This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Did you know. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
To me, this is a horribly failed attempt to be clever. The irony is that the actual fact – that lifespans are increased – is interesting, but it's obscured by the contorted phrasing ("the time to die is cast later", which is intended to mirror what Caesar supposedly said upon crossing the Rubicon). And does "crossing out" even make sense in this context? It shouldn't be phrased that way if it's less accurate just for a play on "crossing the Rubicon". MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 01:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that doesn't work for me either. Another issue is that the reviewer suggested this hook and then signed off on it. I suggest we pull it and reopen the nomination. Schwede6602:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Can we change it to ALT1 on that page: "that genetically crossing (out) the protein Rubicon(shown) reduces hallmarks of aging in roundworms, fruit flies, and mice?"
Since this isn't a lead hook, "(shown)" should not be included if ALT1 is used. Is there any way to avoid the parenthesis with "out" in it? Whatever we do, the hook needs to be modified or replaced entirely in the next 19 hours; what's in Queue 4 now isn't acceptable. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Can we just admit that the whole crossing/Rubicon thing is a strained attempt at being clever that simply doesn't work? I doubt any scientist would see "crossing out" as an acceptable term. The source uses "knockdown" or "knockout". Also, I think the fact that it actually extends lifespans is more interesting than reducing hallmarks of aging. This is why reviewers shouldn't approve their own hooks. I agree with Schwede66 that it would be best to pull/reopen. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 06:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Reviewer here: I honestly don't think that the fact that performing a specific knockout extends lifespans in Caenorhabditis elegans and female Drosophila melanogaster is terribly interesting in itself; these animals are used for genetic studies because it's practical (short lifespans and so on), and there is no reason to expect this to translate to humans (it doesn't even translate to male D. melanogaster). But yes, by all means pull it. As I said in the review: it's precisely because there are additional layers of checking that I am comfortable approving it. TompaDompa (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, just a note to say that I replaced the above hook at 08:44 on Sunday morning, as issues were raised by Doug Weller regarding the article's NPOV status, and he is proposing some rewriting. Just querying whether the nomination should be reopened, or whether we just move on at this point, as it was on the main page for a while. Pingign @Theleekycauldron, BlueMoonset, BuySomeApples, and FacetsOfNonStickPans: who were involved with the hook. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Agree, it had almost 9 hours on front page of the 12 hours it had been scheduled for. Would be unfair to run it again, especially when we have a backlog of 120 approved nominations with decent hooks. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
It shouldn't get another crack at the main page after running there for over eight hours; let's leave it closed. Thanks for letting us know about it being pulled. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, Pseud 14, and Tbhotch: and other interested parties - I have a quick query about the label "concert residency" applied to this topic. Are there any cited sources that call it that? I suppose according to the definition at the linked article, it could be that any series in one venue with 10 or more performances is automatically a residency, but I'd prefer it myself if it were actually cited. Also, there's the issue that it actually wasn't just in one venue, it switched from the Music Museum to the Onstage Theater midway through the run. I would normally reopen the nom page, but perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree or there's a quick solution here! Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru, Theleekycauldron, and Tbhotch: addressing the above queries. First point, I suppose back in 2001, the term concert residency wasn't as popular or widely known, I think it used to just be referred to as "Vegas residency", because of the assumption that musicians perform in the strip when their career goes to die, it wasn't until Celine Dion's A New Day... that concert residencies sort of became a norm in concert experience. However, going back to 2001, sources I found would only describe it as a "concert series" in the Philippines. I suppose being synonymous, we could identify it as a residency or we can stick to concert series in the hook. Second point, on the concern about venue, there have been concert residencies performed in multiple venues during its run, I would point to Bruno Mars at Park MGM, a concert residency which was performed at the Park Theater, Park MGM in Las Vegas and The Theater at MGM National Harbor, Oxon Hill in Maryland. Hopefully that help clarifies your query. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Prep 3 has six hooks, prep 4 has two hooks (one of them had an issue raised), and the last five preps are empty. I will get back into prep building, but I'm not filling everything by myself. We need more prep builders very soon with it being at 2 sets a day. SL93 (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: currently starting a vacation, so I'm going to have highly reduced activity for a couple of days or more. Hopefully, I can jump back in by the end of the week. On another note, two-a-day shouldn't be gospel at 120; the prep set team should be responsible for as many sets as it is able to build with attention and care. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 14:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
Finished three sets. I would appreciate it if other preppers could do a set or two, as there are some hooks that I cannot promote. Z1720 (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
... that the German conductor Kai Bumann (nom) began his tenure as musical director of the Warsaw Chamber Opera with Verdi's Falstaff and toured with the company to Japan twice?
I don't want to cause any trouble. However – and I say this fully aware that I am probably alone in my opinion, disagreeing with a half dozen separate reviewers, not to mention a colleague I deeply admire as the nominator – I simply don't see how all of these hooks don't fail the "broad interestingness" requirement in at least some measure.
I'm not going to ask that they be discussed, nor held up. However, I also don't feel comfortable putting my seal of approval on these hooks as promoter – and given how few prep promoters there are, that has the effect of letting these nominations unfairly pile up with no reason given. So, I'm simply going to leave these here; state that based on my analysis of the past performance of similar hooks, I don't believe that these will attract a sufficiently broad audience; and ask that if others wish to see these hooks on the main page, they perform these promotions themselves. Pinging Z1720 as the other active prep promoter. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I too have long had my issues with Gerda's hooks, however, these are not all problematic. The first and last are duds IMO, the fourth is iffy, but the rest look fine to me. Gatoclass (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
The first, I think is somewhat quirky: a German conductor working in Poland (which should be interesting enough, no?) taking Italian opera to Japan.
(ec) We have several here that are not operatic. I have a completely different understanding of interestingness, as you know, not "will the general reader be interested in the topic?" but "is the fact interesting for the topic, and may get such reader wanting to inquire? One example: Gounod is very famous (if not Faust then the Ave Maria), and readers may want to know what he did later in life, and if not, at least we offered knowledge. To opera: that an obscure songer from Sweden is successful in Italy, even in Italian opera, tells a lot, no? - I don't want to discuss hooks here, thinking that if a reviewer approved it's not the prep builders task to question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree that I don't want to discuss the merits of these hook here, but I will point out that my definition is not "will the general reader be interested in the topic?", it's "will the general reader be interested in the hook, even if they're not interested in the topic?". If it were only about the topic, the hook would be meaningless – but I've never felt that to be the case. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Here are some of my thoughts on the hooks above:
For what it's worth, I disagree with Gatoclass that the first hook is a complete dud. If anything, it's one of the better hooks mentioned here. However, if it were me, I would suggest focusing just on the Japan tour and drop the Falstaff mention.
I think Messe's hook is workable with some rewording (right now it's hard to read, but there's a decent hook fact there if you squint hard enough). I do find it interesting that an organist composed a non-organ piece, and if that part can be emphasized I think it could make a serviceable hook.
I'm thinking Gabbi's hook has potential, but it needs to be reworded since right now it's a bit difficult to read and the main idea (she performed at La Scala after finding success elsewhere) isn't immediately obvious.
Kommt's hook needs rewording, but the hook fact itself (a 1687 hymn still being performed today) is fine.
The other hooks, yes I'd agree they're not good. Vaillant-Couturier and Labia's hooks in particular are very very niche as they're essentially pure role hooks. I tried to think of alternative hook ideas for Valliant-Couturier and Labia but I couldn't find anything usable that would appeal to non-opera enthusiasts. Had I been the reviewer for both hooks I would have suggested that neither could be approved due to a lack of suitable material.
(ec) I didn't even come for "my" articles but those Ipigott created, such as the last. - Can't help repeating that RD is more rewording than all these efforts to word something. Alfred Koerppen had 1,021 views on DYK and 3,798 the first day RD (more to come today), for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
When looking at viewer stats for hooks, it always surprises me which hooks get a lot of clicks and which ones are complete duds. I do not think DYK should stop hooks from running if they are not interesting: there are eight hooks per queue on several topics, so readers are likely to find at least something interesting. I encourage nominators to propose multiple hooks on different aspects of the article so that reviewers express which is the most interesting. Z1720 (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
The issue is that "interesting to a broad audience" is one of the DYK requirements. And while reviewers and nominators can argue over what makes a hook interesting to a broad audience, it does mean that hooks that are uninteresting can be disqualified. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Interesting/uninteresting hooks are highly subjective, and it is hard for us to get a solution. I would only support closing a nomination for being "uninteresting" if there was evidence that a hook, if it ran, would be uninteresting to a broad audience. An example of such evidence would be a similarily worded hook that did not generate a lot of pageviews. Z1720 (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, an editor (I can't remember if it was Leeky or another one) did an analysis of the least viewed 25 hooks for a year (it was an entire page but I can't remember the link, maybe Theleekycauldron can provide it). Classical music hooks were disproportionately represented in the list along with hooks about radio stations and ballet music (there was another group that was mentioned but I forgot which one; I have to point out that these findings were the user's and not mine). Obviously this does not mean that any of these three topics are unsuitable for DYK and indeed multiple good DYK hooks have come out of them. In fact, there have been multiple good classical music hooks over the years and I've even defended some of them. It is just something worth keeping in mind, and it was a noticeable pattern. Indeed, based on Leeky's monthly "best viewed DYK" lists it seems that operatic role hooks make up a sizable proportion of the least viewed hooks each month. Now I'm not really a person who cares much about page views (most of my own hooks have admittedly not had spectacular numbers), but again, it's a noticeable pattern and multiple editors have brought it up in the past. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
First define your broad audience, and perhaps we should not assume that they are all interested in popular culture only, and all ignorant of opera, orchestral music, and the like. DYK is a form of advertising, and advertising works best if targeted at the right audience. Rewriting an operatic hook for a target popular-culture audience would have to be deceptive, in that such readers would click on a link apparently intended for them, and find themselves looking at something that that they are not used to. In that context, numbers of clicks do not help the audience, and they do not help WP.
With a specialist subject, we need to target those who will actually be interested, and therefore we need to use language which will resonate with those already interested in the subject. For example, the technical side of IT holds zero interest for me, and a hook saying something quirky about an IT boffin or his coding system is never going to bring me in; however a hook worded in specialist language will hook all your IT buffs out there, nicely - and they are the audience that you want for that subject, not me. So maybe we should make like the professional advertising industry and target the right audience for specialist subjects, and not try to kid ourselves that we can educate and convert all those pop fans out there to opera with a quirky hook or two.
Gerda Arendt knows how to target the specialist audience for her subject area, and she knows how not to alienate them by dumbing down hooks for that subject. Trust your specialist creators and nominators, and give them a chance to make their point. WP is not for an audience entirely of children and uneducated people. It is for everybody. Storye book (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Except DYK's rules outright specify that a hook should be interesting to a broad audience. Specialist hooks are not exactly what DYK would consider a broad audience. I'm not saying that specialist hooks are bad or that opera hooks are inherently "bad" hooks. It is perfectly possible for there to be hooks about opera that appeal to broad audiences and in fact there have been multiple examples. Now, there could be some debate as to exactly if a hook appeals to a "broad" audience or not, but I don't think that "we must appeal to IT buffs only" or something similar was what DYK's founders had in mind when that rule was created. The spirit of the rule seems to be more like "a hook about IT must not only appeal to IT buffs". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I think I shall stick to my view that quality clicks are worth more to WP than random or deceptive clicks which irritate readers. All WP rules are to be used with commonsense - that's one of the rules. I do agree that each day's (or half-day's) set of hooks should as a whole appeal to a broad audience, e.g. some popular culture hooks and some specialist hooks, the proportion depending on what is available that day. Oh, and by the way, three of the above hooks mention Christian religious music - may I ask what is the complaint about that on grounds of a broad audience requirement? For many people in the UK and Europe, choral masses are part of the culture, whether we are religious or not. So when you talk about a broad audience, are you thinking only of a broad audience in the Americas? Storye book (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Again, the issue has nothing to do with the topic. Christian religious music is not by itself a niche topic, and just because a hook is about Christian religious music doesn't mean it can't be suitable to a broad audience. Indeed, we've had multiple good hooks about Christian religious music. In fact, see the list of hooks above and Messe's hook could appeal to broad audiences with just a bit of rewording.
The goal is to make sure that hooks about said topic would not just be understood and appreciated by Christians alone. Even Muslims, Jews, and others can appreciate them. We do the same thing with hooks about Islamic topics. Just because a hook is about Christianity doesn't mean it should appeal solely to Christians.
As for the "broad audience in the Americas" topic, that's not necessarily true either. In fact, there have been hook suggestions in the past that have been rejected because they would have only made sense to Americans but not the broader world. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I have a completely different understanding of interestingness, as you know, not "will the general reader be interested in the topic?" but "is the fact interesting for the topic" - Gerda.
- and that's the problem right there. You can't decide to have your own personal definition of hook interest which is at odds with DYK rules. The rule states clearly that hooks must be "interesting to a broad audience", not interesting to a niche audience of topic buffs. The latter would be perfectly fine if you were writing hooks for, say, an opera magazine, or a ballet magazine or whatever, because the audience may appreciate the nuances. But the main page of Wikipedia is the diametric opposite of that - it's a page perused by millions of people from any number of different backgrounds and walks of life. Hooks that are appreciated by only a select few and which leave the rest scratching their heads wondering what is supposedly significant about fact x do a disservice not only to the DYK project, but to Wikipedia as a whole. Gatoclass (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Good chat, everybody. Maybe we can move on to improving the encyclopedia instead of rehashing this for the umpteenth time, since, you know, nobody's going to change their mind, given that this unpleasant and acrimonious discussion has been held on individual nominations countless times already, and we're still here. Nobody is forcing anyone to promote hooks they don't want to. Bringing a specific person's hooks here while saying there's not an intention of "ask[ing] that they be discussed, nor held up" doesn't seem particularly sound, but I'd just leave the initial notification at an invitation to promote (or not). A "disservice" to "Wikipedia altogether" based on what is ultimately just one hook a day? I don't particularly buy that, but hey, what do I know. Urve (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Well I originally wrote "the main page altogether", but felt that didn't get my point across sufficiently, so changed it to "Wikipedia altogether". That then seemed too strong, so I was about to change it to "Wikipedia as a whole" but then couldn't see much difference between the two. But the fact that you felt moved to criticize it confirms that my original instinct was correct. In any case, I have now changed it as I agree the previous construction somehow seemed an overstatement.
Other than that though, the fact that Gerda's approach to hook writing has been criticized many times by numerous contributors shows that there is an ongoing issue here. It's a topic I have always found difficult to broach, given that Gerda also happens to be one of the nicest and most thoughtful people on the project. But giving somebody a free pass on that basis alone doesn't seem appropriate either.
The bottom line here though is that this is about improving the encyclopedia. The main page is our most visible page, and content that is weak or uninteresting inevitably hurts readers' perception of the project - while high quality content has the opposite effect. Certainly, I could never embrace an approach that in effect says "so what if 12.5% of our output is not up to scratch? Near enough is good enough." I care too much about the encyclopedia to take such an approach, and I'd like to think the majority of Wikipedians would concur. Gatoclass (talk) 09:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
I do think we may have to lower our expectations about Wikipedia's quality a bit. After all, there's no deadline and Wikipedia will always be a work in progress. Apart from obvious vandalism/copyright infringement/misinformation/BLP violations/etc., articles not being up to scratch is not necessarily a bad thing. Okay, it's not really desirable, but again, work in progress, it's something that can be improved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Specific hooks
To get this back on track, I've taken a stab at revising some of the hooks that I think are usable with rewording or cutting out fat. Here are some suggestions:
Like I mentioned above, I think these hooks would have made decent hooks with some rewording. The originals were too hard to read and had too many detracting details instead of getting to the point. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
In response to this:
Kreaturen: why not give a hint of what the German means, and with a title that may ring a bell in some heads? Because I believe that the "creatures" are important to mention, while usual hymns for the occasion focus on Jesus, bread and wine? Catholic, however is redundant, those processions only occur in Catholicism. Shortened ALT:
It's one of the hooks being discussed in this discussion so it could either be pulled in the meantime or be moved to a later prep while the final wording is being sorted out. In any case at least two editors here have raised concerns about the current hook and so it may not be a good idea to run the currently-promoted wording as-is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
One of the issues with the original hooks was that they included too many details to make the hooks easily understandable and catchy. Hooks are meant to highlight interesting facts about a subject, not be summaries of a subject's life or career. Additional information to add context isn't necessarily discouraged in hooks and at times they can even help. For example, clarifying that Bumann was a music director of the Warsaw Chamber Opera works because it shows why Bumann is important to those who don't know him. However, what you're suggesting here is to mention both Falstaff and him doing the tour of Japan, which are unrelated hook facts. Mentioning both would only make the hook more complicated: for DYK purposes, it would probably be better to mention either Falstaff or Japan but not both. Your new proposal about him being music director is fine and shows the point immediately. Finally, DYK hooks don't really care about the quality of other linked articles. It does not matter if the other links are FAs or articles full of orange tags. What matters is the quality of the bolded link. This is DYK, not FA, and if there's a desire to promote an FA, there's already TFA for that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I copied the last conversation to the related thread below, answering here only to the FA bit. Falstaff appeared as TFA, of course, but I think we do DYK readers a favour if we expose FAs, to let them see what Wikipedia also has to offer. But: my key reason is memory of VivaVerdi, whose contributions were unbelievable. Take List of operas performed at the Santa Fe Opera, and all the Verdi operas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Messe modale: why passive voice when we can have the composer active? ... why not help to understanding that "Messe" means mass? ... why not give a precise location? - shortened ALT:
As I mentioned earlier, I think the location was an unnecessary detail. To me the main hook fact here is that an organist composed a piece that was performed by a flutist and a string quartet. I had the thought that it was the main hook idea and mentioning for whom and where it was written added extra detail that simply distracted from the main point. In many cases, the less complicated hooks are better and I think this is one such case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Gabbi: you, Narutolovehinata5, taught me to have the climax in the end, which is Scala. If we really want it short (but why miss Poland and SA - an unusual combination?):
In addition, the placement of the "climax" of the hook is not something that has a hard rule. It can be near the start, the middle, or at the end of a hook. It's a case-by-case thing and it really depends on what the hook fact is and how to present it. Indeed, one possible way to rewrite that hook could be the following:
There's no hard-and-fast rule. In this case, I tried to put La Scala earlier since those who know classical music know that La Scala is a big deal and might want to see that part earlier, while flowing into the "after finding success in South America/Poland" part for the benefit of non-classical music fans. Again, there are times when it's better to put the "climax" at the end and sometimes at the start or even the middle. It really depends on the hook idea. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
The original Adalgisa hook is fine, as Gerda said, the hooky bit is usually left to last so swapping the content around doesn't work, and leaving out the bit about her "finding success" in a couple of different countries makes the hook bland and uninteresting. As for the Buman hook, I still think it's a dud - conductors conduct orchestras all over the world, so it's a pretty mundane fact to highlight IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I've been building preps on and off at DYK for several years (though not particularly active in the past year or so). Without getting too involved in this debate, I want to mirror theleekycauldron's experience when they say above "I also don't feel comfortable putting my seal of approval on these hooks as promoter". This is the same reason why I have avoided promoting 95% of Gerda's hooks over the years. A long time ago there were a couple of occasions where I stepped in to try and improve a hook to make it more interesting (or even simplify the wordiness as Narutolovehinata5 has done directly above), but this was always met with resistance, so instead I adopted an approach of ignoring and scrolling past these particular nominations. 97198 (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps we should define the role of prep admin and the role of reviewer. If we forget, for the moment, those reviewers who are new and inexperienced – in general our regular reviewers are experienced, and they do their job. The concept of "interestingness" is of course subjective, so that neither the experienced reviewer nor the admin has a superior understanding or ability in that respect. One of the WP principles is that we should treat each other with good faith, especially in the well-intentioned work that we all do. So if the reviewer decides that the hook is interesting, what right does the prep admin have, to unilaterally counter-decide that the hook is not interesting? I think (1) we need to trust our creators/nominators to know their subject and readers, and (2) trust our experienced reviewers to decide on interestingness, and (3) trust our fantastic and hardworking prep admins (to whom I must say we should be very grateful) to do their bit without trying to undo our bit. Otherwise what on earth is an experienced reviewer for? Storye book (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC) To clarify: Of course, I am talking about interestingness of hooks only here, and not other matters where it may be appropriate for admins to interfere. Storye book (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
The role of prep builder (who is rarely an admin; admins are required to promote preps to queues) is to check all aspects of the nomination being promoted, from article quality to neutrality to hook sources to how interesting the hook is. It's the prep builder who decides which approved hook to use, even if the reviewer may have preferred a different one: the reviewer is one person, and while doing their best may not make the best choice. Prep builders typically have a wider view of things, seeing how preps go together, what makes an interesting hook from a wide variety of angles, what hooks work best with other hooks, etc. The idea that they should have to turn off that experience for one aspect, whether the hook is sufficiently interesting according to the DYK criteria, makes no sense to me; as there are people out there who don't seem to take the "interesting" criterion sufficiently seriously or have their own idea that doesn't match what the criteria say (as noted elsewhere in this discussion), having the prep builders involved in all the final checks at the time of promotion seems to me a good thing, not a bad one. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. Promoters being involved in all aspects of reviewing is a good thing because they serve as an additional check. Notwithstanding the interestingness checks, promoters can also detect sourcing or article issues that the reviewer may have missed. While there's a good argument towards DYK being too bureaucratic as it is, I do think that having an extra check is still a net positive. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I have dealt with the interesting criterion in relation to Gerda's hooks. There have been multiple times that I have reviewed Gerda's hooks to help clear the DYK backlog. I passed the nominations though because new ideas for Gerda's hooks are met with a long drawn-out discussion. SL93 (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
As I said earlier, the original messe no. 7 and kommt hooks are fine. Neither of the hooks for the other messe article are up to scratch IMO, and the Labia hook is a dud. Gatoclass (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
re Kommt her, ihr Kreaturen alll, I left Gerda a note at the bottom of the nomination template. Nothing wrong with the nomination. Corpus Christi, Texas is a popular tourist destination in the United States, as well as the site of multiple hurricane landings. It might be better to link Feast of Corpus Christi as is, so readers don't mistake it for a procession happening in the Texas city. — Maile (talk) 17:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Quick thing
... that in June 2009, a teenage girl and her adult boyfriend stabbed her mother to death when she objected to their relationship?
