allow DYKs that have appeared as bold links in other parts of the Main Page.
Regarding your comment Former TFAs seem very unlikely for a fresh good article pass, as they very likely passed GA earlier in their lifetime, it is possible that an article could have passed FAC, appeared on TFA, and subsequently been delisted as an FA without ever having gone through DYK. Many former featured articles would be, at best, C-class and thus eligible for expansion to GA status. This is especially true of older articles, which in some cases have never met modern FA standards. In addition, featured article candidates are not required to have gone through the GAN process - in fact, many FAs were promoted directly from B, C, or even start classes. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
In addition, there's nothing in the rules that suggest that an article can only become a GA or be 5x expanded once. I remember a few years ago of a case where an article was nominated as a newly-promoted GA, except that said article was a former GA that had regained its GA status, and as far as I can recall it was allowed to run. If there are concerns about gaming (i.e. demoting an article just to re-promote it), that could be dealt with on an individual basis rather than a firm rule. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5, in fact, I'd go further and say that GA status doesn't automatically mean that it's a good article now, just that it met the good article criteria at one point. I've actually nominated two former GAs for DYK: a few years ago with Gowanus Canal (former GA that was delisted and improved back to GA) and last month with Algonquin Hotel (former GA that was delisted and 5x expanded). I never really considered that people might have issues with a delisted GA running on DYK even after it's been improved, as no one objected to either nomination. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
  • @Schwede66: Just to clarify here: as of right now, once an article has appeared on DYK, it is no longer eligible for another DYK appearance, even if it technically has become eligible again through one of the pathways. For example, if Article A was nominated on DYK as a 5x expansion, then appears on DYK, then some time later is promoted to GA status, it would remain ineligible despite the new GA promotion owing to its previous DYK appearance. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
    If I could interject, Narutolovehinata5 – I read Schwede66's comment only to mean that an article that is featured at DYK as new, expanded fivefold a year, and then nominated again clearly had a lot of material left unwritten. Enough so that it could and should qualify as a newly expanded article – but I think he's aware that that's not how the rules work right now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
    Yep. At the moment, it’s just one appearance. It might have four appearances (over time) with changed rules as per Amakuru's scenario above. Schwede66 15:41, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
  • If there is consensus for articles that have previously run on DYK to be allowed to run again, may I suggest a requirement? In such a case, I'd suggest a special criterion or guideline: If an article has previously run for DYK and is re-nominated, it cannot run with the same hook that ran previously or a hook similar to the original. Meaning it would need to run with a totally new hook. This should at least raise some standards when it comes to DYK repeats and may also help address problems with the idea of re-running a fact that's already run. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
    If anyone wants a real life example to consider for multiple DYKs, I x5ed Talk:Dili and it ran on August 2021. I have grievously procrastinated on getting around to the further work needed to bring it to a point where I would be happy to GAN it, although I have done further work and it is much closer. It has been over a year, and the original nomination had multiple hooks that passed which were different to the one eventually chosen. If it became a GA now, should it run again on DYK? (That doesn't even take into account it possibly languishing on GAN for half a year, adding yet more time.) CMD (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
    In theory, it should (I commented above that there should be a 5-year gap between DYKs, but thinking about it now, that may be too harsh). I think an article should be able to re-run on DYK as long as it's a substantially different hook. In fact, I remember a case in which a DYK ran twice with substantially different hooks. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
    There are some historical cases (eg. Talk:The Malay Archipelago), but I believe practice has been not to do so for a long time now. I'm sure they can get through by mistake though. CMD (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
    And this does not include using the same hook for different targets: WT:DYK#Two-year-old hook recently recycled. Joofjoof (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The modern DYK process (since 2011) aims to highlight new or newly-improved articles. Repeating recent DYKs seems counter-productive. The sole exception should be for articles run under the old process. Joofjoof (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
  • @RoySmith: there hasn't been a comment in nearly two weeks – there's no chance you want to close this, is there? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Theleekycauldron: Actually I already put this up at WP:RFCL. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    well, that oughtta do it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Section was archived; can someone please close? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:25, 1 January 2023 (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.

Aachen fine cloth (prep 3)

Latest comment: 1 year ago43 comments13 people in discussion

@Bruxton, I'm confused about this edit of yours. You added to the hook additional information (that the cloth was produced until 1905) which is not in the article, and I can't find a source for it. All the article says is that the town was "Belgium's gateway to Germany" until 1905, not that the cloth was produced until then. I'm going to move this to the queue, but that hook needs to be fixed. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Bruxton SL93 (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping RoySmith It could be a brain fart on my part. I will wait for SL93's thoughts. Bruxton (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I would just have it be what is in the article. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
RoySmith original hook. I was not clear if the item has been in continuous production since the middle ages. Let me know if we should insert the original hook or seek another. Bruxton (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
@RAJIVVASUDEV is probably the best person to answer that question. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
RoySmith, Bruxton, SL93 This part of the fact pertains to Aachen, not cloth. We should observe a second hook. Thanks RV (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I just read through the article. I'm still not sure if the cloth is currently produced or not. The lead says, "Aachen fine cloth ... is an old, fine, and high-quality fabric", (present tense), but later on it says, "The fabric had a fine napped surface and was made from fine carded yarns" (past tense). Given that the article isn't clear on this basic point, I don't see how we can write a hook based on it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Its on of Rajiv's poorly written articles. He is WP:CIR challenged in english writing, expect these kind of difficulties of precise meaning. -Roxy the dog 15:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Am I write in assuming that the substitution of its for it's and on for one, as well as the lowercased english, the comma splice, and the construction "difficulties of meaning", are intentional irony in this context? ;P EEng 16:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Yessir, I'm fluent in crappy language, but I dont use it in articles!!! - Roxy the dog 16:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm OK with '"its" vs "it's" (I do that myself sometimes), and those are easy to correct in context. But we're still left with a factual ambiguity of whether the cloth is still manufactured. That really needs to get fixed. I don't see how we can run an article on the main page which isn't clear about whether the article's main subject is still a thing or not. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Ah. Now we are on point. - Roxy the dog 17:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
According to the first sentence of de:Geschichte der Tuchindustrie in Aachen, "The history of the cloth industry in Aachen stretches ... up to the closure of the last cloth factory in 2003", which suggests that Aachen fine cloth is no longer manufactured. TSventon (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
RoySmith, Bruxton, SL93, EEng#s,TSventon, The topic provides an overview of a historical Aachen handmade [handloom] fabric that is no longer practiced; the city's reputation suffered as a result of guild intervention and other rivalry competition [which is already mentioned in the article]. Kindly see recent edit if it suffices the purpose. Happy New Year! 2023 Thanks RV (talk) 05:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Roxy the dog Did you know we have an interesting article on the Dunning–Kruger effect? It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from people's inability to recognize their lack of ability. Stop harping the same. May I expect little mature behavior? Kindly read What "Competence is required" does not mean. Happy New Year! Thanks RV (talk) 06:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
How is this fabric "from the late middle ages" if it was produced in 2012? How do we end up with "industrial cloth production in Aachen came to an end after more than two centuries" given the earlier timeframe pushed it to the 12th century? CMD (talk) 09:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Requesting that the article be pulled from Queue 3 by one of the DYK admins , due to sourcing concerns. Thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis Hi! "Aachen fine cloth" diminished around the turn of the nineteenth century due to guild restrictions. Kindly refer to the [revised] version of the article. Regards RV (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
We are getting in the weeds as we are prone to do. We will likely end up with the most literal hook after this, so that would be
ALT... that Aachen fine cloth was a high-quality woolen fabric produced in Aachen, Germany? Bruxton (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't seem substantially different from the 3 proposed Alts. CMD (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
It was somewhat Tongue-in-cheek. Happy newish year! We got to 2023 and still no flying cars? Bruxton (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Interested parties should note that I have edited the article to actually reflect the sources, and remove off-topic material. - Roxy the dog 16:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
There's still some very odd sentences. "While the Duchy of Berg's industry flourished in an unrestricted economic and social environment, it expanded into new territory. Aachen kept being an industrial city in the old way." I'm unsure what any of that means. CMD (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. - Roxy the dog 17:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Pulled. I'll find a replacement for that gap. Schwede66 17:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
@CMD It is edited as per the comments. Kindly have a look. Thanks RV (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith, Bruxton, SL93, EEng#s Please consider ALT that Aachen fine cloth was a high-quality woolen fabric produced in Aachen, Germany, from the late Middle Ages and diminished around the turn of the nineteenth century due to guild restrictions? RV (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to leave this to somebody else to make a final call. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Our hooks have a tendency to become too literal and wordy when we get to dissecting. I think this hook needs a hero. theleekycauldron please help! Bruxton (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I really hate to say this, but the article says almost nothing about the fabric itself. It's hard to tell if it's a definite, specific type of material, or a somewhat vague term for high-quality stuff made in that particular city. I don't think we can get very far with this nom until the article's improved in that regard. EEng 21:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
You are making sense Bruxton (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that's about right. The article body is arguably not about the fabric – it's good background, but it'd fit better in a broader article. It's like saying "well, I've put down a pretty good landscape, so here's the roof!" theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Bruxton, SL93, EEng#s,theleekycauldron, I have made the necessary changes in the article. Kindly have a look. And consider [if possible] ALT ...that Aachen's industrial importance stemmed from its status as a center of high-quality cloth production? Thanks RV (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Is the article now about the Aachen pre-industrial revolution fabric industry, or about a fabric called 'Aachen fine cloth'? Either way, it falls very short. There are vague inferences about 'guilds' making life difficult, and the fine fabric itself is also very vaguely defined. Just an example of the language issue I mentioned upthread.
I have no personal knowledge of Aachen history, just a sneaky feeling that the supposed cloth didn't exist as a single entity as the article implies, but more as a general description of fabric made in the Aachen area, just as "Harris Tweed" existed and exists (just) to this day.
Please forgive my use of crappy language. I dont use it in articles. Also note that the [ reply ] - tool may not satisfactily indicate that I am responding to EEng from 21:01, 2 January 2023 above. - Roxy the dog 08:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I see that since I last looked, the article has metamorphoside into something else, including a name change. Gosh. - Roxy the dog 08:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
We don't need any explanations here. You may contest it for deletion. Thanks RV (talk)
@RAJIVVASUDEV: I do not think this is a CSD candidate. I imagine the right thing is to remove the speedy and withdraw the nomination if that is what you want. Bruxton (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the db-g7 tag and closed the nom as withdrawn. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks RV (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Prep 5: Pro-EU leaflet (nom)

  • ... that, in 2016, the British public were warned in a leaflet that Brexit would increase the cost of living and lead to a decade or more of uncertainty?

@A Thousand Doors, Moonraker, and Bruxton: I'm not British, so obviously my reading of the tone of a hook is going to suck, but I'd be remiss if I didn't bring it up anyway. Would happily defer, but given the ongoing cost of living crisis in the UK, doesn't this read... kind of like an "i-told-you-so"? Came across to me that way at first, anyways. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, I suppose it does, but nothing new in that, it was a preachy leaflet. I voted against EU membership and would do it again, and my take is that we were correctly warned in that leaflet and cheerfully took no notice, as the main issue wasn’t money. I find the article and the hook neutral enough, but if you want to hold it up for someone to suggest a more inoffensive hook, I can see your point! Moonraker (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with leekycauldron that the hook reads like an I-told-you-so (which in itself is not even justified, since Brexit is far from being the main cause of the current cost-of-living crisis). One slight improvement would be to change the wording away from "the British public were warned" (which puts the preachiness in WP-voice) to something like "a 2016 leaflet published by the British government warned that..." Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Done. BorgQueen (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Prep 7 hook issue (Ludwig's subathon)

Latest comment: 1 year ago27 comments6 people in discussion

This hook is highly misleading and not really true: while his originally planned 24-hour livestream was postponed due to his appendectomy—not made longer because of him streaming during it!—his rescheduled livestream was converted to a "subathon" which was set up to run as long as there were subscribers still signing on, each $5 sub adding a certain number of seconds. It lasted for 31 days, and stopped because Ahgren ultimately set a time to end it 29 days in. There's nothing in the article that indicates that the appendectomy was considered a reason subscribers flocked to the stream/subathon.

Obvious possibilities include using the record final number of subscriptions (282,191), and/or that he initially thought he'd run 24 hours max, maybe 48 hours, but his subscribers pushed the time ever higher. I'm really not sure what would work best or how to word it, but a new hook is needed.

Courtesy ping to PerfectSoundWhatever, Onegreatjoke, and Bruxton. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. If the appendectomy had not happened, the subathon would never have been extended. The appendectomy was not the reason the stream went for 31 days, but it was ultimately the reason the stream was extended. The appendectomy was undeniably the initiator of the subathon, and its what caused it to go on for 31 days. The appendectomy indirectly caused the 31 day stream.
What is your definition of "due to", if this is misleading to you? Event A caused event B. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 05:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
It is shocking how people make their money these days. The guy grossed US$1,434,850 just to livestream his boring life. Regarding the hook for this nomination, I think that BlueMoonset is often right about these things. When I promoted, I was connecting the dots the way PSW explained. So regarding other hooks, a hook about the ridiculous amount of money may be possible? Bruxton (talk) 15:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
alternate hook proposal:
Bruxton (talk) 17:59, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
There are a number of definitions for "due to", from "expected"/"likely to" or "planned" or "owed" to "because of". This latter, for a DYK hook in Wikipedia's voice, needs to be the proximate cause, not just one factor among a great many, any of which would, by their absence, have stopped the eventual 31 days in its tracks. So although if he hadn't had appendicitis, Ahgren would have gone ahead with his 24-hour fixed-time livestream, the fact that he changed the delayed livestream to a subathon format after he returned home from the hospital does not make the 31-day length a cause of the appendectomy, just an unlikely possibility opened up by the format alteration, which was expected to run a maximum of 24 hours (and probably less than that, so shorter than the original), with 48 hours as a very outside subathon shot. I think something longer is needed for the original hook idea, if it's to be used, such as:
I've added a hyphen to Bruxton's "31 day livestream" proposal in case that's preferred. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Bruxton, that the amount of money is very interesting.
I still think my original hook is alright, but am good with BM's alteration. I've made some changes below that I think read better:
— PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I like the update hooks but I have changed a word in each suggested hook. We will need another voice in the discussion because I have helped with the hooks. Anyone?
Bruxton (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@PerfectSoundWhatever: At the request of BlueMoonset on my talk to pick a hook from here, I've selected Bruxton's penultimate hook and replaced it in prep. Would there be any objection to me shortening it a little?
Nice to add a little punch. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Thank you. I think the appendectomy part is the most interesting part, but I'm not objecting your hook. Use it if you think it's punchier. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm really worried about the sourcing for a WP:BLP hook. The appendectomy fact is sourced to upcomer, which is some kind of video/gaming blog. I don't see it mentioned in WP:RSN, but it sure doesn't look like a WP:RS to me. My first thought was "I can't believe this is a notable topic at all", but was surprised to see lots of major news outlets have covered it and were cited in the article. OK, so let's assume it passes WP:GNG. The problem is that I can't find his appendectomy mentioned in any of the sources that I would consider to be WP:RS. I read the cited articles in Business Insider, NY Times, BBC News, The Verge, ABC News, and USA Today. Not a single one of those mentions the appendectomy. If we're going to be putting a BLP's medical history on the main page, we need some better source than a bunch of streamer blogs. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
    @RoySmith: Hmm, I can't find a good RS for this either – I'm gonna go with the punchy hook, since it doesn't include the appendectomy. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
    Upcomer is listed as a RS at WP:VG/S per 2 small discussions. I agree it isn't ideal. @Theleekycauldron: unless I'm misremembering, I don't think any of the other sources mention the postponement either.
    We could do:
    or Bruxton's "grossed" hook. or I can look for a few more. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:41, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
    I hope you'll excuse me if I'm not impressed with WP:VG's evaluation of what makes a RS. It's one thing to accept a source as reliable for details about when a game was released. For a person's medical history in a BLP, we need better. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
    WP:ABOUTSELF is probably relevant here. I don't think there's any reasonable argument that the hook is false, per this video [2]. The video affirms he had appendicitis, and talks about how he changed the 24 hour stream to an uncapped subathon. I understand not wanting to use primary sources or Upcomer for a hook, but the hook clearly isn't false, if that helps with anything. It's usage also wouldn't violate anything in WP:ABOUTSELF. I don't think there's anything in the DYK rules disallowing primary source usage, so maybe this is acceptable? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:01, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
    I watched the first 5 minutes of the video. That's 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back. People pay money to watch this crap? I guess I could be convinced on the WP:ABOUTSELF thing, but couldn't we just find a better hook that avoids the issue completely? I would go with Buxton's "... that Ludwig Ahgren grossed US$1,434,850 for continuously livestreaming his life for 31 days?" -- RoySmith (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
    @PerfectSoundWhatever and RoySmith: I think Upcomer is fine for saying that the 24-hour stream was postponed on the Main Page, if not for saying why. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
    @PerfectSoundWhatever and RoySmith: the hook is in the set next in line for the queue. Any consensus on which hook you'd like to go with? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    I'd prefer if the hook was kept as is (with the appendectomy part) because the secondary (Upcomer) plus the primary source (WP:ABOUTSELF) I think is enough to verify the hook is true. If this is still disputed, I say "grossed" hook. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    Personally, I don't think either is justified by the sourcing. The article says, In total, the livestream grossed US$1,434,850, and uses https://screenrant.com/twitch-ludwig-subathon-money-total-time-cost-stats/ as the source for that. Two problems there. 1) RSN says screenrant is marginal at best. 2) The source just says he made, "over $1.4 million", so clearly our "$1,434,850" figure didn't come from there. Another pencil-whipping GA review. Come on folks, "checking sources" doesn't mean "Yes, it has a number in square brackets after it". It means that you've actually checked the source, confirmed that it's reliable, and that it supports the statement it's supposed to support. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    I just skimmed Talk:Ludwig's subathon/GA1. It was pointed out by @ArcticSeeress in the review that Screen Rant was not a WP:RS, but looks like it got used anyway. I suggest this get unpromoted until and/or if the sourcing issues can be resolved. It's not like we've got a shortage of other submissions. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    The reviewer said I would suggest replacing the Screen Rant source, but I tried looking for others that verified the information and literally couldn't find any other articles. It seems to just be using the same numbers as Ahgren's video, so it seems fairly trivial here. which is why I didn't replace it. And yes, our 1,434,850 figure came from there: "Adding up all the streams hours and the subscription time it took to sustain them tallies up to a grand total of $1,434,850.". I wrote this article by checking every source against WP:VG/S and WP:RSP. Screen Rant is probably the only exception, but RSP says It is considered reliable for entertainment-related topics, but should not be used for controversial statements related to living persons. I looked through each citation to Screen Rant and there's nothing really controversial. Everything attributed to screen Rant is either supported by another citation, or is attributed opinion. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:42, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    Would value a third opinion on whether RoySmith's sourcing issues are justifiable. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know why I didn't find the text "$1,434,850" when I searched the first time, but yes, I see it's there now. I'm still not comfortable with screenrant as a WP:RS. As I mentioned upthread, there are a number of sources which are clearly WP:RS which could be used. Why not just write a hook based on something that can be sourced to one of those? This is a BLP that's going to go on the main page. The sourcing needs to be solid. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    PS, if you looked for better sources and couldn't find any, maybe that's a clue that we shouldn't be using it? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    Given the ongoing question, I think it's best for me to reopen the nomination. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Problems with prep 5

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments6 people in discussion
  • @Trains13, Onegreatjoke, and Bruxton: Union Pacific 4014. The hook fact is verified by this pdf, but that source doesn't appear in the article anywhere. I would have just added it, but the only logical place would be after the only operating Big Boy locomotive of the eight that remain in existence. and I know GA doesn't like citations in the intro. Can you please add an appropriate statement to the body and cite it properly?
  • @Bruxton, Theleekycauldron, and Juxlos: Claudia Meier Volk. The hook says "wrote a law", but the source says "cosponsored". I'm not sure cosponsoring is the same as writing; it might be that she wrote it, or it might be that she just signed on to a bill written by somebody else.

I'll hold off promoting this to the queue until those things are fixed. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks RoySmith, I have added it at the end of the, History/Excursion service section. Bruxton (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the Claudia Meier Volk hook, can we correct it to say:
  • ALT0a ... that Minnesota legislator Claudia Meier cosponsored a bill freeing women from having to take their husbands' last names, and then took her husband's last name?
Bruxton (talk) 18:19, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
So changed, and moved to queue. Thanks for your help. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@Roy Smith and Bruxton: Wouldn't a more interesting hook for 4014 be that it is "the world's largest operational steam locomotive"? The current hook seems to be only of interest to rail enthusiasts. Just a thought. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree that would be a better hook. I'll leave it to somebody else to make the final call. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Black Kite always good to dial in a hook, but I will see what the article creator and nominator think since i was only the promotor. @Trains13 and Onegreatjoke:. Bruxton (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
If we do go with that angle, we'd probably need some qualifier (like "as of 2019" or "is currently") since, of course, things could change in the future and the hook fact may no longer end up being true. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I'd like to point out once again that MOS:LEADCITE is not a prohibition on citations in the lead section, and should not be treated as such, though I know many GA reviewers feel otherwise. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
The real issue is not that there's a citation per-se in the lead, but that the lead should summarize what's in the rest of the article. If the only place a fact is mentioned is in the lead, then it's not providing a summary. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but hidebound people take that idea too far. For example, the first sentence of Sacred Cod recites that The Sacred Cod is a four-foot-eleven-inch (150 cm) carved-wood effigy of an Atlantic codfish. Now as it happens, the length of the thing, and the precise species of fish it represents, are not given elsewhere in the article, nor is there any natural place to do so. And that's OK. EEng 23:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Use of images not in the public domain in the United States

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The article Argentina–Netherlands football rivalry has two images ([3][4]) that are not in the public domain in the United States. I have not encountered this at DYK, and seek second opinions. The corresponding nomination is Template:Did you know nominations/Argentina–Netherlands football rivalry. Pinging is not necessary in a response. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/9 January 1917 German Crown Council meeting

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I tried to promote Template:Did you know nominations/9 January 1917 German Crown Council meeting from special occasion holding area to prep 6 which is due to hit main page on 9 January using PSHAW, but got a "This page isn't responding" message. That was my first attempt at promotion so perhaps I did something wrong. Would another editor be willing to promote it? Pinging @Dumelow and Onegreatjoke: for information. TSventon (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey there, @TSventon! Looks like when you moved another hook out to prep 7 to make room, you missed that under the hooks, there's a "credits" section that also needs to move along with the hook. I'm working on adding that functionality to PSHAW – but you should be able to promote the nom in question now :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @Theleekycauldron:, I had missed the "credits" section. I have now promoted the nom. TSventon (talk) 12:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of all 33 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 20. We have a total of 250 nominations, of which 121 have been approved, a gap of 129 nominations that has decreased by 17 in the past eleven days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these!

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other 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. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

prep 6

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion
 

Regarding the photo for Geneva official chestnut tree, I've had photos of signs with readable text shot down at commons as copyright violations (example shown). I think we might have the same issue here. Somebody who's better versed in copyright law than I am should take a look before we put this on the main page. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no concerns about copyright. There’s a crest shown that might be in copyright but de minimis would apply. The more pertinent question is – why was this chosen as the lead hook photo? It’s not even in focus. Schwede66 17:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66 I chose the image because the composition of it is striking (the lines of the pillars and sign against the background of the tree branches), and quite different from other depictions of the same tree. It also grabbed my attention over all the other images on the "Approved" page. Yes, it's unfortunate that the leaves aren't in focus, but I also noticed that the other lead images currently on the Queue page aren't particularly high-resolution or even that clear, so I didn't think it was that bad in comparison. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, Cielquiparle. I had looked at that on my cellphone only. Looking at the photo on a bigger screen, the plaque itself is in focus, and that's the part that matters. I shall withdraw my concern. Schwede66 23:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Quick sweep of the preps

Latest comment: 1 year ago15 comments8 people in discussion

Prep 7: Bess Truman (nom)

  • ... that U.S. first lady Bess Truman was humiliated by a champagne bottle?

@Thebiguglyalien, MyCatIsAChonk, and Bruxton: two minor issues on this one – first, there isn't a citation at the end of each of the relevant sentences for the hook. Second, the article's text doesn't quite match up – it wasn't the champagne bottle that did the humiliating, after all, and I'm not sure if a "humiliating experience" is the same as being humiliated by the experience. Nitpicky, but is there any way you could fix those two up quickly (and preferably keep the hook fun?) Thanks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I did not look at this as literal. I thought it was clever. Bruxton (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I think it's fine. I doubt anyone will think of it as a champagne bottle literally humiliating Bess Truman. SL93 (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: I suppose so. Funnily enough, I seem to remember both of us being on opposite sides of this discussion during the discussions around the Pilate cycle. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I duplicated the citation so that both supporting sentences have an inline cite. No opinion on the hook. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien, Bruxton, and Theleekycauldron: I understand the hook was written like a quirky hook. But given the nice images in the article, and Bess being the wife of a US President, I'm wondering if there might be a hook about her life in the White House. I notice the lead says, "Her influence on her husband's presidency came about in their private conversations, as he would consult her about most major decisions during his presidency. " - that's an interesting aspect of Bess possibly not well known. That in and of itself is rare for the wives of presidents - only Roselynn Carter and Eleanor Roosevelt come to mind in that way. Gee, I'd love to see Bess as a lead hook. — Maile (talk) 04:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Fair point @Maile66: but the champagne hook gets me to read at the article. But I am not opposed to a consensus for a new hook and lead. Bruxton (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
If the hook is to be changed, here's some ideas:
1) ... that first lady Bess Truman organized many informal luncheons in the White House during her husband's presidency, emphasizing courteousness and respect for all guests, including her political opponents?
Sources: Beasley, Maurine H. (2005). First Ladies and the Press: The Unfinished Partnership of the Media Age. Northwestern University Press. pp. 62–65. ISBN 9780810123120.
Boller, Paul F. (1988). Presidential Wives. Oxford University Press. pp. 312–331.
2) ... that first lady Bess Truman only ever held one press conference, saying, "I am not the one who is elected. I have nothing to say to the public."?
Sources: Geselbracht. "Young Bess in Hats" (PDF). Prologue. Spring 2013.
Watson, Robert P. (2000). The Presidents' Wives: Reassessing the Office of First Lady. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 89. ISBN 978-1-55587-948-8.
3) ... that first lady Bess Truman had a heavy influence on her husband's decisions, assisting in speeches like the Truman Doctrine and giving input on major issues like the Marshall Plan and entry into the Korean War?
Sources: "Bess Truman Biography". National First Ladies' Library. Retrieved March 2, 2021.
Caroli, Betty (2010). First Ladies: From Martha Washington to Michelle Obama. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 205–215. ISBN 978-0-19-539285-2. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@Bruxton:@Maile66:@Thebiguglyalien: In addition, here's some images we could use as well: Bess Truman in ~1950, a portrait from 1952, or Harry and Bess in 1952. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I like number 3 a lot. — Maile (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I don't like this trend of bland DYK facts that just retread the main idea of an article. I think that whenever possible, they should be short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree, I think the hook is fine in that respect. Can the citation issue please be addressed, Thebiguglyalien? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers was kind enough to fix it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Winton W. Marshall

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Is Template:Did you know nominations/Winton W. Marshall ever going to be promoted to one of the DYK queues? It was approved on December 1. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

BeanieFan11, please be patient. The process is to create new nomination pages for each DYK attempt rather than reopen previous nom pages (as you did with this one), and it was that shortcut that did you in: when you reopened it, rather than renominating it by starting a new nom page, you didn't reopen it all the way: the page itself was opened, but the nomination wasn't transcluded again on the Nominations page, so the bot couldn't move it to the Approved page after it was passed the following day, which meant no promoter could see that it was ready for promotion. This nomination has only been visible since December 27, when I discovered that it wasn't transcluded on the Approved page and manually added it myself. So it's been not quite five days, not a full month, since promoters have been able to see this nom on the Approved page, and waiting a week or two—or even more—is not at all uncommon when we have more than two weeks worth of approved nominations awaiting promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I see, that's fine. I was just a bit surprised when I noticed the hook hadn't been promoted yet. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
@BeanieFan11, with 39 DYKs, you'd be a prime candidate to start promoting hooks to prep. There's an easy-to-use tool at WP:PSHAW. Valereee (talk) 04:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm much too worried I'd screw something up trying to promote hooks to prep... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
@BeanieFan11 you're half-right. The part you're right about is that you will screw something up. The part you're wrong about is that you're worried about it. Everybody screws up when they're learning something new. It's part of the process. You know what happens when you screw up while learning to build hooksets? It gets fixed, nobody gets upset, and life goes on. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Of course you'll screw something up. That's why we're all here to watch and help. I got posts to my talk from Yoninah every time I built a set for weeks. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Yep, mine came from BlueMoonset. Don't be afraid of screwing up, it just takes a little bit to get the hang of it. If you ever have any questions, or don't know where to start, my talk page is always open :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments7 people in discussion

It's already 2023 over here, so I'd like to wish everyone a Happy New Year! Cheers to more great DYK goodness this 2023! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year Narutolovehinata5, and all the other minions who toil in the backrooms of DYK. Bruxton (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy new year from Aotearoa! Schwede66 17:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy New Year everyone! Shubinator (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year from Ohio, where no one is happy just now. Valereee (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy new year from San Diego! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Whoop whoop pull up 2023! Kingsif (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Quick follow-up discussion

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments9 people in discussion

Pings to @Jayron32, Joseph2302, Epicgenius, Chipmunkdavis, Schwede66, Amakuru, Unlimitedlead, Vanamonde93, BlueMoonset, Sdkb, Joofjoof, Gatoclass, Guerillero, and Narutolovehinata5, with apologies. I've just completed a close of the RfC on DYK noms with prior main page appearances – I found consensus for time-limited eligibility of ITN, OTD, and TFA appearances, but no consensus as to how long those times should be. There does need to be a set time limit before implementation, so let's make this simple: do y'all support or oppose a 1-year moratorium on nominating an article at DYK when it appears as a boldlink at ITN, OTD, or TFA? 1 year seemed to be the most amicable option for the people involved, and I'll support it myself despite preferring a shorter time limit, like 6 months. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  • My preference would be no less than six months for OTD, one year for everything else. The reason why I think OTD should only be six months instead of a year is because OTD is a yearly thing and is also scheduled, so theoretically an OTD could be prevented from ever showing up on DYK if it appears every year, since every reappearance would reset the timer. Six months should be sufficient time to get around this. As for ITN, while there could be a desire to have the subject on DYK as soon as possible, a year-gap may be good since it allows for an article to become more stable and perhaps more "complete". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I'll support the one-year proposal as well. I think that's a reasonable and fair amount of time. Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support 1 year, although I would prefer 6 months. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Sure, as an improvement to the current situation, with no prejudice against further tweaking. CMD (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • One year also sounds good to me. (For OTD, I wonder if that could be shortened, as some OTD articles appear nearly every year, so it would still be nearly impossible to get a DYK for these. However, I have no objection to one year, as well.) – Epicgenius (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support one year, with no shorter exception for OTD. If the article is getting an annual trip to the main page, an extra DYK is excessive; however, whenever it misses a year at OTD, the next 364 days are available for DYK. That should be sufficient, imo. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support one year. And if an annual OTD prevents a repeat-DYK, that's ok as that is enough main page exposure. Schwede66 17:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support 1 year over 6 months. Personally, I would like a longer duration than that (2 years), but consensus is either 1 year or 6 months, so of those options, 1 year is preferable. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I've updated WP:DYK to reflect the results of the RfC and this discussion. Unless there's any objection, thanks, all! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 13:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion

One of the really annoying things when I'm looking at nominations is that if you're at WP:DYKN or WP:DYKNA looking at a transcluded nomination, there's no way to get directly to the nomination template. You can edit the template, but you can't get to the template itself in a single click. I'm perpetually having to click on "Review or comment" and then click on the "Template" link in the header to get to the template itself.