For the Murder of Joanne Witt (nom) – this feels to me like a hook and article that is not just unusually morbid, but unusually personal. These were three normal people, whose only claim to significance is this murder – the victim wasn't an important journalist, or has other kind of notable person. Just someone who said the wrong thing to the wrong person at the wrong time. To be honest, it feels a bit like a local news segment. As such, I wanted to do an extra check that the wider community is on board with airing this hook before I promote it. Pinging @Just Another Cringy Username and MaranoFan as nominator and reviewer. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
From a DYK perspective I approved this because it was new enough, reasonably-detailed, and as such showed no concerns specifically with regards to the criteria. However I do see your point and support whatever the outcome of this discussion will be.--NØ12:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about this - in particular, with regard to the young age of one of the perpetrators - but I must object to the statement that these were "three normal people". There is nothing normal about a horrific crime of this nature. But if there's a concern about whether the topic meets WP:NCRIME, then I would suggest that the appropriate course of action would be to nominate it for AFD and take it from there. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd love to give you wikilink policies on all of this, such as BLP issues. But I think it comes down to DYK needs to decide whether or not everything offered will be on the main page, as long as it meets the basic review criteria. What do we stand for? Do we want DYK to be the main page tabloid section? Once we open the door to that, it stays open. Neither the victim nor the perpetrators are known for anything else. — Maile (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
A more fundamental question is why Wikipedia needs an article on every lurid murder in the first place. EEng19:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
absolutely – I mean, isn't there an argument to be made that if none of the coverage can show any kind of impact (even just an impact on the people), it should simply be considered routine? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Replace "every lurid murder" with "every bit of pop culture trivia" and you have my feelings on the issue. As long as we're lovingly documenting every episode of American Horror Story, what's wrong with remembering real people whose lives were irrevocably altered by real crime? I think an article with 16 different sources from the mainstream media, documenting an event which attracted nationwide news coverage, would pass AfD w/ flying colors. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
How is that a terrible example? I'm saying real people deserve to be remembered as much, if not more than, fictional ones. It'd be one thing if we didn't have an article for every single episode of AHS, but we do, so why is WP clutching its collective pearls over a murder that actually happened? I swear, some people around here need to touch grass. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I get it. There are editors who are very interested in creating these articles, and many do a good job, and some do a great job. The articles are, in some cases, really well done. My argument is that articles about current pop culture use a ton of energy and don't contribute anything that does much long-term for readers. I get that some of the editors who create these simply wouldn't otherwise edit, and I appreciate their work. But those who do all the other work on these articles could have used their energy elsewhere. So I do actually see current pop culture articles as maybe something that could have waited 25 years to see if, long-term, it's actually worth the energy and time. valereee (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The American Horror Story has 226 sources for the series that ran for 10 years. The sources are the proof of notability. And while the murder was horrible, the victim and perpetrators are not notable by Wikipedia notability guides (no one-time events). Bottom line, everything on Wikipedia comes down to proving notability, or somewhere down the line get deleted. It may not seem fair to you, but that's how Wikipedia works on notability and inclusion.— Maile (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
It's not as simple as "no one-time events." Per WP:NCRIME, "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." Also, "If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead." My article meets both of those standards.
@Theleekycauldron I've responded to others' comments ITT, but since you were kind enough to ping me, I feel I should offer a direct response. Per WP:NCRIME, the article uses only mainstream media sources and highlights the event rather than the people.
As to the question of taste, WP features a multiplicity of articles featuring equally strong meat. A single episode of American Horror Story contains material equal to or beyond what happened here and that has not only an article for the show itself, but separate articles for each season and each episode within each season. And this is fiction! Why are we clutching our pearls over a very real stabbing which disrupted real people's lives?
Finally, as long as the current DYK page features an article on a film produced by the incel and Frogtwitter communities, I don't think there's much room to discuss appropriateness. And with that, the defense rests. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Again, if somebody thinks the topic fails WP:NCRIME, they should list the article at AFD. If it passes, then I see no reason why it shouldn't run at DYK. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for rejecting a nomination. Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
There is no way this would possibly fail WP:NCRIME. The story is over a decade old, which precludes it from the "breaking news" concerns which exist not to preclude these stories, but to ensure adequate coverage and reflection before they are posted. It is about the events and not the people, so that side-case does not apply either. Thus it falls up the hierarchy to GNG: it is covered by two national outlets, CBS and People, and a nationally-recognized local news source, Sacramento Bee. There is no reason to hold this up, we need to SNOW this already. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2022 (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.
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.
Nothing else needs to be done. A bot automatically adds it to the approved nominations so I'm not sure what the call to action would be. SL93 (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification. There needs to be some finality to the instructions. Even microwave popcorn lists "Enjoy!" as the last step. I was reading on to the "Advanced procedures" step below that section and despairing about whether I had to do all that for QPQ. Schierbecker (talk) 06:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
The unmistakable hand of the master. When I was in high school, everyone thought I had such a brilliant future. Now look at what I've been reduced to. Sad, really. EEng18:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Suggestion for wording of the nomination format
I wonder if anyone else has a problem with the way the nomination format reports QPQ? Right now QPQ is supposed to be reported in a line right under the hooks called “Reviewed:”. That location or title appears to be easy for the reviewer of the nomination to miss. In recent weeks a DYK of mine was initially rejected as not having done QPQ, when in fact it was reported there in the “reviewed” line. A few weeks earlier I made the same mistake myself, saying in a review that QPQ had not been done when in fact it had. Might we want to change how that is labeled to make it clearer? Maybe “QPQ review:” or “QPQ done:” instead of the nonspecific “Reviewed”? That might also make it clearer to the nominator where they are supposed to report their QPQ, although I think eventually they all figure it out. Just a thought. MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The bot appears to be down. @DYK admins: , please check at 12:00 UTC (about three hours from now) and be prepared to do a manual update if necessary. Note that I will not be around to take care of the credits. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 09:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Done the credits. Fellow @DYK admins: we will need more preps promoted to queue, and people who can be around at midnight to check if the bot it back. Pinging @Shubinator for awareness that the update was manual. —Kusma (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Shubinator. I've done almost everything. Not sure what steps 7 and 8 of the manual update process mean and would appreciate if other admins could see to that. And maybe tell me what that means. Schwede6600:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @DYK admins: to finish the update, which includes starting with step 5 of the manual update process to clear Queue 4, setting Template:Did you know/Queue/Next to 5 (from 4), and so on. (This includes posting credits; I believe someone has a tool that makes doing this efficient.) Shubinator's been informed that the bot didn't complete the update, but probably won't be online until after the midnight bot run, so it would be great to have an admin around at midnight to make sure things run okay. Shubinator, can you let us know if we need to fix something here? Thanks to all. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I've cleared Queue 4 and updated the Next Queue counter. I think @Mandarax has handled all the credits. The bot seems to have done the archiving so I think the last update is finished. I won't be around at midnight for the next update, sorry! —Kusma (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
I've started up DYKUpdateBot again. Both this interruption and the previous interruption show "badtoken" in the logs, which indicates the issue is with pywikibot or Mediawiki or the integration between them. Hopefully third try's the charm... Shubinator (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Shubinator, DYKUpdateBot didn't run at midnight—not even through a few steps in the update process—so we're nearly 85 minutes late on the update as I write this. Apologies for yet another ping, @DYK admins: , but it looks like we need another manual update to the main page. Also pinging Mandarax, in case the admin doing the update isn't able to also do the distribution of credits. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
(creating a new subsection to zoom out) My hunch is these errors started cropping up with the release of pywikibot 7.5, which was published yesterday. A task matching our errors was fixed today and merged to master. Seems like pywikibot is preparing to release 7.6 soon with the fix (a lot faster than the standard monthly cadence). Sorry for the disruption everyone. Shubinator (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I've started up DYKUpdateBot again, this time against pywikibot's "core" instead of "stable", which will hopefully pick up the above fix. Shubinator (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Concerns have been raised regarding if the hook is suitable for DYK and the main page. I invite editors to comment on the proposed hook's suitability (ALT5a). Please keep the discussion on the nomination page so that everything is in one place. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Update: I have asked for a new reviewer. I've already approved the article, so it's only the unstricken hooks that need to be evaluated. Z1720 (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
First nom
I have never submitted a DYK (although I have reviewed many over the years).
Am I exempt from QPQ review? Or do I need to dig up all my old reviews?
Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided. The word unduly makes this hard to judge ... if all reliable sources indicate images appear to have been doctored and none are disagreeing ...
Would a hook like this work for the "unduly negative" issue?
I am unsure whether to submit this because it is a negative story about a living person. If I do decide to submit it, I should probably wait until closer to the seven-day deadline in case something exculpatory appears. This has rocked the world of Alzheimer's research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
You're exempt from QPQ until you've had 5 DYKs. The negative aspect...oooh, it's brand new, it's a living person, and it's a developing story. The hook itself isn't all that negative, though. I'd probably still say no, not for the front page. valereee (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
... that the German conductor Kai Bumann began his tenure as musical director of the Warsaw Chamber Opera with Verdi's Falstaff and twice toured with the company to Japan?
The revised hook is based on the ALT proposed by Narutolovehinata5, as follows:
... that German conductor Kai Bumann participated in two tours of Japan with the Warsaw Chamber Opera during his tenure as music director?
- after objections were made to the original hook, which was apparently erroneously promoted while discussion was ongoing. In promoting it, however, I decided the additional phrase "during his tenure as music director" added nothing of interest and only detracted from the main point, which is that a German conductor toured an Asian country twice with a foreign opera company. I might add that I still think this hook is pretty weak, but weak hooks are generally a lot less distracting if they are short.
There was a related discussion further up which I copy to here for ease of reference:
One of the issues with the original hooks was that they included too many details to make the hooks easily understandable and catchy. Hooks are meant to highlight interesting facts about a subject, not be summaries of a subject's life or career. Additional information to add context isn't necessarily discouraged in hooks and at times they can even help. For example, clarifying that Bumann was a music director of the Warsaw Chamber Opera works because it shows why Bumann is important to those who don't know him. However, what you're suggesting here is to mention both Falstaff and him doing the tour of Japan, which are unrelated hook facts. Mentioning both would only make the hook more complicated: for DYK purposes, it would probably be better to mention either Falstaff or Japan but not both. Your new proposal about him being music director is fine and shows the point immediately. Finally, DYK hooks don't really care about the quality of other linked articles. It does not matter if the other links are FAs or articles full of orange tags. What matters is the quality of the bolded link. This is DYK, not FA, and if there's a desire to promote an FA, there's already TFA for that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I will not understand, sorry, why we can't have two fact about the rich life of a person who recently died, to have a bit of a broader picture. Many tour to Japan, even twice, that in itself is really not specific about this person. If you absolutely have to have it short
we would really have the space to mention Falstaff, which shows his taste
These are classic reasons for not adding information to a hook. The criterion is that hooks must appeal "to a broad audience" and nobody but an opera buff is going to know that doing Falstaff "shows his taste", indeed, that seems to be no more than your personal opinion anyway. Likewise for is a big and unexpected choice for a chamber opera. The new hook proposals also do not pass muster in my book, the first because, again, it means nothing to the average reader that he chose Falstaff for his first project, and the second because it's not unusuall for a conductor to be musical director of two groups of musicians at the same time.
Many tour to Japan, even twice, that in itself is really not specific about this person - indeed, that's why I described it as a weak hook. But then, why did you include this information to begin with? Gatoclass (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
But since we now seem to agree that the current hook isn't much good and can't agree on the others, here are a couple more possible ALTs (with arbitrary alt numbers):
ALT5: ... that in 2021, the German conductor Kai Bumann was named Professor of Art by Polish President Andrzej Duda?
My preference is ALT5 but I wouldn't oppose ALT6. Having said that, one issue with ALT6 is the mention of the composer who may not be well-known outside of Poland or classical music circles. On the other hand, the addition of "many ties to Polish cultural life" thing could resolve that reservation. Another possibility could be an ALT7 which mentions both the ties to cultural life and the Professor of Art thing: to me that seems to be the more natural combination than the cultural life+the world premiere. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Well after initial hesitation I thought ALT6 reads quite nicely, but we've spent far too much time on this nom already, so here's your suggested alt:
I only suggested ALT7 as an option, my preference remains ALT5. Regardless if you're familiar with the person's music career or not, being given a title by a country's president seems interesting enough regardless of a reader's background. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, they are not supposed to do so unilaterally. In this case you approved the hook, so it wasn't a unilateral substitution. Gatoclass (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Gerda says she prefers ALT6. Since as a general rule I favour respecting the nominator's preferences where possible, would it be acceptable to you Naruto if I substituted that instead? Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
While I originally said that I wouldn't oppose ALT6, upon further reflection I think ALT5 is still a more solid hook in this case. I think ALT5 has a broader appeal than ALT6 since ALT5 isn't reliant on being in the know when it comes to classical music. ALT6 isn't a bad hook and had ALT5 not existed I would have been fine with it, I just think ALT5 is better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
After thinking about this again, I think I'm fine with ALT6. I still prefer ALT5, but ALT6 is a decent enough hook and in any case is better than the original proposal. I'm not really a fan of the "conductor conducted" part, but I'm thinking the "one of his last works" part rather than the composer's name will attract attention. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions)
Here's the issue with ALT6: technically, the source does not outright say that Lacrimosa No. 2 was one of Penderecki's last works. The source simply states that Bumann conducted its premiere. Even if it's true that Lacrimosa was one of the last works, saying so in the article without the source saying so would be synthesis. Obviously, this means that ALT6 as currently written cannot run because the source doesn't support it.
Normally I'd suggest that the hook could be revised to state that Bumann conducted the premiere without saying the "last works" part, but the issue here is that I think the hook's interestingness is dependent on the "last works" part. Without it, we'd probably have to go with ALT5 or ALT7 instead (especially if there's a desire to highlight the Polish connection). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I am short on time today, will leave home soon. Can this please wait until tomorrow? I'd really hate to give some Polish politician prominence, not the Warsaw Chamber Opera (which is much more precise than a vague "many ties to Polish cultural life"). - I'll probably write the Lacrymosa article. Penderecki is already a better name for the Polish connection than the politician. - If you can't wait, add the year to the premiere, but it's really enough that this foreigner was given the world premiere anyway, last or not last. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Remember that we are writing for general audiences, not classical music fans. Keep their interests in mind, not just a niche's. I really don't think the Penderecki mention would appeal to broad audiences without the "last work" part. If that doesn't work out, either go with ALT5/ALT7, or the hook should be pulled for further discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
Tomorrow I'll do Alice Harnoncourt who died today. RD is always first for me, and I don't manage more than one a day. Pull the hook. I came to say that the piece is planned for 22 July, and there's no source for the vague sentence about the Polish connections, that's just a summary, - no DYK material. 2018 is of cource one of the last works by Penderecki, as he died in spring 2020, but that's not to go in detail into the conductor's article. - See, Bumann had his days on RD, - DYK should be the chance to say somewhat more about him than just a name. Why reduce that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with highlighting being given a citation by the President of Poland. That is saying something "more about him". It's highlighting one of his accomplishments and I'm sure it's something that he was very proud of. Why do you think that highlighting his award is a bad thing when it's a representation of his accomplishments during his career? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Is there any reason why we can't just go with ALT5 instead of the hook being pulled altogether? As much as ALT6 would have been nice, it can't be used for reasons I mentioned earlier and it seems no amount of sourcing or wording changes could resolve the issues. ALT5 is an interesting hook, is cited inline, and is verified in the source (I don't speak Polish so I had to use Google Translate, but the translation confirms the information). If we already have a suitable hook, why the need to pull? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't hurt to wait. "World premiere" still makes it a viable hook, and getting two articles out of the way in a single hook is always useful. I will pull the current hook for the time being and we'll see what Gerda comes up with. Gatoclass (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Lacrimosa is planned for Tuesday. I will be away over the weekend, possibly no access to the internet. Tuesday is a funeral day, so Lacrimosa is good. Thank you for pulling. You might explain how an honorific doctorate (ALT5) would be interesting to our broad readership, many of whom may not care about academia at all, but Falstaff, a Shakespeare character with a cute name, would not be. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Reasons for the change are that the source doesn't actually say this was a publicity stunt, so I saw it as an accuracy issue. I also added the word "various" just to emphasize the fact that these were different recordings, not just one or two. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
I think removing "stunting" is the right thing to do here. People may get confused by the term since they might think that the station "stunted" (in the sense of having stunted growth) rather than the intended meaning of "doing a publicity stunt". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of all 16 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 19. We have a total of 210 nominations, of which only 135 were approved, a gap of 75 nominations, down 26 over the previous nine days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, and those who have recently been reviewing so many nominations—may this progress continue!
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) 03:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Prep 6 includes one of my own nominations so I've been waiting almost 24 hours now for somebody else to promote it, it's been quite frustrating as I had the time to spare to promote several queues in that time. If somebody else hasn't promoted it before I log off in a few hours, I will do so myself, but would much rather somebody else would step up in the meantime. Gatoclass (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I really hear you, it's frustrating to be in this position – in the future, if you're willing to delay your own hook for the cause, you might want to consider swapping it into a later prep so that you can perform the promotion unencumbered. I don't think that'd be against the rules. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 15:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, it may not be against the rules, but the problem is that if you start moving your own hooks around, the temptation arises to put them in a more prominent place, or to put them in a set in a timezone where they are likely to get more hits. I've never been one to stand on ceremony, and am prepared to bend a rule on occasion per WP:IAR, but fiddling with sets containing one's own hooks is just a bit awkward and something I'd prefer not to do if I can possibly avoid it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
@DYK admins: I've always wondered why the queue order must be so strictly adhered to. Clearly, the case outlined by Gatoclass wouldn't be too rare. Say if you promote to queue not the next one (because of a COI) but the one after, all that needs to happen when the one that got skipped gets promoted is for the next counter to be set to the correct number. Maybe we could come up with a procedure to ensure that things don't go wrong here (e.g. leave an edit note to the effect what the next counter should be set to once the gap created gets filled). Or are there other reasons why this should not be done? Schwede6620:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
This could mess up special occasions if not done carefully. An easier way out would be to just swap the "CoI" hook into a future set. —Kusma (talk) 20:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
How so, Kusma? Using the example from Gatoclass, who could not promote Prep6, I suggest that they promotes Prep7 to Q7 instead. That leave a "gap" at Q6. When that gap gets filled, the promoter would need to set the next counter to "1". That leaves the order intact and special occasion hooks are unaffected. Schwede6620:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
In your example, we would need the skipped prep set promoted before any prep set with a special occasion, or it will be off by one. If P1 has a special occasion, we'd need to do P7, P6, P1, or move the special occasion hook to P2 and do P7, P1, P2. Too easy to mess that up. —Kusma (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Among other things. If you're trying to track a given something-or-other about a specific hook, or a specific hook order, it can be confusing enough as is just to figure out how a hook in one queue number was first promoted to a different prep number, and then swapped around. And little things do come up that you need to find the previous edits on a hook to figure something out. — Maile (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Exactly, Maile. It's not a good idea to change prep set order and preferable not to move individual hooks around. The latter is, of course, sometimes unavoidable but we should not come up with additional reasons for doing this. Schwede6621:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Any admin in a similar situation (own nomination in the next prep to be promoted) can always post here asking a non-admin to swap their hook with one in another prep so they can promote, or asking an admin to promote that prep so they can take the one after. There's usually someone around who can help. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
Media protection query
I was wondering whether this needs some consideration. The video in prep2 (due to hit the Main Page on 24 July at noon UTC) has subtitles. Do those subtitles get automatically protected or is there a manual step necessary? Does manual media protection via Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection work for a subtitles file? If we need the help of a Commons admin, the only one who I know is Podzemnik. Schwede6610:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea how subtitles work in a technical sense, but I have assumed they are part of the video, not an independent file that needs its own protection, what makes you think otherwise? Gatoclass (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Across any video platform, subtitles are available as a text file containing text (in a particular language) and timing. Schwede6619:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
No, KrinkleBot (which I help operate) doesn't protect subtitles. I guess we should? There's one subtitle page per language, so we'd want to protect all of them. Legoktm (talk) 17:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! There’s just one language file in this case. I guess the vandalism risk is due to Main Page exposure so as readers may have set their preferred language to be different to English, it makes sense to protect them all (if there’s more than one language). Schwede6619:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: yeah, the risk of other languages is pretty minimal. But since KrinkleBot serves other language Wikipedias as well, it was pretty simple to protect all of them. Legoktm (talk) 23:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Here's a postscript to this. The two articles in that hook didn't do well as far as pageviews were concerned. But the video – boy, it had 405,000 views that day. I had never checked pageviews for media before but that is a truly astonishing number. Well, it astonished me at least. So it's all the better that we have protection for subtitles in place. Ping to Legoktm and theleekycauldron for their info. Schwede6605:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
The JJMC89 bot has removed a non-free image in my DYK nomination here. Since I've only nominated an imageless hook before, I don't know how to get around this. Any help? — SirDot (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Good morning all! Does anyone here know if the statistics page is updated automatically or manually? I have been watching it and it seems many hooks have not rendered properly with views. Some are also not listed. Thanks! Bruxton (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, for probably three days now the last 20 at the bottom of the list are at zero views. I just checked Clements twins views to see that it is not on the list. Leeky is on break. Bruxton (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
@Bruxton and TSventon: the stats pages are updated semi-automatically, with a script I custom developed. I still push the button from time to time these days; but like Bruxton said, I'm on break :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they)
We have two filled queues now which is enough for all of tomorrow. We have 1 and a half preps filled. That means we have enough promoted hooks for one day and a half. SL93 (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps we should go back to one set a day until prep builders are able to catch up? theleekycauldron recently said that two-a-day shouldn't be gospel at 120; the prep set team should be responsible for as many sets as it is able to build with attention and care. TSventon (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
We should probably still have a number for that though. We have 139 approved nominations which I think is getting to be a bit high. SL93 (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that is the main issue. The main issue is that barely anyone wants to build preps. There is no good excuse for not keeping up with preps with so many DYK contributors. It's not like prep builder is an editor class that someone needs to be promoted to. SL93 (talk) 10:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Just to be clear, there is no authorized team of prep builders. Anyone who nominates and reviews regularly is qualified to build preps and would probably get up to speed quickly. The problem is no one wants to do this crucial job. Which is really too bad. Building preps is totally fun -- it's like putting together a puzzle. Valereee (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry I can't be of more help with this. I used to promote a lot of sets, but quit doing it when it became clear that verifying nominations was more important (this was back before QPQ was implemented). After that, I have only returned to it intermittently because I am a perfectionist and tend to spend far too long on it, so basically I will only fill in now if it's an emergency. My main activity when I'm active at DYK now is verifying sets for promotion to the queue, which is time-intensive and leaves little time for anything else. Really, some of the regular nominators need to step up - there are people here who submit multiple nominations week after week who ought to do more to help with project maintenance. Gatoclass (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
There needs to be some incentive, as prep building seems to be a thankless tasks, and so using preps as a QPQ wouldn't be the worst idea. I have only occasionally done prep building, but I think the number of complaints on WT:DYK about preps and prep builders for trivial issues discourages people like me from building preps more often. Right now if people build preps then nobody thanks them for it and too often people come here to moan at them for it- is it therefore any surprise that nobody wants to do it? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Not necessarily a terrible idea - though I suspect that people would rather do a QPQ anyway than build a set. The other alternative would be some sort of QPQ-type requirement I guess - say, 1 set build for every 10 nominations, something like that. Gatoclass (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
At some point fairly recently we discussed that -- something along the lines of requiring a prep for every 10 nominations from anyone with more than 50 DYKs, maybe? Many frequent nominators did not like it. Valereee (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Or we could start giving out DYK medals for building sets - say, a medal for 25 sets, then 50, 100 and so on as we do for nominations. A little more bling probably wouldn't do any harm. Gatoclass (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
I did promote one lone hook recently, but I usually stay away from the prep building, since I frequently promote preps to queues. I haven't been paying attention if any one repeat prep builder is awol, but we are in the middle of summer, and might be dealing with vacations. The medals sound good, but we went so far as to come up with a design for a Yoninah medal, and it just seems to have faded away after someone went to all the trouble to create it. Given that history, I'm wondering if awards are suitable for DYK. — Maile (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
It probably isn't the best use of DYK admin time to promote hooks to prep, since there's also a bottleneck with moving preps to queues, and to do that an admin has to check all 8 hooks, usually in one sitting. And as you point out, promoting a hook to a prep means ideally the promoter shouldn't then be moving that prep to queue. A better source of promoters would be frequent nominators (including those admins who don't work moving preps to queue), who are typically DYK's most skilled reviewers. Valereee (talk) 11:51, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
Personally I think promoting a hook should equal reviewing one. To do it right you have to do all the same things. Valereee (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Three preps are complete. I encourage other preppers to promote hooks, especially image hooks, because I can't promote a lot of the ones at the top of the approved list. Z1720 (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
FYI - This may not be solely a DYK phenomenon, but more of an overall Wikipedia summer slump. See Admin dashboard - a daily routine checkpoint for me as an admin. The last couple of months, there are very few listings. Candidates for speedy deletion usually has a glut of numerous entries. WP:AIV (reporting vandalism) has been very scarce for months. WP:RFPP (page protection requests) has had very few requests, compared to its normal listings. I think it's not just DYK. — Maile (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee, Z1720, Gatoclass, Theleekycauldron, and Maile66:, et. al. All the preps are currently filled. One thing I have noted from looking at the approved hooks, most of them appear to be U.S. biographies. It seems hard to build a balanced Prep right now from what is available. --evrik(talk)16:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Evrik, do you have a feeling for what is the rough proportion? (Just being lazy if you already have a rough idea.) I'd hate to see a prep with five US bios, but if that really is what's currently approved, we can either encourage reviewers to concentrate on other types of hooks, or we can IAR. Valereee (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
@evrik: my advice would be that you make sure every set has as many u.s. hooks as you can possibly fit. I find that it helps even things out within a week. Also, I notice that the first two hooks in P3 are both u.s.-based? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
So, it will probably even out, and I was able to craft balanced sets, but in doing so the approved queue is mostly U.S. bios. --evrik(talk)18:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
@Evrik: Thanks for creating a prep set! There's a good selection of hooks from around the world and an interesting hook at the end. There's 5 bio looks in this set, and usually DYK limits to four per set. I think this can be solved by moving José Ramón Balaguer to another set. Z1720 (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
evrik, one thing to remember is that bio hooks should not be next to each other in a prep set, and similarly, hooks for people or places from the same country should not be adjacent. It can make set assembling even more like solving a puzzle, but it's important to remember. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Recent hooks
I am quite disappointed in recent hooks. For instance, the hook that read: ... that Christchurch smells? Really? Is this what DYK has come to? No interesting hooks about Christchurch Wastewater Treatment Plant could have been found better than that? Surely something was more interesting than that. Perhaps if nothing can be said about an article it shouldn't be at DYK. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
really? you don't think it's educational to say that the Christchurch Wastewater Treatment plant has been affecting the surrounding area and even drawing complaints from the locals? It's okay for education to be fun every once in a while – thousands of people clicked through to learn about this plant, and maybe we would've lost bright and curious learners (particularly kids) if we didn't make it enticing! People rag on the quirky slot because it's not as formal as the rest – well, I say that the quirky slot is hecka useful when it comes to reaching newer and larger audiences with substantive educational content. Sometimes, it's okay to let the article speak for itself when it comes to the heavy duty formality. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, Leek, you have a point there. If there's one thing that will grab a kid's attention, it's smelly stuff. — Maile (talk)
That was my hook and I was rather pleased with it. Top-quirky hook in my view. And I'm fine with quirky hooks not being everyone's taste. Schwede6606:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I liked that attention-grabbing pointy hook. On the other hand, I observe a tendency to short hooks, leaving the Main page unbalanced - just look today. I really wonder if the frequent request by reviewers to focus on one fact about a subject (vs. 2 or 3, presenting a broader picture) is really serving the readers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, no one has complained about the hook anywhere except for you. There really isn't anything to work with especially when you can't mention any other recent hooks. There is nothing to fix based on how consensus works. SL93 (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not entirely happy about the "possibly" in this hook, it sounds rather vague and it is difficult for the reader to establish how likely this is, or how authoritative the source is. I would suggest amending the article text to be a direct quote with attribution, rather than saying it in WP:WIKIVOICE, i.e. something like "In 2017, Isaac was cast in the Public Theater's Hamlet, becoming what theatre scholar David Román described as "possibly became the first Latino actor to play Hamlet in a major US production" substituting whatever the source actually says (I don't know as I don't have access to it). Then we can amend the hook accordingly, so that it also depicts it as a quote. Pinging @Cagliost, FrB.TG, MikeOwen, and Evrik: who were involved in the hook. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Fine by me too. "Isaac, debatably it seems, is the first Latino actor to play Hamlet in a major US production." On second thoughts, the wording in the blurb is too close to that of the source (green quote). If it’s too vague, we can go with the other hook from the nom. FrB.TG (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Backlog tag?
The backlog at DYK has largely been resolved. There are fewer than 60 unverified hooks in the system (149 - 90 = 59). On 20 July, this was 99 (243-144), and on 10 July it was 133 (236-103). Should the backlog tag on T:TDYK be removed? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The backlog tag was switched on here by Kusma on 25 May 2022, when there were 207 unverified hooks and 63 approved hooks. I think it is reasonable to switch off backlog mode again at 60 unverified hooks or fewer. TSventon (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Just as an FYI to newer prep builders (and thank you so much for stepping up): when preps are getting close to all being filled (as they are now), leaving a few empty slots somewhere (an image, a quirky, and one other) is helpful for others working in preps or queues who may need to swap something out and are looking for a space to move a hook into. Valereee (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Couldn't we have, like, a dashboard or something at the top of this page with a red, orange, or green background, and stuff like that, by which alerts like this can be given? 50% of the archives are throwaway threads like this. EEng03:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
We already have the option of looking at the Queue page. Same thing with prep building. I would think most prep builders and admins also keep busy on projects in addition to DYK. Pinging the admins is probably the most effective method.— Maile (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Well, DUH, obviously people can look at the Qs and so on, but if that was enough then people wouldn't be posting pleas here all the time. I'm simply suggesting we have a cleaner way for alerts to be posted here without clogging the page up with thread after thread after thread saying the same thing. Right now 4 out of the 17 threads on this very page are "Qs almost empty!" EEng04:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Do most people typically click right to a section as it pops up on watch rather than starting at the top? I'm wondering how many would even see it. Maybe a background color for the entire page, something that communicates but doesn't totally distract or make reading more difficult? Also def not red/green. Like it goes pink if there are fewer than 3 queues filled and yellow if there are fewer than 3 preps filled? Valereee (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I respond to pings on the DYK admins group, but would be unlikely to regularly check any other sort of dashboard (other than WP:DYKQ itself). I'm not seeing a problem with this, it's useful, and making a bit deal out of it eats up more time than just ignoring the thread and moving on... — Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
And on second thought I'm even wondering whether if 4 out of 17 threads are dealing with this, maybe that's actually useful in getting the message across. Valereee (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Amakuru That was my point above. Admins are hither and yon on Wikipedia. I sometimes check the Queue, but it's always better to ping me along with the others. A ping shows right up at the top of your user page in a way you can't ignore, no matter how inconvenient the timing might be. You can't ignore the ping, but it's easy for admins to have their time spread out all over several sites. — Maile (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Evrik! I noticed you'd promoted my DYK on Akbar Bhawan to the prep area. I'd like the image to be included in the hook and for the image to be verified for licensing issues. I've made a revert on the DYK template for this article. Can you help me with these issues on the hook? Regards. Ashwin147 (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@Ashwin147:, while I would have liked to accommodate you, I needed a non-US, non-biography hook to fill out the prep set. Maybe someone else who makes one of the next sets can help? I don't think so, but I am posting your request here. --evrik(talk)15:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Prep 6 removal by nominator
Twice now, nominator Ashwin147 has removed their nomination of Template:Did you know nominations/Akbar Bhawan from Prep 6. I've just restored it. Ashwin147, there is no guarantee that a nomination with a picture will get a picture slot—we have far too many nominations with pictures to be able to give each one the lead; the majority of nominations with pictures do not run with those pictures. Furthermore, you are not supposed to edit or move your nomination hook once it has been promoted to a prep set. If you have any questions or issues, this page is where you should bring them up. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@ BlueMoonset, I take your point, thanks. I create articles and move on - the tech part of it isn't really my strong suit. I had no intention of being a vandal or anything - just that I thought the image required consideration, which is also the reason why I notified the original promoter and raised a query on the template. As for Mr Block Master here, chill and always AGF dude. Ashwin147 (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Ashwin147, my apologies: it was only once in prep. (Schwede66, please take note.) Looking at the various page histories again, I can't see how my brain came to the conclusion that it was twice; I need to be much more careful when editing at four in the morning. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I suggest changing "that the Amazon rainforest may change into a savanna once it passes a tipping point" to "that the Amazon rainforest may change into a savanna if it passes a tipping point" because of WP:CRYSTAL. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Note that Ilovemydoodle is blocked from the Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces so can comment neither here nor at ERRORS, which is probably why they added that message in such a strange place. * Pppery *it has begun...01:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
One filled prep. I thought I’d balance things out for once 😇. On a more serious note, if more preps were filled, we’d be under 60 approved hooks by now. Which is good; it’s less of a scramble with 24-hour rotations. Schwede6604:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
DYK Wrapped July 2022
"No one knows if a bird in flight has an egg in its stomach." African proverb
I have always loved that proverb and I am sure it has many meanings. I hope it has some meaning for you.