The "Review or comment" link is generated in Module:DYK nompage links, along with some clever logic to swap between "Review or comment" or "Back to T:TDYK", depending on what namespace your in. Along with a link to the article history, which I never use. I'm also not sure why the "Back to T:TDYK" exists either. I never need it (maybe other people do?) It presupposes a particular work-flow where you are going "back to" someplace that you may not have been at. In fact the "back to" link is wrong if you got to the nomination from WP:DYKNA, or from an article's talk page.

What I suggest is that we eliminate this conditional logic and move to a set of links that are always the same no matter what namespace you're viewing the nomination template in. A model would be the many navigation templates like Template:2022 shipwrecks, which have a set of "V T E" links, which get you to, respectively, the Viewing the template, the template's Talk page, or Editing the template. I'd also want to add a link to an Earwig (i.e https://copyvios.toolforge.org/) search for the nominated article(s).

Mr. Stradivarius it looks like you wrote this module way back in 2014; I haven't seen you around DYK, so I assume you've moved on to other things? This all happens in Lua; I can read enough of it to follow what the code is doing, but I don't want to dive into Lua development. So assuming we can get consensus, I'd be leaning on somebody else to do the implementation. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to point out that the article history link (or links, if a multi-article nomination) is very useful for many people, myself included, to see what article edits have been done lately. Any change that is done should retain the article history linkage. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I was just gonna say that I use the "back to T:TDYK" link. How about any change be an addition, not removal or swap. Kingsif (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
If people use those links, then we should certainly keep them. My main issue is that the link to the template should be added. A secondary concern is that the stateful selection of which links are visible based on where you are is confusing; whatever collection of links we decide to show, we should show them in all situations. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
How about we keep the on-page links as is, but split the "Review or comment" link when viewed from WP:DYKN into
  • view
  • comment

? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

This has long annoyed me, too. Yes, if we could split it, I think that would be better. Valereee (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Solution for two problems?

Latest comment: 1 year ago148 comments24 people in discussion

Two perennial issues that come up are the need to switch from one set to two sets a day to reduce the backlog of hooks (and the extra pressure this puts on everyone to prepare and review hook sets) and the mundane nature of some hooks that are run. For evidence, look at the current talk page and archives going back years. A simple solution would be to keep to one set of eight hooks a day, allow prep builders to select the most interesting hooks and have unselected hooks expire after a fixed time (say 6-8 weeks). Has this been discussed before? - Dumelow (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid that would give prep builders too much power to select hooks to their liking and preference. As much as I am a supporter of one set per day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Anybody can become a prep builder though. —Kusma (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
But almost no one wants to. SL93 (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it's been my feeling that if frequent nominators would do some of the work of building preps and moving them to queues, there'd be a lot less burnout happening here.
The problem is perennially that anyone who suggests a way to fix the problem (requiring the building or moving of a prep once every X noms, letting noms expire, etc.) always gets overruled by those not actually doing the work.
My own personal solution was to stop carping and also stop building preps or moving to queue except when I actually had made a nom myself. I now do one of whichever is currently in greatest need for each prep. If every regular nom would do the same, we'd have zero difficulty getting preps built or moved. Valereee (talk) 17:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I've been stewing over this comment for a few days, because honestly it's really bugging me. @Gerda Arendt, why don't you try building some preps? You have all the necessary skills: you've done probably thousands of reviews, and that's the crucial skill. The PSHAW tool makes it easy and quick. I think it would do you a world of good to be able to see the process from the point of view of a prep builder. Once you've built twenty or so, you might gain some valuable insight. Valereee (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Several reasons: lack of language, lack of overview of what is offered, lack of understanding of what readers want, and obviously not being in sync with the current understanding of what is even interesting. I confess that for an estimated 80% of hooks that come to the Main page, I have no idea what they talk about, and little interest to find our. Those noms I am interested in, I review. As I would not be allowed to promote those I nominated or reviewed, that would leave me permitted to promote exactly those I am not interested in. Why would I do that? - Today, I love the lead hook (which I reviewed, and faught to have it pictured). All others leave me luke-warm to cold. - Nutshell: I don't want the power I described I fear. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
> that would leave me permitted to promote exactly those I am not interested in. Why would I do that?
Because somebody has to do the work. I'm not interested in Talia Or, who is in the next prep set up for promotion to a queue. Why would I promote that one? Perhaps I'll yank that one and replace it with one that I'm interested in. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt, your language is easily adequate. The rest you learn on the job. And a prep-builder isn't responsible for making sure hooks are of interest to a general audience any more than a nominator or a reviewer do.
So it really all boils down to one reason: "I don't want to do anything to help if it doesn't either directly interest or directly benefit me". You basically want everyone here to work endlessly on your hundreds of workheavy nominations every year, but you don't want to give back even a little. So I guess since that's how the rest of this project should treat your noms? We should ignore them unless we're interested in the subject? Good to know that's the philosophy you'd like to use. Valereee (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
You don't hear me, so my language is not adequate, sorry. I understand a prep set should be a good mix. How could I do that when I don't know where hooks about sports - computer games - pop songs - many more - sit? Can we talk next year? Because I had to focus on a composer, a Landesbischof, a philosopher and now a historian in four days, three of them topics I am unfamiliar with, all sources needing translation. + doctor in the morning, + not a thing done about Christmas yet. Need fresh air now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Bullshit. I hear you loud and clear. It is absolutely not necessary for any prep builder to have any interest in or knowledge of any of those things. I have no interest in or knowledge of sports, computer games, or pop songs, either. Nor in classical music, military history, trains, roads, radio stations, or math. And yet I'm perfectly capable of building a balanced set, as are you.
Sure, we can take this up after the new year while you go focus on work that interests you. Valereee (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
My focus is (and has been from 2019) RD, articles on people who have recently died. They can't wait, or it's no longer recently. They usually don't interest me (but that typically changes when dealing with them), but I feel called when they are German (Swiss, Austrian), and I can read the obits easily which others would have to study with translators. I know how tedious that is because for Ukrainian, Belgian ... topics I have to do the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Having unselected hooks expire was what we did in the old days (before there were reviews and even queues). Admins would just pick a few hooks and update DYK with them. If your hook wasn't picked after some time, it would be removed from the nomination page. —Kusma (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth I think one set a day works well in terms of providing sufficient novel content on the main page (all other sections turn over in 24 hour cycles, with ITN generally a little slower) while providing enough time for proper checks on the content (I've recently been checking everything on the main page and DYK has a much better record at providing properly cited facts than, for example OTD or POTD) and seems to be sustainable without burning out prep-builders and admins (which seems to b a problem a 2 sets a day). If some nominations have to expire because of it then I think that's reasonable. No other main page section provides a guarantee that all submissions appear Dumelow (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with @Dumelow. We should be aiming for higher quality, not higher volume. We barely have enough people working DYK to keep things running as it is. Insisting that people do twice as much work so we can produce a lower quality product is absurd. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
If we want higher quality we could raise the required article length, or demand a certain number of references. Selection by prep builders doesn't guarantee the highest quality articles will get selected. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the idea is that with the longer time for checking the hook guaranteed, most hooks will be of a good quality. It's then just chance which get picked. Kingsif (talk) 16:10, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I thought we talk article quality, not hook quality. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I also find myself strongly in favour of this idea, and I've been turning it over in my head ever since Kusma brought it up a couple months ago. A workload of 16 hooks a day, usually for one prep builder at a time, is simply ridiculous. We just don't have the bandwidth to do that properly. Reducing the number of hooks we have to promote reduces the number of errors that slip past us and improves the average quality of hooks we deal with. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
At the moment, I only support removal of hooks that have been languishing for a month or more with issues. That alone would knock down quite a bit of nominations. SL93 (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Though as a prep builder myself, I probably won't change how I do things much. SL93 (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I know how the sign-up sheet will go. Most people who do want it to stay the same will not help out in the preps. I'm also pretty sure that a signup sheet for one set a day would have less than five usernames. I used to be of the opinion that DYK should end completely if barely anyone wants to work on preps. That was before we knew of Yoninah's death, and I was filling preps by myself for days on end then and after. SL93 (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
The more I think about it the more I like this idea. A time limit for hooks to be used or expire would encourage nominators to be helpful during reviews by including extracts from sources in the nomination, responding promptly to queries etc. and thus reducing the burden on reviewers and prep builders to sort things out - Dumelow (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@Dumelow: I'm happy to throw to a survey, maybe we get this going? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Should we consider abolishing sets and moving to a rolling display like Wikipedia:In the news? The current system is self correcting and rewards the work of nominators and approvers with a mainpage appearance. A rolling display would preserve these advantages without requiring what is often a single prep builder to volunteer large amounts of time at short notice. TSventon (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think a rolling display like ITN would work for DYK. For one thing, DYK features far more entries than ITN does (at least 8 a day compared to one or two entries every few days). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
It also only eliminates the time preppers spend scheduling – the much bigger time sink is the time preppers spend verifying. And that arguably needs to go up, not down, so what we really need is a lower number of nominations to deal with. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
theleekycauldron verification could be kept as a separate task and added to the QPQ requirement. If verification could be done an article at a time rather than in multiples of eight it would be less daunting. However I accept that the views of current preppers should carry weight as the system depends on them. TSventon (talk) 18:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty much what I was thinking myself. I could see anointing experienced DYK people as (for lack of a better name) "senior reviewers". The job of a senior reviewer is to re-review hooks that are already in prep sets. When they pass this review, they put a sticker on the nomination template. Now the admin who promotes the prep to a queue slot just has to check that it's got enough stickers (insert obligatory Better Call Saul joke here) and swab the PSHAW button with their mop.
I'm looking at the current preps right now. The next prep to be promoted to the queue has a couple of hooks in it that I promoted to the prep. So I really shouldn't be the one to promote it to the queue. By breaking up the job into smaller units, you reduce a lot of those process speedbumps. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Signup sheet

For those of you who think we have enough bandwidth to produce 14 sets per week, please sign up on the table below with your commitment to do the work for the duration. If we get to 14 in both columns, then we can begin to talk about going to 2 sets a day. I have no interest in getting back on the 2 per day treadmill, so I'm not signing up. More power to those who do. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

DYK signup sheet (add more rows as needed)
Username preps / week queues / week
User:
User:
User:
User:
User:
User:

Survey says...

Percentage of DYK nominations remaining open over time
June–August 2022, successful nominations

Note that this is intentionally not an RfC – this has to do with internal process, not output, and should be resolved quickly and informally. Do you support:

  • A: All nominations expiring
  • B: Unapproved nominations expiring (including those with rescinded approval)
  • C: Unapproved nominations expiring (not including those with rescinded approval)

after...

  • 1: 3 weeks (approx. 27%)
  • 2: 4 weeks (approx. 12%)
  • 3: 6 weeks (approx. 6%)
  • 4: 8 weeks (approx. 3%)

If you support, leave the letter and number of which options you support, otherwise comment no change. If a nomination is approved under option A, or unapproved while under option B, the time limit is reset to 1 week or the original expiration date, whichever is greater. If a nomination is reopened from prep or queue, the time limit is reset to 2 weeks or the original expiration date, whichever is greater. If an expiration time is set in this survey, a bot will be used to notify nominators when their nominations are in danger of expiration and close expired nominations.

If a formal close is needed, the closer should note that both the letters and numbers are ordered from most to least restrictive, so any support of a number or letter should be considered support for options lower on the list unless explicitly stipulated otherwise. Support for B1, for example, is also support for B2 and B3, as well as C1, C2, and C3. Consensus, therefore, should be assessed starting with the most restrictive option in each category. Pinging all previous participants in the discussion, @Dumelow, Gerda Arendt, Kingsif, RoySmith, SL93, and TSventon. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Inquiry Maybe I'm a moron, but I need someone to explain the difference between "Unapproved" noms and "Never-approved" noms. EEng 18:07, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    I'm assuming "unapproved" means "was approved at one time, then had the tick taken away by a subsequent query". Kind of like Undead. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    That's what I was assuming, too. Valereee (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    Well maybe the ol' cauldron could stir up an answer for us before we get too far into this. And "taken away by a subsequent query" -- what's that mean, exactly? EEng 18:53, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    It means the nom is ticked off. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    I'm offering you an all-expenses-paid scholarship to the EEng Institute of Talk-Page One-Liners. EEng 19:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    Someone questions whether the nom is a pass and removes the tick. Valereee (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    So if some reviewer overlooks a problem with the nom and ticks it, and someone else comes by and notices the problem and unticks it, that's one category. But if the someone else had come by an hour earlier, and pointed out the problem before the tick was placed, that's a different category? C'mon. This isn't being thought through. EEng 19:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    @EEng: The more alarming scenario that I thought of when writing this was if the reviewer overlooks a problem and then ticks it, and then the nomination sits until, say, a day before the expiration date, and the nominator thinks everything's fine, and then someone else comes along and unticks it and the nom expires within 24 hours. I do have a clause for that below the options, which reset the timer to 1 week when this happens, but if that wasn't enough for people, I wanted to give them the option of saying "an nom that's been ticked and unticked should have as much time as it needs to sort out its problems, because that's likely a minor issue". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    Well, no, because what it means is that at least one other person thinks this is ok. Valereee (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • A2. I think 10–12% is a pretty good balance between backlog reduction and unnecessary culling. Per my comments above, letting nominations expire reduces the number of hooks promoters have to deal with and scrutinize on a regular basis, which frees them up to spend more time carefully looking for errors in each nomination. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • A2 I might have said five weeks, but sure, four works. Kingsif (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: based on some other comments below, I want to make it clear that I do not expect this will be a super hard rule, nor automated. We regularly exhibit leniency on pretty much every time-related rule we have, and while in general what is picked here should apply, so should logic (and empathy) Kingsif (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Now wait just a gol' darned minute here. For years I've been advocating that we cut down the number of hooks by straight like/don't-like voting (well, a little more nuanced than that) before a hook even gets to the reviewing stage, thereby not only reducing the number of hooks that need promoting, but reducing the number of initial reviews as well. The numerical details of the voting process would be parameterized to make the throughput of the whole process be whatever number of hooks per day we want it to be. Over and over I was shouted down by people saying that letting the community vote on the best N hooks each day would be unfair, biased, etc etc. So now the proposal is to let community unconsciously make the same live/die decision on hooks via a sort of benign neglect? Huh? EEng 06:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    We all decided your notion of democracy took up too much time. We're lazy, EEng, goddamnit! Kingsif (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    It works at ITN. I think it could work here, too. Valereee (talk) 17:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    Exactly, Valereee. Kingsif: No, voting would save loads of time because (as mentioned) it would kill half of all nominations before they even get out of the gate -- before anyone even reviews them. That's a huge savings of time. For those interested, here's the proposal: WT:Did you know/Archive 129#How to quickly and easily decide which hooks are interesting, and cut review workload in half at the same time. EEng 23:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    Watch me make an RfC to see what kind of nom-reduction proposal we should be having an RfC about. No, it's a solid suggestion. Next time we're in a bind, it's your turn again for sure. Kingsif (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • A2. This has the nice feature that it speaks directly to DYK's goal of showcasing new content. If something takes over a month to get through the approval process, it's no longer new by the time it runs. My one concern is that this might discriminate against new participants who might need some help to shephard their first submissions through the process. So maybe have submitters who are QPQ-exempt also have longer deadlines, to give them a bit more time to get their nominations up to snuff? In the long run, encouraging and training new talent is a net positive to the project. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    I'm surprised someone as manifestly intelligent as yourself has actually fallen for this "showcasing new content" nonsense. That DYK features "new content" is not a feature but a bug, giving preference to inchoate just-born that are often embarrassing in any number of ways; unfortunately it's a necessary bug, since it has the essential feature of creating an arbitrary throttle on nominations -- without the 7-day cutoff we'd be absolutely FLOODED with nominations. Various interpretations of the "benefits" of the newness requirement have been offered over the years, all of them lame. For example, it's often said it encourages newbies, but we all know that the bulk of DYK material comes from old hands who know the ropes. So if we need to keep the newness requirement to stave off the nominations flood, fine, but let's not endow it with more meaning than that. EEng 20:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    @EEng: I think that the nature of DYK is to encourage new content more than it does new content creators. The reason there are so many old hands doing most of the nominations is because DYK can be pretty confusing, but it is a good incentive if you know what you're doing. I've definitely found myself not wanting to do a piece of hefty content work because there's no DYK in it for me. In that sense, it definitely is showcasing new content, but not necessarily inviting new creators. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    I think it was before your time that I last said DYK should run GAs only. That way we'd be showcasing good articles, not slapdash, undeveloped, incomplete -- and often embarrassingly bad -- new articles. Or, we should highlight interesting facts found in any article, anywhere, or any age. Or, we could highlight interesting facts recently added to any article anywhere. But forget all that. A personal favor, please: look at my voting proposal at WT:Did you know/Archive 129#How to quickly and easily decide which hooks are interesting, and cut review workload in half at the same time. EEng 00:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    @EEng: Well, let's not forget the problems incurred over Russia (nom). Or the fact that nearly all of Coldwell's stuff got through. From some (very rough) back-of-the-napkin math, it looks like 9.2% of all GA DYK noms have failed – a number higher than the 6.4% DYK-wide.
    Maybe we'd shift the margins on that a little? Removing half of all hooks from the pool seems a bit harsher than 10%. I'm not inherently opposed to the idea, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    Can anyone completely caffeinated tell us how much less time we'll need to spend in 2-a-days if we eliminate 10% of hooks?
    Maybe if we do something that eliminates 10% of hooks, it'll work well enough that when we inevitably have to come back and eliminate a further 10%, it'll just look like adjusting instead of the much scarier changing. Valereee (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Valereee: Completely caffeinated? not close! Armed with an already-existing spreadsheet from 6 months ago I preserved because I knew it would come in handy someday? Absolutely. According to my calculations, expiring 10% of approved noms would reduce the amount of time spent in two-a-day sets by roughly 35%. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
    Nice! Thanks, tlc, you are as always a font of information! Valereee (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Theleekycauldron could you share the spreadsheet? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
    @RoySmith: here you go! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. My concern is that sometimes hooks don't get reviewed quickly because the topics are too obscure or unpopular, or they are visually buried by other passers-by commenting, making it look like a review is in progress when in fact the commenter has no intention of reviewing at all. The deadline could be both a help and a hindrance – right now I've noticed a few instances where the reviewer and submitter don't see eye-to-eye on some detail (sometimes for reasons that don't have anything to do with DYK rules) and get frustrated with each other; having a deadline looming could make the process even more stressful. Overall, while I appreciate that the DYK reviews that languish for a long time can be a collective time sink, I'm always staggered and impressed when some DYK submissions that I didn't understand and/or wouldn't have touched with a ten-foot pole, turn out to be absolute stunners (both the hook and the article), often because some major issues were resolved, collaboratively. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • B2 - I'm somewhat concerned by the sort of "indirect neglect" element here for promoted hooks. Prep builders are humans too, and we all have our subconcious biases to what we think are more interesting. (For instance, it's less bad now, but there was a time when it seemed that about 80% of all lead hooks were just bio images) I'm worried that certain topics are going to just be unintentionally left to age out in favor of the more "in vogue" topics, which seem to be modern popular music, radio stations, and sportspeople. Hog Farm Talk 16:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    I actually suspect the opposite is true. When I'm looking for stuff to review, I'm attracted to novel topics and turned off by more of the same. I think that's true even about topics I care about. I'm into articles about New York City (where I live), but (with apologies to Epicgenius) can't get excited about yet another building hook. And I'm into Tolkien, but (with apologies to Chiswick Chap) can't get too excited about yet another Tolkien hook. On the other hand, I guess I do have my biases. I'm into history, and STEM topics, and probably favor those. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Hog Farm, SL93, and Epicgenius: I agree with RoySmith – going with option A probably decreases the number of hooks from topics that are currently "in vogue". Right now, what's "in vogue" is determined by the balance of nominations, which is determined by what nominators like to do. If prep builders get a say in that balance, I think popular music hooks, for example, won't get promoted as often – they tend to do poorly on the Main Page. This discussion was the last straw for a nominator who put a whole class of hooks "in vogue" all by herself – she seems to think that this will be used to reduce the number of hooks aired by her on the Main Page.
    I think we all have subconscious biases, but if you asked me who was more able to look at our run of past hooks and determine what works and what doesn't – well, I've promoted over 2,500 hooks, with many, many more logged to the stats page. The most prolific nominators don't hold a candle to the most prolific promoters and admins (although Cwmhiraeth is among all three of those) in terms of the number nominations handled. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    theleekycauldron I'm not entirely convinced, but I will think about it. I'm still not too keen on people who build preps having so much power when there is so few of them. I would have a different feeling if I had a fair reassurance that others would help build preps if such a change is implemented. SL93 (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    @SL93, maybe this'll actually encourage more people to learn how to promote. More and more people will see how easy it is and might start doing it regularly. This actually could incentivize more participation in promotion by people who don't want to do it regularly but are willing to do it occasionally for a nom they think is worth keeping. Valereee (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    Maybe we should change how we do QPQ. Right now, reviewing somebody else's submission earns you the right to submit one of your own. We could add a rule that promoting a hook to a prep set earns you the right to complain about one thing you don't like. See a lot of things that piss you off? Promote a bunch of hooks and earn the right to whine about all of them!
    If somebody thinks I've got too much power, my answer to that is, "Please, take some of mine." -- RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