Hello, and welcome to the July DYK wrap up. Our DYK warrior Leeky, has taken some personal R&R so it falls on others to pick up slack. It fell on me to do the wrap! Thank you all for being good to one another and for encouraging participants... and for tweaking, reviewing, proposing, discussing, fussing ...well - you get the idea.
I went back and looked at all number one hooks of each month this year. The sum total of all views on every number one hook from January to June 2022 was 252,306. July's hook got an eye popping 287,463 views!
Our best performing hooks of July:
No image for the Bohr's law Gunslinger effect number 1 hook (no image) (287,463 views in 24 hours)
Tattoist Amund Dietzel 1914 number 2 hook image (21,343 views in 12 hours)
Claudia Octavia number 3 hook image (31,877 views in 24 hours)
1982 World's Fair Sunsphere number 4 hook image (14,504 views in 12 hours)
... that according to Bohr's law, (no image) the person who draws first in a gunfight loses? 287,463 views in 24 hours by editors Thames27 and BuySomeApples reviewed by Hawkeye7
... that Amund Dietzel(pictured), sometimes called the "Rembrandt of the rind", learned to tattoo after he went to sea at the age of 14? 21,343 views in 12 hours by Dreamyshade reviewed by Bruxton
... that The Great Wave off Kanagawa(pictured) has been described as "possibly the most reproduced image in the history of all art"? by Golden reviewed by Iskandar323 28,640 views in 24 hours
... that one Palestinian man criticized the beauty of West Bank Wall graffiti art(example pictured), telling Banksy: "We don't want this wall to be beautiful. We hate it. Go home"? by Onceinawhile and reviewed by theleekycauldron 18,583 views in 24 hours
And, a shout out... on only their second hook, ArcticSeeress had a July top 10 hook!
... that a Florida resident was arrested after posting on RateMyCop.com? by ArcticSeeress and reviewed by Urve 12,802 views in 12 hours
Quirky hooks that were appreciated
... that Stig Millehaugen, who had escaped or attempted escape from prison multiple times, was given a prison furlough in 2022 and failed to return? by Pikavoom and reviewed by BeanieFan11 14,315 views
... that mathematics professor Ari Nagel has fathered more than a hundred children? by Mvqr and reviewed by Tbhotch 11,462 views in 12 hours
... that George Allsopp was arrested three times for not carrying a lantern? expanded by Z1720 and reviewed by Steelkamp 9,627 views
Quirky hooks that went underappreciated
Here are some of our July quirky hooks that went under-appreciated. Did you know...
... that Robert M. Blizzard, who pioneered growth hormone therapy in children, liked to joke that he had added 11 miles (18 km) to the height of the U.S. population? by 97198 and reviewed by Dumelow 2,659 views
Thank you BlueMoonset for helping us find the hooks that need attention. You are also on point at all times. @Narutolovehinata5, Kusma, EEng, Schwede66, Amakuru, SL93, Z1720, Gerda Arendt, Mandarax, Theleekycauldron, Wugapodes, Maile66, Maury Markowitz, Gatoclass, Sammi Brie, and TSventon: all kept our little corner of the front page working. We all missed Leeky for a few weeks and I thought of them when I saw some hand wringing over the lack of prep builders. Luckily Z1720 was available to help! Thanks to Valereee for providing helpful guidance in these endeavors. I have been proud to work with this fine group of editors, and I am energized by the thought of us helping one another and making learning fun! In DYK we forgive mistakes easily and we pitch in when work backs up. DYK may be the most accessible section of the front page and it is because of you.
Thanks for pulling this together, Bruxton. And thank you for your kind words. The big revelation that occurred to me during July is the massive views that videos get. The video here ran as part of a double hook and the articles got a meagre 3k views combined. But the video came in at a whopping 405k views. There's a discussion further up where others checked other video views and yes, they do phenomenally well. This really appeals to main page visitors and I wonder whether we should encourage the wider DYK community to consider video submissions. Schwede6603:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
"I hope it has some meaning for you" - reminds me of the poet saying "if you like my poem, if you feel like it adds something to your life in any way, then you can pay me whatever you feel like" in Before Sunrise, a sentiment Céline and I both appreciate. Thank you. Urve (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, uplifting! My personal surprise was how much attention a picreceived that was not on DYK, just the hook. Second surprise that we had four opera singers in three days ;) - never again tell me that opera is a niche topic ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
The nom was placed in May, but I approved it a couple of days ago. I'm surprised that it hasn't moved to a prep yet, considering that it is a non-US, non-bio hook, and it is now one of our oldest nominations. I would promote it myself, but I can't promote a hook that I have approved. Any particular reason it hasn't been moved to a prep yet? Z1720 (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Evrik: Thanks for mentioning this. When I do not promote a hook, I post a note on the DYK page to outline what it is I didn't like (interest, grammar/phrasing, couldn't verify the information, etc.) and then I try to suggest ALT hooks. This allows the nominator to address the concerns, instead of letting the hook stay in the "Approved" list indefinitely. I'd appreciate it if you or other preppers who have passed on this hook comment there. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Promotion without photo
I see no developing community consensus to move either of Mhhossein's hooks to the image slot, as this discussion turns rather sour. Further discussion can continue at the promoter's talk page if necessary, but the community is not inclined to step in. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:16, 4 August 2022 (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.
Hi Evrik. I just realized you have promoted the reviewed & accepted hook. But why is it not accompanying the photo? The reviewer, Normsupon, said "I would strongly prefer that the accompanying photo be included". Mhhosseintalk04:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The licensing says All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License." Per this discussion, all images without explicitly watermarked attribution to agency photographers are presumed to be outside this license. I don't think I see a watermark? Valereee (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The issue was I needed a non-U.S, and a non-biography hook to fill out the Prep. If someone else wants to swap it out for another Prep set, I'm okay with that. --evrik(talk)15:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The lack of a watermark would still be a problem for licensing. I'm looking at the uncropped original, and it does have the watermark. Any licensing experts know whether it's kosher for us to crop that out under that license? Valereee (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Valereee, Creative Commons Attribution means that you are allowed to crop the photo. It's "No Derivatives" (ND) that prevents you from cropping but that license isn't allowed on Commons in the first instance. Schwede6623:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Basically, this. Even if nominators request that their hooks to the image slot, promoters don't have to take that into account. In fact, from experience, more often than not, said requests are not granted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not actually sure it's any different. I mean, we can assume all nominators who include a photo would like the image slot. The fact one other person agrees with them doesn't mean the promoter is required to slot it there. Valereee (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not what I meant. Of course we nominators want to see our images promoted, but the wish is stronger when supported by a reviewer. There's still no requirement for the promoter to use it, but more weight. For an example, see Salmo 150. In that case, the reviewer supports the image (which was the reason to write the article), but not the fact. What do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
A bit more weight, but I'd say not a lot. If I review a DYK nom, I'm quite likely to think that it merits an image and in most cases I would recommend it. After all, most of our DYKs, particularly those on landmarks and bios, would be made better by including an image; but the reality is that only one in eight get to have that honour. It's at the discretion of the prep builders, and nobody should expect otherwise IMHO. — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
To put a prep set together is a bit of an art. There are so many competing issues. I don't think it's reasonable to burden prep builders with another constraint; they make the call what gets chosen. Apart from the fact that there are more image requests than slots available, even if it's supported by the reviewer. The best thing to do if an editor "misses out" is to nominated another picture hook. And another. With enough experience, you get a sense for what prep builders are more likely to pick. Schwede6610:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
No one's saying it shouldn't. We're saying not every image nominated ends up being used, and it's up to the promoter. Aaaaaaand this is the unfun part of promoting. Valereee (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Looking a bit at the statistics, of the total of 91 current approved hooks, 38 nominations are accompanying with images. A rough ratio of 7 images in 16 nominations (2 preps). And a prep builder can accommodate just 2 images for every 16 nominations (2 preps). Means that they have to promote many nominations without the image. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
On a related note, I'm concerned about the hook itself:
Why are we referring to these kids as "EB children"? They're children with epidermolysis bullosa. The hook also could be tightened. Not sure we need the 'butterfly kids' in there, is that really doing anything, especially when it's followed by 'among other patients'? Valereee (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, I have no problem with the change. I have not felt empowered enough to start modifying approved hooks, though the thought has crossed my mind. --evrik(talk)14:54, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
@Evrik, when you modify an approved hook, at minimum ping the nom in the edit summary. Ideally if you have time, open a discussion here and ping them and the reviewer to it, even for what feels like a minor change. (I didn't here because Mhhossein was already in this discussion and Normsupon had already been pinged.) Many hooks do get modified in prep or queue, it's totally part of the process here. But since there's no way for noms to watchlist their hooks as they travel through the process, a ping is helpful to them and helps minimize complaints to you. :D Valereee (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know evrik, but I think your promotion of children with epidermolysis bullosa hook is not pleasant at all. I just realized you have not promoted Alt2, why? The reviewer has accepted it and it is my priority. Would you please re-open the discussion? Thanks. --Mhhosseintalk11:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I think if you read through all the comments here, you'll see that the hook has been rewritten again. This is an iterative and collaborative process. Not every picture request gets answered. I used your hook because it gave the set balance. Congrats on your DYK. --evrik(talk)14:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@Evrik: AFAIK, but what I see here in the comments is that you have acted primarily based on your own decision which is not really acceptable for a reviewed DYK when the reviewer has accepted my hook. Alt2 (here) is MUCH more interesting and hooky and the second one is not as much. There are two big changes here; you have opted not to use the image, despite the "strong" recommendation by the reviewer and you have not used the discussed and selected hook (Alt2). Otherwise, I would be thankful if you could just re-open the discussion so that other promoters could have their voices there. Thanks.--Mhhosseintalk11:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: Are you complaining about the hook, or the fact that the image was not used? I'm confused what you're now arguing. The hook was modifed by others. Congrats on your DYK. --evrik(talk)15:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mhhossein, you're asking to switch the ALT to this one?
This is an international dispute and therefore is a controversial topic, but Normsupon's review did not mention NPOV. If the nomination is reviewed again, could the reviewer also comment on NPOV? TSventon (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I'm aware. I thanked Schwede above for the clarification of licensing. We get like four times as many images as we can use, and the selection of a hook for the image slot is up to the promoter, and that decision is usually based on multiple factors. Valereee (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Valereee, thanks for the response. I can understand that there are more images than we can handle on the main page, but still think my suggestion will gather much more eyes than the this one will do. As for the hook, I asked Cwmhiraeth to change the hook. --Mhhosseintalk06:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
That is another of the probably dozens of factors a promoter might or might not consider as they build a prep. They are not required to take that into account. Some might always take it into account. Some might never take it into account. We leave this up to promoters. Valereee (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
I was going to swap the hook for ALT2, but that seems not to have been approved yet. So I have instead moved the hook to Prep 3 pending review of ALT2. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Mhhossein, DYK gives very wide leeway to promoters in choosing the hook and its placement – that is, after all, their job. A promoter can fill the image slot on any criteria, or even arbitrarily (policies and guidelines notwithstanding, of course). DYKers generally shy away from overruling the promoter's choice – if they have promoted something within the guidelines and reasonably hooky, it's likely going to stay where it is. To quote evrik, "congrats on your DYK" :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks for the explanation theleekycauldron. I am well aware of the DYK mechanism and as far as I know, Wikipedia gives leeway to users to discuss the procedures and that is why they should not shy away asking for explanation. @Valereee: Looking at my comments, they were kind enough so I'd like to kindly ask you avoid labeling them as harassment plz. Besides, I know promoting requires considering many factors and this job needs some sort of skill, but this does not mean they are free to do 'solely' based on one's desire. Finally, I feel like this is not the place I knew in the past. Best. --Mhhosseintalk14:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mhhossein:, look at your comments under Promotion without photo. Asking questions is one thing. I wouldn't have used the word berate, but please "read the room." You have two DYK hooks in the prep sets, I'm confused what point you're trying to make. --evrik(talk)15:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
You have had multiple explanations from multiple editors. You seem to want to hear some other explanation for why you aren't getting everything you want. Refusing to allow others to break off the discussion because you aren't satisfied yet is basically the definition of sealioning. Valereee (talk) 15:21, 4 August 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.
I assume that it has to go into Queue 4 then? I promoted the hooks there so... Schwede66, is it possible for you to swap the Lost Boy Larry hook in prep 1 with the TV (song) hook in Queue 4 slot 4? Because I made the mistake to include two hooks about songs in the same set, and we had a Billie Eilish-related hook recently on 2 August, so that one seems the most logical one to swap out. ~StyyxTalk?12:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Lost Boy Larry got swapped out of Perp 4, then out of Prep 5. It now needs to go back to Queue 4 or Queue 5 to be on August 7. --evrik(talk)15:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The a boy's voice over CB radio claiming to be within an overturned truck in New Mexico hook in Prep 1 (article Lost Boy Larry) needs to be moved to Queue 4, not Queue 5. It will get 17 to 20 hours on the main page on August 7 that way, even if it starts 4 to 7 hours before local midnight on August 7. An admin will be needed to make the move, and swap out one of the existing Queue 4 hooks to make room for the incoming hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
The previous list was archived the other day, so I've created a new list of all 13 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 28. We have a total of 127 nominations, of which 66 have been approved, a gap of 61 nominations, down 14 over the previous ten days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, and those who have recently been reviewing so many nominations—may this progress continue!
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) 01:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Small error on the nomination page?
Greetings, I spotted a stray {{DYKsubpage |monthyear=August 2022 |passed= |2= between the nominations for Hamim Tohari and Tomoi (manga).
I'm not sure what exactly went wrong here and it doesn't seem like it disrupted too much, but I feel like that shouldn't be visible there. Can somebody fix it? LordPeterII (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Just to clarify here: if a reviewer strikes a hook during a review, is the nominator permitted to unilaterally unstrike the hook if they disagree with the reviewer, or is unilaterally unstriking a hook without discussion discouraged? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd say you can unstrike it, but obviously it needs another reviewer to get approved. This is also why I have a preference for naming the approved hooks rather than using strike outs. Kingsif (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Fateh Muhammad Panipati
This hook was flagged at Errors and I've copied the discussions to here:
I don't know about the rules or culture of DYK, but it seems to me that there's a common theme of dispensing with the niceties of WP:NPOV when coming up with concise hooky hooks. In any article, this hook would draw a demand for a citation and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV compliance. This particular example is not WP:PEACOCK but I've seen many DYKs that would be. Now the main article for this example does indeed attribute the description to an individual named Taqi Usmani. Must we continue to use unattributed passive-voice descriptors for DYK subjects, or can we strive to comply with the same rules of NPOV that govern article space? Elizium23 (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm really not sure at this time about, Must we continue to use unattributed passive-voice descriptors for DYK subjects, or can we strive to comply with the same rules of NPOV that govern article space? Perhaps, this should have a full fledged discussion on the DYK talk page? ─ The Aafī on Mobile(talk)13:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: I'm not able to understand where this particular hook has been questioned. It has however been said that such hooks should not be puffery and should be available in the article with an attribute-citation and this one does pass everything. The only question is that person who brought this issue here has seen many other hooks (not this one) not in compliance with NPOV. Moving this hook to Prep 5 is not the best practice in my opinion. The questioner poses his question and doesn't say there's any error in this specific DYK but they question a broader practice, and that's what we discussion on. This hook should have been passed and the discussion posted over here imo. Am I missing something? ─ The Aafī on Mobile(talk)04:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
SL93, I'm definitely sure that the editor who brought this hook to errors had no problem with this specific hook but they were questioning a completely different thing, and that's why I said, moving this hook to prep-5 was not a wise action. It should've been passed and a discussion about that different thing be continued here. They posed their question explicitly, Must we continue to use unattributed passive-voice descriptors for DYK subjects, or can we strive to comply with the same rules of NPOV that govern article space? but nowhere in the whole comment did they opine against this specific queue. ─ The Aafī(talk)06:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
And that makes me say this hook should likely be moved to the next queue, and the discussion about the question be continued/discontinued, whatever. It was supposed to appear on the Main Page on 6 August (IST). ─ The Aafī(talk)07:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Please pardon my ignorance on the subject matter, but I'd just like to inquire how much of a big deal al-Jazari is in the context of Islamic studies. Because to me at least, I'm not sure if the hook works unless the reader is familiar with him. If he's well-known among Muslims, then the hook is probably okay. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
@DYK admins: @TSventon and BlueMoonset: Some easily understood guidelines about IP edits under our basic guidelines and also at Reviewing guide would be good. A lot has changed since 2014. DYK has gotten a lot more nitpicking about reviews, and we surely have the most detailed dos and don'ts of all of the Wikipedia projects. Perhaps there could be some suggestions here about how to define our basic instructions on the issue. — Maile (talk) 13:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
I would be happy to document the current situation, even if that just means changing "Any user may nominate a DYK suggestion" to "Any autoconfirmed registered user may nominate a DYK suggestion". Hopefully DYK admins are better aware of the current situation than I am. TSventon (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
In Queue 3, I think it would be preferable to not have two hooks mentioning musicians named "Bob" right next to each other. Also it may be better to separate the last two hooks, both dealing with medical conditions. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 18:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I have been the past recipient of a rather generous DYK "credit" merely for writing multiple ALT hooks that ultimately weren't even used and apparently made the original hook look much better in comparison. 🙂 At the time, I did feel like the "credit" was a bit overblown but appreciated the gesture, and in the case of the current DYK, I was extremely grateful for the workshopping and subject matter expertise which resulted in a much better hook than I could have written myself. As far as I can tell, the DYK "credits" don't actually "count" for much anyway, and I'm not that into gamification, just passing along gratitude, so I hope the credit can still stand. Thank you. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
More germanely, perhaps, I have added missing DYK credits for the other two articles in the hook, which were absent before. — RAVENPVFF·talk·18:31, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to Template:Did you know has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please apply the sandbox (except for the hooks, if they get updated by the bot since the time of writing this post): Special:Diff/1104141709/1104198670.
Not done. Number 1 is probably harmless, number 2 may need discussion (the links are very handy next to the hooks, I would rather remove the other instance), and number 3 is bad, as the extra tag helps against accidentally including bad things on the Main Page. All of these need checking with the other templates and all relevant bot operators. —Kusma (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@DYK admins: If anyone hasn't seen this, there are thousands of DYK nominations templates are appearing on the Unused Templates report. These templates should be marked transclusionless to avoid being added to the report. The report has gone haywire and makes it difficult to navigate easily. At the moment, it's on pages 7 to 27. These need to be removed from the reports. If someone can add a fix to this, please do so. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
If anybody reading this knows what unused templates are, raise your hand. And then please explain it to the rest of us. I know what a template is, but if you don't use one, how does it end up on a report? There is a Unused Templates Task Force, and while I recognize some of the participant names, it's still not clear. — Maile (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
As DYK nominations are not templates (they are discussion pages that are in the template namespace for historical reasons) I think people interested in templates should ignore all of them, whether open or closed. —Kusma (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps unsurprisingly given Wikipedia's structure, our four peer-review processes that involve review-specific sub-pages (FAC, PR, GAN, DYK) exist in three different namespaces (Wikipedia, Wikipedia, Talk, Template, respectively). It makes me scream inside every time I think about it, but the effort of standardizing almost certainly outweighs the benefit. DYK's processes sitting in template-space are almost certainly the most annoying aspect, though. Vanamonde (Talk)07:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Clarifying qualification for QPQ
I've seen some users under the impression that for a review to count as a QPQ credit, the review must be approval or a closure mark, or even that the nomination must be closed first. Can we add this clarifying text to WP:DYK?
A "completed QPQ review" need not be final. A full initial review, assessing the article and hook in relation to the DYK criteria, is a valid submission for a QPQ.
Do we need it? WP:DYKCRIT on that page already has both The review must address all five criteria listed here. and Qualifying QPQs need to be full reviews, and not simply a "check mark." A review needs to include some sort of icon status to count as a complete for QPQ purposes in addition to addressing all of the DYK criteria, but definitely does not need to have attained a final tick. If we do need to be explicit, then one of the two phrases I've quoted should probably be modified to include the additional info. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Actually maybe it should be final. If a nom doesn't return to address concerns, and no one else has adopted it after a couple of weeks, close the nom as failed, take the QPQ, and move on. Valereee (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
As far as I know, there's no written or unwritten rule that QPQs must be of successful nominations should count. Simply that the review checked all requirements even if the nomination ultimately failed. It doesn't even have to have been given a "final" (i.e. a tick or rejection) mark. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't know whether it's helpful to codify it or not, but to avoid slowing things down considerably, a QPQ in my view should just be evidence of a reviewer completing an initial review, whether that gives nominator feedback to implement or is mid-discussion or is a final closure mark. We can AGF that reviewers will stay engaged in the process. Any attempt to game the system (i.e. repeatedly or deliberately abandoning reviews after claiming QPQ credit) should be dealt with on an individual basis. — Bilorv (talk) 07:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I think a QPQ can be used while the review is ongoing, so long as the reviewer follows up on the nom. While reviewing and promoting, if I see that the nominator needs to comment in their QPQ and it's been a couple of days since the last comment, then I will mention it and wait to promote that hook. To my recollection, I have only done this once. Z1720 (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I see your point and I agree that you should prod the nominator if they haven't followed up on their QPQ and their input is needed. But I think this is in the remit of common sense, not a matter for more DYK rules. — Bilorv (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
Actually, it was promoted to Prep 7, moved to Prep 2, promoted to Queue 2, and ultimately removed from the queue by Gatoclass on 21 July with the notation "pull hook as nominator is working on a double", but the nomination was never reopened at the time, and the second article, while apparently completed, is too short to be a second bold link. Gerda Arendt, I don't think, after all that discussion, we can revert to the original hook. I have just restored the nomination to the Nominations page. Courtesy ping to Narutolovehinata5, who was involved in the prior discussion. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
(Edit conflict, and question probably solved:) Yes it was approved, and in prep, and then came the archived discussion, and it was moved from prep to prep, and out of prep without reopening the discussion. - Over a death in the family and vacation days, I lost track. Where are we now?
After edit conflict: I didn't suggest to use the original hook unquestioned. I just believe it was a workable hook, and much of this back and forth was a waste of time, of many people. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Technical question in regards to Freya (walrus) nom archiving
Greetings, so looking at the talk page it seems like the discussion, which had to be re-openened halfway (sorry!), was now only archived up to the first point: Talk:Freya_(walrus)#Did_you_know_nomination Can someone check that the latter half of the discussion is also being archived? It's probably not a priority, but I just wanted to mention it. -- LordPeterII (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
Fixed. The problem was that the edits posted after that halfway point were all placed below the Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line. line. This is why it's important not to make posts below that line. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
5x?
How much latitude do I have on the 5x size requirement as a reviewer? Popcornfud put in a worthy effort expanding The Shaggs but misunderstood how 5x is measured. Do I really need to fail this, or is the 5x rule something that can be stretched? -- RoySmith(talk)22:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
The 5x rule cannot be stretched in terms of the number, contra evrik, but you can (and should!) give extra time for the expansion to occur—we typically allow an opportunity to expand further if the initial expansion falls short, and this is a clear case where such additional time is warranted. The article was nominated within seven days of the expansion beginning; it was a 5146 prose character article and therefore needs to attain 25730 prose characters. It's currently 21846 prose characters, so another 3884 are needed. Alternatively, the nominator can try to get the article in shape to become a Good Article, but 3884 prose characters may be an easier reach. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
The previous list was archived over a week ago; my apologies for not posting a new one sooner. 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 August 13. We have a total of 194 nominations, of which 105 have been approved, a gap of 89 nominations, up 28 over the previous sixteen days. Let's reclose that gap! Thanks to everyone who reviews these and the other unreviewed noms.
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) 17:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Non-linked name mentions
At Template:Did you know nominations/Crippled, Z1720 is pointing to an apparently unwritten but established practice at DYK to not mention a person's name in a hook unless it is bluelinked. The hook in question is (modulo other recommendations being implemented): ... that in Crippled, author Frances Ryan describes a disabled British woman who was unable to afford heating or her specialist meals due to an austerity programme that began in 2010? (The individual in question i.e. Frances Ryan is high-profile, and likely notable but just without an article, and the claim isn't BLP sensitive.)
No reason has been given why it would be undesirable to mention the name here, just precedent that sometimes people remove such names and cite the inapplicable C1: No redlinks in the hook. I've noted that regulars Gerda Arendt and Theleekycauldron seemed fine with a different unlinked book author mention here in April 2022.
Is this an unwritten rule? And if so, can we discuss whether to keep it and write it down somewhere, or get rid of it?
I'll start off by opposing any such rule as the culture of rule creep at DYK drives me—a relatively active editor with non-negligible experience—mad because I can't keep up with it. — Bilorv (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm aware of no such unwritten rule, that non-notable people (or those lacking articles) are not mentioned in hooks. I do generally try to cut them out anyway – saves precious space – but it's definitely not mandatory. If you think it'll help the hook, by all means. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 15:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Following this discussion. Some hooks that I've promoted in the past have had non-linked individuals removed, or other editors have commented that a non-linked person should not be mentioned, which is why I assumed it was discouraged. I don't really have a personal opinion on whether the author's name should be included or not, although a personal preference is to have the author be blue-linked if possible. Z1720 (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Sure, but this is a far cry from "an unlinked name". Non-notable is not the same as "not the subject of an article". Nor is privacy relevant for non-notable but high-profile individuals. This is a serious problem with DYK. A decision is made once in line with existing policy or common sense, and through replication and a game of Chinese whispers it becomes a much more general arbitrary and unwritten rule enforced by a small in-group.Unlike all other quality review processes and TFA, TFL, POTD and OTD (not ITN, I'll grant), DYK is unmanageable to keep up with for editors who are only available a couple of times per week, as things get sent back after approval, messed about with in prep and changed while live on ERRORS. When there's a problem in the hook, that must be done, but not for rules in search of a problem. — Bilorv (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey, @Bilorv, can we find a link for "specialist meals"? I feel like it must mean something like prescribed meal or limited diet, but I feel like there must be something here that discusses a meal that is prescribed(?) or has to be prepared in some special, expensive way(?) that we could link to, either here or at the article. I went from the hook to the article to the source, and I see that it's described everywhere in the same way, but (to this speaker of AmEng, anyway) it's not clear. Valereee (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: there are definitely notable topics, but I don't think we have articles on any of them. From Crippled: Her bowel condition [unspecified] means she can't safely eat solids or absorb vitamins naturally and needs specialist meals: a chemically pureed food her body can digest easily. But it's £3.50 a go. The issue with "prescribed meal", which I considered, is that the book is not clear whether the meals are literally prescriptions (possibly the £3.50 is for 2 meals per prescription charge or something similar), or available outside a pharmacy or without a doctor's prescription. It's not a "limited diet" like gluten free: it's completely different food. In any case, Susan can't afford it (as of 2017–19), so she just eats cereal, which she can't digest properly and is not nutritionally complete (for anybody). But it's better than immediate death by starvation. — Bilorv (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
@Bilorv: does the description on page 13 say that the meals were available through an NHS prescription? If not, I think the word "prescribed" [specialist meals] is confusing and should be removed or replaced by something like [specialist meals] "she needed". The prescription charge in 2017 was apparently £8.60, so the numbers don't add up. I can find pureed meals online for £5.30 each in the UK, so £3.50 per meal in 2017 sounds plausible, possibly via Meals on Wheels. @Valereee: is the problem "specialist"? In context it means prepared by a company which focuses on meals for the disabled, rather than the general public. Would puréed [meals she needed] be clearer? TSventon (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@TSventon, it's not so much a problem as it's just an unfamiliar term to me and I wondered if we needed to link it to something. I don't think it's anything that necessarily should be changed in the hook or delay the scheduled appearance. It's maybe just EngVar? Valereee (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
TSventon my comment above says: ... the book is not clear whether the meals are literally prescriptions (possibly the £3.50 is for 2 meals per prescription charge or something similar), or available outside a pharmacy or without a doctor's prescription. The phrase specialist meals is chosen deliberately to avoid the implication that it is a prescription. It is a correct technical term per the book, which uses only this phrase.The phrase "she needed" would convey no more additional information: everybody needs meals, and people with digestive conditions need particular meals, so no ambiguity is resolved.I don't particularly mind "puréed meals" as an alternative to "specialist meals".Pinging Vanamonde93, who asked a similar thing at Talk:Crippled. — Bilorv (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Bilorv, I was hoping you could clarify your comment about prescriptions. The book says 'My doctor's telling me I need a certain diet but the government means I can't afford it.': it does not say or imply that the meals are prescribed,so I don't think "prescribed" should be used in the article. The article doesn't mention Susan's digestive condition, so "she needed" does convey some additional information.Valereee, Wiktionary suggests that "specialist" used as an adjective is UKusage, so EngVar is probably involved. TSventon (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@TSventon: right, I see—you were talking about the article, not the hook. I didn't realise that I had used prescribed in the article, and I've now removed it and explained that she has a digestive condition. — Bilorv (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
The article Anyone Here Been Raped and Speaks English? may just pass the length, but there are a sum total of three sentences actually about the book, rather than the otherwise-unrelated quote the book uses as its title, at the article. I am surprised a reviewer didn't pick up on that, and I would honestly suggest reworking the article to be about the quote and mention the book in passing (or, exactly as much detail as there already is). Kingsif (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I saw that Christy Martin vs. Deirdre Gogarty got promoted to Queue 3. I didn't approve it yet, though (for reasons stated in my review) and the previous green tick mark was made by someone new to DYK who didn't understand the process. (I apologize if I missed a step in manually moving the template back to the "pending" page. Somehow I thought it would happen automatically.)
That said, I am more than happy for someone else to do a fresh review and approve the article ASAP if you think it's ready! In my opinion, the article falls down a bit on references (formatting, missing refs) and needs more care with the citations (bordering on OR in a few places), and I could imagine we would get feedback about it if it goes to the main page as is. That said, if someone else takes over reviewing the article, I am happy to edit and fix in parallel (although I also know ideally we shouldn't be editing so heavily down to the wire). Cielquiparle (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
When I was promoting hooks today, I saw that this nom was open and was also in a queue. I proceeded to close the nom, which is why my name is listed as the promoter (even though I did not add it to the prep.) Z1720 (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mandarax: Unfortunately no, the deletion conduct case became more involved than I was expecting. I'm not sure of the timeline as my work commitments are picking up in meatspace as well, but once the deletion RfC is underway WugBot will be the next priority. — Wug·a·po·des19:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
As last brought up by Valereee, leaving a few empty slots somewhere (an image, a quirky, and one other) is helpful for others working in preps or queues who may need to swap something out and are looking for a space to move a hook into. Currently, every prep is full, with Evrik having filled the last few spots. Schwede6622:40, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
My point is that it should never come to this in the first instance. You don't know when the next admin has time to promote to queue but you do know when you run out of room in prep. Schwede6600:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not happy about this article and hook. I do not believe that an inquest has been held to establish the cause of death. Nor do I think the hook facts are established, or if they are, are reliably sourced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
The article reads like a tabloid newspaper report. The lead starts with the sentence "On November 27, 2020, Alexis Sharkey, a 26-year-old social media influencer, was murdered by her 49-year-old husband, Thomas "Tom" Sharkey." but I see no mention of this with a source in the main text. I don't like it, it's all conjecture. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
From the article, in "Later aftermath": About two weeks after the murder, Tom left Texas.[7] When he soon failed to cooperate or take any action in regards to funeral plans for Alexis, he was swapped out as her next of kin.[20] A private funeral was held on December 19 with only close family and friends[13] and kept secret from Tom.[21]Multiple sources also share the results of the woman's autopsy, listing the cause of death as strangulation. I don't see the sourcing issue, unless I'm missing a detail here? Bsoyka (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I have pulled the hook. You should not leave the opening sentence of the article as it is unless you can find a reliable source that states that Tom murdered her. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I support the decision to pull this hook. We can't have this article on the main page when its accusing someone of murder when that claim doesn't seem to be strongly established. Hog FarmTalk14:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Thomas was wanted for murder in connection with his wife's death, after a warrant for his arrest was issued on Sept. 29. A spokesman for the Houston police said that Thomas was the only person with the means and motive to kill Alexis.[2]Bsoyka (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Innocent until proven guilty under US law. Just because everyone's pretty sure he did it, doesn't mean that we can say he did. Hog FarmTalk20:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Actually, he's neither alive nor recently deceased, so in point of fact we can say he did it, if the sourcing was solid. But it's not. This article is a mess, like so many others. Though I have a soft spot for one particular editor working in the area, in general Wikipedia's coverage of modern true crime is just awful -- overdetail, tabloid writing, poor sourcing, etc etc. EEng03:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it's even an article (WP:NOTNEWS). I could understand if the victim (or indeed the perpetrator) were notable, but they weren't. It also needs a good copyedit (perp referred to as "Tom") and there are some flaky sources (i.e. Washington Examiner). Black Kite (talk)20:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I must admit it's hard to say this as I've put a lot of effort into this one, but definitely PROD the article or take it over to AfD if y'all feel it's necessary—no hard feelings whatsoever. Bsoyka (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
No reflection on you at all, but I have noticed that there do seem to be a lot of articles on murders and other crimes that don't seem to stand out as being particularly notable. Black Kite (talk)08:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
East Louisiana Railroad
Two issues with the promoted hook here: first, the only mention of Plessy v. Ferguson is in the uncited lead paragraph; the lead doesn't need citations, but that's only if all the material is cited elsewhere. Second, the hook refers to segregation in the United States, but the article only makes reference to the Separate Car Act, not segregation as a whole. I haven't pulled the hook yet, as we have a day and some to fix this, but I will need to do that if we haven't addressed it in 24 hours. @Trainsandotherthings, LordPeterII, and Z1720:Vanamonde (Talk)18:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
@Trainsandotherthings: That's better, thank you, but doesn't entirely cover it, in my view. The hook is implying the railroad company intended to help Plessy overturn racial segregation, which the text does not support. The text says that the company helped him challenge the Separate Car Act, and that Plessy himself wished to overturn Jim Crow laws, but those facts don't quite add up to the hook. If you wish to work on this without a deadline, I'm willing to pull it; otherwise, I would suggest we replace "Segregation in the United States" with a piped link to the Separate Car Act, explaining what it was. Something like "segregation in train cars in Louisiana". Vanamonde (Talk)05:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
The hook reads, "that the East Louisiana Railroad, which removed Homer Plessy from a train, actually did so to help him start Plessy v. Ferguson and attempt to overturn segregation in the United States?" It's beyond any doubt that the company was seeking to have the law overturned, and supported Plessy in that regard. The lawsuit argued that the Separate Car Act was a vioation of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. Plessy and his backers in the Comité des Citoyens were trying to in effect overturn Jim Crow laws and by extension the whole system of segregation. If you want to be pedantic, I would be ok with changing the hook to "that the East Louisiana Railroad, which removed Homer Plessy from a train, actually did so to help him start Plessy v. Ferguson, an attempt to overturn segregation in the United States?" The railroad intentionally helped him challenge the law, and had Plessy prevailed, there would have been a precedent that segregation was illegal based on the 13th and 14th amendments. I think your proposed change significantly weakens the hook.
[3] "In actuality, Homer Plessy boarded that train as part of a carefully orchestrated effort to create a civil-rights test case, to fight the proliferation of segregationist laws in the South." Again, the railroad was in on the case and understood what Plessy was trying to do.
[4] "Railroad officials proved surprisingly cooperative. The first one approached, however, confesses that his road "did not enforce the law." It provided the Jim Crow car and posted the sign required by law, but told its conductors to molest no one who ignored instructions. Officers of two other railroads "said the law was a bad and mean one; they would like to get rid of it," and asked for time to consult counsel. "The want to help us," said Martinet [a young lawyer/physician/editor who helped organize the resistance to Jim Crow in New Orleans], "but dread public opinion." … It was finally agreed that a white passenger should object to the presence of a black in a "white" coach, that the conductor should direct the passenger to go to the Jim Crow car, and that he should refuse to go. "The conductor will be instructed not to use force or molest," reported Martinet, "& our white passenger will swear out the affidavit. This will give us our habeas corpus case, I hope."" This source explicitly states that railroads, including the East Louisiana Railroad, were opposed to Jim Crow laws (thought weren't open about it due to public opinion in favor of segregation), and by extension sought their overturning. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
If you are unwilling to entertain the evidence I've provided, then change the hook, but I'd be disappointed. Just the same I do not want to delay the hook either. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
@Trainsandotherthings: I think you're misunderstanding me a little bit. I do not dispute that the company wished to challenge the Separate Car Act. But that law does not equate to segregation in the US as a whole. We could say "... that the East Louisiana Railroad, which removed Homer Plessy from a train, actually did so to help him start Plessy v. Ferguson and attempt to overturn segregation in train cars in Louisiana?" Or we could go with your suggestion, and call it "an attempt". I don't mind, so long as the specific issue above is addressed. Vanamonde (Talk)15:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
With the intention of bringing focus to how we can improve our hooks, I have created a list of the 25 lowest performing hooks from the past 12 months. The purposes is not to embarrass or criticize, but to see if we can come up with feedback on what went wrong -- hopefully feedback that can help us all be better. The list, on which everyone is free to offer suggestions, can be found at: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Statistics#Lowest performing hooks, part 2. Cbl62 (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
By no means a critique of this well-intended effort, I will say that an article that garners more pageviews than another article is NOT a reflection of a hook that is better crafted / better written / high performing. There are multiple flaws in this approach and I will lay out a few.