*B2 - I have the same concern as Hog Farm. SL93 (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  • B2 - I also agree with Hog Farm. Unfortunately, prep building is a tiring process that precludes many people, including me, from taking part.
    As for the survey itself, it seems reasonable to allow a nomination to expire if it hasn't received any feedback. However, I am somewhat concerned that any nomination that hasn't been reviewed for over 7 days may go into something of a death spiral. Reviewers tend to look mostly at nominations that were submitted within the last 7 days, so any nomination submitted afterward might be ignored simply because people don't want to scroll up. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    That's an entirely valid point. When I was doing more initial reviews, I certainly found it easier to start at the bottom, because it was difficult to sort through the older stuff to find unreviewed submissions. WP:SPI has a system where each case has a status and there's a display board showing all the cases sorted by status and age. We (by which I guess I mean me) could do something similar. The states might be "Incomplete submission" (which I think is code for "pending QPQ"), "Waiting for initial review", "Pending response to query", "Promoted to prep", "Promoted to queue", and maybe a few others. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    I think that might work, but with the following statuses:
  • Waiting for review; no comments have been made
  • Waiting for review; at least one comment has been made
  • Reviewed; issues need resolving (e.g. a pending QPQ)
  • Reviewed; another review needed
  • Reviewed and rejected
  • Reviewed and approved
  • Promoted to prep
  • Promoted to queue
– Epicgenius (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • A1-2-3-4, B1-2-3-4, C1-2-3-4. For preference, A2, but I would support anything that would get noms that are timesinks out the door and cut the number of noms in general. I also would support EEng's voting method. Valereee (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Valereee: Support for A1 is implicitly support for all of the other options, so you could just say A1, preference for A2. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    Yep, I could. Valereee (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • B>C>A on category, 1>2>3>4 on timeframe. I do think neglect for obscure topics is a problem; we shouldn't be implementing something that will enhance our bias toward the anglosphere and toward biographies. However, nominations where the reviewer has flagged issues that then remain unaddressed should be dropped. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • C4 - I do think there should be some deadline after wich the nom expires. However, I think we should be generous, especially in cases where a previously approved nom is sent back for more work (which is what I think B is getting at). ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:43, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • A2 as a preference, but would also support B2 or C2 (though I am not entirely sure I understand the distinction between B and C). Around 10% of noms being cut feels about right and a quick look at the nominations page shows that most nominations that have been there for more than 4 weeks have been waiting for nominators to action comments for some time, or have been sent back from preps for further work; I couldn't see any that had yet to receive any form of review. Some of these nomination templates have dozens of lines of comments and are needlessly absorbing volunteer time that could be better spent elsewhere - Dumelow (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Question - Before I comment further, what exactly is the difference between B and C? I'd actually be leaning against C because some nominations that are not approved for months are like that for reasons out of the article's control, such as controversial content (for example, hooks about stuff like Israel-Palestine are bound to take ages since most regulars are uncomfortable with checking them). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • No change unless there are protections built in for nominators when a reviewer flakes. The proposal is going to require a major process shift (and mindshift) in how reviewers approach DYK. Otherwise, the usual deference to the original reviewer is going to result in a lot of noms getting closed when the articles could be ready for promotion only no one's thinking that they should take up for the absent reviewer. There is typically no way to tell whether a nomination is being ignored because it looks like someone else should be back soon or because that person is suddenly busy in real life or just doesn't like the article or wasn't fond of the nominator's understandable pushback. I've been putting up lists of all the older nominations needing a new reviewer, and most reviewers ignore the older ones—Template:Did you know nominations/Last universal common ancestor's reviewer disappeared in early November, and no one has stepped in. As a side note, this would effectively end reviewer requests for a GOCE copyedit; they're up to around two months these days, and with 8 weeks the max offered, articles with that level of copyedit needed will need to find other resources. (If they're in such problematic shape grammatically that GOCE is the only option, that may be where we're headed and it may be a good thing ultimately, but it's an inevitable consequence of the proposed structure change.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    I'd be all for just leaving noms open, noms waiting in approved, backlogs forever, if we equitably scrapped all time limits on opening noms and meeting requirements, since that's only fair, right? And DYK would then basically be a free-for-all, but then at least it would have no bureaucracy. But I also see massive value in the existence of DYK, in attracting readers to either keep reading and reading more, or, ideally, read more and as a result become interested in Wikipedia and start editing. I might even suggest going down to one hook every two days because maybe our target audience probably don't read the MP every day, and the process will stop turning current editors off. The noms that take the longest to get to are usually the hard ones, and reviewing them also turns current editors off and they are less likely to produce a hook that attracts readers, so I honestly don't see a problem with letting them die, if we want to look for rules that might help. Or go lawless, why not. Kingsif (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    We can't let backlogs get too long. It breaks something. We used to wait until it was going to break, but then we'd end up in 2-a-days for six or more months while we dug out. If we don't want to go to two-a-days -- and I don't see how we can with as few prep builders as we've got -- then we've got to fix the backlog in some other way. Valereee (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    I was going for hyperbole to make your point. Like, seriously, any rule to help ease the technical slog and maybe kill some weak noms, is at least worth trying at this point, I've barely got back from a DYK break even though I love it and think it's very important in reader retention and editor recruitment, because of that slog. And, like, maybe this kind of rule that seems hardline now will be so familiar in a year nobody even thinks about it. Kingsif (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • No change. I suspect a large fraction of the hung reviews are because the reviewer never came back after leaving comments that needed addressing. These are not the fault of the nominator or the article and a bot telling the nominator "you have a week to bring your reviewer back" is not going to be helpful in fixing the problem. It will merely turn it from a problem of too many hung reviews into a problem of nominators getting mistreated and alienated. The proposed change is still unclear to me: are expired nominations dead forever or are they merely thrown back in the nomination pool for more work? In addition I am quite unhappy with the way this survey was formulated: it presupposes that there MUST be expirations and asks only what kind of expiration we would like. The answers of respondents above are therefore uninformative about whether expirations should happen at all and should not be taken as indicating a consensus for having expirations. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    @David Eppstein: Seems like I could do a bit of clarification here. Noms can't expire once they're closed and promoted, so there'd really be nothing to do an expired open nom except for close it as unsuccessful. Also, I explicitly left a no change option for those who oppose any kind of change, that's totally fine – but the support is a little more complicated, and therefore requires more ink to spell out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    @David Eppstein, the intent is to actually reduce the number of approved nominations so that we avoid 2-a-days, which we don't have the volunteer capacity for. Valereee (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • No change: I'm done holding my tongue. I'm against it seeming like we are punishing nominators and I am not fond of any well-deserved backlash we receive from them. This all started because barely anyone wants to build preps, even shortly after a well-respected prep builder died. How about this idea then? We close any nominations of people who don't want to at least promote one hook a month to prep. I don't like the nonsensical whining about it being too hard because there is no requirement to build an entire prep. What I'm saying now has been building for a while and now it's in front of everyone. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    @SL93: Like you, I'm also upset about the lack of prep builders. The fact that you are building preps when you should be healing and resting is truly an indictment of the state of DYK, and we should all be sorry that this job put you in that position. I know I am, I wish I wasn't so rottenly burned out.
    This is a volunteer project, though, and i don't think we should be requiring more work be done by nominators as a negative punishment, particularly because a lot of them aren't qualified to do so. The fact that prep building is a group of DYK experts is a feature, not a bug, even if that group is small. So we're faced with the problem: Too many nominations, not enough people to process them. We can fix that by: 1. reducing the number of nominations that need to be processed, and/or 2. increasing the number of people who are processing them. There's no reason we can't do both, which is something I think your proposal does. Maybe we phrase it as a QPQ requirement, e.g. if you've promoted more than 25 hooks, you can get a QPQ credit by promoting 5 hooks, but the credit expires a week after the promotion of the first nom. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure anyone would find a 5:1 that expires in one week much of a reward. Why should it expire in a week? And why not 1:1? Valereee (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Valereee: A promotion generally isn't as time-intensive as a review – the problem of DYK promotion backlog is one of nominations per day more than it is one of time per nomination. A promotion might only take a half or a third of the time of a review, but if you have to do 8 per day, it's suddenly a lot more difficult. I put in a weeklong expiration date because it incentivizes people not to stockpile promotions – if a 1:1 no-expiration QPQ promotion rule were in place when I started promoting, I would have 2,500+ surplus QPQs by now, which is a truly ridiculous number. I want the rule to incentivize new prep builders, not reward existing ones, so I'd be willing to go down to 3:1 or 2:1. 1:1 would be too much of an imbalance, it would substantially impact the amount of reviews people do as a QPQ. Right now, the only way to get a QPQ is by doing a review, so our nomination backlog only goes up when we get more noms from new nominators.
    How about this: if you've made over 10 nominations (e.g. you know what you're doing), you can get a QPQ credit with 2 or 3 promoted nominations, but noms can't be used for a QPQ credit more than 10 days after being promoted. Does that work? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
    All I want is for the incentive to work, but not be so big an incentive that it invites in tons of unqualified people. :D Maybe we start out with 3:1, and if we find that works, yay! If it's not enough, we go to 2:1. If it's just too inviting and brings in not only the people we want but those we don't, we adjust? Valereee (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't really know at this point - I'm actually sympathetic to the idea of nominations expiring, but deciding how and after how long is tricky. As I said above, in many cases these nominations get delayed for reasons beyond their control, for example due to waiting for a copyedit or the subject matter being too controversial or complicated and thus needing more eyes. If I were really to choose between the three main options I could go for some variant of C, with the caveat that nominations put on hold for reasons such as awaiting a copyedit could be exempted. On one hand, I could see the value of expiring nominations, but on the other hand I don't know if this is the right solution to our current issues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • No change I am sympathetic to the desire to reduce the page, but automatic expiries are dispiriting for a volunteer process where the reward for fiddling with DYK templates etc. is actually very little. Expiring approved noms (A) feels a very poor proposal on top of that. I am not convinced large nom numbers make prep building difficult, I haven't built preps for awhile (apologies), but when I did build them I simply scrolled till I found one which hit the criteria I was looking for. CMD (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    We have too many volunteer nominators. I'm not that worried about dispiriting a few of them, frankly. I'm more worried about dispiriting the volunteer prep builders.
    Large nom numbers make prep building difficult because they make us go to 2-a-days, and there aren't enough prep builders, and they get overburdened and burned out. It's not that building a prep is difficult; as you say, you just scroll until you find what you're looking for. But when we have too many noms, prep builders feel forced to contribute two preps (or three) when they really only had enough time to do one. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    I think we have many nominations, but not actually all that many nominators. I'd like us to find a newbie-friendly solution here. We could for example only use the time out rule on people with more than five active nominations. —Kusma (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    Oh, I like that idea! Yeah, I don't want it to be unfriendly to newbs, either. Any nom that requires a QPQ can expire? I like it. Valereee (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
     
    KCL model for DYK
    I like the idea too. Which is why I suggested it a few days ago :-)
    I made a little diagram to help people understand the math here. Nominations come in at some rate which we can't control. Nominations go out via one of two routes (rejections or promotions). If we drain slower than we gain, the capacitor charges backlog grows. If we drain faster than we gain, the capacitor discharges backlog shrinks. In an electrical circuit, the voltage across the capacitor grow to some maximum dictated by the capacitor's construction, and then the magic smoke escapes. It's unclear how that translates to DYK backlog size.
    We've got two knobs we can control; the drain rates due to rejections and promotions. Letting the backlog grow has a cost. Increasing either of the drain rates has a cost. Pick whichever combination of knob settings makes you the most happy. Or the least unhappy. Each of us has our own idea of how to assign costs to the various options, and thus come up with different knob settings. That's perfectly fair. But I hope we can all agree on the basic model, and the consequences of it.
    BTW, in medieval times, when I was learning about control systems, engineers really did solve problems by plugging capacitors and variable resistors together and twiddling the knobs until the output did what they wanted. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:31, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
  • No change DYK currently works better than any other section on the main page. So, as it works, don't fix it.
For example, the FA process has escalated the quality required over the years so that an FA is a huge amount of work. The result is that less than one FA per day is produced and so they are having to scrape the barrel and do reruns. While many of the people who were able to perform at this level have been burnt out by the effort and heartache.
DYK's issues are just a sign of success: a comparative abundance of editors, nominations and new articles. In trying to damp down this vigour, be careful what you wish for. You might end up with a graveyard like ITN.
Andrew🐉(talk) 22:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson when you say, "No change", can you clarify what you mean? A straightforward reading of "no change" would be, "once we reach some number of pending submissions (which isn't that far away), we switch to doing 2 sets per day". If that's what you mean, then you'll need to explain where we'll find the people willing to put in the amount of work required to get two sets per day out the door? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm mainly following the instructions of the not-RfC which say "If you support, ..., otherwise comment no change". But I don't accept the scare-story that the queue has to be purged to avoid running 2 sets per day. DYK has run 2 sets per day many times before whereas I've never noticed the process collapsing. And my impression is that DYK has too many cooks, not too few. For a process improvement, my recommendation would be to automate the process of set building and running so that there's less manual labour and bickering. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson, how many prep builders do you think we have right now? Valereee (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is documented somewhere but it doesn't seem well advertised. Anyway, I don't like to guess and so looked at a couple of measures. One was the number of the top editors of a prep page who had edited the page this year. This was 10. Some of those might be clearers rather than builders but, on the other hand, there seemed to be other active builders lower down the list of editors. Another measure was to see how many editors have DYK_promoter.js installed and that's 30. That's a fairly recent innovation I gather and so that's another rough measure.
Now if these numbers don't seem to be enough then we could simply recruit and train some more set builders. There's a regular cry for more volunteers to act as admins, NPP patrollers, AfC reviewers and so on. Recruiting set builders seems simpler because no special privilege is required.
My preference would be to automate the process further. Presumably that javascript does some of the relevant mechanical steps already.
But if the process remains manual then what's obviously needed is some incentive. If set building seems an onerous chore then give some credit when it is done. And don't keep the set builders secret – maintain a list and give some glory to those who are active. As it's near the year-end, this is a good time to summarise what has been done during the year and to commend all those who have played a part. Perhaps an annual report can be prepared and it might then be published in Signpost.
Andrew🐉(talk) 21:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Most of the people editing preps are not prep builders. They're people coming in after the prep has been built to do small tweaks. I would estimate we have 3-4 active prep builders, most of whom are burned out.
The process isn't onerous. It's the re-reviews that are required, which cannot be automated. (Maybe consider moving a few hooks to prep to see what I'm talking about). It's the stress of noms pushing back and the scrutiny. Valereee (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Valereee is correct, that number is maybe 2.5 right now – SL93 is active, I'm in-and-out but making a re-entry, Bruxton and GGT are trying it out (welcome, GGT, by the way!), and RoySmith is shifting from prep to prep-to-queue right now. Since 2011, a majority of all DYK nominations have been promoted by just six people – two of those users are deceased (Yoninah and Allen3), two more are essentially inactive in prep promotion (Cwmhiraeth and Hawkeye7), the last two are SL93 and myself. The most time-intensive parts of prep promotion – hook interestingness and verification – simply can't be automated. As for annual reports and lists, you might be interested in WP:DYKW and WP:DYKPC. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, tlc. So, @Andrew Davidson, any change in your view now that you know there are almost no prep builders? And FWIW, "simply recruit and train more" isn't that easy. We'd love to recruit and train you, for instance. Are you up for it? Valereee (talk) 01:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
My view is unchanged. The set-builder issue is being exaggerated and, in any case, draconian expiry of nominations is not the answer. That's supposed to be the not-RfC here. If there's a discussion to be had about the set-building process then it's a different one.
You see, I know what a failing, dysfunctional main page section really looks like because I've been focussing on ITN in this last year. ITN hasn't put up a new blurb for about a week now. The unchanging picture blurb about the Thai ship sinking is not really in the news now and wasn't a big story to start with. The actual big story for much of our readership is the winter storm affecting much of North America and I nominated that at ITN yesterday. It was the only blurb nominated on that day and it's currently mired in do-nothing discussion. So, that's what failure looks like.
In that week of one weak blurb at ITN, DYK has run over 50 hooks, maintaining its prodigious throughput like a mighty machine. DYK should count its blessings and celebrate its success. Bravo! Kudos! Encore!
Andrew🐉(talk) 08:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
The funny thing is, you're part of the problem you're denying exists. You have 140 DYKs to your credit. A random check shows that you've edited Prep 3 once, back in 2016, when you promoted your own hook. So you do know how it's done. You do know it's not difficult. You just choose not to help out.
@Theleekycauldron @SL93, @RoySmith, @Bruxton @GGT, for Andrew's next nom, I'd suggest any promoter who is feeling burnt out take note: no urgency to promote to prep. There's apparently no real problem here. Let someone else do it. Valereee (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the first acknowledgement I've had of my prep building work. Usually I do it for a while between major projects. And stop when I run into trouble and wind up taking heat. I had tried my hand at automation, which would make the job a simpler. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7, I'm sorry this is the first acknowledgement you've had. Thank you for your work. Valereee (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • B or C 2 or 3 Things shouldn't linger forever --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • No change. If nothing else, then purely on the basis that we just recently changed the criteria for "interestingness of hooks" which will still take time for reviewers to get used to, and will likely add time for DYKs to get reviewed and/or have other effects that we're not aware of yet. If the problem is that there aren't enough prep builders, I'm happy to step out of visual editor and volunteer, if someone points me to what to read. I seem to recall someone suggesting the possibility of moving to 16-hour DYK cycles – think it was Joseph2302 – in any case maybe there are other ways to solve the actual problem at hand. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    Moving to 16-hour cycles would turn special occasion hooks into even more of a nightmare. But perhaps we should just give up on those anyway. —Kusma (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Further comment. Having taken a closer look at what is holding up so many once-approved hooks from promotion in WP:DYKNA (besides there not being enough promoters), it looks like there is a lack of clarity about who "owns" the final-final tick. Sometimes what is happening is that someone raises a concern or gives a critique about a hook (which may or may not be a dealbreaker)...the DYK nominator addresses the issue...and then isn't sure who to ping (so perhaps doesn't ping or sometimes does and doesn't hear back) – is it the original approver or the passerby who raised the objection? Or both? Sometimes it's clear the passerby's critique isn't really a dealbreaker (or there are other ALT hooks that are fine), but sometimes it's not, and the nomination languishes as it waits for movement in one direction or another. Do we just need more people going through and helping to drive the discussions left hanging to a close? Or more clarity that a passerby who offers commentary after a DYK was already once-approved bears some responsibility to return and close the loop? Cielquiparle (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Cielquiparle For sure, there is a lot process improvement that can happen. I'm (slowly) working on some of that. Once I've got the basic framework up and running, one of the things I have in mind is exactly what you describe; finding noms that are stalled, intuiting who the roadblock is, and pinging them. Some concept of "who's next" is part of every work-flow process I've ever used, and should be here as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • No change, per BlueMoonset, David Eppstein, and others (i.e., doesn't account enough for flaky reviewers). DanCherek (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
    Also doesn't account for flaky noms. :D Maybe we should add that to the choices.
    Does not getting the QPQ not account for flaky reviewers? Valereee (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • No change, per several above users. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
    Yep. Valereee (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Cielquiparle, thank you for being willing to help! The best way to learn how to build a prep is to just start building one (in the bottommost prep, which gives you plenty of time) with the knowledge you currently have -- that the first slot gets an image hook, the last one gets a "quirky", and we try to mix things up by subject, bio/non-bio, countries represented, etc. -- and then open a section her at talk and ask other experienced prep builders for a critique. There's a tool at WP:PSHAW that makes the logistics easy. The time consuming part is the re-reviews; each hook you move, you need to do a re-review, same as the review you do when you're doing your QPQ. Valereee (talk) 12:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    Ditto Valereee, thank you for enlisting! I would say to give Template:Did you know/Queue#Instructions on how to promote a hook and WP:DYKNN a quick skim before you dive in; but as I'm sure every promoter could tell you, myself included, "the only way to learn is by playing, the only way to win is by learning, and the only way to begin is by beginning; so without further ado, so let's begin!" (– Sam Reich). I'll also that it doesn't need to be a full re-review; it's more like half a review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks both! @Valereee @Theleekycauldron I have now read the linked sections and installed PSHAW, but it looks like there are no preps that are "free" so that means there currently isn't space to try it out – is that right? (Impressed that this is all quite clearly laid out so far... Maybe it could be turned into a template message (with embedded links on how to familiarize yourself) that gets sent to people once they have 10–15 DYK credits or something. I would have volunteered sooner but at first I thought you had to be an admin; I would have happily signed up if directly asked, as I read this Talk page rather infrequently.) Cielquiparle (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Cielquiparle, looks like Bruxton is not currently working on Prep 1, you could work there. Or there's an empty slot in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 7, doesn't look like anyone is actively working there. Prep 7 might be a good one to look at, as you can see what's currently in there, so you know exactly what you're looking for: a non-US bio (because there are only two bios in the set right now, we usually want 3-4, and both bios are US). Preferably not a scientist (2 science hooks already) or related to business, theater, or India. Valereee (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Valereee Oh! So you don't necessarily have to promote an entire set; some or most Preps are completed collaboratively? Cielquiparle (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Cielquiparle, yes, many are done collaboratively. Most, probably, when you start to count shuffling (I'll explain shuffling after you complete Prep 7, if that's what you decided to do). You do want to make sure no one is currently actively working on the set. Valereee (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Cielquiparle I'm late to the thank-you party, but I'll add my thanks for offering to help out. It'll be nice to no longer be the new kid on the block!
    Yeah, the preps are collaborative. Sometimes the most valuable thing to do is to finish off a prep set that is almost full, especially if it's the next one up for promotion to a queue. If you're worried about stepping on somebody else's toes, take a look at the edit history. If one person has been making a bunch of edits to it recently, let them keep working on it. If nobody's touched it in an hour, then it's free game. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks @RoySmith. All helpful. Footnote is that I actually started by trying to add to Prep 7 as @Valereee had suggested, but the PSHAW tool kept freezing no matter what I tried (changed browsers, logged in and out, etc.), so I ended up adding to Prep 1 instead (was rather startled that that worked). Anyway I'll keep plugging away, thanks in advance to all for any other pointers or flags along the way. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Theleekycauldron is probably asleep, so pinging to make sure she sees this when she edits again. Valereee (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, that happens sometimes. It's part of the official hazing routine for new prep builders. Actually, what it really means is that Prep 7 is misformatted in some way. I took a quick look but didn't see what was wrong, but I'm sure leeky will figure it out. She always does. One bit of advice: you will make mistakes. Don't sweat it. We've got your back while you figure out which end is up. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    Heh! Valereee beat me to it – PSHAW bricks when there's no empty credit slot. If you're struggling with PSHAW or anything else at DYK, Cielquiparle, my talk page is always open :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks @Theleekycauldron. I just wanted to say: I am blown away by how easy the PSHAW tool is to use! Definite thumbs-up for #visualeditors like me. Outstanding contribution, hope the broader Wikipedia community is aware. Wow! Cielquiparle (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    Oh thank you, Cielquiparle! That certainly made my day :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you, @cqp, for recognizing good work. Valereee (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Easier solution

I just drop out of DYK. Enjoy where (only) stats count, not knowledge of key facts, - I don't any more. I'll focus on GA and FA writing and preparing bios for in the news, such as Werner Leich. Same Luther mentioned as in the Mendelssohn cantata, btw, because Honecker wanted to make him a founding father of East German socialism ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that, Gerda. I don't think that solves the problem of the prep builders' workload, but I do apologize if the discussion made you feel ostracized for other reasons. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
What leeky said, but also: we push because we care. Kingsif (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
It wasn't one particular discussion, but constantly being told (in different wording by different people) that my approach is wrong. I can't change my (Old world, traditional) view that to say something specific about the subject is what I owe the subject, especially when a BLP but even when an old piece of music. I'll still nominate those I had planned, another singer and a choral piece for New Year's Day, and I'll probably make an exception for GAs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, if that's what you wanna do, if you still want somewhere to put the impressive specific stuff, you have already sent some to my talkpage and I have found it thoughtful and read them. Was it last year that you sang in a canticle(?) and linked me the piece? I appreciate your interactions, even if sometimes frustrating, so you can at least show me your new articles, if you want. Kingsif (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
My new articles are and will be on my user page. Working on Dieter Henrich for RD. Tough, - not my field. He published a book a reviewer found fascinating just before he died, at age 95. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Gerda, you make this threat pretty regularly. :D I actually do agree an easier solution would be for you to nominate only when you have a hook that will address both your own goals and those of DYK, though. I know it's frustrating and stressful for you, and it's obviously frustrating and stressful for workers here when the two goals don't coincide. Valereee (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, nice idea in principle, only then I'm sure, and what happens is Vom Himmel hoch (Mendelssohn). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Yep, looks like a nom that probably isn't a good fit for DYK. Your goals are not the same as DYK's. Valereee (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Gerda, sorry if you thought this was targeted at you, I can assure you it was not. I think it's now clear that there are not sufficient volunteers (not a complaint, the prep builders and admins do stellar work and I don't think I could do it) to commit to running two sets of hooks a day and we need to trim down the nominations, I think this is the simplest way but happy to hear other alternatives. Appreciate the suggestion leaves a lot in the hands of the prep builders to chose what should run and what shouldn't but at some point 8 hooks a day need to be selected from the (slightly) wider pool of available nominations - Dumelow (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Please read above, it wasn't this alone. Looking at my goals, I asked myself: what is it that keeps me from writing quality articles, and arguing about misunderstandings in DYK noms contributes to loosing not only time but also energy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
That sounds like a good approach to editing, most of the behind the scenes project stuff doesn't really matter at the end of the day, we just need to keep improving the encyclopaedia. Hopefully this proposal will remove some of the endless back and forth that happens on some nominations currently, though I wouldn't want anyone to feel excluded from DYK because of it - Dumelow (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I think it's really wise to choose your battles. Valereee (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
I make the choice not to go to battle. Wounded too much. I'm a coward. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Discretion is the better part of valor. Valereee (talk) 19:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
After the holidays: I'm not sure I understand that phrase. - The Christmas hook went rather well, after all. I'm not planning to nominate for DYK other than those I had planned before, but instead try to bring the Bach cantata to FAC, and then see where we are. Actually, when not involved in contributing noms I might try prep building, without conflict of interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
COI isn't really that much of an issue, even for prolific nominators. Cwm nominated, reviewed, and promoted to prep probably more than anyone else before she RfA'd. Other promoters just kept in mind that if they scrolled to a hook she'd nom'd or reviewed, someone else needed to promote it. Most preps I built contained a hook she'd either nom'd or reviewed. Valereee (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Sarah Mardini prep 5

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I'm concerned about Sarah Mardini meeting WP:NPOV, which is particularly important for a WP:BLP. Much of the article (including the hook fact) is sourced to either Amnesty International or Front Line Defenders. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 371#Amnesty International says A.I. has a reputation for getting its facts right, but it's still a single-issue advocacy organization, and this affects how it presents those facts. I don't see anything about Front Line Defenders in WP:RSN, but I'd venture to say they're similar to Amnesty International in terms of advocacy. Similarly for the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights. The overall tenor of Sarah Mardini echoes this advocacy viewpoint. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking just about the same thing – except I wasn't getting anywhere with "promotes one side of an ongoing dispute", because is it really a "dispute" more than it is a human rights violation? anyways, yes, a rewording of the hook and article would be welcome. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Obligatory plug: I use {{dyknstr}} for posted notes at WT:DYK :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron Thanks for the plug. I promise to use it in the future, on one condition. You need to explain to me what "nstr" stands for :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Hah! It stands for "nomination string" – {{dykn}} was already taken, i assume that stands for "nomination". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
That was actually my guess, but then I said, "Nahhh..." -- RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Prep 4

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments5 people in discussion

@Dumelow, Gerda Arendt, and Bruxton: Honestly I'm not so sure if the hook as currently written meets the following DYK criterion: The hook must be mentioned in the article and likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest. It's basically a role hook, or a hook about a opera performer performing a role, which is basically their job. Such hooks have tended to underperform when it comes to DYK views, at least according to statistics. Perhaps something else can be suggested here, or perhaps the hook can be rewritten to make it less specialist? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Listen, I don't think this is a good hook, but I would really prefer that DYK not wade into this discussion yet again. I'd like for Gerda to be able to move on to the projects she wants to pursue (she is, after all, quite busy), and I'd like for DYK to move on to the styles it wants to pursue. If that means letting these last few hooks air when the promoter and admin don't mind, as a thank-you to Gerda for all her work here at DYK, then it's an oppose action from me. Not on merit, but for the health of a project that needs to move on from this chapter. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 13:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict, I'm just always on the old-World slow side, DYK?) Today is still Christmas for Germans, and I hate to work on a Christmas day. But here I am. Narutolovehinata5, this hook is NOT a role hook.
  1. This hook is a competition-winning hook. It says a person won the Neue Stimmen competition, which translates to "new voices", in case you are afraid our readers are unable to find background information offered in a link. We better don't write a translation into the hook because it's boring for those who know already. We had a Neue Stimmen winner on DYK already (6,8k views), - she went to Vienna. The hook could end there and be interesting.
  2. Even the second part of the hook is NOT a role hook, but says where this singer is now based, which may be just "somewhere in Germany" for some, and "Opera house of the year 2022" for those who know a bit more. The hook could end there and be interesting.
  3. The third part of the hook is still NOT a role hook, because it lists not one role, but from his repertory, with Papageno a cute enough name even for non-specialists to find out what that may be about (a bird-person). For those who already know it informs them that his voice is lyrical and light, and that he gets lead roles, - best said in roles than a boring general statement.
Read Talia Or today. Read the discussion, or just the above, or the one for Galina Pisarenko (where it has been suggested that we don't mention a performer of 30 years who was an academic teacher until her death at 88, because she has a profession non-specialists may not care about, - which has to be experienced to believed), and you know why I don't see a future for myself at DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
A role hook simply means that a hook primarily focuses on a performer performing a particular role. Such hooks aren't necessarily bad, but they do tend to underperform especially when said hooks are too reliant on information that may not be widely-known among non-specialists. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
A role hook would be * Domen Križaj appeared as Mozart's Papageno?" I took some time to explain the difference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I have no opinion on this particular hook, but I am concerned that we don't let view-count statistics take a disproportionate role in our decisions. If people want information filtered by how often people click on it, they know where to get that. We should be more about human curation. Humans being what we are, that means the curators will sometimes disagree about what's interesting, but I wouldn't want it any other way. We shouldn't totally ignore the numbers, but we shouldn't be a slave to them either. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with what others have said here. The hook may appeal to some of our readers. RS above makes a good point about not measuring success by clicks. I think it is good that we have editors with such varied interests so that we can present variety in our sets: something for everyone if you will. I also agree with what RS said above in another thread on this subject, some of us have experienced the fatigue of arguing; we can see that in a few of the responses here. So I say lets keep this hook, but I also do not entirely disagree with Narutolovehinata5. Bruxton (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

see you later

As mentioned further up, I'll focus on other parts of the project, beginning tomorrow, - call it a break from DYK. I don't feel that having to justify hooks is a productive use of my time. While I am away, at least until my next FA is written, you may want to check if the approach to look at view counts too much is a good idea, and if the method of assigning the label "specialist" to certain topics isn't a way of censoring what the audience gets to see. We had a few hooks now to look at performance (in case it matters):

  • Talia Or was the pure role hook (not by me of course), and went well, - no surprise because of an attractive image.
  • Quentin Oliver Lee had a top hook (mentioning also one role) and was less successful.
  • open: Galina Pisarenko, and I hope that if we could point at the singer who sadly died young, we will also find a way to point at a singer who died old and was active teaching to the end, - isn't that interesting even for everybody? Not per the discussion so far.
    adding: the nom is no longer in danger of being rejected, but an interesting study anyway - thanks to CurryTime7-24 for incredible expansion! GA? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    the 19th hook is now in prep, saying (more or less) that this legendary singer who taught until her death learned Norwegian. Is that interesting, to anybody? I can't see it. In my list of those who recently died, I'll probably just omit it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think requesting that some part of a hook should appeal to the general reader might be an idea, while to request that the whole thing has to be for everybody might miss the special attraction of a subject for those who know it, and thus limit the potential and width of information we might offer. In the singer hook above: winning a competition would be for all, two roles specifying what kind of voice he has and that he gets lead roles are for someone who knows, or who is willing to find out. We should perhaps not underestimate the curiosity of our readers. My 2ct. Happy new year! I'll finish the noms I had planned, and then check in later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

“Bowl-game” in prep 3

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Pinging Ravenpuff who made this change, could we switch “bowl-game” back to “bowl game”? As far as I know, that term is never hyphenated, or at least I’ve never seen it hyphenated. Thank you! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It's because it's serving as an adjective compound modifier in that instance, which is compliant with MOS:HYPHEN. So you know that it's a victory in a bowl game, not a game victory which is bowl. Another option would be to reword to "victory in a bowl game" or similar. The thing is, while "bowl game" is probably an everyday obvious term to everyone in North America, it's likely many in the rest of the world won't know what that is, so helping them parse it is part of the goal here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion

While looking at recent GA and upcoming DYK The Thing About Pam, I noticed the strange phrasing a self-appointed "businesswoman". Googling this led me to other sites that had used that phrase, which prompted me to audit the article for copyright violations. I found a number of issues that, while each relatively small on their own (the sort of mistake plenty of editors make from time when paraphrasing), add up to something I find troubling. Others of these are too small to be issues at all (i.e. non-copyrightable but distinctive snippets of a few words), but are included to show the general pattern.

Assuming that this is the extent of the copyright issues, then fixing this is as simple as rewording four sentences. But I'm hoping some others can take a look at this; I've not been in this situation before. Pings @A person in Georgia, Onegreatjoke, Lullabying, Bruxton, and BorgQueen: as author, GA-reviewer/DYK-nom, DYK reviewer, promoter, and queue approver respectively. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, some of those phrases are so short and standard that they fall under "there is no reasonable other way to phrase this without over-explaining". Some probably need more examination, like Greer's role. When it comes to the part on business, I wonder if the editor was unfamiliar with what the source meant so just used their words to not be inaccurate… obviously also needs examination, but it's not severe even all together. Kingsif (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Tamzin thanks for your diligence. I agree with Kingsif here. Bruxton (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Pinging Nikkimaria in the hopes that she can take a look before the article hits the main page. I'm less confident that these is acceptable usage; for example, there are other ways to convey the Borsiczky departure that are not nearly so close. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the "self-appointed businesswoman" language is problematic for tone reasons but not close paraphrasing; I do agree that some of these though should be rephrased or quoted. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dietrich v The Queen

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This nomination would normally be ineligible under either the previous rule regarding bolded OTD entries being completely ineligible for DYK, or the newly-revised rules where they are ineligible if they have appeared on ITN within a year prior. The nominator, who I should note appears to be new to DYK, is asking for a one-time exemption for the rules considering the circumstances of the nomination and the hard work they did towards the article. Considering the circumstances, should IAR be granted in this case? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This article was passed as a GA on November 4, nominated on November 8, and appeared at OTD with a nice entry on November 13, so it presumably was seen by a lot of people very shortly after the article achieved GA status, which did reward the hard work. New or recently expanded articles have had their DYK nominations preempted by an In the News or On This Day appearance before the nomination reaches the main page via DYK; how is this any different? If the OTD had appeared close to a year ago, that would be one thing, but this hit the main page right away. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Yup, that is too recent. I'm going to close the nom. BorgQueen (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

New DYK nomination: I did something wrong...

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I just tried to nominate Isabel Cooper (artist) for DYK, but I appear to have gone terribly awry in the nomination formatting. Instead of showing a nomination that looks like the others, I have a mess. I went to 'edit source', but the message there indicated "...if you have already created the subpage as per the instructions and arrived here to transclude your subpage, you may proceed as normal". Sadly I don't know what it means to transclude a page, so I am lost as to how to fix this. sorry for the mess, and I appreciate any help on fixing this. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Never mind...I found the culprit (missing "]]")). DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@DaffodilOcean, for future reference, there is a tool you can use that will correctly format a nomination for you! It's at Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination Valereee (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip. I did use the tool, but I missed that the preview looked wrong until after I hit submit. This is entirely my fault. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Totally not your fault. :) Sorry, didn't mean to imply I thought you somehow weren't savvy enough to know there was a tool, if that's how I came off! Valereee (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

All queues and preps full

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments8 people in discussion

Just as a note, I've just seen that every single one of the preps and queues are full. This may seem like a nice situation, but makes it hard for admins who need to swap out hooks. Unless it's changed, the consensus was that the last prep should always be left empty. Not a suicide pact obviously, but something to keep in mind.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I didn’t want to bring this up yet again because I’ve said this twice already over the last few months. Thanks, Amakuru. Schwede66 07:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @Aoidh:... BorgQueen (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
A good lesson for our other new promoters as well, @Cielquiparle and Bruxton. Keeping the last prep set at least partially open is a nice idea, especially the image slot.
Of course, if we had sandbox buffers (might need more than one), this wouldn't be an issue, and we wouldn't have to explain to every new promoter that the job of the prep builders is to build the preps except when it's actually to not build preps... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron Can the "rule" be added to the tips for new promoters? Cielquiparle (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: See WP:DYKSG#J14 :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, I did not know this. So just for clarification the last prep area should be left completely empty until it moves up and is no longer the last one? - Aoidh (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
It can be partially filled if you wish. What’s needed for convenient hook shuffling are slots for the picture hook, the quirky, and one other. Schwede66 17:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I filled the picture slot and quirky slot in that set. The rest was by Aoidh. Sorry. I forgot about the rule. SL93 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The key issue is that we need a few slots empty, at least an image, a quirky, and one other, and the easiest way for experienced prep builders is to just not completely fill the bottom set. But even when all sets do get accidentally filled because someone forgets or we have a newer prep builder who doesn't yet know it's helpful to have a few slots open, the problem doesn't last more than 24 hours.
I typically tell new prep builders to start with the bottom prep, as that provides at minimum three days for others to chime in with feedback or make swaps/shuffles, but of course it also means I've told someone specifically to fill the bottom set. :D Valereee (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Quotes in hooks - in text attribution needed

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion
  Resolved

@DYK admins: and reviewers/promoters, sorry I have to keep banging this drum, but where quotes are found in hooks, the article needs to say where the quote comes from, per WP:INTEXT.

Just as one example, I have been looking through Queue 4 (the next to go live) and noticed this:

This quote was given in the article without any attribution, which can make it look like Wikipedia's opinion, given in scare quotes, rather than something a third-party has said. Where there's a named author, give that, otherwise say where the quote came from, as I've done for this example here: [5] . This really needs to be something we spot and deal with at the review stage, rather than them getting all the way to the main page. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Should've caught that, my bad! Pinging @Sammi Brie and Onegreatjoke: for an extra reminder. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I've also added the actual author to the mainline text here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Feel free to cite WP:DYKSG#J15b in the future, I added that a bit ago. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
In queue 1, I noticed that "one of Hull's most haunted pubs" in Ye Olde White Harte needs in text attribution. Pinging Dumelow. SL93 (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I took care of it. SL93 (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Image hook question

Latest comment: 1 year ago21 comments9 people in discussion

@RoySmith: I saw that you swapped Prep 7's image with Prep 6's since prep 5's image is also a bio, that way there's no bios back-to-back. With that in mind, would it make sense to swap Prep area 2's image over to Prep area 3, and put a bio image on Prep area 2 since there's so many bio images? - Aoidh (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The rule (oh, there's so many rules!) is you can't have two bios in a row, so what you've got now in preps 2 & 3 is fine. However, I think what you're saying is if we could put a biography in the lead slot of prep 3, that would be a good thing since it would use up one of the (over-numerous) biographies. Yeah, that makes sense, go for it. As an aside, I'm not thrilled with the "Statue of Gandhi" image we've got in prep 3 now, for two reasons. One, the statue is so small in the image, you can't even tell what it is. But, more than that, the hook is about C. S. N. Patnaik, the person. A photo of the person would make a lot more sense than a photo of one of his statues. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I figured there wouldn't be a rule against having two non-bios back-to-back but because there are so many bio photos that it might make sense to sandwich one in between the two non-bio ones. I've changed Prep 2's to a bio(/nonbio combo) hook and moved the Patniak to a non-image slot in Prep 3. I'm not going to worry about adding an image on Prep 3 until it ticks over and is no longer the last one, per the above discussion about leaving those free. - Aoidh (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: there's really a rule to cover back-to-back bios? — Maile (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Funny you should ask. I don't know if it's written down anywhere, but I know I've been taken to task for violating it. There's a fine line between institutional knowledge and cargo culting :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I do know that somewhere in recent weeks, I moved a bio hook in prep because it was right below an image bio hook. Looked odd to me, so I moved it. — Maile (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Speaking of cult, we have been called "High Priests of DYK". :-D BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
There Is No Cabal -- RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I totally think we should have a cabal. With a drinking game, if possible. Valereee (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The High Priests comment is kind of funny for me to read. The person who wrote it, more than 2 years before I had my first DYK nomination, was really good to me when I was a fledgling editor. They were very patient and instructive about how it all worked, and how I could improve. — Maile (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
BorgQueen's link is quite a throwback. That's a link from 2009 yet much of what they're talking about then is not much different from the discussions we still make today. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Shall we make hats? I vote we take cardboard dunce cones :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a big reason I have not ever tried prep building or stuff like that. No matter what I do I'm gonna make all sorts of mistakes and violate unwritten rules. I like to have clear and consistent rules. And there's oh so many rules for prep building as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@Trainsandotherthings, if you are a person who is made anxious by balancing one rule or goal against another, you may be excused from building a full prep. But you still should be able to promote a hook into an empty slot in an empty prep: it's just a matter of re-reviewing that hook. If you can review a hook, you can promote one. Valereee (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I see. Promoting hooks is something I will attempt in the very near future (I have an open GAN and FAC to worry about right now). Hope you don't mind if I ask you some questions or for a second opinion when I'm first trying it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Ask away! When you do your first work, just open a section here. People will be happy to advise. Valereee (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
But, wouldn't this rule mean that when you go to 2 hooks a day, one half of the world would always see bio-image-hooks during their daytime? Ktin (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
It's only a maximum density, not a minimum – having two non-bios in a row (not uncommon) switches it around, so it ends up evening out.
It does seem a little silly that we can run an image of a person for 24 hours – as long as it's only one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the back-to-back bio/non-bio image rule was something Yoninah informally enforced, possibly originally put into place. I think the informal rules she developed to ensure balance were really very good ones, but I don't think they need to be anything we consider inviolable. Valereee (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I've amended WP:DYKSG#J6 to reflect established practice :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  — Maile (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Prep 5 4: Eliza Bland Smith Erskine Norton (nom)

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion

@Gamaliel, Kingoflettuce, and Graearms: while 1500 bytes of prose is a hard minimum for character count – and this article passes that by 66 characters – in practice, the bar can be a bit higher depending on the formatting of the article. In this case, I've gone ahead and assessed the article as a stub; I'd request that a lead be added to the article, separate from the body, to make it a bit more complete and presentable before it gets moved to queue. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be in prep 4. SL93 (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Whoops, my bad, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I've tweaked it a bit to organize the bulk of the content into two sections. Gamaliel (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Good to go, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Prep 5 feedback request

Latest comment: 1 year ago25 comments10 people in discussion

Hi all! I've filled in the remainder of Prep 5. I'm looking for feedback, since it's the first prep to which I've substantially contributed, and I'm making this section here to do that. (CC: @Valereee, Theleekycauldron, and Chipmunkdavis:). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk here's a few things I spotted.
  • "Matilda Lansana Minah V has backed a 30% quota". WP:DYKHOOK (Content) says, "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change". My first though here was that this could be fixed by pinning in to a date: "In 20xx, Matilda stated that...". But as I dug into the source, I see it just cites "Conteh 2020" for that, and looking that up, I found that this is an unpublished master's thesis. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. So, I think we need a better source for this one, especially considering that it's a WP:BLP.
  • You should shuffle Usman Ja'far, Jack Melchor, and Aang Kunaefi around to avoid three biographies in a row (even two in a row is frowned upon).
But overall, it looks good, and thank you for pitching in to help! -- RoySmith (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
PS, I'm pickier about photos than most people, but I'm not sure the Detached Unit of the Polish Army photo really works at small size. I'd be inclined to find a different nom (with a better photo) for the lead slot. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for helping build preps! RS had some good advice above. Bruxton (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok. I'll take a look through to see if there's a better photo. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm good with the photo. I think it's clear, and it's an unusual enough photo that it's worth it. IMO the "clear at size" requirement should be the least picky. It's so much more important that an image be:
  1. A good illustration for the hook
  2. Unusual
  3. Not easy to get
  4. Not boring
Valereee (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@RoySmith: Sounds good regarding the re-shuffling. I'm not sure what you mean by "unpublished master's thesis" though; the claim appears in a book published by Bloomsbury and edited by a number of professors. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The statement in our article is indeed cited to War, Women and Post-conflict Empowerment: Lessons from Sierra Leone. Bloomsbury Publishing. So I clicked on that, where it says, "Minah has called on government to enact the 30 percent ... (Conteh, 2020)". I then looked to see what Conteh 2020 was, which is the master's thesis I mentioned above. If we don't consider the primary source to be reliable, I don't see why we should consider the same fact to be reliable just because somebody used it in a book. Facts don't become more reliable just because somebody copied it somewhere. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes WP:Fact laundering is an essay, but also the reason that we tend not to use SPS and Masters' theses is because of their lack of editorial review. The fact that it's a professor-edited book by an established publishing house indicates some extra level of editorial review and fact-checking. Much in the same way that we don't allow for the use of primary sources directly in WP:BLP articles due to reliability issues but allow reliable secondary sources to comment on them due to their extra levels of editorial review, I don't see an issue here with the academic WP:RS citing the thesis for that fact. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure I agree with you on that, but don't feel strongly enough about it to push the issue. To drag this back to the original subject of DYK review process, I'll just mention that one of my pet peeves of reviews is that often when I try to verify a fact in a hook, I find that I can't. Which makes me suspect that many reviews don't get past the level of "Yup, it's got a reference". I like to dig deeper and actually verify that the reference supports the statement that it claims to support. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith What is your thought on the thesis paper that is used for the hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Australian Building Codes Board? SL93 (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm, interesting. Starting at the simple part, WP:SCHOLARSHIP likes doctoral theses better than masters theses, but still urges caution because it's not always possible to know what level of review a particular thesis got. I'm assuming the statement in the thesis which backs up the hook fact is '... I commonly send technical inquiries to the Building Codes Board and they don't understand it either.’ (Participant #5). It's a little disquieting that the person who said that isn't identified as other than an anonymous participant in a survey, but I think it's probably fine for what we're using it for. I don't have a real strong opinion on this. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Well I do. Under no circumstances can we run any of those hooks, given the "sourcing" (and yes, those are scare quotes). EEng 05:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I have a pretty strong opinion, too. Unless a thesis is published by a reputable publisher, I don't think we can use it. Re: another source quoting an unpublished thesis...I guess if it's a very strong RS, I'm good. Like NYT/WSJ level, though, or something in an academic journal? I'm just very leery of theses. Valereee (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Usman Ja'far (nom)

@Juxlos, Lefcentreright, and Cielquiparle: I'm not sure this source is solid enough for the claim it's making (he was "known as a pioneer"). This piece isn't journalism, it's a mini-biography, which makes me a bit nervous. The source also reads a little partisan in his favour (or, at least, that's what Google Translate is giving me). Is there a stronger source to be found? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Potentially another, somewhat more mundane hook?
ALT1: … that before entering politics, Usman Ja'far ran one of Indonesia's largest retail chain stores?
I’d add the source as [6] (an official Indonesian government investment prospectus). Juxlos (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: article and hook revised, satisfactory? Juxlos (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@Juxlos: I suppose it checks out, but I don't think it's all that interesting? I mean, there's a reason we call the passage between public service and lucrative private employment a "revolving door". Happens all the time. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I suppose, but that's probably still in the middle of the lower quartile of interestingness when it comes to DYK hooks? If you think it's unsalvageable, I'd be fine to just reuse the QPQ. Juxlos (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@Juxlos: I mean, I will tell you that you don't actually get to re-use the QPQ, unfortunately. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@Juxlos@Theleekycauldron@Lefcentreright I don't like ALT1 (not the most interesting...also, wasn't the retail chain in question a state-owned enterprise?). Re: ALT0, one additional note is that this source actually also says that Ja'far was considered an "elder" of the retail industry, but maybe it's still not independent enough of a source to feature in a hook on the main page. As an alternative, I wanted to propose this hook (which I've now added to the article as well). What do you think?
  • ALT2: ... that Malay Muslim businessman Usman Ja'far was the first locally born governor of West Kalimantan elected in nearly 40 years?
Source is here and in the article now as well. Further modifications very welcome. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
That’d be fine by me, maybe remove "Malay Muslim" from there to prevent people from catching him as Malaysian. Juxlos (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@Juxlos: Thanks for the feedback, have changed accordingly. @Theleekycauldron: or anyone else: Could you please also approve ALT2a above? And then also modify the hook accordingly in Prep 5, before the set gets promoted to queue? (Not sure if that requires two more people to approve or one, but either way, it shouldn't be me.) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 Y It looks good to me. BorgQueen (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Hook amended accordingly. BorgQueen (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Signpost news of note

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nothing to do with DYK, but some alarming news.

Signpos: Wikipedia admins jailed in Saudi Arabia The IP posting this has left references, and it looks like Signpost is going to mention it. — Maile (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Pulled one hook

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Per this concern I've pulled the hook. It's in Prep 3 now. BorgQueen (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Brihony Dawson

Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments11 people in discussion

The Brihony Dawson hook (link to nom page) got pulled from queue by BorgQueen and is now in Prep 3 following a discussion at Errors. I'll copy that discussion here so that it can be resolved:

... that Brihony Dawson, the host of reality television series The Challenge: Australia, is the first non-binary television presenter in Australia?

@Happily888, Kingoflettuce, and Cielquiparle:. Ruby Rose, who is gender-fluid, was a presenter in Australia years before Dawson. Hugh Sheridan is non-binary, and presented Playschool from 2009 on. In general, for "first" (and similar) claims, not only verify that the source supports this claim, but look for counterevidence as well. Fram (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I had some misgivings about the fact but the source seemed unequivocal about "first" or at least "first in a major series" (though as I recall it was quite a skimpy article). What to do though, is there a source that says Sheridan or someone else "is the first non-binary TV presenter"? I don't think it's good enuf to cobble facts together, no matter how straightforward - might border on original research. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 17:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
What needs to be done is pulling the hook, reopen the DYK, and find something which is uncontroversially true. We shouldn't indeed state that e.g. she was the third after these two, as we don't have a source for this (I found these two examples, don't know if there are others). Even if I hadn't found, it would have been better to state that she was the first openly non-binary one, as we can't know otherwise. Fram (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the sources making the claim, it seems the qualifier is "to host a major TV show in Australia". Cielquiparle (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
This is again (as happens all the time) why superlatives make terrible blurbs, they are often blatantly wrong, or require so many different qualifiers as to be entirely unremarkable. "To host a major TV show" seems to be such a qualifier that is impossible to quantify. What makes it major? There needs to be some kind of new ban on using superlatives as blurbs. It almost never turns out well. --Jayron32 19:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
According to our article, Hugh Sheridan came out as non-binary in 2021, so it makes sense not to count their 2009 show for this particular "first". Adding "openly" makes the hook better, but is only implied in our sources, not explicitly stated. —Kusma (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Yea, wouldn't be too fussed about anything unless there's a source explicitly stating that someone else wuz "first" --- otherwise I still think it'd be our original research doing the talking. The source says they were first, so let's roll with that. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@DYK admins: Per the above, could someone please replace the words "first non-binary television presenter in Australia" with "first non-binary presenter to host a major television show in Australia". This is the minimum change needed before the set goes live in a few minutes' time, but personally, I'd prefer to see the hook pulled completely, since I'm not sure we can trust Body+Soul magazine to have done thorough research into this matter. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Pulled for now. It's in Prep 3 now. BorgQueen (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Re: Body+Soul, it's owned by NewsCorp, and while that doesn't mean an automatic pass for all claims, it struck me that they are probably pretty sensitive about making claims like that about other media outlets, if nothing else because they would get a ton of flak for being wrong. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

--

End of Errors discussion. Schwede66 00:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

SS Sir William Siemens

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

We have this complaint at WP:ERRORS. Should I pull the hook? BorgQueen (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I've weighed in at ERRORS :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! BorgQueen (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Small issue in queue 4

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Moonraker, Malcolm Gaskill needs a citation for "Fellow of the Royal Historical Society (2006)". SL93 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

So relieved that it's a small one indeed. :-D If this doesn't get fixed before it hits the Main Page, I'll be removing the section. BorgQueen (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Done, SL93. I couldn’t find the date again, so I took it out. Moonraker (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
It’s in this self-published biography, but I can live without the date. Moonraker (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Aachen recycled?

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments6 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Aachen fine cloth was promoted, then pulled from the prep (see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 189) and the nomination withdrawn. Now, the article has been renamed and renominated under Template:Did you know nominations/Textile industry in Aachen. What do we want to do with this? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Barring some rule I'm not aware of (of which I'm sure there's one) I don't see why it shouldn't be able to proceed. I see there's some possibly outstanding minor points before it's approved but I don't think the fact that it was previously nominated and withdrawn should disqualify it, since it's been 5x expanded since that previous nomination. It doesn't run afoul of D1 and if it meets WP:DYKCRIT I don't see why it should be discounted; though it was nominated, it didn't appear on the main page so it's not like it's getting to run twice. - Aoidh (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Arguably the article has not been expanded 5x with new prose. DYK helper counts 14,900 characters of prose and I have identified around 6,479 characters worth of close paraphrasing at Talk:Textile industry in Aachen#Close paraphrasing, based on checking only one source. Some of the paraphrasing may have been present in the 31 December version. TSventon (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Articles that failed a first DYK nomination are still allowed to be renominated for DYK if they are brought up to standards afterwards. It's not actually uncommon for that to happen. For example, an article that was nominated for DYK being deleted, then being recreated then being nominated again for DYK afterwards. Or more commonly, an article that did not meet the newness/expansion requirements then being renominated after being brought to GA status. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
This is an unusual case, but I say we run with it. This would've been fine if, for example, no new nomination page was created and we were just going with the same nompage under a different article title. We give nominators so much time to work out issues, I don't see a reason to draw a bright line here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  Bruxton (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Queue 1: Central Post Office (Kyiv)

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments7 people in discussion
  • ... that Kyiv's Central Post Office was built after Soviet forces deliberately destroyed its predecessor (pictured) less than a year after it was completed?

I'm concerned this falls a little short of a neutral hook, because of the issue that was discussed during the nomination; this wasn't an act of wanton destruction, but a response to an impending Nazi invasion. I suggest adding "during their 1941 retreat from the Nazis" for context, or alternatively dropping the "Soviet forces" to avoid POV connotations. @Dying, Flibirigit, and SL93: Vanamonde (Talk) 00:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I would just drop "Soviet forces" if it avoids a POV issue. I think it would be better than a longer addition for more context. SL93 (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think adding the Nazi context would be good since it provides the needed context and (for me at least) makes it more interesting. "Soviet forces destroyed a building" isn't interesting, military forces do that all the time. "Soviet forces destroyed a building during a retreat" makes me wonder why. Also given the current conflict in that area that context is important (though yes, there aren't Soviet forces now). Dropping Soviet forces would possibly confuse it for the current conflict. - Aoidh (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I was going to suggest ":... that Kyiv's Central Post Office was built after its predecessor (pictured) was destroyed less than a year after it was completed?" I guess I'm fine with either option though. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
After reading Aoidh's response, I will go with the Nazi context. SL93 (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses; hopefully the nom agrees, I'll wait a little longer before making a change. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I disagree there is a neutrality issue, but welcome other proposed hooks. Flibirigit (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
originally, i had planned the hook so that it would be a puzzle to the reader to figure out what exactly the context was, though i wanted to leave enough clues in the hook so that they would hopefully be able to make an educated guess. i had worded alt0 so that the mention of the soviets occurred after that of the destruction, so that the reader would first wonder whether or not the post office was destroyed in the current conflict, before the word "Soviet" ruled out that possibility. the apparent age of the photo would then hopefully allow the reader to guess that the destruction occurred during world war ii, and since it was the soviets that destroyed the building, this would hint to the reader that it likely happened in the context of a nazi invasion.
i admittedly had not thought the hook violated npov, but i am also familiar with the burning of moscow in 1812, so in retrospect, perhaps i had relied too much on expecting the reader to realize that the post office was not randomly destroyed during peacetime. if possible, i'd prefer to remove the word "Soviet" rather than mention the nazis, to not completely give the puzzle away. what if the clue was partially salvaged by mentioning that they were "military forces" rather than "Soviet forces"? as the photo from world war ii is being featured, i do not think it is necessary to mention the soviets to avoid readers thinking that the destruction occurred during the current conflict, since the photo was clearly not taken during the past year.

alt2: ... that Kyiv's Central Post Office was built after military forces deliberately destroyed its predecessor (pictured) less than a year after it was completed?

by the way, Ravenpuff, i noticed that you had copyedited the caption when it was in prep area 1, but do not know if you were aware that the caption was deliberately worded quirkily, with "post" used twice in quick succession but with completely different meanings. i had mentioned it in the nomination (where one reviewer mentioned liking the quirky caption), though i believe copyeditors are not expected to review nominations before copyediting hooks, so i can certainly understand if you had overlooked it. (also, i do not know if the old post office was called the "Central Post Office" at the time, which is why i simply used "its predecessor" in the hook.)
courtesy pinging Radzy0, who drafted alt1. dying (talk) 06:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm confused by the article's statement destroyed later that year by Soviet forces in an explosion during the 1941 demolition of Kyiv [uk], once Nazi forces had entered the city following the Red Army's retreat. The claimed timeline is: (1) Red Army retreats, (2) Nazis enter the city, (3) Soviets destroy post office. How can that be right? EEng 07:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
    some forces stayed behind. i imagine the 1941 demolition of kyiv [uk] shared similarities with stay-behind operations, though i have not read enough sources to determine if it would be categorized as one. also, nkvd troops took part in the demolition, and although they often deployed with the red army, i assume that not all of them took part in the retreat. dying (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • It's one thing to put in a bizarre fact that makes the reader click through; it's another to put in a fact that has an obvious explanation that is incorrect. The original hook is, IMO, likely to leave some readers with the impression that the Soviets engaged in wanton destruction, which isn't something a lot of readers would attempt to probe further, given that it did occur elsewhere. I would still prefer full context, but I think ALT2 is neutral and absent policy concerns it's the nominator's call, so I will substitute that hook shortly. Further comments welcome but not necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
    Vanamonde, i actually agree with your first sentence, but i had admittedly simply never considered that soviet forces wantonly destroying prominent buildings during peacetime would be the obvious explanation for some readers. that's an error on my part (and unfortunately makes the puzzle a bit more difficult if one does not presume the destruction occurred during a war), so i am glad that it was pointed out and am happier with the hook now. thanks for raising the issue. dying (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping dying. Much appreciated. I hadn't realized the wanton destruction angle. I'm OK with ALT2. Radzy0 (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Users promoting or rejecting articles which they reviewed

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion

According to DYK supplementary rules on preparing updates J1, "it's a no-no to promote a hook you wrote, or a hook for an article you created, nominated, or reviewed." BorgQueen (talk · contribs) was both the reviewer and promoter of Goncharov (meme). This clearly goes against the rules of thumb, and lacks transparency and oversight.

Also, BorgQueen (talk · contribs) was the reviewer and rejecting user of Aerial photograph interpretation (geology). This seems to contradict the spirit of the rules of thumb, and is one user acting as judge, jury and executioner.