Certain topics are always going to be more attractive for page views than other topics. e.g. we have seen WWII events get more clicks than radio stations. We should not think higher or lower of one of the articles (or hooks) because of this behavior
Attributional traffic patterns are not easy to study, and certainly pageviews are not the right metric to study attributional traffic without normalizing for prior traffic patterns and for ongoing events. e.g. what % of the pageviews are coming from folks clicking the hook. We most certainly are not doing clickstream analysis.
We definitely do not do a longitudinal-study. What does the user do upon landing on a page? Does she close the page in disgust (pardon my exaggeration for dramatic appeal) at having clicked at a potentially click-baity hook or does she feel good about landing at the page and proceeds to read the entire page? We definitely do not measure time spent on the landing page.
Hooks are not geo-coordinated. This manifests itself straight away when we go to 12 hour rotations. e.g. what if the choir hooks have high interest in a region that was not mostly present during the run of the hook. It also manifests itself in geo-affinity for the DYK module at large.
Given that there are definitely more than one link in the hooks, do we consider a hook as "low performing" if a reader clicks one a non-bolded link rather than the bolded link?
With all of that said, workshopping what are considered "low performing" hooks is not the best exercise. Overall, this should be a project that editors feel energized contributing to and that should be that. I have mentioned more than once that this project is amongst the more friendly projects there are on WP, and we should all be proud of that and continue to welcome contributors and their contributions. I wish each and every one of you the absolute best. Ktin (talk) 05:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Hey, Ktin! Long time, no see :) a few thoughts as the
We do normalize for ongoing traffic patterns – every viewcount you see on the DYK stats page is adjusted for background views (using either the previous two days or the previous and following day, whichever works out better)
However, we are technically limited in checking where pageviews come from – we could have a system in which all bolded articles link to a redirect, and then we count views from that redirect – as of right now, we're not set up for that.
I remember doing some back-of-the-napkin math and not finding a huge difference between timeslots... I could rerun those numbers more rigorously, if you'd like.
We generally only count views from the bolded article – our purpose is not to highlight or bring attention to any article someone fancies, it's to bring attention to new content. If your article attracts lots of views to a different article, you've effectively distracted from the new/expanded content – which is what DYK wants to showcase.
Sigh... you might be right that this isn't the discussion to be having. Hook interestingness discussions tend to be exhausting, and I know they've burned me out of DYK quite a few times. We definitely should be balancing performance with the health of the community that drives DYK.
Long time indeed theleekycauldron. Hope you are doing well. I might be able to help with "checking where pageviews come from". Sometime back I was working on this for the WP:ITNRD project and here's what I had found / built out.
The data is relatively large, so I had a few scripts that would dump this data to a simple mysql database and would run a query like this select * from february_views where referer = 'Main_Page' and target in (select * from february_itn_posts) order by pageviews desc; More random examples can be seen here --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ktin/sandbox/adhoc_queries
A gamechanger would be if we are able to land some time spent data.
PS: I do want to add that despite what I note above, the discussion at the target link that Cbl62 has posted is absolutely constructive and the tone and approach is exactly the kind all of the encyclopedia's working projects should always strive for. Nicely done. Ktin (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I found this hook confusing, not just because of the "left"/"leaving" referring to different things, and it took a careful reading of the article to discover that Julie Ngungwa was the governor of Tanganyika, having taken office in May 2022, that the UN forces exited four of the six territories in the province about a month later, but kept a "presence" in the two that are referred to as the "triangle of death", said in the bolded article to be Nyunzu and Kalemie. However, when I checked the hook-linked Tanganyika Province article, it mentions the so-called "death triangle" of Manono-Mitwaba-Pweto, and in the UN/MONUSCO source used for "triangle of death" in the Julie Ngungwa article, it actually reads There are two territories, Nyunzu and Kalemie, north of Nyunzu, and also in the triangle of death, and here we are talking about Bendera, which would make the triangle something separate from those two territories, though the two also have their troubles.
I'm inclined to pull this nomination (which is one of two sequential bio hooks in Prep 2) due to both hook and article issues, but since I may be failing to understand something here given my limited knowledge of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, pinging Victuallers, Ruthgrace, and Evrik. In the interim, I have corrected the typo in the hook in Prep 2 (the missing second "n" in "Tangayika"). BlueMoonset (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to respond when the criticism includes that "it took a careful reading of the article to discover that Julie Ngungwa was the governor of Tanganyika" - in the second sentence the article says " In 2022 she became the Governor of Tanganyika Province." Is that unclear in some way? ... and there is a typing error? (realy?). I read There are two territories, Nyunzu and Kalemie, north of Nyunzu, and also in the triangle of death, and here we are talking about Bendera, and it seems clear that the hook is sourced especially when it also clarfies the meaning by saying "MONUSCO maintains a presence of its troops in these northern regions of the province". I agree with Evrik. Victuallers (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Victuallers, apologies for my wording: I plunged straight into the body of the article to see if I could find the wording of the hook there, and didn't think to check the lede—of course, it's right there up top. It wasn't as clear starting from the fourth paragraph, but that was my fault, not the article's. I have, however, pulled the nomination, because even with the "northern regions" text in the source, there is nothing that says that they are all in the so-called triangle. (This UN source from last year that I just found describes the triangle in a way that makes sense from source 9 in the Ngungwa article.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Does it not occur to anyone that if the number always goes up and one set a day, and always goes down at two sets a day, then neither is the correct velocity? We should probably be running each set for 18 hours or something, which is between those two extremes. — Amakuru (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Amakuru, I am probably stating the obvious, but changing once or twice a day means the main page is refreshed at the same time(s) each day. Also, switching between one and two sets a day manages fluctuations in the number of hooks approved each day. If we ran each set for 18 hours we would need another way of dealing with fluctuations in the supply of approved hooks. TSventon (talk) 09:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, and those are the 8 I promoted. I'd leave the discretion to the admins, but in any case, we'll hit 120 again soon, so admins should be aware. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Time to go to two sets per day
We've been back above 120 for some time; the number is currently 126 approved nominations. If possible, it would be great if one of the @DYK admins: could switch us to two sets per day by changing User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200 between now and 12:00 (UTC). If it can't be done by then, please hold off until after 00:00 (UTC) to make the changeover, or bad things will happen. Many thanks to whoever can take care of this.
I've checked through all the queues and preps, and I don't see any special occasion hooks in any of them—there aren't any comments indicating that any of the hooks should run on a particular date. The last such hook that was promoted from the Approved page ran on August 24; the next one won't need to run until September 15. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
@Ganesha811, Bruxton, and SounderBruce: I have moved this hook to Prep 1 pending further discussion. Although this is a nice article and image, almost all facts in the hook are inaccurate. The launch involved a 2-stage rocket, but it was the precision of the launch and the adjustments made to correct the orbit of the telescope that enabled the telescope to have enough fuel to extend its useful life. When the fuel runs out, it will remain indefinitely in space, but not be able to maintain its halo orbit. New hook needed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I was also involved, and thus also to blame for this slip. I think it was somewhat unfortunate that the originally proposed hooks were discarded early, since they were somewhat more accurate, if less hooky. If we are aiming for accuracy, with something this technical (it is rocket science, after all) we will inevitably have to sacrifice some hookyness. Let me suggest something to start with:
Sorry, but none of these hooks makes sense. How does a launch contribute to fuel savings? I think you're trying to say that some clever thing they did during the launch saved fuel. And why does it need to "contribute" to fuel savings? Can't it just save fuel, period? EEng18:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@EEng: As per Cwmhiraeth's concern above, the total fuel saving was only achieved by the combination of a successful launch, and a successful "first midcourse correction". I found no way of saying that in any way short enough for a hook; so unless we are again permitting some leeway in what's considered part of the launch (the course correction is in the article, but technically happened after the "launch" phase), we are only left with this option of describing it imo. If we only say that the launch saved some fuel, we can't say how much and lose the hooky part of doubling the time. As for the "why", this would again require more explanatory text, inflating the hook. Basically, how I understand is that no launch ever goes truly smooth, so they plan in some extra fuel to compensate any errors – just in this case, everything went smoothly, so the extra fuel remained available. Maybe we could just call the launch "flawless" (after this source)?
ALT3b ... that the "flawless" launch of the James Webb Space Telescope contributed to fuel savings that are expected to double the telescope's operational life to 20 years?
apologies for the interruption, but the current wording admittedly sounds really awkward to me. if i were to ride a bus down the croatian coast that used the new pelješac bridge to avoid passing through bosnia and herzegovina, i think it would be strange to state that "the 'flawless' bus ride contributed to time savings", or even that "the 'flawless' bus ride saved time". the ride itself did not save any time; it was bypassing the two international border crossings that saved time. if i had planned for the possibility that the bridge would be closed, i might state something like "the bus ride took less time than i had budgeted". along these lines, i would like to propose an alternative hook.
alt3c: ... that the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope and in-flight course corrections used far less fuel than was budgeted, effectively doubling the telescope's expected operational life to 20 years?
i think the "to 20 years" could be dropped, but left it in to show that this hook remains under 200 characters with it. if mentioning the course corrections explicitly is too wordy, simply stating "flight" instead might solve this issue. the following hook does this and drops the number of years as well for a punchier result.
I'm not really happy with ALT3c and ALT3d, as I find them to be slightly awkward instead: This is even more technically accurate, but at the cost of hookiness. The launch has been called flawless, and unlike a bus ride, rocket launches are far less frequent and far more difficult to pull off successfully (again, it is rocket science ^^). Compare the aborted launch from today: Something went wrong, but noone really knew why, so now we have to wait until 2 September for the next Artemis launch (try!). This might happen with buses, too, but the percentage of such incidents compared to successful bus launches is likely far smaller. A flawless launch is rare, as are fuel savings this significant. I'm not insisting on keeping "flawless" (it was not in the original hooks), but I'm not happy with a creep of technical details into the hook. in-flight course corrections are part of the article, but not the title; so keeping them out of the bolded+linked part makes it sound like they are not, while including them might make the article title seem overly long. I'm not sure "flight" is the best word to use either, given that a flight sounds like something with a beginning and an end (landing), while the telescope will experience course corrections for (up to) 20 years to come, and even afterwards could be considered in "flight".
I'd be fine with a modified ALT3c where in-flight course corrections is included in the piped text, but I don't think it'd be superior to previous hooks. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Checking in, I noticed that NASA scrubbed the launch of the Artemis 1 today - and rescheduled the launch for Friday September 2 - the rescheduled launch falls on the same day as prep 1 - mostly prep 2. This hook is in Prep 1 now. FYI: the rockets are different (Webb was launched with a Ariane 5) but maybe the rocket image in DYK on the same day as the Friday launch is a nice byproduct our hook tweaking. Hopefully a hook will shake out of this discussion. Cheers. Bruxton (talk) 22:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm not sure if "budgeted" is the right term for ALT3 and its alternatives. "Budgeted" sounds like it's referring to money even when it isn't in this particular case (and yes I know that "budgeted" doesn't necessarily have a monetary context, but most people assume that when they hear the term). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
I think "planned" could be used rather than "budgeted", if the latter word is deemed inappropriate (I understood what was meant). Pinging Cwmhiraeth to see whether she thinks there's a viable hook above to replace what's currently in Prep 1, or if the nom needs to be further delayed or pulled for further hook work. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
oh, that's brilliant, EEng! also, making the telescope itself the subject allows "its" to be used unambiguously later in the sentence, which was something i could not figure out how to accomplish. anyway, looks like this was a happy case of too many cooks improving the broth. thanks, all! dying (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to say I also like the new one, good job! One of the most productive discussions I've participated in here lately. --LordPeterII (talk) 15:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Help?
Hi. Is anyone interested in posting this DYK, and getting the DYK credit? I can't apparently as an IP. Interesting story. I'll be happy to do the "other dyk review."
I've had a look at this and would quite happily nominate this for you. Very interesting article indeed and good work by you. I've tidied up the article and done work on Commons and Wikidata for the whole family. Unfortunately, many of the photos will have to be deleted as there's some Flickr washing going on (which isn't your fault, of course). You don't need to do a review of other nominations (but you can do so, if you wish). Schwede6618:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I was going through WP:DYK and noticed the mention of AlexNewArtBot. The bot, which apparently was meant to highlight "promising" articles, hasn't been active since 2011. It apparently has a successor bot, but I'm not sure if does similar things. Should the mention of AlexNewArtBot be removed from WP:DYK? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
I believe InceptionBot does exactly the same things. I have edited WP:DYK so the name of the bot no longer appears prominently. —Kusma (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Queue 4 hook needs adjustment
Greetings,
as per this discussion, I was made aware that the hook about Art collection in ancient Rome is currently slightly misleading: "citron" is wikilinked to citron, but the wood is likely actually Tetraclinis. I suggest we simply remove the wikilink to citron in the hook, as the article explains the confusing naming. Without the wikilink, the hook is correct.
Just checking with this one, as it's not something that really bothers me, but I know that some people do like to enforce it - the hook seems to be principally about what happens in the book, rather than a real-world fact, which appears to fall foul of rule C6 about not presenting fictional facts in the hooks. Also, the "in first-person narrative" doesn't sound like something that's interesting to a broad audience. Half the books I read are written in the first-person, and it doesn't seem particularly remarkable... Pinging @Gerda Arendt, Red-tailed hawk, and SL93: who were involved with this hook. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't see the problem, it's nothing about the plot, just the setting - which happens to be the same in real life and book, - how is saying that a book uses first-person narrative and is about childhood memories not real life? - I am not too keen on what individual reviewers say, + this sounds too harmless. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Given C6 and the fact that the hook focuses on plot, I think SL93's suggestion is better. However, I think the hook is far too complicated and has too many things going on in it (not to mention the fact that it's over 200 characters). One of the possible takeaways from the recent WT:DYKSTATS discussion is that complicated hooks tend to underperform. If it were me I'd simplify the hook to just:
ALT ... that the 1991 novella The Story of Mr Sommer has been described as "a children's tale for adults"?
After I said I am not keen on reporting what one reviewer said, you suggest to say only that. No, please no. How does it speak about the plot, while all it says is the genre, and where it takes place when (which is a standard for plays)? I had suggested "memoir" but the fine reviewer said that not every thing in the book actually happened as told, although it's obviously based on the author's own experience.
This article was created because I wanted to find out how come that the great French caricaturist Sempé illustrated the work of the most secluded German novelist, whose Perfume many will have read, or seen the film. I still don't know why, but please: no hook without these two names. Shortest way:
But why not say a bit more? All sources agree that the new novel, from the perspective of a child, is different from the former, about a serial killer of young women. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: If you want to add a bit more, maybe the sentence "It has been seen as related to the author's own childhood in a village on Lake Starnberg" could be used? It's not about the plot, and more about it's real-life connection. I can't get my brain to put this into a new hook atm, but maybe you can expand ALT2 with it? --LordPeterII (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: objectively, I do personally think you're right that the point about it being a children's tale for adults is the most interesting fact about this book and is not in-universe. As for the "too much detail" aspect, and indeed whether the hook "performs well" as measured by page views, I think that's more of a subjective assessment... and ultimately the rules don't prohibit this, other than the vague requirement for the hook to be interesting and the 200 character limit. It seems clear from working on DYK for several years that Gerda Arendt likes to pack as much information as possible into the hook, and also doesn't mind if that means a page-view hit... whether that's something the community should override I don't know, and might be a matter for a separate discussion. So, in short, I definitely agree that we should include the fact about it being a children's tale for adults and drop the predominantly in-universe aspect, but beyond that, I'm reasonably neutral on whether we include the illustrator, mention the lake, and all that other gubbins. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
If only it was as easy as "it being a children's tale for adults. No, it is one person's view that this is so, and all I objected to is letting that be the only thing we say.
In my humble opinion, the story - with suicidal ideas of the boy, and ending with the suicide of the title character - is far from only "a children's tale for adults". I like Lake Starnberg giving a place for those who really don't know Süskind whose article is read several hundred times each day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I think there may be some potential in ALT3's hook fact, but in my opinion I think the mention of Sempé is probably unnecessary. I don't think his mention adds much to the main hook fact and if anything detracts attention from both the hook fact and the hook subject. I understand the desire to promote him and that he is the motivation for the article's creation. However, we still need to take into account DYK interests when writing hooks, even if they go against our own. As for the hook itself, I'd simplify ALT3 to simply:
ALT3a: ... that Patrick Süskind's 1991 novella The Story of Mr Sommer has been seen as being based on his childhood on Lake Starnberg?
I'd leave it to the promoter on whether or not to link Süskind and the lake, but ALT3 as currently written has too many distracting details. If I may be frank, most readers aren't going to have any idea who the two people are or why they're significant, so the hook fact has to stand on its own and be interesting even if the reader doesn't know who either are. As a possible compromise, we could do something like:
This is basically a rearranging of ALT3 so that the focus is on the childhood and not Sempé. If there's truly a desire to mention both people (not one or the either), the hook should still focus on the childhood part with the names mentioned being incidental mentions instead. As I said earlier, the hook fact should stand on its own. To clarify, the hook fact should be about it being about the author's childhood, not it being illustrated by Sempé. If there's an objection because Süskind isn't mentioned by name in ALT3b, well that's what the link in "the author" is for.
@Amakuru: To answer your question, WP:DYK does have this quote: When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article... (emphasis mine). While it doesn't outright state that hooks should not be too detailed, that does seem to be the spirit or intent of the terms "short" and "punchy". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I just wrote - in a different context - "the author of a (bolded) piece of art deserves credit". Mr. Süskind is alive (I hope), and may read it, and I'd find not to mention him simply unfair. M. Sempé just died, but I believe that more of our readers will know him than any of the rest of the hook. ALT2 is short and snappy. - I am sorry that I can't verify the Literary Encyclopedia with the vague "tale for adults" thing, so dropped it from the article until I see it again. The fact that the scene of the book is like where Süskind grew up is mentioned by almost every source, - should this very obvious fact really be "attributed" to the three references standing for it? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment - I've moved the hook to Prep 2 for now, pending a decision here. Otherwise it can be reopened. I note that the "children's tale for adults" line has been removed altogether now, after I flagged it as requiring attribution, which is a pity. I think that line ought to remain in, and possibly be considered here. Similarly, the "seen as based on the author's childhood" ought to be properly attributed. Or if it's such a universally accepted fact, then just state it in Wikivoice, but then it should ideally have several references. — Amakuru (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
(As just explained above:) I wanted to attribute the line which I'm sure have seen on Literary Encyclopedia, but had no access to the page. I's commented out to be restored when someone finds a ref, that one or another. I still believe it's a weak characterization (as also already explained above) of a complex story. The other fact has three references (as also said above), and I asked if I should really attribute to those three. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I can see it in the Literary Encyclopedia entry and have readded that line to the article with attribution to the entry's author, Jeffrey Adams (a media studies scholar at UNC Greensboro). DanCherek (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
(ec) Update: I can now see the "tale" ref again, - no idea what happened before, and DanCherek attributed it.