Discussion is welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok, I didn't know the rule, sorry. I'll return them to the pre-promoting state now. BorgQueen (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Done. Notified @RoySmith: and he'll be returning the Goncharov hook to a prep. And hopefully judge if it's ready to be promoted. BorgQueen (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen I'm confused what's happening here. In Special:Diff/1132361652, you swapped Goncharov into Queue6. If it was promoted incorrectly, why should it go back into another prep? Shouldn't it just go back to the unpromoted state, not in any prep? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, I needed a hook to replace it so I took one from a prep while you were filling the queue. I was swapping it first and about to return it to the unpromoted, but you filled the queue with the prep I was taking the replacement hook from. BorgQueen (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to unpromote it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Reviews can reject nominations, that is part of the point of a review. CMD (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
The reviewer who marks the nomination for closure should not be the same person who closes it. Flibirigit (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
For the sake of transparency: I just realized I had promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Uncertainty effect, for which I was one of its reviewers. But for this one I had someone else review it again afterward, so I suppose such cases are allowed? BorgQueen (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Issue in prep 7

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was going to add in text attribution in the article Van den Berg–Kesten inequality for "implausibly lucky", but that quote isn't in the next citation. It is in the very next one though. This needs to be fixed. Pinging nominator HTinC23 SL93 (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi SL93, thanks for the comment and I hope I've fixed it now. (I would like to somehow cite the news article but if I put it at the end of the sentence I'm afraid it would seem the cite covers "This inequality was one ingredient", which the news article doesn't say. That's why I'm placing it towards the beginning to limit its scope. But you're of course right that this in turns seems it would cover the quote...) ——HTinC23 (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Issue in prep 5

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The fourth reference at Matilda Lansana Minah V is cited to the unreliable self-publisher Lulu.com. Pinging nominator Lajmmoore. SL93 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the spot @SL93 - I used the automatic citation using a google books link for the article. However I went to properly look and both Waterstones and Amazon list IBP USA as the publisher, which I think is International Business Publications - but I couldn't find much further on the company. Lajmmoore (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
That seems to work. I searched for "Inc, IBP" that the automatic citation showed as the author. I was thinking that IBP, Inc. made no sense. SL93 (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Queue 4

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Last universal common ancestor

  • LUCA is the universal ancestor of all current life on earth. Therefore the hook should be

Preparation area 1

Latest comment: 1 year ago20 comments10 people in discussion

Do we have to use so many shocking and vulgar terms in one hook? Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. Fucking Trans Women - erect penises - hard penises - penetrating penises. I know we are not censored but c'mon. Bruxton (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Relevant essay WP:CENSORMAIN Bruxton (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Vulgarity is good for clicks, and clicks seem to be what DYK seems to be what DYK has been reduced to. #see you later --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I don’t care if it’s changed. Either way, the article title still has the word “Fucking”. SL93 (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
How about ALT2?: ... that Fucking Trans Women associates erectile dysfunction with pleasure? BorgQueen (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I couldn't care less about all the penises (so to speak), but shouldn't the hook tell us something about what the magazine is about, rather than what it isn't about? I think BorgQueen's hook is more interesting as well. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 Y I switched it to ALT2. BorgQueen (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
A ping to Tamzin, with a note on WP:DYKSG#C11 :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I didn't realize that page had so many changes and I just noticed a complaint about it above. I'm fine with the changes, but I really should add it to my watchlist now in case I miss something important. SL93 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think a direct quote from a scholarly publication can really be called "gratuitous", nor would I consider the word "penis" shocking or vulgar, but I'm fine with the switch. Although if we want the focus to be on what the magazine is about, per BK, ALT0 discusses the thing it's best known for. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Tamzin All ages read the main page. We should probably avoid trying to squeeze so much sexually charged language into a hook. I think the essay I linked to above is right - it is worth a read. What is ok for an article is not necessarily ok for the main page where people are surfing around not looking to get shocked. Bruxton (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm all for avoiding gratuitous profanity or graphic sexual/violent/disturbing content on the Main Page. This is none of those. We are an encyclopedia, and one of the topics we cover is human sexuality. The scope of human sexuality includes penises at times being hard or engaging in penetration. Like I said, I'm fine with swapping it out, but let's not go all "think of the children" about one of the most basic facts about human biology. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
So you think we should withdraw the penis hook? EEng 00:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on this particular hook, but while I don't necessarily have an issue with risque material being discussed on the main page, they do need to be treated carefully and not be gratuitous. In the past we had or nearly had hooks that were seemingly meant to provoke readers (for example, the pro-Unionist/anti-Irish nationalist hooks) and we'd really not want a repeat of that regardless of the actual subject. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
So you think the hook about the penis should be withdrawn? EEng 05:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The hook was changed. It now doesn't mention penises three times any more (which I found not shocking, just boring), but "erectile dysfunction", but I don't know for whom that is supposed to be interesting either. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
So the penis hook is not being withdrawn? EEng 16:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Click on the first link in the thread and see, - I can't say yes or no. It's not a penis hook anymore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Glad that's straightened out. Levivich (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
We did have a bit of a sticky wicket situation there. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Prep 2

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion
Rudy Nappi - The Paperback Palette (Weebly), The Cover Art of Childrens' Series Books (Blogspot), Mystery Sequels (personal blog), and TheRedArchive (multi-contributor blog) are unreliable sources. Pinging nominator Jengod. SL93 (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Deleted statements referencing those sources. jengod (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Aesculapian Club - Much of the article is unreferenced. Pinging Iainmacintyre and 97198. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks SL93. I have added a further 2 citations to the article. Pinging 97198 and Markstrachan. Papamac (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Iain! Markstrachan (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Markstrachan "and March 2020 to October 2021 (due to the COVID pandemic).", List of Founder Members, and List of current members and extraordinary members needs to be cited. SL93 (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I pulled the nomination for now. SL93 (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest in this article. I have added links to the relevant references at the points you have indicated. Just one thing to add is that the minute books of the meetings are valid primary reference material as they extend all the way back to 1773 in bound form and are available for review in the Library of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh Markstrachan (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Minor semantics - Queue 3 (about to go live)

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion

According to the article the protocol has since been revoked (see Reference 5), so the "is" should probably be "was"? Black Kite (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

 Y Done. BorgQueen (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
There may still be a problem with the 2nd paragraph. It states, in wiki voice, "Although focused on refugees ... this was intended to align the treatment of ...", but the cited source only says, "The change was apparently the result of a realization..." We've upgraded the "apparently" to a unequivocable statement of fact. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Ok, just tell me what to do please :-D BorgQueen (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, as noted recently (Brihony Dawson), we've had problems with superlatives like "first", "most", etc. I'm concerned that "only" might fall into the same category. We've got a source that says this is the "only" binding instrument, but how confident are we that the source is correct. It's hard to prove the non-existence of things, so it's hard to prove there aren't any others. My inclination would be to pull this to give people time to review it more closely. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Sure. I'll find a replacement now. BorgQueen (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Pulled Casablanca Protocol. @Onceinawhile:... BorgQueen (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
It's in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2 currently. BorgQueen (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I have added the word "apparently" as suggested by RoySmith.
As to proving the "only", the source is recent (from 2020) and is the gold standard on the subject: Prof. Marjoleine Zieck "Rather than merely an update of the first edition, this second edition of Palestinian Refugees in International Law is an expanded, all-encompassing overview and legal analysis of the complex plight of the Palestinian refugees from 1948 to the present." and Dr. Anis Kasim "It is at present the most thorough and most comprehensive treatise on this subject, and it will be unwise to address the Palestinian refugee issue without consulting it. It will no doubt stand as the bible on the Palestinian refugee question under international law for many years to come." Onceinawhile (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Prep 2: Robert Rattenbury

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Two issues with this... firstly, regarding the hook, I'm not sure the word mistakenly can be inferred from either what's in the article or in the source. The quote is obviously accurate, but the article and the source don't actually say whether the two men ever met again. I suppose it's very likely, given they both worked at Cambridge, but we'd need it to be explicit. Secondly, the assertion in the article that "Kirk's career was more successful than Rattenbury's" seems a bit subjective, and again not something that's directly said in the source. How does one define success? Not sure how you guys want to deal with these issues, but I'll leave it in prep for now rather than reopening, as perhaps there's a quick fix available. Pinging @Moonraker, Lajmmoore, and Bruxton: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  • (1) While "won't be seeing you again" may have turned out to be an untrue prediction, that isn't the same as saying it was said "mistakenly" -- mistakenly would be e.g. if he thought be was talking to A when in fact he was talking to B. (2) All the material related to Kirk is completely extraneous and doesn't belong in the article anyway. EEng 00:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, fair enough, Amakuru, let’s strike out the word “mistakenly”. Kirk did return to Cambridge after the war to finish his degree and stayed there. It isn’t really possible that they never met again, but we can live without “mistakenly”, which is a wet blanket in the hook anyway. On your other point, I have edited the sentence to read “In the event, Kirk returned to Cambridge at the end of the war and went on to become Regius Professor of Greek there.” Moonraker (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 Y Done. BorgQueen (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Queue 7

Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments5 people in discussion

Ruby Tandoh had two "unreliable source?" tags before the article was promoted. Pinging nominator GRuban. SL93 (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I also think the use of quotes is excessive, if creator/nom are still working on it. Kingsif (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@SL93 and Kingsif: I agree it has way too many quotes. That's not very encyclopedic. BorgQueen (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@SL93, Kingsif, and BorgQueen: Asking placer of tags to remove them. I could probably find other sources for those two sentences as it's not at all debated that it occurred exactly as stated, but I want to fight back against the contextless unreliable source tagging of perfectly fine reliable sources like this; the source, the Evening Standard, is used repeatedly in Wikipedia:Featured articles and other high visibility articles, as I've shown. Working on reducing quotes. Can the three of you be specific, please, whether you want to reduce:
  • just the multiple word quotes from the subject and other individuals, or also
  • the quotes from reviews of the subject's books (I didn't put those in, so wanted to leave other people's work, but can, I guess if required), and
  • the single word quotes of what might otherwise be highly debatable words, such as the subject calling the entire UK food industry "elitist"?
Is there a specific policy or guideline that I need to meet here about these quotes, or it is a general feeling of "too many"? --GRuban (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I only mentioned the tags so I'm not sure. SL93 (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The tags have been removed, thank you User:George Ho! Some of the quotes are unavoidable and I will fight to the death for, for example, she called Piers Morgan a "sentient ham", which drew all sorts of attention, I hope you will agree there is just no way to rephrase that! I can remove some more of the others, if you two (minus SL93 as above) will specify your requests a bit more. --GRuban (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any rules regarding excessive quotes but I've recently returned from a 12-year hiatus, and Wikipedia is a very different place now, so I'm probably not the best person to ask about rules lol. I just feel having so many quotes hurts readability and it's best if you incorporate them into prose. But then we're not doing FAC here so I won't stand on your way if others say it's not a huge problem. BorgQueen (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
BorgQueen This might help - WP:OVERQUOTING. It's an essay though. SL93 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
This is quite a concerning comment... depending on the context, quotes can help, of course, and sometimes they are necessary... but I honestly think the whole twitter fights section is excessive and in parts unencyclopedic, I just don't have the subject knowledge to condense it into a summary of notable parts. You mention Piers Morgan and that you would fight to the death to keep a quote there in, when realistically it could actually be better to say "Piers Morgan is among the people Tandoh has notoriously decried on social media" or something of the sort. It does not need to be a tweet-by-tweet run-down, which it borders on. As said, I'm not familiar with the person or the twitter fights, and I don't really want to dedicate time to it, but it's not particularly suitable coverage and I encourage revision. Replacing storytelling content the likes of "Tandoh said [quote] when [thing], then said [quote] when [other thing]", for explanation of what and why those things happened, would be the first step (before, then, condensing) to improvement. Kingsif (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah "kill your darlings", yes, you may well be right, I may have gotten too attached to the "bons mots", the article as a whole may well be better off without them, though it hurts to pull them out. However this isn't an FA or even a GA review, brilliant prose isn't one of the DYK requirements. What is the actual requirement we're trying to meet here, please? Also, can you please get back to my first question, by "quotes" do you only mean the statements by the subject, or also the ones from the book reviews, or also the singling out of individual words? I really do want to meet you halfway, if you say there are too many quotes, then I want to reduce quotes, I just want to make sure I'm reducing the right ones. --GRuban (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello? I removed half a dozen quotes in an effort to meet the request halfway. However, without specifics, I think this "fewer quotes" is a style improvement request, which isn't a WP:DYKCRIT requirement (except for where the article is basically illegible, which I'm pretty sure it isn't). --GRuban (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Barely in time! 😉 BorgQueen (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Interesting article! Two quibbles: Tandoh's often strident online criticisms of and conflicts with fellow chefs, often via Twitter tweets, have drawn extensive news coverage, enough so that even reviews of her books refer to them. [7] [8] seems like impermissible synthesis, unless there's secondary sources reaching that "enough so that" conclusion. And the operative verb in admitting that she had past boyfriends may have unwanted implications, especially due to stereotypes about bisexual women. acknowledging would maybe work, but simply saying wold probably be best per MOS:SAID. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Queue 3 problems

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion

@SL93 @Daniel Case @BorgQueen @Cbl62 In Killing of Sara-Nicole Morales, I see sources for her waiving a gun, her assailant not being charged, and that it was after an incident of road rage. I can't, however, find anything that says the gun waiving happened on her front lawn. I see I raised an objection to this article during the initial review phase, and the general opinion was that it's OK. I would still recommend that somebody give it one last look-over w/r/t WP:CRIME. Regardless of that, we still need better sourcing on the front lawn question.

Winton W. Marshall pegs earwig [9] Most of it is a big block quote that's appropriately cited, but there's still a bunch of smaller things. I've mostly convinced myself that they're fine (titles of military units and the like) but I'd also appreciate if that also got a 2O from somebody on whether we're too deep into close paraphrasing territory.

Other than those 2 things, Q3 is ready to go. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

For the Killing of Sara-Nicole Morales article, I would just remove the front lawn bit from the hook. I barely edit crime articles, so I'm not good for a lookover. For Winton W. Marshall, I thought that it was fine. Pinging Nikkimaria to see if they want to take a look. SL93 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Most of the content in the Marshall article is copied from USAF source, but that's a PD source and is properly attributed, and the article was promoted on the basis of its GA status rather than expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
It's this source, currently in the article as footnote 18. I'll put it up near the first bit in the text that mentions the front lawn, and have it say "front yard" Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  Done Should be OK. Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. SL93 (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Prep 2 - Last universal common ancestor

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A query about this one - what is the rationale for using the word might in this hook? Looking at the article, I see text such as "the detailed biochemical similarity of all current life confirms its existence" and later, in the section discussing alternative hypotheses, the text nonetheless says, in WP:WIKIVOICE, "Basic biochemical principles make it overwhelmingly likely that all organisms do have a single common ancestor". Assuming this is correct, with scientific consensus being for the LUCA's existence, and only a few dissenters representing a minority view, then if seems a WP:FALSEBALANCE to qualify it with "might". I'm not familiar enough with this topic to be certain though. @Chiswick Chap, Onegreatjoke, Flibirigit, and BorgQueen: please could you cast some light on this. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

So it should be there was then. BorgQueen (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I'm happy to be definite here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 Y So fixed. BorgQueen (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Max Wenner

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments6 people in discussion

Prep 1: "that Max Wenner ... was described as an international man of mystery?"

"International" is not in the article, which actually says "In the neighbourhood he had the reputation of a man of mystery". I would have fixed this myself, but I'm also not sure that Wenner's being known as a local man of mystery is hookworthy. I feel like the fact that this man fell out of a plane should be the focus of the hook, rather than a parenthetical remark. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Sounds a bit like Austin Powers too. :-D BorgQueen (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Pinging Jengod. "... that Max Wenner fell, jumped, or was pushed out of an airliner over Belgium in 1937?" SL93 (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
That's fine. jengod (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
i actually liked the "man of mystery" angle, though i agree that the focus should have been on the flight. would either of these alternatives work?

alt1: ... that exactly how Max Wenner, described as a man of mystery, had fallen from an airliner flying over Belgium in 1937 remains a mystery?

alt1b: ... that exactly how "man of mystery" Max Wenner had fallen from an airliner flying over Belgium in 1937 remains a mystery?

i think alt1b flows better, but don't know if the quotation marks would be interpreted as scare quotes. jengod, sorry for just missing you. dying (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Both of those are fine. Thank you for working on this, dying. :) jengod (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 Y So fixed, sans the year. I think it works better without it. BorgQueen (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@Dying and BorgQueen: Shouldn't that just be fell, not had fallen? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Urm, yes. Gonna fix it. Lol. BorgQueen (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
not sure how that tense had crept in. thanks, Tamzin and BorgQueen. dying (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

When to switch back to 1-per-day

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please see #Posing the question above and voice your opinion there. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Queue 5 (about to go live)

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
  • ... that Nasser Abu Hamid had four brothers serving life sentences in addition to him?
Hmm. Shall I pull it? BorgQueen (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Source for five brothers serving life sentences. Hang on, I'll rewrite it. Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Found a better source as well (Haaretz), included those, and changed the hook to "five". Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Black Kite, I was sweating them in the nom and I had to do an Easter Egg Hunt for it, but I thought I had the article and hook matched. Bruxton (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Charles Woolley-Dod

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Not sure where to post this but I think Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Wolley-Dod needs a second reviewer? I approved it but in doing so got very emotionally involved and ended make a lot of edits resulting in spinoff articles Max Wenner Violet B. Wenner John Vincent Cain Kjarra River and Italian Court Building. Anyway I think it's fine and ready to go but I can't find it in Approved so someone else probably needs to wade in. TY. jengod (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I will review. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Prep 4: Will Arbery

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The article says that the idea crystallized "after he was personally dissatisfied with the media's coverage of Trump supporters after the 2016 presidential election", which doesn't mention anything be "shallow", or really give a reason for his dissatisfaction at all. For all we know based on what's written, he might have thought they covered it too deeply. Secondly (and it looks like this was raised in the DYK) the article says after the election while the hook merely says supporters of the election, which would be more suggestive of something during the campaign itself. Pinging @Thriley, Sdkb, Outfortrout, EmphasisMine, and BorgQueen: who were involved with the nom. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

That's right. Needs to be reworded. BorgQueen (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, when I reviewed the DYK nomination I should have caught that the "shallowly" part of the hook wasn't supported by the Will Arbery article. I've now edited the article to say that Arbery criticised the coverage of Trump supporters as shallow (the cited Boston Globe source[10] does make it clear that this was his criticism). I've also edited the hook to say "after" the election in line with the article. EmphasisMine (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Great, thanks @EmphasisMine:. That looks good now.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

R. K. Padmanabha in Prep 7

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion

R. K. Padmanabha has a few clarify tags. @DaxServer: Can you please look into them? BorgQueen (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@BorgQueen I've put those tags as I'm not aware of those terms, I wouldn't be able to resolve them — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, that's an interesting case. @SL93 and Cielquiparle: What do you think? BorgQueen (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen It doesn't have a "final" green tick mark. It might be one of the ones that got promoted by mistake when @Aoidh and I were just starting out (trial by fire! speaking of which, the directions for newbies need to spell out go to WP:DYKNA if they don't already). I think we should just unpromote it and send it back to WP:DYKN, and then the review can continue. The original author will do a better job at resolving the outstanding tags. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 Y Done. BorgQueen (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

"Plagiarism free"

Latest comment: 1 year ago17 comments9 people in discussion

Regarding {{DYK checklist}}; it asks reviewers if the article is, "plagiarism free" which it defines as, "Is the article free of material copied from other sources?"

This strikes me as potentially problematic, as it goes beyond what the DYK criteria requires. The DYK criteria requires the article to "be free of copyright violations, including close paraphrasing".

Material that is in the public domain (such as U.S. Government works, works published prior to 1927, or works that are freely licensed, can be copied without incuring a copyright violation, and so long as the source is cited (for example with a template like {{US government sources}} or {{EB1911}}, it is not considered plagiarism.

So basically, in the instructions we are providing reviewers, we are asking them if the article meets a higher bar than we are requiring in our formal eligibility criteria. Would anyone object to the example in the template being changed to "Is the article free of material copied from non-free sources?" ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Plagiarism is passing off another's work as your own; thus, those templates indicate whose work the article is quoting and provide attribution. Plagiarism -- not indicating you are quoting, or closely paraphrasing, (and instead passing it off as your own work) -- is barred. In Wikipedia's publishing environment, you assert that it is your work and that you hold the licence to give it into the commons. (Also, copyright vio and plagiarism are not the same thing, you still plagiarize if you copy without attribution, even if the copied work is no longer, or not, copyright protected.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
If this was a policy document, then I'd be more concerned about getting the wording exactly right, but it's not. It's just reminders of what reviewers should be looking for. As such, the vague wording in the checklist bullet is fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Objection here. As noted, plagiarism is indeed barred on Wikipedia, and should be checked for. It's also listed as a "Within policy" check above the edit window when you edit nomination templates: is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. DYK checklist isn't clear that this item is, apparently, supposed to cover copyvio and close paraphrasing as well as plagiarism; just addressing copyvio in the proposed rewording also misses close paraphrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Just to clarify; as I'm not sure I'm being understood correctly. I'm wanting to change text that currently reads "Is the article free of material copied from other sources?" to read "Is the article free of material copied from non-free sources?" as copying from free sources is allowable within policy so long as it is properly attributed. That is the only change being proposed. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 
Direct quotes from non-free sources, within limits and properly attributed, are allowed. See the block quotes in today's featured article for example. So, I'll stand by my original comment; the checklist isn't policy. It's just an aid to the reviewer to make sure they don't miss anything. It's kind of like being an astronaut. You train intensively on every detail of the mission and read mountains of manuals, but when it comes time to actually do it, you go by the checklist to make sure you don't forget a step. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
My worry though, is that the existing wording will lead inexperienced reviewers to decline acceptable articles that include properly attributed copying from free sources. For an example where an inexperienced reviewer may have declined see Template:Did you know nominations/E. Daniel Cherry and the associated article, which is properly attributed with a {{US government sources}} template. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not following your specific example, but in any case even experienced reviewers make mistakes. Altering the wording of the checklist isn't going to change that. The mistakes get discussed and corrected, which is why we have multiple levels of review, and this talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Why not just change it to "Is the article free of copyright violations, including close paraphrasing?"? Gatoclass (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

That would work. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 11:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree to that --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Well it should be 'the article is free of copyright violations and close paraphrasing'. Proper attribution (including proper presentation, citation, and mark-up) can cure several ills of what would otherwise be copyright violation or plagiarism, it becomes 'fair use' in its legal sense or 'fair dealing' in an intellectual, authorial sense - the remaining issue is whether you have appropriated too much of copyrighted material, such that it has become infringement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with either @Gatoclass's or @Alanscottwalker's suggested wording. Again, I urge people to not get overly worked up over this. It's a checklist. The intent is to jog the reviewer's memory, not to act as an official statement of policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe new Wikipedia articles should include significant copied-and-pasted content, even if from a free source, more so for those recognized at DYK. I recently saw an article that was entirely just duplicated a US government document, and I believe this is very inappropriate for any article even if not copyrighted and with a little attribution template. DYK articles should be written in Wikipedia's voice using multiple sources, and any copying or close paraphrasing should not be considered for the main page. Reywas92Talk 20:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

just for clarification, we do have a penalty for copying from free content: it doesn't count in a 5x expansion, nor does it count towards meeting the 1500B minimum. You can't just plop a government document into an article and run it (or at least, you shouldn't be able to). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: - It looks like there is a loose agreement to change the checklist wording to "is the article free of copyright violations and close paraphrasing?". The template says to contact you if changes are to be made. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Thanks for letting me know. As long as you don't change the status=y/?/maybe/no/again parameter, everything should be fine, but let me know if something weird happens after the change. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback requested for first time promoting hooks

Latest comment: 1 year ago18 comments7 people in discussion

Following the discussion at User talk:Valereee#Help at DYK I've put together Template:Did you know/Preparation area 7 and would welcome any feedback, since it's my first time doing this. - Aoidh (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to help!
Re: the Ravenshoe hook...that hook doesn't meet the nonfiction requirement at C6 in the Supplementary Rules, I don't think. (And I'm not sure I see where it was approved, it looks like it was suggested by RoySmith but never got approved?) ALT2 works, though. Valereee (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Whoops! I saw the J section of those rules since it was linked in the Prep area but didn't scroll up to that section, I'll take a moment to read over that whole thing top to bottom to get an idea of what to look for moving forward, but I've replaced that hook with ALT2 in the meantime. - Aoidh (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
First, thanks for pitching in to help! As for C6, I'm not even sure why we have that rule, but I'll cover that in another thread. In this thread, I mostly wanted to thank you for helping. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm. I found the previous discussion on this. I'm not in agreement with that outcome, but I've got bigger fish to fry today. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Feel free to ignore if you're busy; the point of C6 is that when we're dealing with a fictional world, literally anything can happen. So any hook that doesn't connect somehow to the real world is basically a hooks that says: ... that in [a fictional universe], X happened? Valereee (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I get that. But, this is a work of literature. What's interesting is the work, not that Mark Twain owned a copy of it.[1] But those fish aren't frying themselves, and I'm not saying anything that wasn't said in the RFC, so I'll leave it there. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Did someone say fish fry? Valereee (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: What a coincidence, I just put together the refs section on that page yesterday :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw, that was a good thing. That's how I found the discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I think you've done well for a first timer. I just shuffled it slightly so the quirky hook goes to the last. BorgQueen (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I think either of those would work in the quirky, actually.
Aoidh, there are eighty gazillion rules here, so do not feel even a little bit like you need to know all of them before you can promote. This is what I meant when I said people will comment (and keep commenting) on your preps. I probably built a dozen or more before I built a set that had zero comments from anyone.
Re:other people shuffling/swapping things -- totally normal for other people to shuffle things within a set you built, or to swap an item from a set you built into a different set. It can be because they needed an X hook in that set, or because they needed to get a Y hook out of that set.
When you're working on a set, it's fine if you do a few hooks and then need to step away. If someone sees that you haven't added anything in an hour or so, they'll assume you're indicating you aren't still actively working, and they may start in. You should feel free to do the same, especially in the case of a set that is nearing the top of the pile and still needs a hook or two. If the last editor hasn't edited in the last hour or so, feel free to complete the set. Some people never do full sets, soe people almost always do. Totally up to you how you prefer to work, although if you try to for instance fill all the image slots (or all the quirkies), it's likely to be considered annoying. :) Valereee (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Yeah nothing jumped out at me as "oh this is very quirky" so I went with what I thought was the best case one but I can see either one working there. I'm also perfectly fine with (and this early on expect) others coming behind and swapping/fixing things so I will not be bothered by anything like that. Nobody's said "this is terrible take it all down and we'll start over" so I consider that a win. :) - Aoidh (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
lol...you'll do fine here. Valereee (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I did not check your work, but I was enthused to see you jump in there. You stepped up and I appreciate it very much! Also thanks to the the BorgQueen. Bruxton (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: No that's a fair question and that's my mistake, the first three hooks that I added were from WP:DYKN rather than WP:DYKNA because I misread and messed up on that account. I later saw the mistake and pulled from the right area for the remainder. I saw the tick and the concern about QPQ which was later rectified so I thought it was good to go, but if that needs to be removed I have no objection to that. I'd do it myself but that is the part I'm concerned I'd mess up; since it's no longer in the WP:DYKNA queue would it need to be manually re-added and this edit undone or would there be some other way of doing that? - Aoidh (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, it's not a problem that requires fixing! You are correct that the issue was later rectified, but no-one put a new tick on it. For future reference, to pull it you would indeed revert your edit to the prep page and manually re-add to DYKNA, however, to re-emphasise, it is not an issue in this particular case. CMD (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Twain's Bookshelf - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com". archive.nytimes.com. Retrieved 3 January 2023.

SailRail

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments6 people in discussion

@Aoidh, Ritchie333, Hog Farm, and Theleekycauldron: Prep 7: SailRail (nom) still has some cleanup work that needs to get done, per my review comment. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Should it be pulled from Prep 7? I don't mind doing that and swapping it out with something in the approved queue. - Aoidh (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
IMO that's probably best. Having read through it with fresh eyes after looking at it too much in early December/late November, I'm starting to think the scope needs some definition - there's some lack of clarity between if this is a unified sort of program, or just related things with similar names. Hog Farm Talk 02:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Prep 7 won't hit the main page for almost 2 weeks. That's plenty of time to do the relatively minor editing in the article text to clarify things. So I'd just leave it where it is and avoid the busywork of pulling it. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
On the other hand, see Hog Farm's comment right above this (looks like we edit-conflicted). -- RoySmith (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I didn't see your comment until after Hog Farm's, and went ahead and pulled it. Just to make sure I did it right since I haven't done this before, I undid the approval on the nom page, re-added it to the queue, and then removed it from Prep 7. If I missed a step please let me know, but if nothing else it was at least practice for me to figure out how to properly pull something from the queue. - Aoidh (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the article with Hog Farm's comments in mind there are some issues with the scope being unclear, also the United States section because it says "a SailRail ticket can be purchased" but neither the source nor the ticket issuers call it SailRail but rather "Sail & Rail" so it's not accurate to say you can purchase a SailRail ticket, which kind of makes it sound like it's the same program as the British one. - Aoidh (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh: Perfect! The one thing I also usually do when pulling a nom is make sure there's an unapproved tick with an explanation so that it doesn't automatically move it to the approved page, but luckily, doesn't look like that's necessary. In the future, if the last tick on a page isn't   or  , I'd suggest pinging the reviewer to see if they still object, where applicable. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I think you got all the things, but I usually depend on @Theleekycauldron to look over my shoulder :-) Yeah, going through the process for practice is a good thing too. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for checking behind me. I added a new hook in its place in the meantime. - Aoidh (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to progress with this. Maybe just close the nomination as "no consensus". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Hold on: I can probably help here with my access to specialist sources. Have just seen this on my watchlist. Will also comment on nom template. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


Consensus for solution for two problems?

Latest comment: 1 year ago119 comments22 people in discussion

I went through this to see if I could assess consensus. There are no policy arguments to asses, so in this case it really is sort of just a vote. Unless I've counted wrong (always a possibility so feel free to check my work) here's what I've got:

10 people want a change. 9 voted A2 through B2.* The 10th was by far the outlier with C4. 6 want no change.

To me that looks like it could be declared for B2 (as everything from A2-B1 specifically also votes for B2), but I'm not really comfortable calling it that unilaterally as C4 could certainly be arguable. Do we need discussion/an uninvolved closer, or are people comfortable with me closing it for B2?

* A2:5,B1:1,B2:3 Valereee (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with it being closed for B2 because there is a wide variety of opinions and barely anyone participated. I thought that votes on Wikipedia weren't decided just by counting them, but rather by the strength of the arguments. I would say that no change is more arguable than C4. SL93 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "barely anyone participated". I see EEng, Valereee, theleekycauldron, Kingsif, myself, Cielquiparle, Hog Farm, you, Epicgenius, Vanamonde, ONUnicorn, Dumelow, Narutolovehinata5, BlueMoonset, David Eppstein, Chipmunkdavis, Kusma, Andrew Davidson, Hawkeye7, Guerillero, and Gerda Arendt all participated in the thread. That's pretty much everybody who is active at DYK. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
It is by the strength of the arguments to policy. But in this case, as I mentioned above, there's no policy to argue, so there are no relatively stronger or weaker arguments. It's all opinion. But we can request someone else to close who didn't participate. Both EEng and Narutolovehinata5 were reading but didn't vote. Valereee (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Nonsense. There are many more people who regularly participate at DYK than those people. Why do you think we have a backlog? SL93 (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Nonsense again. The voters contributed to how it would affect the project so the strongest of those arguments need to be found. SL93 (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
@SL93, could you clarify who you're nonsensing? Also you sound kind of pissed, is there something else going on? Valereee (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Both you and Roysmith. I am pissed because no change votes are apparently not being counted. SL93 (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, they're being counted. There were six of them. Which I said above. Valereee (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Here's where I said it: 10 people want a change. 9 voted A2 through B2.* The 10th was by far the outlier with C4. 6 want no change. Valereee (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Then I guess I'm confused. C4 only has one vote, but it seemed that you said it is more arguable than no change. I do stand by that there are strengths to consider when it comes to how people think it will benefit or hurt DYK. SL93 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
C4 only has one vote, but all votes A1-C3 count as a vote for C4. So if we can't find consensus at B2, which has nine votes (by the same method of counting, which was made clear in the instructions), we'd go with C4 unless someone objected to 10-6 being not strong enough consensus for change. Valereee (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
This whole thing sits wrong with me. 25 people deciding on the biggest change at DYK in like ever and it's decided by a vote count. SL93 (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
It's actually fine to say, Hey, I see this has general support here, but this wasn't an announced RfC, let's get greater input on the proposed change. That's likely what we'd do anyway. Valereee (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Then why close the discussion at all and not just do a RFC? SL93 (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, we'd probably have to do an RfC and advertise it. I think this was presented as not an RfC but a survey to see what would gain support here? We "close it at all" to make sure we're agreed on what the outcome was in any discussion. A closed discussion doesn't necessarily mean "Policy is hereby changed". Valereee (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, here's what I'd suggest: go through the votes, as I did. Assess the arguments w/re:policy, as I did. Ignore people who are just upset and saying things like "strongest possible oppose" or "not fair" or "there is no problem" or "this is overexaggerated"; those are all opinions. If you can find policy arguments that support 'no change' more strongly than 'change', bring them back here and let's discuss. I did not find them. Valereee (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely not. This whole thing sits wrong with me, despite what was said in the weak discussion. SL93 (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm happy with asking for an outside/neutral close at WP:RFCL. I'd also be happy with running a formal RFC. Either of those options would take some time, but I'd rather take the time and end up with a result that everybody can be satisfied with. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I would be upset even if all of the votes agreed with me. This feels wrong. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I followed the discussion above, but could not devote enough time to research and formulate the merits of various arguments. I think the discussion above was useful for brainstorming ideas, arguments, and policy discussions. Since the thread started with a declaration that it was a discussion, and not a policy proposal ("Has this been discussed before?" and "Note that this is intentionally not an RfC") I think a closer should determine which survey responses, if any, received enough support to open a possible RfC. This doesn't mean the "Support none of these" comments are ignored, but rather help determine which proposals are less popular. I would not support the above discussion being used to change DYK policy or procedures as I think a wider RfC would be necessary to do that with the specific statement that the result of the RfC could change DYK policy. Z1720 (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Upset

If I feel more upset than normal, Valereee is right when she wondered if something else was going wrong up in the above discussion. I apologize. I am healed enough from being hit by a car at a crosswalk for Wikipedia and online classes, but I can't go back to work until at least January 20. The police originally didn't cite the driver, and they still haven't found him to charge him once they found out that they messed up. My lawyer is hard to get a hold of. The police lieutenant ignored my email for updates. I have almost no money coming in. My new landlord is an idiot and I don't know how to get my rent to him because the property manager quit after a couple weeks. SL93 (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hope the situation improves for you soon, SL93. Best wishes! DanCherek (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Jeez, SL93, I'm so sorry things are continuing to be so messed up. :( Valereee (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to leave the discussion for now. My head hurts. SL93 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
That's truly awful, I hope things take a turn :( theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Some thoughts on process stability

I've only been heavily involved in the DYK back-end stuff for about 4 months now. Most of the people involved in this discussion have been doing this for a lot longer, and I recognize that they have a depth of experience I lack. That being said, I'm an engineer so I'm looking at this from a control system point of view (hence my little circuit diagram way upthread).

The gist of any control system is you've got something that you want to keep within a target range, which generally involves some kind of feedback loop. You set your house thermostat to the temperature you want; when it gets below that, it turns the furnace on and when the house gets warm enough, it turns the furnace off again. That's about as simple a control system as you can have. A more complicated system would be the engine controller in a typical modern car. You set the cruise control to the speed you want, and it adjusts fuel, air, ignition timing, gear ratio, turbocharger setting, and maybe a few other things to keep you going at that speed in the most efficient way.

We're trying to keep approved queue length within a certain range. The feedback loop is that we adjust how many hooksets we publish per day when the approved list gets above or below certain thresholds. In control system terms, we've got a single loop non-proportional system with hysteresis. Just like your house thermostat. The difference is that when your house was built, somebody worked out what capacity furnace you needed based on the size of your house, how well it's insulated, and historical weather data. So unless it breaks down, your furnace is able to keep up with the demand.

Unfortunately, that's not what we've got here. When I started working DYK, we were in 2-a-day mode, and in a state of continual crisis. The queue was often down to a single set, and there were almost daily panic calls to the admins to promote more preps to queues. We'd get the queue up to 2, then the next day we were back down to 1. Sometimes we were down to 0. Right now, we're in much better shape. We've got almost all the queues filled, and a good reserve of preps. But I don't expect that will last if we go to 2 sets per day.

So, I think what we need is a two loop system. Something like, "We go to 2 per day when the approved list gets above A1 AND we've got Q1 filled queues. We go back to 1 per day when the approved list gets below A2 OR the we've got less than Q2 filled queues." That gives us feedback for both the amount of material we have to work with and also the amount of labor we've got to process it. Right now we've just got the first part; we adjust our output based on how much material we have, regardless of how much capacity we have to do the work. That's not sustainable. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

We've got a second thermostat that overrides the primary. Anyone who doesn't actually live in the house (and that is a ton more than those who do) is authorized to opine that it's not really cold in here, and we have to take their opinions into account as we decide whether the thermostat needs to be recalibrated. I don't know about you, but I'm frickin' freezing. I've decided I'm of course going to bring in a cord of firewood when I stay here myself, but otherwise, this group can heat their own bedrooms. Valereee (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
In soviet wiki, thermostat controls you! -- RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Lol...I was in Moscow in January of 2013 on a business trip for a major multinational, very upscale hotel. We had to leave the windows open most of the night because there was not a thermostat we could control. Valereee (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

And another county heard from[1]

Summoned by ping for my evaluation of the discussion. I can't invest much time in this, because I promised BlueMoonset I'd get my nose to the grindstone on something, and I'm overdue for that, plus my mom's been sick and I've gotta go see her. <Cue violins> But here's an outline.

Clear thinking about quantitative approaches, like Roy's just above, is badly needed, but I think we need to do something more fundamental first. DYK has many problems we're all aware of but which we don't seem to be able to do much about. If I do say so myself, we took a major step forward recently with the "interestingness" reform. But we could do more, and I believe the best way to move forward is by deliberate, definite, small steps, with consensus at each step:

  • Right now we run essentially every nom submitted, with the occasional rejection. There is no problem we have that will not be at least ameliorated by a reduction in throughput, and some can never be addressed meaningfully until there's a reduction in throughput. So Step 1: we need to agree that throughput should "somehow" be limited to "some number" per day. The "somehow", and the "some number", are unspecified at this step -- we are simply committing that there will be some limit, achieved somehow. If we can't get this simple abstraction agreed to, real progress on DYK quality improvement will never, ever happen.
  • Step 2: We discuss and agree on the "some number" limit. (My personal proposal would be that it be a single daily set of N = 6, 7, or 8, but that's just me.) But at this point "no change / no limit" isn't an option, because that was settled at the first step.
  • Step 3 (and subsequent steps): We start agreeing on one or more "somehow"s to throttle things down to that limit. Likely we will need a combination of somehows, and we might enact those one by one, or in packages -- we'll have to see. But the limit will have been decided upon already, so we can just focus on the somehows.

The problem with the current discussion is that it's trying to do all three steps at once, with a confused, diffuse result. I humbly submit, therefore, that instead of settling on some compromise of disparities, we instead back up and start with just Step 1.

Thoughts? EEng 00:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Inappropriate use of this figure of speech, strictly speaking, but I just don't have the time to worry about that.
Sorry your mom's sick, EEng! Valereee (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. She says her dying wish is for DYK throughput to be reduced via my step-wise system outlined above. You'd want to help make an old lady's dying wish come true, wouldn't you? EEng 02:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@EEng you said If we can't get this simple abstraction agreed to, real progress on DYK quality improvement will never, ever happen. Maybe we need to take a step backwards and figure out if quality improvement is what people want. Maybe people want to run every hook that's submitted, regardless of quality. If that's the case, we should save a lot of effort by eliminating reviews. A bot could easily figure out if it's "new enough and long enough", and if it is, just toss it into the next open slot. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
For those who are wondering, there really and truly are people who seem to want that. And though I've advocated taking things "one step at a time", that still leaves the question of what should be the quantum size of each step. I'm willing to roll the "quality improvement is desirable", and "throughput should be reduced", quanta into the same Step 1. Can you join me? EEng 02:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Step 1: Those who participated in the discussion seem to agree that throughput should be limited. Even those who voted "no change" tended to be concerned that the problem of reviewers flaking out would disproportionately affect inexperienced/less savvy nominators. (And I'd agree it's definitely the experienced and savvier nominators who refuse to help build preps who are really the problem here, not those with a handful or fewer noms.)
So I'd say that, at least among those who participated at that discussion, there is support for somehow limiting throughput, especially if we can ensure it doesn't disproportionately affect less experienced good-faith nominators. Valereee (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I participated in the discussion, and I didn't agree that throughput should be limited, so we're already mischaracterizing the previous discussion. I think we could be tougher on the quality and eliminate more noms that way (which RoySmith mentions), but the idea that a single daily number is the way to start is foreign to me and to what I think the idea of DYK is. One example on tougher quality: while it used to be feasible to get a copyedit there on a DYK timeframe, the Guild of Copy Editors is so backed up that it takes months to get a copyedit there. DYK shouldn't wait; if the nominator can't get a copyedit within a week or two and the prose is that problematic, the nomination should (regretfully) be failed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Same for merge discussions, I'd argue. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
BMs, you started your vote there with No change unless there are protections built in for nominators when a reviewer flakes. How is it mischaracterizing to say even those who voted no change tended to be concerned about reviewers flaking? Valereee (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Valereee, I was referring to Those who participated in the discussion seem to agree that throughput should be limited, not your second sentence. I'm not wild about the notion of limiting throughput through arbitrary deadlines. However, reviewers can do a lot to keep reviews from running long by requesting prompt action and giving reasonable deadlines for responses. It used to be that seven days was pretty standard for most things. If people can't follow up on their nominations, then it should be inevitable that they see them close, and not after two or three months either. But if reviewers don't show up, the nominator shouldn't pay the price. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Jumping the gun?

I'm a bit confused about all this discussion here. Wasn't that discussion supposed to be an informal survey anyway rather than a formal RfC? As far as I can tell, it was only intended to take a feel of DYK's thoughts rather than actually implement any changes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe that Valeree suggested picking one internally and then setting up a wider RfC on just that one proposal. CMD (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
And (just in case anyone hasn't got the message yet), I advocate picking none of them and take the more stepwise approach described earlier. Not that I want to push that too hard or anything. EEng 02:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
We really should move back to 2 a day at least temporarily. The last four days are not transcluded at Template talk:Did you know/Approved. We really shouldn't be making it worse. SL93 (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm against going to 2-a-days. It's too hard on too few. Valereee (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
So we should break the nominations page? And I said temporarily so we at least don't break it. SL93 (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
What's going on there? Have we hit some wikimedia transclusion limit? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I can only suggest looking at Template talk:Did you know/Approved and scrolling to the bottom to see what I mean. That will just be the start. SL93 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that the transclusions are not being displayed properly. What I'm asking is "Why are they not being displayed properly?" You can't fix a problem if you don't understand why it's happening. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know either. Maybe BlueMoonset or someone more experienced knows. SL93 (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
It's an issue with the Wikipedia:Post-expand include size. DanCherek (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
BlueMoonset mentioned such a thing on their talk page. SL93 (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
What's the downside of breaking the nominations page other than that things don't transclude? Does it cause actual problems anywhere else, or is it? @RoySmith, yes, that's the actual reason we go to 2-a-days: at a certain point the backlog breaks a transclusion template limit or something. Valereee (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I just feel like it will make prep building worse than it already is if we can't scroll down to read everything. SL93 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
But the problem only occurs when there are too many hooks, doesn't it? So it's not like prep builders don't have plenty to choose from. Valereee (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm thinking of how it will be in the future because I'm not sure when we will have an alternative solution. Who knows how many hooks we will have by then, along with the preps and queues available to fill. It's not as much of an issue now, but maybe someone should really get cracking on a RFC. SL93 (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Personally I am averse to temporarily fixing the problem while people are telling me we're exaggerating it. Maybe folks need to actually see the cracks before they'll believe they're there. Valereee (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I suggested on BlueMoonset's talk page to just close the project if we can't come to a conclusion that doesn't break things. I was really upset when I said that, but I still think it is an option. Maybe people would respond to that ultimatum. SL93 (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I've asked about this at WP:VPT. It looks like we've hit a size limit, but let's see what the experts say. In any case, the solution to the problem is not forcing people who don't want to do more work to do more work. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The problem is definitively that the total bulk of all approved noms is too large. It affects nothing other than what you see -- everything's actually still there. EEng 19:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
If this affects nothing other than cosmetics, why are we even worried? Valereee (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it mere cosmetics, exactly: the last N noms become invisible until a few higher up on the page are closed (after which the bot removes them, allowing a few that were just below the "boundary of visibility" to become visible). EEng 20:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
When I browse for nominations to promote, I would rather see everything on the same page instead of clicking on nominations to read what they say. It will be much worse if we don't go to 2 a day until we have an alternative and I'm not sure how many more hooks will not transclude if it goes to say, over 200 more hooks than we have now. I thought we were wanting to make things easier for prep builders. SL93 (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I want to fix the problem long term, not just make things slightly less bad short term. Valereee (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Not fixing it short term will make it bad for the long term. I thought I was clear on that. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
What is your solution then? This long discussion hasn't gotten DYK anywhere. SL93 (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I do understand that you are also interested in a long-term solution. I just disagree that going to 2-a-days helps with that or that making sure prep builders have access to the untranscluded makes much difference to the work of prep building.
And yes, long discussion hasn't gotten DYK anywhere. It's IMO because there are many fewer actual workers (whose work would be improved by suggested fixes) than nominators (whose requirements would be increased). Which is why I'm actually here (after spending multiple years trying to be nice and get along) just deciding I'm going to go ahead and say it. Valereee (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I will just have to disagree about the transclusions. I do know that I personally won't be building preps if I have to open tab after tab after yet another tab just to fill one prep set. SL93 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
And I think it's not a bad outcome if prep builders decide not to build preps for a while. The rest of the project needs to see the cracks. Valereee (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I guess prep builders could go on strike, with or without a RFC going on, and maybe people will come to their senses. If not, DYK crashes and burns. I started building preps when I saw how much hard work Yoninah was doing practically by herself. If only that could be the case with other editors. Maybe I'm just more empathic than them. SL93 (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I think this is where I hold up a sign that says "UNION" or something? I need to go watch Norma Rae again. Valereee (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Strike isn't the best wording, but basically preps can stay unfilled. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I've got a ton of ideas for how to improve things, but they're all based on how I perceive the problems and what my personal workflow is. I think it would be really useful to have a big teach-in on zoom or whatever where we each walked through how we do various tasks. I'm sure we'd all learn a lot of tricks, and get some better ideas for how to improve the overall process.
For example, I find the one big page really annoying. Once I've found a nom I'm interested in, I want to open it up in isolation. SL93 obviously has a different workflow that works for them. The more we know about how each of us works, the better we're able to think about solutions that work for everybody. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Trialing 16-hour cycles

If there is concern about a backlog, I would propose trialing 16-hour DYK cycles for a limited time (e.g. 7–10 days) to observe how it could work. It would be less strenuous than the 12-hour cycle, and for DYK submitters, it has the advantage of allowing coverage across at least 2/3 of the world's major time zones rather than missing out on 1/2 (which can have a negative effect on results if your hook is tied to a specific geography). Cielquiparle (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

16 hour cycles require extremely complex input from those actually doing the work of making this project happen. Valereee (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd have to oppose on stats page grounds – hooks need to air within one calendar day, otherwise we can't reliably harvest the pageviews data. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
16 hours is a great idea, as it would fix the constant flicking between 12 and 24 hours problem. The stats pages are already wrong anyway (as they report dates 1 day out), and stats shouldn't be the sole driving factor for the project, instead it should be providing good DYK content at regular intervals. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: No, they're not one day off anymore. That's also not related? And while they're not the sole driving factor, an idea that skewers the entire enterprise should probably weight against the enterprise. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The proposal also doesn't actually help with the problem, which is that we have too many nominations and not enough promoters to process them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
16 hours sounds great to anyone who doesn't actually work the preps and queues. For those working the preps and queues it makes things much more complicated. Also what tlc said. 16 hour cycles means instead of asking prep builders to double their workload, we're only asking them to increase it by 50%. Not a solution to the problem of too few prep builders. Valereee (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I was gonna say, that sounds fairly complicated to build with the current working areas we have in prep (let alone those who promote to queue). I mean, I know I said we should try pretty much anything to reduce backlog and workload... but this doesn't really. Kingsif (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Am I reading this right?

We're going to have DYK noms expire because nobody felt like reviewing them or because nobody wanted to add them to the prep area? So, I could make a perfectly valid hook, wait three weeks and nobody reviews it, and then it "expires" because of that / my hook gets approved, but it doesn't ever make it to the main page because the promoters didn't add it to the prep area in time? Am I reading this right? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11 Nothing has been decided yet, but yes, that's one of the proposals on the table. All that needs to happen to prevent that is for enough people to stand up and say, "I'll help". Are you willing? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Presently I'm very busy, with things going on in real life + lots of work needing to be done in my topic area, American football, as its NFL season. Right now I've got too much to do, but I could probably try to learn the prep promotion process in late February once the season's over. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
lol...yep, that's pretty typical. No one wants to do the actual work -- one of the perennial excuses is "I'm really busy" -- but they totally are like, "Am I reading this right?!" when the rest of the project doesn't do the work for them. So, yeah, come on back when you've done a few dozen promotions, we'll talk. Valereee (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I told you I would try it next month, although if I'm going to be mocked here for having things to do in life maybe not... BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Yep, that's the next excuse. You've gone from "I'm afraid of screwing up" to "I don't have time" to "you're mean". It's fine. Valereee (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, it's also partially because people aren't willing to help promote because 1. I'm afraid I'll screw something up or 2. various other excuses. Valereee (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
The section works because of the varied interests of the editors who come here. I can see that just from promoting hooks to the preps. Some hooks or articles with limited appeal may not be reviewed for a long time. I think most editors review the hooks that interest them. I am not sure we can be forced to eat our peas. Bruxton (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
No pudding for you! Valereee (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
That is only if I don't eat my meat! Bruxton (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Mother do you think I'll break the prep?
Mother do you think they'll like my hook?
Mother do you think they'll try to close my nom?
Oooh ahh, Mother should I write a bot?
-- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes! And yes to more bots. When they work they are glorious. Bruxton (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@BeanieFan11 I think you will be very good at promoting hooks. As I found out, there isn't much to screw up technically if you've installed the PSHAW tool. Promoters don't even have to promote entire sets, so you could just promote one or two hooks here and there when you have time (while trying to balance out the right "mix" geographically, bios vs. non-bios, etc.). The hardest part seems to be checking the hook to make sure it's really main page safe, but even then, there are always other people checking and re-checking so they will catch mistakes or question or disagree or improve after you promote as well. You just can't promote hooks you have been involved in. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I dislike that approach. If a reviewer or promoter prefers to review or promote a given editor or editors, somebody's gonna get left behind. This is really unfair to the first-time editors, the very new editors DYK was created for. If an editor submits a nomination on subject matter most here are not familiar with - certain sciences for instance - that editor's nomination may linger for a long time and then just drop off. It might have the opposite effect if the editor and their given style/topic is favored by a reviewer/promoter. — Maile (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@Maile66, I'm probably being an idiot, but what approach? The indent isn't clear. Valereee (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee: I was referring to the lead paragraph in this section, and responses to that. — Maile (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Maile. I would agree that however we choose to solve the problem, we shouldn't be making new editors with few noms pay the price. Someone with 39 DYKs, sure. They could be expected to help out. Valereee (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Why not make it mandatory to promote at least a few hooks to prep every so often? Seriously, we can just forget their whiny complaints that don't amount to anything. Of course this wouldn't apply to new nominators. SL93 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@SL93, we've tried that. The problem is that there are a lot more people that would affect than there are whom it would help. People who don't want to be required to do the work can easily outvote those who do the work. Valereee (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
For instance. Here's a participant at DYK -- 39 noms, 0 promotions -- who complained their hook wasn't promoted fast enough, explained that the reason they didn't want to try helping promote was that they'd screw up, then that they were busy, then that they were pissed, now voting against trying to fix the problem. That's basically the progression. Valereee (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I've been directed to this discussion from the Women in Red talk page. Let me first say that I consider DYKs to be one of the most important features of the EN Wikipedia as they not only draw attention to important new additions but encourage budding editors to continue their efforts. Unfortunately, I am no longer very enthusiastic about participating in DYKs as many of the discussions have become increasingly lengthy and time consuming. A recent case in an area which interests me is the DYK on Galina Pisarenko. From Talk:Galina Pisarenko, you can see that we've now reached ALT15 and it's still not over! But on a more positive note, would it not be useful to alert some of the more active contributors to DYK as can be seen here? --Ipigott (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
One way to solve the backlog is to let any extended-confirmed editor review a DYK nomination from now on instead of making DYK nominators do it for quid pro quo. And I believe more people would do DYK nominations if quid pro quo wasn’t a requirement after 5 of them. Just my 2 cents. Trillfendi (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@Trillfendi, any editor, ec or not, can review a nom. An IP can review a nom. Valereee (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I think you are completely misreading… everything. Literally anyone can do reviews. We don't want to encourage more noms. Kingsif (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@Kingsif: What I was saying (at least trying to) was what I believe intimidates more people from doing DYK is the quid pro quo aspect. More people would volunteer to create DYK nominations if it didn’t seem somehow like a chore. Trillfendi (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
You still miss the point, Trillfendi. We have too many DYK nominations; that's the issue. You are talking about ways of getting more DYK nominations. Schwede66 22:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Numbers please

The discussion above seems to lack detailed statistics and "you can't manage what you can't measure". As it's the start of the new year, it's a good time to take stock. Would it be possible to list some key statistics to help us understand the issues, please? I would like to know:

  1. The number of DYK's nominated, run and rejected during 2022
  2. The number of times that switching between 12 and 24 hours was done during 2022
  3. The numbers of DYKs nominated per editor during 2022 -- perhaps there are some high-volume nominators such as WikiCup participants?
  4. The current size of the pipeline -- the numbers in the various states -- unreviewed, reviewed but stuck on some issue, approved, promoted, queued, etc.
  5. The key numbers which risk overloading the structure and so trigger switching

I appreciate that some work might be required but my impression is that theleekycauldron has a good handle on such details. Perhaps the numbers already exist somewhere and just need summarising here, please?

As an example, please see a table of ITN nominations during 2022 which I recently compiled to help with recurring disputes about the treatment of recent deaths.