The Literary Encyclopedia is not the only place that calls it "a children's tale for adults", see this book (in German), which also mentions the other interesting factoid that Süskind translated several of Sempé's books into German, for example Raoul Taburin (the story about the bike shop owner who can't ride a bike). And Sempé and Süskind were friends, apparently. In any case, while this ALT4 isn't the catchiest hook of all time, I think it a perfectly acceptable hook. —Kusma (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I'm also happy with that thanks everyone. The hook is now in Prep 6 and I've amended to the hook to the above. — Amakuru (talk) 23:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
May I move hooks around? Too few creative images imo
Greetings,
I seem to be getting more and more involved in the behind-the-scenes stuff here. Recently I became aware that apparently admins are only needed to promoted preps, not to also fill them (my previous impression). And now I've seen that a nom I promoted didn't get put in a picture slot – of course its inevitable that not all pictures can be shown; but I'm somewhat bored by the prevalence of portraits and structures in the lead spot. I thought Template:Did you know nominations/Jieba had a rather interesting picture for a change, displaying some "event" where the people displayed were not important for who they are, but what they are doing. A bit more "active" than "passive", if you want. I don't want to make a large fuzz about this, but if possible, I'd love if this could get a picture spot. And by extension – are regular editors like myself indeed allowed to fill preps? Because then I could not only do things like this, but also help when the preps are almost emtpy (which was the case a few hours ago).
-- LordPeterII (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi @LordPeterII, welcome to DYK. Yes, no one is restricted from promoting nominations to prep sets. DYK needs and always appreciated more prep set builders. You help here would be appreciated. Any user can fill a prep, but there are quite a few things required to fill a good and balanced prep. This includes verifying the article before promoting, balance of countries, biographies, and other areas, etc. You are welcomed to reach me out if you plan to know more about this and are willing to help with prep sets. As for the image and that nomination, as you are aware, not all nominations can get a image slot. We prep builders often try to balance the images, and when we have a lot of nomination accompanying with images, I prefer giving image slot to a nomination which either (1) require image to accompany the hook to help the readers understand it much better (such is the case with articles about images, paintings, etc.), or (2) have some connection with that particular date, i.e., special occasion nominations (like flag of a country on its independence day, portrait of a person on their b'day, etc). The particular problem I observed with that image is that a few users might not appreciate seeing a person's head being burnt on the main page. I know that the main page is not censored, but this concern has been raised in the past. One obvious case I remember is when Torture was live on the main page as DYK with an image. I didn't realize that the image could be potentially disturbing, but concerns were raised at ERRORS, and the image was eventually pulled. The later discussion on T:DYK was somewhat like a no-consensus situation, with editors having different opinions about the image. Please note that above is not my personal opinion, but an honest review of how things stand. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh: Thank you for the explanation. I understand that reasoning (there's a difference between not censoring and putting stuff on the main page, where it will reach people who didn't actively search for articles). Honestly, it didn't occur to me that people might find this distrubing, because that monk seemed so at peace during the procedure XD But yeah the article prose describes it as rather not pleasant... so good call given that background info. As for helping out with preps, yes I might be interested. Although in all honesty, I will probably wait a few weeks before evaluating that, because I've been active in several places and need to figure out how much Wiki activity I can sustain long-term. Will probably need to settle for some areas, even though DYK feels like my primary interest. I'll let you know once I've figured that out :) --LordPeterII (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list has just been archived, so I've created a new list of all 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 22. We have a total of 224 nominations, of which 126 have been approved, a gap of 98 nominations, up 9 over the previous nine days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these!
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) 02:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
... that at Karen's Diner, customers pay to be insulted?
Not sure if I'm quibbling over nothing here, but the hook here doesn't seem entirely accurate (and is also not directly stated in the article). As I understand it, you go to the diner where you order and pay for your meal as usual, but with a twist that the waiters are rude to everyone. So you're not really paying to be insulted per se, rather you're paying for your food and drink and the insulting is part of the general service and ambience. Also, as noted, the article doesn't say people pay to be insulted, it doesn't mention the word "pay" at all... Pinging @BuySomeApples, Bridget, and SL93: who were involved with the hook. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
... that at Karen's Diner, customers are insulted by the waitstaff?
... that at Karen's Diner, customers are to be insulted by the waitstaff?
Well, at a restaurant you're paying for the food and the service, so I don't think the hook is really inaccurate. But possibly we could shift the emphasis from the paying to the service, with something like " .... that at Karen's Diner, service comes with an insult?" Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking of it the same way as Pawnkingthree, but I do like theleekycauldron's alts preferably the first one. SL93 (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I like those alt hooks, although the article does say "Why would any right-thinking person pay money to be insulted? Ask a dominatrix." I think that's close enough to the hook imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Well this is all well and good, but the hook fact still needs to be in the article. Can we incorporate the quote above somewhere? — Amakuru (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I really think you're quibbling over nothing. If the employees are paid to insult customers, the customers are paying to be insulted. SL93 (talk) 22:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
The whole restaurant concept is tongue and cheek. The staff are trained to interact with customers in a way that is playfully rude to play up to the |Karen meme/slang. So it is part of the service in that customers know they are going to get that treatment and it is part of the restaurants offering alongside the food. Its the word "waitstaff" that I have more of an issue with, it doesn't feel like a plain English term or that its commonly or widely used. Could we not just say staff or employees instead? >>Lil-unique1(talk) — 23:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
To continue this ongoing discussion, I have moved this hook to Prep 1. Another editor can move it to a higher prep when consensus is reached for this hook. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
From the source - "We’re not sure why anyone would pay to be insulted, but if it sounds like something you’re into, you can expect this at Karen’s alongside servings of classic diner fare such as burgers, chicken tenders, fries, hotdogs and milkshakes." SL93 (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm still not really happy with this, as it remains inaccurate. You pay for the food, not the insults from the waiters. But it seems there's consensus to keep it as is, anyway, so so be it. — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Technically, they are paying for both. People are willing to pay at restaurants based on the theme or ambiance. For example, part of the price of high-end restaurants (not referring to Karen's Diner) is the need for improved ambiance while dining. Just like people are willing to pay to eat at a restaurant because of good service. When I go to a restaurant, I fork over money not just because of the food. SL93 (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
They are paying solely for whatever they order. They do not pay for the gas used in the kitchen or the rent that keeps the doors open or the wages of the waitstaff (pretty much industry-standard word). Even though costs are built into the menu items, the items are all that are being purchased (i.e., paid for. Primergrey (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Primergrey I never said any of that. I'm referring to why people choose to spend money at a restaurant which isn't just the food. I don't understand the confusion. SL93 (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to explain it just because I thought it was common knowledge. It's like paying to go to an amusement park. People pay to have fun at an amusement park, but the "fun" doesn't have a price tag although the rides do. Just do a simple Google search for "paying for ambiance". SL93 (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
... that customers go to Karen's Diner to be insulted?
The hook and infobox image of Annie Dove Denmark, in Prep area 3, appears to be a derivative work, i.e. photograph of a painting, and the copyright status of the underlying painting is not yet apparent. You can't claim copyright or ownership of someone else's work just by photographing it, just as you can't claim copyright of a Beatles song by making a tape recording. I recommend the hook be either pulled temporarily until the copyright status is resolved, or swapped with another hook with a freely-licensed image of more credibility. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I will be in contact in the next day or so with people from Anderson about either sorting out the copyright of the portrait (there isn't a ton of info about it that I've been able to find) or replacing it with a public domain or CC-licensed image, so hopefully that'll be sorted quickly. I'd love for it to stay an image hook so if it needs to be bumped back a few days I'll leave that to the discretion of the prep builders. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Since we've had a lot of scrutiny concerning hook accuracy lately, I'll pro-actively note that the hook currently in Prep 1 differs slightly from the ones approved in the review. The current one reads that siege of Wark continued after the parties signed a truce?, whereas originally ALT1 read that despite a truce the siege of Wark was allowed to continue? The difference is very minor, but as I understand, technically the truce was between the parties of David I of Scotland and Stephen of England: Wark was of course part of the conflict, but after the truce the siege happened between the remaining English garrison and David I, with no direct involvement of Stephen (otherwise the truce would have been really weird). So, the defending garrison was kinda "excempt" from the truce, in a sort of weird move. But this is feudalism, so not comparable to modern conflicts were simply "abandoning" a city to fight for its own would be unusual.
I'm not claiming to be a domain expert, but my understanding from reading the sources is that we have David, wanting to gain something from the campaign, and Stephen, busy fighting his own Earl's and in no position to really challenge the issue, agreeing that while the Scots will cease their attacks upon the English land and people, Wark was explicitly exempted from this, allowing attempts to seize the castle to continue. This seemed unusual to me, and possibly a result of Stephen being desperate to end the threat from Scotland. It might be worth noting that David and Stephen didn't meet for these negotiations, and rather the truce was negotiated by a papal legate there on other business, but in any case the current wording seems safest. CSJJ104 (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
As things stand, you would presumably have an article that is too short to meet DYK criteria. But as you say, what we’ve got appears undue and therefore isn’t acceptable either. I suggest you go ahead with the page split and then assess whether the new article meets DYK criteria. Schwede6616:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Renaming/moving the nomination is going to break things so I suggest just keeping the nomination at the same place and simply changing the bolded links or doing other wording changes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
RoySmith Ok, the original article is still long enough and does qualify for DYK. You therefore have options:
You can keep the existing DYK nomination and have one nomination for the school. Easy.
If you don't want to see the school itself featured at DYK, then withdraw the nomination (just say so on the nomination page).
You could have a double nomination for both the school and the censorship incident. That is, there would be two bold links in the hook. You would have to provide two QPQs. If you want to go with that option, draft a new hook shown as ALT1 on the existing nomination form and ping me; I'll add the required nomination templates to make it a double hook nomination.
You could have just one DYK nomination for the censorship incident. If so, start a new DYK nomination (noting that you've already withdrawn the existing nomination).
@DYK admins: TSventon I filled the only queue we could right now. The bigger problem is what you note above, there's only one partially-filled prep. Maybe we should have a backup plan when this happens ... like if we could trigger something so it would stop updating on the main page until our prep builders are available. — Maile (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not like we have a user class named prep builders. Anyone reading this now - please work on the preps. We certainly have enough DYK contributors for it. SL93 (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I've just used it for the first time, and can report that it is very easy to use, clear and convenient. Transcluding the nom on to T:TDYK was a nice surprise as well. In 15 and a half years at DYK I have seen/used lots of different methods of creating a nom, and this is a significant upgrade on what has gone before. Thanks to all responsible for developing it! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)11:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
@Hassocks5489: Just tried it because of your post here, and can confirm! Seems to have worked like a charm, very convenient. Thanks for the suggestion, will use it always henceforth! –LordPickleII (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@ViperSnake151: If that's sourceable, you could work that into the hook; would you prefer I pull it? The hook is set to run in six hours, and I'm logging off in one, so I will need to do so soon. Vanamonde (Talk)17:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Fair point. Given that, and the nominator's reluctance, I have pulled the hook. I will reinstate it in the next available prep/queue as soon as we have sorted this out. Vanamonde (Talk)18:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure why I was pinged since my only contribution to the nom was pinging DigitalIceAge, but for what it's worth I think going with the original hook would be a better option. However, I guess it could be reworded somehow so that Nuffield Press is mentioned in the hook first instead of the British Motor Corporation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Apologies, misread the signatures; I assumed that if DigitalAce was adopting the nomination, they were not also the reviewer, but I see OwainDavies became active again, so pinging them too. We will need a response soon, else I will need to pull this: minor as the change may be, we've had enough complaints here about admins making unilateral changes. Vanamonde (Talk)06:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I have no objections to ALT0, but historically a hook switch has been one of the things admins have copped flak for; so unless the nom or reviewer respond in the next hour, I will pull the hook. Vanamonde (Talk)17:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
And pulled. I'm logging off, and I'd rather delay than get yelled at for unilateral changes. I think. There's another discussion open for the same reason further up; at this rate I'll be able to fill a prep with just hooks I pulled previously. Vanamonde (Talk)18:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Now one filled queue and one filled prep. Maybe we should make DYKs harder to complete until people start caring about this? SL93 (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I've previously thought about promoting items myself, but wasn't sure if there were any guidelines or rules of thumb as to what should be promoted, e.g. when to promote a hook without the image it was nominated with, or if there is any order to how items should appear. Have I missed anything, or is it simply at the promoter's discretion? CSJJ104 (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm kind of in the same place as @CSJJ104. I'm willing to lend a hand, but I'm hesitant to just jump in and make a mess because I have no clue what I'm doing. -- RoySmith(talk)16:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@CSJJ104@RoySmith: Feel free to leave a note here or at my talk page if you need any assistance of have any questions regarding promotion hooks; I'll be more than happy to help. Promotion of image if upto discretion of the prep set builder, but there are quite a few things to note while doing so, namely: How many biographical images do we currently have in the preps and queues? Whether the image would contribute to the knowledge of the reader reading the hook? And the mostly ignored criteria, is it really clear at 100px? Similar unwritten rules exist about order of hooks and regarding other aspects. Every editor has the technical ability to promote hooks to preps, and anyone who has nominated over 5 articles and/or reviewed quite a few can be a "good" prep builder. Anyone interested can approach me! Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@RoySmith and CSJJ104: What I'd say is that mistakes and messes are somewhat inevitable in a new field, and this is no exception. I made a ton of mistakes when I was starting out last year – you can ask BlueMoonset, who had to clean up a lot of my messes :) but if you're willing to learn from your mistakes, adapt to the unwritten rules, and invest the time and energy, I think you'd both do great! And of course, like Kavyansh, my talk page is always open for anyone who has questions. I'll also shamelessly plug my handy-dandy script, User:Theleekycauldron/DYK promoter, as it cuts through a lot of the technical mumbo jumbo. Then again, RoySmith, i've seen you around SPI, so you probably could figure it out manually as well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I tried to install DYK promoter. The first thing that happened is it asked me if I trust user:theleekycauldron. Always the hard questions getting in the way of progress :-) -- RoySmith(talk)21:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Believe me, I understand :) "verified" just means "approved", but it's not common usage around here – I've edited out some instances of the term. There is the related-but-distinct checking that the hook fact meets WP:Verifiability, but verification of a nomination of a whole is just approval. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh: I'm not clear what you mean. Do you mean there are lots of bio nominations so we should try to get through these first, while respecting the limit of using no more than four at a time, or do you mean that there are lots of bio nominations so we should deliberately look for others? CSJJ104 (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@CSJJ104, it depends. For the hooks, the limit is of 4 biographical hooks in a set. I always put three, rarely anything less or more, as, what I have seen in my 12 months of working here is that at any given point, we always have an abundance of biographical hooks. If you just count the number of nominations currently with images, most of them would be either biographical, or American, or both. As for the image slot, we usually alternate between biographical images and non-biographical images, American and non-American images, to keep balance on the main page. Consider this an "unwritten rule" or just a common understanding between the prep builders. I concur with everything theleekycauldron says. When I started building preps, they were there to guide me (and I did make lot of mistakes)! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Thanks for the heads-up! I'm pretty sure the problem with this one was that prep 2 was a little mangled, and my script didn't know how to handle it. You'll want to check that the hook and credits sets are in general working order if you're getting an error like that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Looks like you've worked through all the steps fine AFAICS. One minor thing I do is to not place the DYK-bot-do template until I've checked the preps; on the off-chance that I'm called away by something in RL, it's something to let other admins know I wasn't done. Not necessary that you do it this way, of course. Vanamonde (Talk)17:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
(I used to check hooks in prep, and then promote and tag immediately; but apparently most folks don't do that, so I ended up with one too many edit-conflicts). Vanamonde (Talk)17:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Thanks for these comments. I've observed on this talk page that some admins promote to queue, then check the hooks in order to "claim" the set and ensure that other admin are not accidentally promoting the same set. I was wondering how I would indicate that I was still checking the hooks, and I think your suggestion of placing the DYK-bit-do template after I checked the set might solve my dilemma: I'll try it next time I promote a set to queue. Z1720 (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@DYK admins: I believe that almost all of us promote first and then do the checks. I'd be happy to have a go at the admin instructions and bring them in a logical order (and add Vanamonde's "DYK-bot-do template" trick to the steps). We could also have two sets of instructions to choose from (what we currently have and what most of us do). Would you like me to put a draft together? Schwede6623:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it's a matter of individual choice. Once I have the filled prep, empty queue, and instructions open side-by-side in different tabs ... I then immediately start with adding the DYK-bot-do template. And then I go though the rest in my own order. The first thing I check is to make sure the DYK Make credits are all there. But if someone is talking about promoting first and then double-check the individual listing checks, sometimes you are working on a tight deadline and almost have to do those individual entry checks after you have it in Queue. And while this does not need to be in the instructions - slip-ups happen, and we take care of it. A mistake is not the end of the world, we just fix it. — Maile (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
There's always the {{In use}} template, to let people know that they shouldn't edit the queue or prep while work is ongoing, which can prevent edit conflicts. I used it back when I was building preps; no reason why it couldn't be used for building queues. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it's an individual choice. Instructions are most useful for new editors and if we don't document what most admins do, how do we give new admins that individual choice? Schwede6604:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Call me a stickler for protocol, but I think we ought to have a standardized process, for exactly the reason Schwede mentions. I just haven't found the energy to herd cats try to wrangle consensus. Vanamonde (Talk)07:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I check the licensing of the image, copy the prep set into the queue, clear the prep area and increment the counter, in that order. Then I can check the hooks in the queue without the risk of edit conflict. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66, Vanamonde93, Cwmhiraeth, BlueMoonset, and Z1720: Well, here's a little idea we could whip up, hopefully keeping it quick and simple to go through. I originally wrote the "At-a-glance instructions on how to promote an approved hook to a Prep area" as a green-colored Template:DYK Prep Set Instructions, and transcluded the template right above the prep area. I did it, because I otherwise sometimes forgot a step here or there. Sometimes I still refer to it. Someone else came along later and added much more content to that template, but you get the idea.
Maybe someone would work up a similar instruction for promoting from Prep to Queue, color it something different than green, and post it about the same area - then we'd have both instructions available at a glance. Just something very simple and collapsible. We already have Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions for the extremely detailed-oriented, but something much more simple and basic could be on the prep/queue page itself. — Maile (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Good idea, Maile. The problem that I have is that the detailed admin instructions are in a different order to what most admins do. Hence my offer to have a stab at what actually happens. You can't summarise the long version if the long version isn't what editors do. Schwede6605:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Open the prep for editing, and double-check these items before any action:
Make sure <!--Hooks--> is at the top beneath {{DYKbox}} but above the image. <!--HooksEnd--> is on the line just after the last hook.