Andrew🐉(talk) 22:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

A request for statistics! Oh, goody! Here's what I've got:
  1. We've passed 3,963 DYK noms in 2022, and failed 246 more. 228 remain pending, for a total of ~4,437 nominations in 2022.
  2. We made 16 switches between 12-hour and 24-hour cycles in 2022.
  3. The most prolific nominator of the year, Gerda Arendt, made 187 nominations. A majority of nominations is formed by 64 nominators, having 13+ nominations each.
  4. That'll take me a while.
  5. When we top 120 approved nominations, we cross into 12-hour cycles, and when we drop below 60 approves nominations, we revert to 24-hour cycles.
Hope this helps! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
You are hilarious. Valereee (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
In my not at all expert opinion, a failure rate of 6.2% (246/3,963) appears awfully low. Perhaps we need to be more strict about failing things that do not meet the requirements, instead of having situations where we have ALT15 seriously being suggested. That sucks up huge amounts of reviewer time and is just quite frankly ridiculous. If you're at ALT15 and people can't agree, just fail the damn hook. Come on. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@Trainsandotherthings Yup. That's the kind of (pardon me) train wreck I was talking about in Special:Diff/1131396433. The nomination discussion is longer than the article. It's hard to say "We can't do any more work than we're already doing" with a straight face when people are willing to spend 2 months haggling over one nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
A good place to start would be WP:DYKSTATS. There's also some per-user data at WP:DYKNC and WP:DYKPC. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment. Hello all. Hope everyone had a good holiday period. Wishing you all a happy new year as we get into 2023. I have not been too frequent around here (and other parts of WP) for sometime now and am briefly resurfacing. I see a lot of discussion has happened here in this project during the time I was away on topics as it relates to the nomination process, the promotion process, and the general functioning of the DYK engine. I did not know where to comment and being someone who roughly likes numbers, I am adding my comment here.
  1. To the concerns that the failure rate is too low, I think we should ask the question what are we doing here in this project. Being a volunteer driven encyclopedia and a volunteer driven project, our aim can either be a) act as a stage-gate and ensure that we strike down hooks that we deem not worthy of main-page (note that I am deliberately not using the word 'interesting' as of yet) are prevented from making it to the main-page? or is it b) act as an enabler to ensure that our readers get to see the best that we can collectively offer? The answer to this question will guide your perspective on the failure rate. To me the success rate of 89.3% (i.e. ~90%) indicates that reviewers and nominators were able to successfully shape 90% of the submissions and get them to main-page levels of quality. To me that is a win, no matter how you see it.
  2. To the belief that the success of the hook, or performance of the hook on the main-page is correlated to the number of page views that it receives while on a 12 or 24 hour appearance on the main-page, I continue to maintain that is absolutely incorrect. Every person clicking on the link is a win for the article, a win for the encyclopedia. Leaving popular topics (e.g. WWII) aside, it is no secret that risque hooks or will get the highest number of clicks, does that mean that we should all go towards creating click-baity hooks? Absolutely not.
  3. To the concerns that we should only promote what we deem as interesting to a broad audience (however broad or narrowly construed), I think this is doing a disservice to an audience whose profile we do not know.
  4. To the idea that we should allow nominations to expire (I forget which thread this idea was suggested in) just because we have not been able to match a nominator to a reviewer -- Very similar to audience interests, there are reviewer interests. We should be cognizant of that. That is to say, we should keep the nominations alive until a reviewer has a chance to come-in and either work with the nominator to get the hook to the next level or deem that the hook is not capable of being worked to get it to the next level.
  5. Given a choice to throttle (slow-down) or squeeze (force drop-outs), I am not averse to throttling.
  6. If there are system limitations e.g. page size for transclusion that is preventing us from functioning in a certain way, we should explore ways to remedy those system limitations. These limitations should not alter our processes, our behaviors here, and our overall project objectives! I know this is a bit of a rich statement for a volunteer run project, but, we should push.
  7. There is a genuine concern that Valeree and others have called out about the lack of volunteers for prep-building. I will let others weigh in creative ways to remedy this situation. I will add my two ideas. Currently, there is a perceived heaviness to this action and hence folks are perhaps inundated by the process of "prep-building". I can definitely speak for myself. My suggestion to you all is break it down into "Hook-promotion" instead of "Prep-building". Hook-promotion atomizes the actions and makes it less of a perceived barrier. Also I had a chance to look at TLC's PSHAW tool and it can be used to promote hooks atomically. Encourage more editors to use the took and promote hooks in case they are intimidated to "build-preps". If you want bake it into the QPQ process. Review 2 hooks or promote 1 hook. Alternately, review 1 hook and promote 1 hook. Yes, there is a notion for hook cohesion etc. which can easily be achieved. e.g. if you want the last hook to be always be quirky, bake that into the PSHAW tool by a simple label against the last hook saying a text "(preferably quirky)".
Those are my few-cents across topics. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
"To the belief that the success of the hook, or performance of the hook on the main-page is correlated to the number of page views that it receives while on a 12 or 24 hour appearance on the main-page, I continue to maintain that is absolutely incorrect" is a direct contradiction to "Every person clicking on the link is a win for the article, a win for the encyclopedia". Current consensus is towards the second position. CMD (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Not really a contradiction. 1000 clicks on an article is a win. A single click on an article by a reader wanting to be informed by reading the article is a win. Ktin (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Why opt for 1 win and 999 losses instead of 1000 wins? CMD (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
999 losses?? Ktin (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ktin I don't agree with all of the above, but I certainly agree with a couple of your points. Specifically:
  • We should not let technology drive policy. If failure to transclude noms into WP:DYKNA is a problem, we should either get the limit raised or rework our process to not require that level of transclusion, or just put up with the fact that not everything gets transcluded. I'm an advocate of getting tougher on our acceptance criteria for several reasons, but "we've hit the transclusion limit" isn't one of them.
  • I also agree that hook review and prep building should be decoupled. Hooks need to be reviewed to ensure they're correct, don't violate various policies like WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, etc. Assembling them into a sets of 8 is all about variety, balance, timing of special occasions. There's really no overlap there, so it's just a stumbling block to tie them together. I think it would make sense to just have the noms accumulate review checkmarks. After it has two checks, it's eligible for a prep builder to incorporate into a prep. And likewise, an admin moving a prep set to a queue should have to verify that all of the hooks have accumulated three checks. We need an admin to do the last step because the main page is protected; imposing on them the additional burden of enforcing all our DYK rules just leads to admins being unwilling to get involved.
-- RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK approved on and after December 30

Latest comment: 1 year ago23 comments7 people in discussion

Just want to mention but DYK Approved stops showing dyk templates on and after December 30. I don't know how to fix this so can someone fix it? Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Known issue. See #Jumping the gun? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@Onegreatjoke, the basic problem is that we have too many nominations and not enough people to work on them. We can't seem to get enough people to help, so our only alternative is to find a way to limit nominations. But the people who don't build preps don't like that idea, and they way outnumber those who do. So we're sort of in a pickle, here. :D Valereee (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I imagine this will surprise people, given what I've been saying recently, but I'm currently thinking that going to 2-per-day might be a reasonable plan. When this extended conversation started, we were struggling to keep more than 1 or 2 queues full, and the preps weren't far behind. Now we've got some more people pitching in and new promotions are blocked by not having anywhere to put them.
Long term, we still need to get tougher on quality. According to leeky's numbers, we're accepting 94% of our submissions. That's rubber-stamp territory. Related to that, we can't afford to invest unlimited effort to salvage problem submissions. Sometimes it means getting people pissed at you, but keeping the system running smoothly is more important than any one submission.
I also think our mode switch criteria should must include some measure of available work capacity, not just pending submission count. We emphatically don't want to be in a situation of perpetual crisis because we're trying to put out more product than we can reasonably handle. But given the state we're in right now, I think we'd be OK. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I think we leave it up to prep builders. If prep builders are saying they can manage 2-a-day, go for it. Valereee (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
We could just give it a go and move it back to 1 set a day early if it doesn't work out. I'm hoping that these discussions have started something. SL93 (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
If we do go with what seems to be the planned route of closing nominations that are going nowhere, I marked these three nominations for closure - Template:Did you know nominations/Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (France), Template:Did you know nominations/Lafarge scandal, and Template:Did you know nominations/Execution of Russian soldiers in Makiivka. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't see why the Unknown Soldier or Lafarge scandal noms were closed. Both seem to have had the issues raised actioned, and were simply awaiting new reviewers. CMD (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
There is still a citation needed tag at Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (France). As for Lafarge scandal, multiple editors have been discussing closing nominations where there is no interest. In this case, it was already on the main page once and pulled. Plus no new reviewer. SL93 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
One tag (and one area needing a tag) on a 1600 word article is an easily addressed issue (just delete the unsourced bits). There is no consensus on removing DYK noms that simply await reviewers. CMD (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
There really should be, even in a case where there has been a citation needed tag for over a month. Or in the case of Lafarge scandal, it already had its chance and was pulled. Its bs that practically no one wants to build preps or make it easier for prep builders. It also isn't simply waiting for reviewers when they have come and gone with the nomination being stagnant. SL93 (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Noms on DYKN have nothing to do with prep building, prep building is an issue due to the overload on DYKA. CMD (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
but DYKN noms move to DYKNA when they're approved, and we get so many at DYKNA in part because we give nominators absurd amounts of time to work out any issue that may arise, at the expense of the time of other volunteers. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
This does not reflect the cases mentioned at all, which were awaiting reviews, not nominator action. The nominators actioned the issues raised a long time ago. CMD (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, as long as we're in agreement about the principle of the thing. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The principle is that two noms were closed out of process based on an idea that has not gained consensus. CMD (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
They aren’t actually closed and are still open for editing. One of the two noms still had one issue, no matter how small. We don’t need to babysit the nominators by doing their work no matter how small. SL93 (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
No-one has asked you to do that here, please don't invent strawmen to fight. What you have done instead is go out of your way to look at a nomination which has two nominators with zero DYK credits (per QPQ tool), who did not receive a single follow up from the original reviewer, and decide that this was a good nom to arbitrarily close per reasoning which has explicitly not gained consensus above. CMD (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
All I will say is that anyone can edit at the nomination, which you just did, and I honestly don't care about any of your comments at the moment so it is better for you not to respond to me in this discussion. SL93 (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Is there a special vetting process for prep builders, or can anybody do it? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Red-tailed hawk: Anyone can do it! There may be a slight learning curve, but it is greatly simplified by WP:PSHAW. CMD (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@Red-tailed hawk: I'd also say to quickly give WP:DYKSG#J a skim, but really, just jump in :) there are lots of people around here willing to help you out whenever you're stuck. My talk page is always open – don't be afraid to make mistakes and you'll do great! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Anyone can do it! You've got about a dozen DYKs, so you know basically what you're checking for What you're trying to do is achieve balance both between and within sets. So if the preceding set had a bio in the image slot, look for a non-bio for the image. Alternate bios/non-bios within the set. No more than 2-3 US hooks, and try to avoid more than one music/military/history/whatever subject. Look for something quirky for the final slot.
Once you've filled a prep, open a section here and ask for feedback. Valereee (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Enough is enough

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments7 people in discussion

To quote Captain Picard, "The line must be drawn here. This far, no further!" I am referring to the insanity on display at Template:Did you know nominations/Galina Pisarenko. This was nominated on October 28, 2022, by Gerda Arendt. Editors promptly spent over two months workshopping at least NINETEEN different alts. The DYKN page is not only longer than the article, it's longer than many good articles. It was finally promoted today. I am sick and tired of certain editors receiving preferential treatment at DYK just because they complain a lot. Numerous editors have bent over backwards time and time again for Gerda's hooks, and now it has gone TOO FAR.

I'm not really a DYK regular, I've done maybe a dozen hooks or so since I started in July 2021. But I keep tabs on what goes on here, and I am extremely disappointed to see how things have proceeded in this regard. And so I cannot remain silent. This preferential treatment must end. Nobody else would get the luxury of nineteen different alts suggested to turn an article arguably unfit for DYK into something that can go on the main page. This is an insult to each and every editor who has ever had a hook rejected for failing the "interesting" criterion.

I am well aware this comment will cause drama. I don't care. My own principles require that I speak my mind here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Gerda has said she will take a step back from DYK, I think in that regard the problem is solved. We like to offer many chances, and you're right that most people wouldn't receive so many; in large part, this is because most people wouldn't ask for any. I've voluntarily withdrawn more than one of my noms for far lesser sins than "literally nothing interesting to say until two other users expand the article and a dozen alts get workshopped". The other part is that Gerda is a valued prolific content creator - not all of that content needs to feature at DYK, but offering the chance too many times has been a mix of reward (for the content creation) and motivation (for more). For a bit of perspective on why I have, year after year, taken the time to help make Gerda's articles main page fit. But, yeah, Gerda said she'll step back, and you know such treatment isn't common with other users - is there anything else to address? Kingsif (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Gerda has been a prolific contributor here. I am not sure that is preferential treatment - I think it is just editors working to get the best hook. I for one will miss Gerda and her contributions here. Gerda has already decided to step back from her considerable contributions here. I agree that the fussing there is not ordinary, but we are all moving forward. Bruxton (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't want this to happen again, for anyone, not me, not you, not anybody else. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure it will, but you can always approach any noms you see getting out of hand quite ad-hoc; step in to BOLDly close, to paraphrase. Kingsif (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The problems surrounding such noms have been covered extensively, but I agree with Bruxton on the question of preferential treatment. Everyone gets a lot of chances here, the failure rate is low for all. CMD (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I will start out by saying that I do not know the specifics of this case. However, I do not believe the failure rate being low is an issue. I had posted my thoughts on this one yesterday.
To the concerns that the failure rate is too low, I think we should ask the question what are we doing here in this project. Being a volunteer driven encyclopedia and a volunteer driven project, our aim can either be a) act as a stage-gate and ensure that we strike down hooks that we deem not worthy of main-page (note that I am deliberately not using the word 'interesting' as of yet) are prevented from making it to the main-page? or is it b) act as an enabler to ensure that our readers get to see the best that we can collectively offer? The answer to this question will guide your perspective on the failure rate. To me the success rate of 89.3% (i.e. ~90%) indicates that reviewers and nominators were able to successfully shape 90% of the submissions and get them to main-page levels of quality. To me that is a win, no matter how you see it.
If a reviewer feels the back-and-forths are not consistent with their desired time investment -- it is not unreasonable to excuse oneself and wait for another reviewer / nominator to come-in and work the review if they are so interested. That is perfectly alright in my opinion. Best of all, it will act as a feedback loop to the nominators, and at the same time ensure the best for our readers. Ktin (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think I do have to agree that some of the concerns about Gerda's hooks being given special treatment are not without warrant. It can be argued for example that her hooks have had a de-facto exemption from the broad interest requirement; indeed, the recent discussion to change that particular criterion was started over one of her nominations. Hooks by other editors that are deemed not to meet the criterion have been rejected in the past, but it is extremely rare for similar hooks by Gerda to receive the same treatment; indeed, in the rare times where her nominations were closed for a lack of a suitable hook, it was not without controversy. While we can all agree that Gerda is a valued part of our community and her taking a break from DYK is regrettable, we do have rules that need to be followed. Just because an editor complains does not mean that their wishes should be granted all the time, especially if their interests are in conflict with DYK's and the community's. In the end, no one, not even the nominator, has ownership of their nominations. Rules need to be followed, even if it means letting nominations fail or not nominating articles for DYK at all. Not every article is meant for DYK and it's not wrong for things to fall through, even if it can be painful. We need to be accepting of the idea that nominations can be failed if they fail to meet the requirements, even if it personally hurts (I'm sure we've all been through that at least once in our DYK careers). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
This is also not specific to Gerda. Personally, I have rejected her hooks before, similar to hooks from other editors which did not come off well. At the same time, many many non-Gerda hooks get through without being that interesting. Remember the series of Taylor Swift hooks? Gerda is prolific, so examples come up a lot, but this is not the same as individual preference.
With that in mind, I agree with Kingsif that there is not much point to this thread, as the general issue is being discussed elsewhere. CMD (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Is this meant to refute my point? Because I think the Taylor Swift hooks were ridiculous as well and another example of how rules are not being consistently applied to nominations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
My reading was that this section was about "preferential treatment...for Gerda's hooks". Is it instead a general statement that things should be changed? We recently made the interestingness criterion more explicit, hopefully that makes things clearer. CMD (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Pretty much. Basically, I do feel that it is somewhat unfair that just because an editor is a well-regarded member of our community means that we have to give them a pass on our rules. The rules need to be applied to everyone fairly regardless of their tenure, and giving one editor a pass but not applying the same to other editors would be very unfair to other editors. We need to be consistent in our rules, even if it means it would affect our own hooks (I for one have declined to nominate several of my own articles for DYK owing to a lack of suitable hook options, and other editors probably have similar experiences). This issue isn't necessarily about Gerda alone but in general; theoretically this concern could apply to any editor. It just so happened that Gerda was the most common editor to have this kind of concern, but it's not like it could have happened to anyone else. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no time for another discussion that's too long, I began one further up, Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 189#see you later. The shortest possible way: when I joined DYK it was about articles and facts, and now it seems about hooks and their views count. Read above: an article about a young baritone was taken, because the hook was super, and an article about a soprano who worked for decades and influenced generations of singers by teaching was rejected. I don't have the language to cope with that. I brought her to RD, for a five-digit view count - that I can handle. I can give you the articles I work on here, and you do with them what you please. Kurt Horres. Happy new year! I look forward to writing about a Bach cantata, the title translates more or less to enough is enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

What's an "American hook"?

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments8 people in discussion

Now that DYK-Tools-Bot has been running for a few days, I'm going back and tweaking the heuristics on how I determine if something is an American hook. I'd appreciate any thoughts on good ways to do this, and in particular, if you see any which were mis-categorized (I'm aware of Farah (film) and understand what went wrong there), please let me know. If you have github access, creating an issue would be great. If not, just ping me or whatever. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The bot seems to misinterpret the mention of South American (the continent) as being American. Please see here for example. Flibirigit (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, technically, there are three: South America, Central America and North America (which includes Canada). — Maile (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Maybe it should be looking for "U.S." hooks rather than "American" ones, since DYK instructions talk about U.S. hooks? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh, wow. Yeah, South America is a bug, thanks for spotting that. As for US vs. American, I guess US would be more accurate, but that's kind of a nit. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
A nit is also a bug, BTW. EEng 05:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I remember looking at a hook about athletes being conducted into a Canadian hall of fame. The target article was a US-born athlete who spent most of their career playing in Canadian leagues. US hook or not? :D Valereee (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd say they'd still count as US hooks for DYK purposes since they're still about American people. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Balance with a hook about a non-American playing in a US league, easy. CMD (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm. If you've got a specific example, I'll take a look. I also remember sometime within the past few weeks a football game being played in Bermuda between two American teams, which somebody pointed out to me should be considered an American hook. I suspect with edge cases like this, there really aren't any heuristics that are going to work well. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Why not just make more preps some sandboxes?

Latest comment: 1 year ago23 comments12 people in discussion

Although the calendar says it's the middle of winter, it was like a spring day today so I went out for a bike ride. Along the way, I had an epiphany. The only reason folks don't want to go to 2 sets/day is because we're worried it'll be too much workload for the available workers. Right now, it looks like we're in good shape, but who knows if the recent recruits will stay around long enough to get us through N weeks of 2-per-day?

So, why don't we just create a bunch more prep templates of sandboxes, and let people continue to promote hooks into those? Right now, we've got 14 sets worth of buffer (7 queues and 7 preps). Let's spin up 14 sandbox areas, then we'll have 28 sets worth of buffer. We don't need to alter the main queue/prep rotations. Just have the 14 sandboxes on the side somewhere and when space opens up in one of the 7 preps, just do a copy-paste from a sandbox to a prep. Once we've got a bunch of sandboxes filled in addition to the preps, then we can switch over to 2-per-day without any significant risk of running out of labor before we get the approved pool down to where we want it. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes please! From a new recruit point of view, it has been very confusing to hear that there aren't enough promoters when there appears to be very little empty space to fill and/or technical issues, so this sounds like a good plan. It would be nice if we could see the other prep templates in the sandbox (so we have some awareness of what else is coming up)...but whatever works. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron how much work would it be to modify PSHAW to add "sandbox 1" through "sandbox 14" to the destination menu? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
This is not a bad idea at all. But, is our problem that we do not have sufficient hands for "building" preps or that there is not sufficient space in the prep queues? My understanding is that it is the former, but, when the former was surfaced -- it opened up a set of new volunteers and now there is no space in the prep queues? Ktin (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense I know Leeky discussed this before. I cannot remember where Bruxton (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ktin the worry is that (with apologies to the new recruits) that if we go to a faster schedule, the people who are doing the work now may not stick around, and then we'll be back to too few people trying to do too much work. Search way upthread for "DYK signup sheet" and you'll observe that nobody has been willing to commit. If we can pre-load enough completed preps to get us through a full 2-per-day sprint, that should alleviate those concerns. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith I'm happy to sign up for the faster schedule, as I'm sure others are as well. How long of a time period do you expect needing extra hands for? (It seems like a many hands make light work situation.) You can put my name in whichever sign-up box you like, for whatever you need. (Think it's hard for people to put their name in a box with no examples, plus that was many threads ago.) Cielquiparle (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm also still up for promoting. SL93 (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Not much work at all on my end – but you should know that adding more preps has been very controversial in ages past. Getting a seventh prep was a knock-down drag-out discussion (that didn't lower the backlog all that much), much less 14 sandboxes.
What I would like instead is not 14 sandboxes, but probably between one and four – these sandboxes would have no maximum size, and would not rotate with other preps.
For those asking, the problem is that we don't have enough promoters. One solution for this would be backlog drives – but given that the preps and queues together can only hold 112 hooks max at any one time, that's not the most feasible if we want drives of scale. So even if we wanted more promoters, we're not currently set up to retain them in a way that doesn't involve the janky solution of switching between 12- and 24-hour cycles.
What the non-rotating sandboxes solve is that they have no maximum size, so we can hold as many backlog drives as we want and those sets will fill – then, we take the overfull sandboxes and parcel them out into preps whenever we need to. This scheduling can be done by the same people who do the promoting, no problem. This could definitely work in concert with any other solutions we might propose, such as QPQ requirements or incentive.
That said, I'd reaaally like to have a more structured way of throwing ideas out there. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I like having the same number of preps as queues. This makes calculating when a prep will run much easier. There are special events requiring a particular day, and when we had multiple hooks per day I would deliberately schedule for a particular time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The sandboxes would be outside of the prep/queue scheduling system. If you had a hook that was supposed to run on a certain day, you would still put it in the right prep area based on the calendar that's currently published. The sandboxes wouldn't be in any particular order; they're just a way to stage some work in advance so when things start happening quickly, we're not in perpetual catch-up mode trying to assemble prep sets at the last minute. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, that's the point of non-rotation of the sandboxes – they're not whole sets, so they don't need to rotate, they're just buffers/storage areas. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Would they still be in sets of 8? I'm all for this idea if they're still structured the same as the prep areas since where they go seems as important as that they go, and I'd love to help build more queues; at the moment there's nothing that needs filling out prep-wise and I feel like I'm in hurry up and wait mode. - Aoidh (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Would you minding linking to that discussion about adding the seventh prep? I'd like to see what the objections were to it, given that there's obviously a need for more prep areas I can't imagine what the downside would be. - Aoidh (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh: Sorry for the delay! You can find it at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 169#7 queues and preps. It doesn't seem to have been controversial, although I do see some predictions that it'll be mostly unhelpful re: backlog reduction. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I realized now that I confused the issue by calling these additional spaces "preps" in one place and "sandboxes" in the other. I've struck my original use of "prep" to emphasize that these are outside of the normal prep area. They're not in any particular order, they're not beholden to the schedule. But, I do think they need to be in 8-hook sets. A big part of building a hook set is complying with the rules about too many biographies, similar hook types adjacent to each other, and so on. You want to be able to get that sorted out in the sandboxes. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
A week or two ahead seems plenty. Usually we're in trouble when the preps and queues are empty; right now the preps and queues are full and we have too many accepted noms so they don't transclude any more. We need to either (a) go to two sets per day or (b) decline two dozen approved noms. Going to two sets per day would have the additional benefit of allowing the recent potential prep builder recruits to do some of the work. We could go back to one set per day if we run out of filled preps and queues, not just when we run out of approved noms. —Kusma (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
We probably do need to go to two preps a day for a spell. If there was only one prep builder I would say no, but atm there are a few. If it stalls out, we go back to one. Bruxton (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm just waiting for the categorising bot to be fully accurate/cover all bases, so we can then ask the delightful bot builders to have another bot use its data to build sets automatically, that then just need the article and hook checked for accuracy (rather than also trying to build a balanced set) - presumably when the categorising is all worked out, someone could build a bot that can check how many US/bio/image, etc., hooks there are (so it knows what kind of hook to use in the image slot, and how many of the US/bio hooks can be in each set) and can move the relevant code from nom to prep sets when filling them up. Without needing to build sets, just check for accuracy and policy, fewer users will be needed at that stage. Let the bots take over or something. Kingsif (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I haven't been following the discussion that closely, but just a note that I am hoping to get back into prep building as well in the near future if someone is keeping tabs of how many active users are around. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Just chiming in here, but one reason why we have so few prep builders is simply because of the pressures involved. You're always going to be worried that something will go wrong since there may be issues that reviewers may have missed, or you will miss any existing issues. It's hard enough when you have to check eight articles, but even more so if you have to keep doing it. I do wonder if one way to mitigate this would be to encourage collaborative prep-building: like instead of relying on one person to do an entire prep, multiple editors could individually promote just some hooks. Of course, there still needs to be someone who will oversee everything and make sure that sets meet guidelines, but maybe splitting work could help ease the burden? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
    I agree. I had noted it above in my text dump last evening. We need to break down "prep-building" to "hook-promoting". That way, individual editors can use TLC's Pshaw tool and promote hooks to a prep or a sandbox after doing their due diligence. If needed, someone at a later point can shuffle the hooks etc. Pasting my comment from yesterday again.
    There is a genuine concern that Valeree and others have called out about the lack of volunteers for prep-building. I will let others weigh in creative ways to remedy this situation. I will add my two ideas. Currently, there is a perceived heaviness to this action and hence folks are perhaps intimidated by the process of "prep-building". I can definitely speak for myself. My suggestion to you all is break it down into "Hook-promotion" instead of "Prep-building". Hook-promotion atomizes the actions and makes it less of a perceived barrier. Also I had a chance to look at TLC's PSHAW tool and it can be used to promote hooks atomically. Encourage more editors to use the tool and promote hooks in case they are intimidated to "build-preps". If you want bake it into the QPQ process. Review 2 hooks or promote 1 hook. Alternately, review 1 hook and promote 1 hook. Yes, there is a notion for hook cohesion etc. which can easily be achieved. e.g. if you want the last hook to be always be quirky, bake that into the PSHAW tool by a simple label against the last hook saying a text "(preferably quirky)". Ktin (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
What I personally like about this corner of the project is that it is accessible to ordinary editors. I am afraid adding another layer of QPQ may make this section less accessible. As Narutolovehinata5 said, prepping is not easy at all. It is frought with callbacks, and we already have people who nominate a hook and then go dark for weeks. Bruxton (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

International Women's Day, March 8

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments7 people in discussion

@DYK admins: @Ipigott and SusunW: and everyone else. Please hold open a Special Occasion holding area for March 8. We may be getting nominations from both Women in Green and WP:WIR. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Sweet Bruxton (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I've had User:RoySmith/drafts/Loretta Staples on my todo list for a couple of years now. I guess it's time to dust it off. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Maile66 I wasn't sure how early we could create the special holding area, so appreciate you taking the lead on setting this up. SusunW (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@SusunW: I don't think there's any set time for such requests. But when it's an international event, better to give as much advance notice as possible. You never know if it will end up being two nominations, or enough nominations to fill two sets (it's happened). — Maile (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Are there any kinds of articles you're looking for to make it a varied set? Like, events in women's history; women from underrepresented geographic regions; topics related to women's rights? Kingsif (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I would say any of those aspects. The more variety, the better. The idea is to celebrate accomplished women around the world. Doesn't matter what part of the world, or what they accomplished. — Maile (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Maile. I think it'd be really cool if we could do a whole set dedicated solely to women and all their diversity. Various periods of history, various accomplishments, various locations. SusunW (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh I like that idea @SusunW:. I will have to hunt down a good subject to write about. Bruxton (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@SusunW: I helped do that set last year, and I'd be happy to do so again this year :) we only get 8–16 slots for the day, so if you wanna give us lots more, we'll slot 'em in for Women's History Month! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Theleekycauldron for all you do at DYK. It's a hard platform for me, but I'll try to give an article or two. SusunW (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm almost certainly going to have one new dyk-compliant BLP up by then, in case someone's doing the mental math on how many articles they need to write. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
if there's one thing that can get me out of a DYK break, it's an upcoming special occasion set... Kingsif (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of all 19 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 30. We have a total of 239 nominations, of which 141 have been approved, a gap of 98 nominations that has decreased by 31 in the past ten days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these!

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other 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. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a note: I did try to review Template:Did you know nominations/Nikke: Goddess of Victory but couldn't really tell if the sources were reliable. Probably needs someone with more reviewing experiences. BorgQueen (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know...

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I'm the one who have been filling the queues around the clock for the past few days, but from now on I'll be more focusing on writing articles, so if @RoySmith: or another admin could take over, it'd be great. Thanks. BorgQueen (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @DYK admins: as well. SL93 (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering when you would run out of steam :-) No problem, I'll keep an eye on it. Not that I wouldn't mind somebody else also keeping additional eyes on it. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFRa7Ovym8s -- RoySmith (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I really needed the laugh! BorgQueen (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
BTW, RoySmith and BorgQueen, please add yourselves to {{DYK admins}} if you'd like to be notified when you're needed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Akshata Murty

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Queue 7: Akshata Murty (nom) needs some attention. The hook says she is richer than King Charles III but the cited source only goes as far as likely ... to be richer than their monarch—but only if King Charles III’s personal wealth is defined in very specific ways. We're saying more than the hook supports. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

how about saying something like "Murty reportedly has more personal wealth than"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I just noticed this on the main page at the last minute before the change at midnight. This should not have been run because:
  1. The King and the PM's wife are major figures who should be taken more seriously
  2. The supposed valuation was dated in October of last year but that's three months ago and such valuations are quite volatile
  3. The valuation did not clarify the extent to which her wealth is personal or should be attributed to the couple or whatever their family arrangements are
  4. The valuation excluded the Crown estate which is the subject of a complex arrangement per the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 which gives the monarch a substantial income. This income stream is a form of wealth worth billions.
  5. Valuations are generally problematic as they are often paper values and you can't really be sure what something is worth until you actually sell it. Titles such as "richest man in the world" are frequently bandied about and so seem attractive for hooks but are best avoided for such reasons.
Andrew🐉(talk) 00:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

International Women's Day, March 8

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments7 people in discussion

@DYK admins: @Ipigott and SusunW: and everyone else. Please hold open a Special Occasion holding area for March 8. We may be getting nominations from both Women in Green and WP:WIR. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Sweet Bruxton (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I've had User:RoySmith/drafts/Loretta Staples on my todo list for a couple of years now. I guess it's time to dust it off. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Maile66 I wasn't sure how early we could create the special holding area, so appreciate you taking the lead on setting this up. SusunW (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@SusunW: I don't think there's any set time for such requests. But when it's an international event, better to give as much advance notice as possible. You never know if it will end up being two nominations, or enough nominations to fill two sets (it's happened). — Maile (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Are there any kinds of articles you're looking for to make it a varied set? Like, events in women's history; women from underrepresented geographic regions; topics related to women's rights? Kingsif (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I would say any of those aspects. The more variety, the better. The idea is to celebrate accomplished women around the world. Doesn't matter what part of the world, or what they accomplished. — Maile (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Maile. I think it'd be really cool if we could do a whole set dedicated solely to women and all their diversity. Various periods of history, various accomplishments, various locations. SusunW (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh I like that idea @SusunW:. I will have to hunt down a good subject to write about. Bruxton (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@SusunW: I helped do that set last year, and I'd be happy to do so again this year :) we only get 8–16 slots for the day, so if you wanna give us lots more, we'll slot 'em in for Women's History Month! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Theleekycauldron for all you do at DYK. It's a hard platform for me, but I'll try to give an article or two. SusunW (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm almost certainly going to have one new dyk-compliant BLP up by then, in case someone's doing the mental math on how many articles they need to write. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
if there's one thing that can get me out of a DYK break, it's an upcoming special occasion set... Kingsif (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of all 19 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 30. We have a total of 239 nominations, of which 141 have been approved, a gap of 98 nominations that has decreased by 31 in the past ten days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these!

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other 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. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a note: I did try to review Template:Did you know nominations/Nikke: Goddess of Victory but couldn't really tell if the sources were reliable. Probably needs someone with more reviewing experiences. BorgQueen (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Back to 2 sets a day

Latest comment: 1 year ago50 comments14 people in discussion

@DYK admins: It has been suggested by RoySmith to go back to two sets a day while we figure something out for prep builders and to see how it works out. Bruxton has agreed elsewhere. I'm fine with it. We have a few more editors who are interested in building preps. All queues and preps are currently full. It looks like it's time to go back to 2 sets a day. SL93 (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: just making sure you aren't accidentally left out of the loop on switching to two sets a day. I haven't had time to keep up with the above threads on this issue, so have no opinion as of yet. — Maile (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Just don't forget that I also said our mode switch criteria must include some measure of available work capacity, not just pending submission count. So, how about we bail out of 2-per-day mode if we ever get to less than 4 full queues and 4 full preps, no matter how many approved noms we've still got? -- RoySmith (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
👍🏼 Kingsif (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Fine by me. SL93 (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Which, I think, is what we've been doing all along. If we have all preps filled, and we have a backlog of approved hooks, we've been going to two a day. One or more somebodys here keeps an eye on the two-a-day backlog, and then lets us know when we're lacking in prep so we can go back to one set a day. — Maile (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Maile, thanks for the ping. We've actually done the switches, for the most part, when the approved numbers hit their requisite levels of sub-60 and 120 or above, but the last couple of times we've tried to avoid the switch to two-a-day if the preps and queues aren't filled sufficiently to sustain at least several days of twice daily set promotions. I think the first time we topped 120 in December, there were only four sets filled; it was clearly a bad time to go to twice daily.
Eight of fourteen seems too high as a minimum to me, since if we drop below it we still have enough for a full week at one per day. Also, requiring at least four of each type seems unnecessarily fussy. May I suggest continuing until we drop below six filled sets in any combination of preps and queues, though there should be at least one queue filled at all times. Otherwise, I think we're clearly in a position to go back to two a day for now with all seven queues and seven preps completely filled and 143 approved hooks waiting for promotion. (That's 255 approved hooks between queues, preps, and the main section of the Approved page.)
Just a reminder: the third hook in Queue 6 is a special occasion hook for January 9, even though it isn't labeled as such, and if we go to two a day, it will need to be moved to a later set. Which one depends on whether we start two a day at midnight tonight—probably simplest—or start at noon UTC, a mere five-plus hours from now. I would suggest that the target set for this hook be the one that runs from midnight to noon UTC on January 9, which is 01:00 to 13:00 in Germany. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree that six full whatevers is a better threshold. I would suggest to switch asap, not wait another day. —Kusma (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
You want to switch now, so that a new set runs a midday? I can make that change, if its the consensus view here. Happy to muck in as and when I can in queue promotions too.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I’ve swapped it. Agree that it’s high time; it’s no good when the nomination page can’t handle transclusions any longer. Schwede66 07:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, I went to bed thinking we had reached a compromise which I wasn't happy with, but could live with. I woke up to find out that the plan had been eviscerated. Six finished sets in the pipeline is not enough. One filled queue is living in a state of perpetual crisis. Not at all what I had in mind. When the frantic calls for help go out, don't look at me. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Six finished sets is three days at 2/day, and if they aren't replenished quickly and we switch to 1/day at that point, we'll have scheduled content for four or five days, which isn't a crisis. —Kusma (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, I disagree. More to the point, this thread started out with "RoySmith said we should do this" and then what got done was something very different from what I had suggested. So, OK, it's done. We'll see how things go. I just want it clear that if things go badly, people shouldn't start pointing fingers at me. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the new consensus that we should go back to 1/day not just if we go under 60 approved, but also if we run out of completed preps/queues is already a significant step towards being more considerate of prep builders and their workload. Is that enough? I don't know, but it should help. —Kusma (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@DYK admins: @BlueMoonset, RoySmith, and Kusma: I have not been reading all of the above. Whatever is decided here, please please, post it and bold it somewhere so we know what is expected of the prep builders and promoters. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Update to rotation rules

There is some consensus (not by a very large crowd) above that the switch to 1-a-day should also happen when we run low on prep/queue sets, not just when we get below 60 approved noms. Also, switching to 2-a-day is delayed depending on prep/queue fullness. So the suggestion is to clarify/update the rule to something like

  • If there are more than 120 approved nominations while at least ten prep/queue sets are filled, we rotate to two sets per day. If there are fewer than 60 approved nominations or fewer than six filled prep/queue sets, we change to one set per day.

Or am I overlooking something? —Kusma (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Six is too low. More critically, we need some minimum number of filled queues, not an aggregate "queues and preps" count. Filled queues are what makes the system work. We've often been in the situation of having a number of filled preps, but we're down to a single filled queue (or sometimes none at all) and frantic calls go out to admins to move some preps to the queues before the world comes to an end. People are worried about nominations not getting transcluded into an intermediate holding area as if that's a failure which has any real effect on how things work. The real failure mode is the clock ticks over and there's nothing ready to move onto the main page. Queue occupancy is the important variable that needs to be monitored. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
That failure mode hasn't occurred for years. (Most common failure is when the bot goes down). We usually have enough people ready to move prep to queue if necessary, and the colour coding introduced recently has made the situation better. Six days is plenty. —Kusma (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm actually more concerned that six might be too high and cause us to switch back to 1-a-day too early. Currently the minimum number of preps/queues to run 2-a-day is zero. —Kusma (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Kusma, I think we need an adequate supply of preps/queues, and I remember thinking that four was worryingly low when we were down to that level last month. Six seemed a reasonably safe bottom number, while eight felt excessive to me in that regard, hence my post earlier. I like your summation of over 120 approved plus at least ten filled preps/queues to start two-a-day, with a switch out below 60 approved or below six filled preps/queues; it's long been a weakness of the method we've been using that the variation in filled preps/queues hasn't been considered at all. Like you, I also can't remember getting down to the point where there wasn't anything to promote to the main page when the bot went to do so. We also haven't had problems getting preps promoted when we ask the admins—they're usually happy to do so, but frequently don't think to check to see whether promotions are needed. I think we'll all be monitoring things more closely during the just-started two-a-day period to keep things going as smoothly as possible. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
The most worrying issue if the queue has to be filled last minute is that the promoting admin doesn't have time to run the full gamut of checks expected. As such, it is very sensible to keep several queues filled, assuming people do actually complete those checks when the queue they promoted goes live a couple of days later. If it hasn't been checked, it would actually be preferable not to run that set and just let the existing one stay on for a other round as we don't want incorrect information hitting the main page.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the "120/60/whatever approved count", how is that determined? I'm guessing it's a count of how many have been transcluded into WP:DYKN/A, and shown as the "Total" value at the bottom of the "Count of DYK Hooks" table? The problem is that many of the noms in N/A aren't actually approved. They had a tick at one time so got botified into N/A, but have subsequently been unapproved by a {{DYK?no}} or similar query. We should really be counting "currently approved", not "had been approved at some time in the past".
I also don't understand the concern that we might "switch back to 1-a-day too early". Why is that a problem? The gap between when you switch modes in one direction vs in the other is called hysteresis. In physical systems it's important to have some hysteresis because there's a real cost to switching. Relay contacts are damaged by sparking. Motors have excessive inrush currents when they start up. Bearings have excessive wear before getting full oil flow. Flame igniters have a finite number of operations before they wear out. But, what's the cost to switching too soon in this case? As far as I can tell, it's a one line edit. I don't see the problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith, DYKHousekeepingBot creates the "Count of DYK Hooks" tables; it only counts noms as approved when the final icon is one of the two ticks. So the count is accurate whether the hook is on the Nominated or Approved page. The bot does not count special occasion hooks, and it can't read untranscluded hooks, so if the Approved page is overloaded and isn't transcluding all the hooks, it will only count those that are transcluded. In such cases, the total and approved/verified counts will be lower than they should be. For example, as I type this, there are eight untranscluded noms, so the count of 231 total and 135 approved hooks would likely be 239 and 143 respectively if the Approved page showed all the approved nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
The bot does not count special occasion hooks, and it can't read untranscluded hooks. OK, that's the first good explanation I've heard so far as to why transclusion failures are a problem, thank you. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Special occasion hooks in the preps and queues also need manual adjustment. This is the main cost of switching between 1 and 2 per day. —Kusma (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Wait, I'm sorry, that raises a technical question for me. If I were writing DYKHousekeepingBot, I would have it run through the source texts of WP:DYKN and WP:DYKNA, find all of the links to nomination pages (minus s.o. noms), read them individually, and dissect them for parts. Does DYKHousekeepingBot read the raw HTML of the two list pages instead? That seems like a design flaw, attempting to depend on Wikipedia's ability to transclude hundreds of noms consistently... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, the bot was developed by Shubinator. I'll let him answer your technical question, since it's his code. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
How many bots are there making DYK limp along? I knew of WugBot. Now I know of DYKHousekeepingBot. And of course, I'm in the process of writing my own bot. I'm been a useful exercise in bot husbandry, but from a software engineering point of view, it seems like having so many different bots would be kind of a maintenance headache. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: See WP:DYKSB for a list of approved bots active at DYK. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh my. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kusma: I'll go along with your original suggestion, with the change that at least some of the sets have to be in queues:

  • If there are more than 120 approved nominations while at least ten prep/queue sets are filled, we rotate to two sets per day. If there are fewer than 60 approved nominations, fewer than three filled queues, or fewer than six filled preps/queues combined, we change to one set per day.

There's some nice symmetry there in that "ten prep/queue sets" implies at least three queues (since at most seven of them can be preps). -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Posing the question

I'm not seeing any consensus emerge here. In the interest of getting something done, I withdraw my suggestion of B. Unless some angry mob appears quickly, I'm going to update WP:DYK#The DYK process to option A later today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)

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.


With reference to the immediately preceeding discussion, there's two concrete suggestions that have been made:

A: If there are more than 120 approved nominations while at least ten prep/queue sets are filled, we rotate to two sets per day. If there are fewer than 60 approved nominations or fewer than six filled prep/queue sets, we change to one set per day.
B: If there are more than 120 approved nominations while at least ten prep/queue sets are filled, we rotate to two sets per day. If there are fewer than 60 approved nominations, fewer than three filled queues, or fewer than six filled preps/queues combined, we change to one set per day.

Can we pick one of those and move on, please? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  • I prefer A because it is simpler, but I won't argue further against B. —Kusma (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
    With C in the mix, I am A > C > B. —Kusma (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I prefer B because it controls what's important to control. But I'm hoping we get input from more than just the two of us. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Prefer A as it's simpler. Although still in favour of 16 hour hook sets rather than this constant 12/24 hour changing. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    Does that mean you'd volunteer to be in charge of making sure everything is on schedule? It means keeping up with a rotating shift: Day one: Midnight, 4pm; Day two: noon; Day 3: 4am, midnight. Repeat. You'll need to know whether today is a Day 1, Day 2, or Day 3. No two days in a row on the same schedule. No two weeks in a row on the same daily schedule. Oh, and you'll need to keep track of which admins can be pinged at which times of day or night if one of the bots stops working. It would be WAY less complicated to increase output by going to 3 sets of 4 hooks per day (or 2 of 6, or any combo that divides a 24-hour day evenly), but that still wouldn't solve the problem of too much work for the current typical staffing levels. Valereee (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I think both of them are fine. BorgQueen (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • i admittedly have not been following the discussion on this topic closely, but what if we simply dropped the third disjunction in option b?

    C: If there are more than 120 approved nominations while at least ten prep/queue sets are filled, we rotate to two sets per day. If there are fewer than 60 approved nominations or fewer than three filled queues, we change to one set per day.

    i think this keeps the rule simple while also "control[ling] what's important to control". option b only covers six cases not covered by option c: 3 sets queued with 2, 1, or 0 sets prepped; 4 sets queued with 1 or 0 sets prepped; and 5 sets queued with 0 sets prepped. in each of those cases, i assume it's okay to keep the pace at two sets per day for at least one more set. (also, realistically, i think those six cases are fairly rare.)
    personally, i'm fine with any reasonable option. dying (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Prefer B because it does what we need it to do (which is prevent going to 2-a-days when there aren't enough people currently building preps, and possibly gets people's attention to the fact the backlog is building up and there aren't enough people building preps), but I will support A if that's what can get consensus. Valereee (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    Valereee, I'm not sure of your logic here. Both A and B require a minimum of six prep/queues to stay 2 a day, but B also requires three queues (allowing fewer filled preps if there are six total sets filled). On the other side, to go two a day, you need 10 preps/queues with both A and B (and C, for that matter), but if it's 3 queues and all 7 preps, the next promotion to the main page could cause us to switch back to 1 a day with B or C, defeating the purpose of reducing the backlog while still having preps filled (or mostly filled). BlueMoonset (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    I think all three of A, B, C serve that purpose (unlike the status quo), just at slightly different levels of admin involvement. In practice, I agree that "getting people's attention" is an important factor here, and I hope that it will help us avoid frequent invocation of the new addition in either of the suggestions. —Kusma (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support any option, preference C>B>A - Dumelow (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I support B. SL93 (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Not to complicate this, but do two half-full preps count as one full prep? What about two preps that are both missing a quirky but otherwise full? We may want to do this on hook count, rather than prep count... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    Oh, good point. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    That is a pretty good argument for C. —Kusma (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    No, we want full preps, ready to move to the queue. One of the hard things is complying with all the intra-set rules about numbers of bios, numbers of US hooks, too many bios in a row, etc. If the set isn't full, there's still work to do on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Prefer A. I've found that admins, if prompted, are typically willing to promote preps to queues, so having a temporary low number of queues can be addressed. C allows us to get down to three filled sets (3 queues and 0 preps), which strikes me as dangerously low, while B would allow an earlier switch to 1 a day than I think is necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I support A. As mentioned by others above, it does seem to be the simplest and most practical option. Whenever possible, let's keep with the simple. If we put in too many scenarios to choose from, it gets too confusing. — Maile (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2023 (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.

Suggested change to WP:PSHAW (DYKbotdo)

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion

@Theleekycauldron I think a good change would be when PSHAW moves a prep to a queue, it leaves the {{DYKbotdo}} commented out, like I did in Special:Diff/1132360751. Then the workflow would be:

  1. Use PSHAW to do all the fiddly stuff, including incrementing the counter (which I apparently forgot to do the last time)
  2. Spend some time reviewing all the hooks
  3. When you're convinced everything is good, uncomment the {{DYKbotdo}}

What I've been doing in the past is reviewing all the hooks before I moved, but the problem there is two admins could be working on it at the same time and not realize they're stepping on each other. So the last time, I did it the manual way, and did the reviewing after. Which was good from the "not getting stepped on" point of view, but a bunch more fiddly-work (and as mentioned above, I forgot a step). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thanks for the feedback! I've added it to my to-do list at WP:PSHAW :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
PS, I'm guessing other people have other workflows, so maybe a checkbox so people can elect if they want this way or the current way. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Way ahead of ya :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I second this suggestion: I, too, started checking hooks in queue rather than in prep after an edit-conflict. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
I always move before checking hooks, too. Would this also possibly be useful as signal to others that, hey, Val didn't uncomment that dykbotdo and has been working elsewhere since, let's ping her to make sure she didn't get called away halfway through checking the set and forgot to circle back? :D Valereee (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Can hooks be sourced to primary sources?

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Can DYK hooks be sourced to primary sources? I would have thought not, but is it actually allowed? Cielquiparle (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It's most likely a case-by-case thing. I can't think of something that is suitably important that couldn't be sourced to a secondary source... But there is bound to be an exception at some time. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
We tend to allow them if they claim certain information that is unlikely to be controversial. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Agree with the above too, the issue is less about the hook itself, more that if it's a primary source that raises questions of WP:DUE, and potentially with notability depending on the rest of the article. CMD (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
For sure. Secondary sources are generally preferred where possible, especially because a good hook about a primarily sourced BLP has a tendency to be unduly self-serving. Proceed, but with caution :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
How about hooks that are based on primary sources but the articles themselves are largely sourced to non-primary sources? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Same advice applies, but I imagine the notability of said article is likely on more solid ground. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Preps

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Just seeing if we can get more people promoting articles to prep. My three online classes start on January 17, and I will likely be going back to work towards the end of January. SL93 (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm guessing that's gonna be me... *screaming* BorgQueen (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I will pick up some prep slack too. Bruxton (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I did some prep work, and I want to say that I enjoyed the PSHAW last prep splash screen. Well done! Bruxton (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for working on preps. SL93 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen, please do not do more than you enjoy doing. We burn people out when we try to get a small number of people to do a large amount that is more than they really enjoy doing.
We need to instead encourage a large number of people to chip in some small amount they're willing to do. We need every experienced nominator to do a couple of promotions per nomination rather than expecting five workhorses to each promote 20-30 hooks every week.
When we ask people to do more than they enjoy, we get people walking away. I'd rather someone do exactly as much as they like doing and stick around for years instead of doing too much and saying, "Screw it, I'm done" after a few months. Valereee (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@SL93: First week of the semester for me, but I guess I'll start to get back in the swing of things. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm happy to jump in too, by the time I check on them they're usually filled or being worked on (not that I'm complaining about that) but I'm happy to work on them as needed. - Aoidh (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I've been wanting to start promoting, but lately all the preps have been full every time I look. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Livio Castiglioni

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

A couple of the images used in the article have been nominated for deletion on Commons. (Not by me) I removed them from the article but the main editor objected, so I restored them for now. Do we allow such images in an article currently featured on MP? I'll leave it to someone more experienced in this matter. BorgQueen (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Cl3phact0:... BorgQueen (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, BorgQueen. I'll try to help get the matter of the Livio Castiglioni portraits (individual and family group) resolved so as to not leave this hanging indefinately. There were a number of conversations happening simultaneously, so I'll need to take a minute to unravel all of the threads and track down the various discussions (this is one, looking for others). [NB: At the root of the matter was a long-standing issue with a disruptive editor — which unfortunately has mired the Castiglioni articles (also see articles about the two brothers, Achille and Pier Giacomo, as well as their father, where there have also been issues regarding the same editor).] Appreciate your patience and understanding. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
PS: @BorgQueen: Please see this thread. Trying to get clarity on the matter. Cl3phact0 (talk) 22:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

prep area notice

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments5 people in discussion

pursuant to the earlier discussion regarding keeping the last prep area at least partially open, what if we simply added a notice in the prep areas, right above where the hooks would go, mentioning this caveat? we could use the nextprep counter so that the message shows up only in one prep area. for example, the message

can be added to prep area 1 a prep area with the following code, which shows up only when prep area 2 the prep area numerically following it is marked by the nextprep counter as the next prep to be promoted to queue. 

{{if||{{in string|{{PAGENAME}}|Prep|nomatch=}}|{{ifeq|{{Did you know/Queue/NextPrep}}|{{#expr:{{str rightc|{{PAGENAME}}|1}} mod 7 + 1}}|{{notice|This is currently the last prep area available.  Please keep the lead slot, the last slot, and at least one other slot open, so that administrators have a place to leave a hook if one needs to be pulled from the queue.}}}}}}

of course, the '2' should be replaced by an appropriate number for each of the other prep areas, e.g., by a '7' for prep area 6, and by a '1' for prep area 7. also, if this is implemented, i think it would work best if the code is inserted immediately after (and on the same line as) the "</noinclude>" before the "<!--Hooks-->", so that the message also shows up at t:dykq, but will not be picked up by DYKUpdateBot. dying (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC) [copyedited. dying (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)] [incorporated theleekycauldron's suggestion below and prevented notice from appearing in a queue. dying (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)]

I like it. The question we had was, whether the actual lines could also have a visual blocker inserted, so no one has to guess which one is the photo hook, which one is the middle or "other" hook, and which one is the quirky that they *shouldn't* fill. (We were trying to do this manually but the problem was, PSHAW wouldn't recognize it as a block, plus manual is not so great.) Cielquiparle (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
yeah, i had liked BorgQueen's idea of simply adding a message manually for three hooks in the last prep area, but it seemed rather labor-intensive, so i tried to think of a solution that used the nextprep counter. i was playing with the wording to try to figure out how to avoid making a promoter guess which one was the image slot and which the quirky slot, when it occurred to me that they could simply be referred to as the lead and last slots, to avoid any confusion.
i think it might be a good idea for pshaw to enforce this practice by preventing a promotion that violates it, but i do not know how difficult that would be to code, and am not sure if this is desired behaviour if there are instances where this practice should be ignored. dying (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
@dying: I implemented a simple alert in PSHAW this morning that reminds nominators of best practices – an outright prohibition would not be a difficult task, but I don't think it would be an advisable one, either. Also, we can make the code easily copy/pastable (must be spaghetti code, heh) if we replace the "2" with {{#expr:{{str rightc|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|}} mod 7 + 1}}. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
This is a good problem to have. Never thought we would need to slow prep builders down. Bruxton (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
We did when I was first starting out – I had to be reminded that this was really actually a thing, like, three or four times. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
If we prevent a promotion that violates it, we don't want to also prevent the swap we need the slot empty for. Valereee (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
It can also be easily rolled out to all of the preps by simply copying it to {{Did you know/Clear}} and waiting for a cycle of queues to be cleared. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
i think the alert in pshaw is a good idea, but i also wanted to account for promoters who don't use it, and for when promotion has to be done manually. the notice would also allow nominators aspiring to be promoters to become more familiar with the nuances of promotion earlier.
i admittedly wasn't aware of the clear template before (having guessed that administrators simply reverted the code in the prep area). knowing this, i think it makes sense to keep the code uniform for all the prep areas, so i've incorporated your suggestion above. thanks, theleekycauldron!
also, it has just occurred to me that administrators appear to copy the entire code of a prep area to a queue during promotion, so i have added code to prevent the notice from appearing in a queue. dying (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Freely licensed text in DYK articles

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments5 people in discussion

As somewhat of a follow-up to ONUnicorn's previous thread on public-domain text, I've come across a string of nominations that has made me reconsider my position on DYK's public-domain-text rule. These are a series of nominations made by Ficaia (who, for the record, I consider a hardworking and proficient DYKer) and they are the following: Ichabod Chauncey (nom), Edward Glemham (nom), Robert Home (officer) (nom), George Charles Hoste (nom), William of Littlington (nom), Gother Mann (nom), William Nicholas (officer) (nom), Robert de Ogle (nom), Ravenshoe (novel) (nom), Justly Watson (nom), and Warren Richard Colvin Wynne (nom).

Most of these are British army officers, but more importantly, all of them incorporate a significant amount of text from the public domain. Several escaped reviewers' notice, others were reworded promptly, and some have dragged on for quite a while as the issues are worked out. Per WP:DYK#gen2b, public domain text doesn't count in DYK's prose count, meaning that originally worded text needs to pass 1500 bytes on its own. This is a significant more lax attitude than our rule on content copied from other Wikipedia articles, which is that no more than one-sixth of the article can be copied from any other Wikipedia article.

Now, there is a good reason for the divergent attitudes: content already in Wikipedia can't be considered "new" just because it's on a different page, whereas stuff copied from old books is still new to the encyclopedia. But both kinds of copying present the same problem for DYK nominations: if you copy a long enough piece of text, and then slap on a lead and maybe reword a few more sentences, you're able to nomination a "new" article that's 1500 characters of original text, despite not having put as much work into the research and assembly.

I don't think that we should have a one-sixth rule for public domain text, but I think that we should be discouraging this kind of content somewhat. It seems a little unfair to me that we allow this kind of shortcut to a few topic areas with broad access to public domain content – plus, a lot of content that has its copyright expired simply isn't great encyclopedic prose for the 21st century. Maybe we'd consider a one-half rule, where a majority of the article has to be original work (in addition to the standing one-sixth rule for Wikipedia articles specifically)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I have never liked the idea of using public domain text in that way, but I never said anything because it isn't against the rules. SL93 (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Isn't our rule no more than one-fifth? Anyway, if we're going to change the rule, we should just scrap it to reduce complexity. Have it be one-fifth/one-sixth like any other copied text. I'm not particularly concerned about the nominations as a whole, but the point you make regarding "encyclopedic prose for the 21st century" is worth consideration (phasing like "coffee poisoned by a black female domestic" does feel dated). CMD (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: It's one-sixth – five parts original for the fivefold expansion, one part copied. I'm not sure how no one caught that one for so long, I had to update the DYK rules for it. I would be fine with a one-sixth rule as well, but I figure one-half is more broadly agreeable, so we'll see. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
My traditional understanding is that "expanded at least fivefold" meant "being five times as great or as many", which would mean one part original and four part new. CMD (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
repeatedly slams head against the table i'm qualified to be a math major, i'm qualified to be a math major, i'm qualified to be a math major... i'll go change that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I thought the fivefold expansion applied only to old articles. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
It applies to new article if they include text copied from old articles. Common for example for splitting text off one page into a subpage. CMD (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I try to incorporate material from different sources where possible to expand the articles, as with William Nicholas (officer) and Justly Watson. I also add material based on the Oxford Dictionary of Biography (ODNB) where possible. However, sometimes the original, public-domain Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) is the most in-depth source I can find. This is the case with Gother Mann, where I have only been able to add a small amount of material from other sources. So that DYK nomination should probably be withdrawn. In future, I'll only nominate an article for DYK when I'm sure it contains 1,500 characters of text based on sources other than the DNB. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The source is fine, it is the copying that is causing the issue. Would you be able to rewrite the text from that source in your own (hopefully more modern!) words? CMD (talk) 03:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I prefer to expand the articles with new sources. In the case of Gother Mann I have included some detail from the Dictionary of Canadian Biography on top of the DNB, for example. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
If there are high-quality public domain sources available, and we are creatively compiling them to create a new article, then I really don't see a reason to ban them entirely. The reason that we have the fivefold expansion rule is to reward people who expand articles and add new content to the encyclopedia, which is also the reason that we don't count text copied from other articles. But that's quite different with PD sources; if a PD source is not in the encyclopedia yet, then adding good content to Wikipedia is something that should be rewarded—our mission is to compile knowledge and make it freely available for all mankind, and DYK should not provide disincentives to people who do so. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived about 40 minutes ago, so I've created a new list of all 20 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 8. We have a total of 219 nominations, of which 98 have been approved, a gap of 121 nominations that has increased by 23 in the past nine days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other 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. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm... guess what.

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments3 people in discussion

So it's true. According to this stat, a lead image that is not mainly about the article's subject does distract. People clicked on Paul Oscar far more than Eurovision Song Contest 1997. BorgQueen (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I tend to reject a lot of images in prep promotion for diverting clicks away from the bolded article – I've seen this in a lot of stats pages. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm a bit surprised that Last universal common ancestor did so well. Biology hooks usually don't, but then the hook was certainly an interesting one! BorgQueen (talk) 03:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: We do keep records of this, if you don't wanna click "check views" every time :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Species-level biology hooks aren't always fantastic, but I think our readers are always down for some good broad-based popular science :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Btw just found out that the Fucking Trans Women hook did well, as I had expected. BorgQueen (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
A well-worn path :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
BorgQueen At the Indianapolis 500 and other car races spectators like to sit in the turns. One reason is that there are rarely crashes in the straightaways. Spectators want to see crashes. Shock and awe and car crashes will always get Rubbernecking. Bruxton (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
The hook for Killing of Sara-Nicole Morales did really well, too, probably due to similar reasons. BorgQueen (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_189&oldid=1193643259"