Make sure {{template other|{{sandbox other||[[Category:Wikipedia Did you know preparing updates templates]]}}}} is at the bottom, with all its brackets in place.
Below "Credits" section, make sure there is a DYKmake template for each hook. Helpful to have them in the same sequence order as the hooks.
You need to remove {{User:DYKUpdateBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}} from the top of the target Queue, and replace it with {{DYKbotdo|~~~}}
Copy and paste the entire contents of the prep into the queue. (Hint: Right-click in the Prep edit window, Select All, right-click again, Copy. Then go to the Queue edit window and paste.)
Show Preview then save.
Go back to the prep template; clear all the text; copy the complete contents of Template:Did you know/Clear into it; save.
Edit the prep counter to bump it to the next prep set to be moved to queue.
Suggestion for nomination page
Not sure if this has been raised before, but I've noticed that the DYK "Create new nomination" page prevents submission for hooks that do not end with a question mark; if possible, I'd suggest expanding this so that hooks can end with the template {{-?}} too, avoiding the need to add it manually afterwards. – Rhain☔02:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
A quick query about this one - the text in the article (and the source) say "A total of 233,000 cubic yards of concrete were poured to complete the structures, making it the second-largest concrete building in the U.S. behind only the Pentagon"... which seems to suggest that the "second-largest" is measured by volume of concrete poured, rather than (what I'd assume was meant by largest, without other info) the area or volume of the building as a whole. It might be worth clarifying if that is indeed the measure you're using for largest. Pinging @RickyCourtney, Sammi Brie, and Theleekycauldron: as nom/reviewer/promoter. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Correct, per the sources, it's the second-largest building made of concrete as measured by volume of concrete poured. The two buildings serve vastly different purposes, one is an office building, the other is a big parking structure, so other forms of measurement would seem to me to be rather awkward. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru and RickyCourtney: I mean, it seems like what we're saying matches the source — so I don't really see what the issue is. But if that's not all right, we can try this on:
Wow! This one is truly an aha fact! I think both the original hook as well as the one recommended by theleekycauldron are good. Ktin (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
There is some confusion here between "structure" and "building", as the image shows a rather large elevated tram bridge thing; does that count as part of the concrete pour and as part of the building? If so, are we somehow not counting the Hoover Dam as a building? And does nobody else see a problem with our article's wording "A total of 233,000 cubic yards of concrete were poured to complete the structures, making it the second-largest concrete building in the United States behind the Pentagon." being so close to the AviationPros source wording "A total of 233,000 cubic yards of concrete were poured to complete the structures, making it the second-largest concrete building in the U.S. behind only the Pentagon.", differing only in a single word? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I hate to bring in a phrasing issue, but in the past while we've seen a lot more of these "mundane - then reveal" kind of hooks, which I personally am not a fan of (nor of the overuse of dashes), but moreover it is a format that is a bit of a cheat, using a painfully clear "twist" to create interest, which I think undervalues that there are some genuinely interesting things to say about at least some of these article subjects, things that don't need cheesy marketing to get people clicking. Kingsif (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
You could even say that in the United States [this parking lot] is second only to the Pentagon in terms of concrete. Kingsif (talk) 09:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
This is currently in prep with the originally suggested image caption, but that one was incorrect. The article now properly states that it is not the Hope Diamond in its modern form (which would be inferred from the caption), but a computer reconstruction of its earlier form, the "French Blue" (so before it was re-cut as the Hope Diamond). I think both the info that this is an earlier form, and a computer reconstruction should be in the caption. –LordPeterII (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
The previous list has just been archived, so I've created a new list of all 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 30. We have a total of 207 nominations, of which 99 have been approved, a gap of 108 nominations, up 10 over the previous eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these!
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, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Image issue
Maybe we need to not be so conservative with what images are chosen. I can't find a non-US non-biography image for prep 4. I have never had such a problem before. There aren't that many images to choose from. SL93 (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: I somewhat agree, I've lately seen a lot of "heads" or "buildings" in the top spot, hence why I inquired about it. Maybe it is a shift in what people at DYK value? Like, Women in Red is resulting in a lot more female portraits lately I think; it's just that they are not so very different from men (maybe slightly prettier ^^). But it's not that much of an issue for me personally, as long as some variety is maintained: For example, the ring theory does at least visually look distinct (but maybe I'm biased because I promoted that). Might also be that people don't remember to run with an image, or don't deem it worth it since not all pictures are used. Maybe it will change again, if people will see that "creative" images get the top spot more often? For now, just don't put three US portraits in a row ^^. As long as that is not the case, I believe we're still fine. -–LordPickleII (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@LordPeterII: WiR has been quite active at DYK for years now – i usually make a point of including a lot of their noms. What I'd advise is to burn as many U.S./bio images as possible, whether giving them the image slot or not – that way, we encourage a more diverse pool of images in WP:DYKNA. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: You're right ofc, I didn't mean to suggest WiR was to "blame", if it had gotten across as that. I totally agree it's a good thing, because at least in DYK we have had a much better male/female article balance than the project has overall. I just meant that if we want less portraits, it's difficult since a lot of articles are about people. Your suggestion seems good though. –LordPickleII (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hey, @Theleekycauldron, crazy busy right now and having internet problems, not loving this change, agree the hook was not great but it was written to make sure there wasn't confusion about whose breast cancer it was and who was saying the quote; the quote change seems awkward, seems like it should be wasn't but then we've got two sets of brackets. Discuss? Please ping. Valereee (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Hey, Valereee! Sorry about that – I was trying to copyedit for flow. Maybe there's a middle ground?
... that clinical psychologist Susan Link developed ring theory(pictured) when a colleague said that Link's breast cancer "isn't just about [her]"?
that should clear up the pronoun ambiguity – as for the quote, I think it sits fine, but if you have an idea as to how to make it better, do let me know :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
when a colleague said that Link's breast cancer "[wasn't] just about [her]"?
which looks awkward (but reads fine) due to the two brackets. Basically, it looks a bit as if we were changing the quote quite a lot. There might be more options, though; I just can't think of one atm. –LordPickleII (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
i mean, if we change the quote enough, it's then not copyvio?
If we can use her name without a link (and I don't think she's notable yet), I like your ALT. I don't like "isn't just about [her]". I think it needs to be the quote "Isn't just about you" or it needs to be completely recast, as it would be wasn't just about. Sorry, driving by! Valereee (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
floating a test balloon here – what would y'all think about a general purpose RfC for DYK at the end of the year? It'd be something like WP:RFA2021, where we identify what we want to fix and then propose solutions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why the need to wait until the end of the year. Considering how many people are on DYK and how many ideas we have, it might be better to start discussing early so that more ideas could flow. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I think there are three steps: what is the purpose of DYK, does it currently achieve its purpose, how do we improve? Improving DYK is a good goal, but keeping a large RfC organised and focused will be a bit like herding cats. Good luck. —Kusma (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if this is in-scope, but I'd like to see a rule saying you need to supply your QPQ at the time your make your nomination. There's no reason reviewers should be running around nagging people about this. -- RoySmith(talk)13:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, roughly what would this RfC aim to discuss? I've only recently participated in "behind the scenes" DYK here, so I've only limited insight on what might need changing. –LordPickleII (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Hopefully we can get more prep and queue promoters, because we rely on a few people to do most of that work. Which isn't helped by the fact that too many people come to this talkpage to complain about prep promotions, particularly if they don't get given the image hook. If there were less negativity towards prep promoters, we may have more people doing the work. Everytime I have done preps, I've got discouraged by other people getting negativity from other people about promotions, usually without merit. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
I just promoted Assumption of the Virgin to Prep 3, but I'm a little concerned about the image. The painting is not rectangular, and there's sections of opaque white on the top-left and top-right background, which might look odd against a tinted background such as DKY uses. Is this something worth worrying about? -- RoySmith(talk)01:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
In general, I think it doesn't matter much. However, I've put in a request to transparentize the backgrounds. In the past, they've been very speedy with such requests, and it will most likely be done before Main Page appearance time. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 01:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
It's done. However, the original image is in jpg format, which doesn't support transparency, so the new version was converted to png. Unfortunately, the converted file loses a lot of detail at DYK size, so we should just go with the original. The opaqueness doesn't bother me at all. BTW, RoySmith, thank you for promoting this image in spite of your concerns. We get so many pictures of things like buildings and people's faces, and it's nice to have variety, especially with fine art. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 17:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that the opaqueness isn't a show-stopper. On the light-green background I've got for DYK (I'm assuming it's the same in all skins?) it's a minor issue at best. -- RoySmith(talk)20:14, 7 September 2022 (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 would personally vote to allow that. I believe the original rule was devised because date requests were made even further ahead (several months), and preventing that was a good call. Six weeks is now set as a good ground rule, and no nomination should be normally allowed to exceed that. But we can review requests on a case-by-case basis. Narutolovehinata5 declined the date request at the nom page, which I think was appropriate: Only consensus can waive the requirement. But just like with nominations, where a few days over the time window may be allowed, we may allow it here as well. One extra week would be extraordinarily long for a nomination to be accepted (where it would be a 100% increase), but for a nomination to be held it would not be outrageous (only a 16.7% increase). So yeah, I would support the request. –LordPeterII (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I support this request. The special occasion date makes sense and it was an easy mistake to make. Having some number – like six weeks – in the guidelines is useful, but there's nothing wrong with stretching it once in a while for situations like this, just as we have a bit of (recently codified) flexibility with the seven-day period for nominations. DanCherek (talk) 18:22, 13 September 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.
Pinging @RoySmith as the promoter – in general, you'll want to make sure that a set of hooks doesn't touch on the same topic twice (i.e. try to avoid two baseball players in the same set). Want to try moving one to a different set? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron @Cbl62. I like the Wilcox hook about the bowling balls in the last slot, so I'll move Herndon to another prep area. I can't make any promises about which hours it'll run. Leeky, I'll be counting on you to look over my shoulder and make sure I don't trash anything by accident :-) -- RoySmith(talk)21:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
... that Fernbrook Farms(pictured) was once a model breeding farm named New Warlaby?
Forgive my ignorance here, but what is a "model breeding farm"? At first it sounds like a bizarre place where models are bred and nurtured, but presumably that's not it. perhaps it's a breeding farm that is exemplary in some way and hence a model? Or it's not a real one, it's just a model. Even after looking at the article, I'm still not entirely sure what's meant, so I think it should be clarified in some way for our readers. Model breeding farm is a redlink so it's not as simple as that unfortunately... Pinging @Zeete, Pseud 14, and SL93:. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Uh ... it seems to be a common term, but what it means, I'm not sure. Such as, "he made his farm famous as a model of scientific management" Robert Bakewell. Some others refer to a farm being a financial model in how it operates. Regardless of the type of farm, I'm finding little, but I think he means something along the lines of setting a standard for others to follow. — Maile (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
@CSJJ104 Thanks for the article. The phrase "model breeding farm" is used by the NRHP source and also the NYT, but neither describe it in more detail. I had read "model" as the Merriam-Webster definition of the adjective, that is "serving as or capable of serving as a pattern, e.g. a model student". Neither reference source mentions "model farm" or "demonstration farm", but the topic seems appropriate. I'll add it to the See also section. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
City Hall Station photo?
Adjusted
Original
@Rhododendrites I uploaded a new version of your photo which brings up the shadows and exposure a bit. I think your original darker version is more aesthetically pleasing and more true to the actual lighting conditions, but I suspect the brighter one will work better in the small DYK size. What do you think? -- RoySmith(talk)21:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Passing comment - the darker looks terrific in the article, where it is much larger. But reduced, the darker one is not so terrific. Depending on the general reader, after the age of 40 (or so) people's eyesight gradually dims, making the brighter one easier for that viewership. — Maile (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
If it was a concert hall, I would go for brightness, but for an underground station, I believe darkness is wanted ;) - You see clearly that it is unusual, and we want people to click. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
That's nice. But the issue I mentioned above is not about what is aesthetically pleasing, but whether or not we accommodate readers who have vision problems with the darker one. — Maile (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Personally I don't think it's an issue. We frequently have pictures with low contrast and the likes, meaning while you can easily discern what is shown, you can't see all the details. I would interpret "clear" as meaning the image subject can be identified at a glance, and not necessarily that it is visually pleasing or showing a maximum of detail (those are bonus things). It is an underground station, so people would likely not be surprised if it isn't brightly lit. I don't identify as "old" and certainly haven't passed 40, but I don't think the majority of "old" people would see the Original and think something like "hey, this isn't a subway station, this is my nephew's cat!" (well, maybe some, but I don't think the adjusted one would help them much; they would probably rather need glasses) –LordPickleII (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@Ingenuity, 97198, and Theleekycauldron: sorry, I hate to be a pedant on this one but according to the article footnote, "One other woman, Roberta MacAdams, was also elected in the 1917 general election, but McKinney holds the distinction of being first as she was sworn in before MacAdams". So she was the first to actually be a legislator, but not necessarily the first to be elected. Presumably the election process took place before the swearings in, and we aren't told which of the two of them received their election results first. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
For one thing, the article didn't say he mowed lawns for a living. He was only 8 years old, and the lawn he mowed was his own family's. A lot of kids that age end up mowing the family lawn, whether they wanted to do it or not. However, managing his own business in high school is notable. — Maile (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
OK, but the original is still pretty verbose. Maybe:
... that Home Depot CEO Ted Decker ran his own landscaping business in high school?
Frankly, the sources do not support that he paid his own apartment rent and utilities, bought all his own groceries and his shoes and blue jeans and t-shirts and comic books with the profits of his lawn mowing business at age eight. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The alternative wording is fine with me. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Inconsistent rules on hook length
I happened across Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Johnson vs. James J. Jeffries where I noticed comments about the rules on hook length. There does seem to be an inconsistency with WP:DYKHOOK which states the hook should be "no more than about 200 characters" suggesting there may be room for some flexibility, but then the very next sentence starts "While 200 is a hard limit...", suggesting there is no flexibility. Do we know which statement is correct? CSJJ104 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, you're right. I've always interpreted it as a "hard limit", because it says that hook lengths below 200 might still get rejected for being too long. I'm not sure if there is any technical restriction; but I would personally never approve a hook of above 200 characters, at least not without a discussion here to see if others agree it was necessary in that specific case. But either way I agree they should be consistent. –LordPeterII (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Bear in mind that all our rules and guidelines were worded, and re-worded, by multiple editors over the years. And sometimes editors decide on their own to add a little tweak here and there. Nobody is going to reject a hook for being a couple of characters over 200. But we have overall limited space in each set, so having a set limit allows us to gauge getting all the hooks in each set. The only way I can see a hook under 200 be rejected for length, is if the hook would read better if it were shorter. — Maile (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Nobody is going to reject a hook for being a couple of characters over 200. Actually that's what happens in practice. Usually any hook that goes over 200 is rejected unless it's a multi-article hook. Personally I also tend to advise against (not necessarily reject) hooks in the 190-199 range unless the hook fact can't be explained more concisely. Hooks that are 190-199 characters long are technically allowed but in practice it's usually better to shorten them whenever possible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Agreeing with Narutolovehinata5 on the hard 200-character limit. It and a full 5× expansion are the two DYK rules that effectively have no flex to them, though extra time is typically allowed for the expansion even as the full expansion has to be done. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
It's absolutely been a hard limit for the 10 years or so I've been involved. Many are the times I wracked my brain for shorter synonyms and clever compressions to squeeze 206 characters down to 200. EEng01:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Prep 3: Can I Get It
... that Adele moans in "Can I Get It", a song about desire for a real relationship instead of casual sex?
Maybe this is just me, but I'm not entirely keen on the hook being a bald statement that Adele "moans", in WP:WIKIVOICE, based solely on the opinion of one reviewer. The article characterises this as part of an attributed opinion - "Writing for Slant Magazine, Eric Mason stated that the song's spirited percussion instrumentation and Adele's hushed moans construct a sultry atmosphere but get interrupted by its 'discordantly chirpy whistle drop'", while the source states that "the lively, clanging percussion and faint moans of “Can I Get It,” ... sets up a sultry payoff only to offer a discordantly chirpy whistle drop à la Flo Rida". I've never listened to this song myself, so I don't know what these "moans" sound like exactly, but I'd have thought that before we state it as a bald fact we should have several more sources that verify that she is generally considered to have moaned. Either that, or reformulate the hook as an attributed quote. Pinging @MaranoFan, Thriley, and Theleekycauldron: Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
That one totally slipped by me. When I was mousing over the nomination, I stopped myself for a second, because I had actually written that hook. I figured that it was fine, because I had only combined two hook facts that were both previously approved by the reviewer – in the hubbub of the internal debate, I forgot to actually verify the hook facts. Yeesh! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi Amaruku, while working on the article I also encountered a second source, The AV Club, which is also generally considered reliable and states "the [song] harnesses a sensuality not often heard in Adele's work, as she moans during the chorus". And I think I do hear something resembling a moan around 2:17. If this is still deemed unfit, then ALT0 and ALT2 from the nomination page are less controversial options.--NØ09:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Note that I've just promoted Prep 3 so whenever this is resolved, ping the admin crew and someone will substitute the agreed blurb (or replace the hook with something different if it doesn't resolve itself). Schwede6600:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Just double checking this one, as I think this hook actually might be misleading. When I read it, I assumed that this meant a real lion's head that was "preserved" in the taxidermy sense, but it actually refers to a stone lion which was "preserved" from a prior building which stood on the site. Presumably this pun is intentional, given that the hook is in the last slot and is therefore designed to be "quirky". Personally I have a lower appetite than most for hooks which give a genuinely misleading impression to the reader on first reading, so just putting it out here to see whether others think it's crossed the line between "quirky" and misleading, or not. Ping @Pi.1415926535, IceWelder, and Theleekycauldron: Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured I'd get dinged for this one – it was borderline for me, so I totally won't protest to adding "stone" to the hook. Thanks for the watchful eye, as always! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I'd be fine with adding "stone" here if it helps clear up some confusion, though I would ultimately leave this decision to the nominator. IceWelder [✉] 12:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I would definitely prefer the hook as is - I like having hooks that pique curiosity rather than telling every detail up front. But it's not the end of the world if "stone" is added. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Kj cheetham, Maybole Castle is the lead hook in this queue. While the reviewer, JeBonSer, says that the article is "free of copyright problems", there is one source that does show up. It looks like a WP mirror to me but I have no idea where Earwig got it from. It's got me flummoxed. Here's what Earwig shows (permalink):
Article: "Maybole Castle is a 16th century castle located on the high street in Maybole, South Ayrshire, Scotland. Originally built for the Earls of Cassillis, it is an L-shaped construction with Victorian two-storey extensions. It is associated with a legend of John Faa, in which an Earl killed Faa and imprisoned his wife the Countess of Cassilis in the castle."
Source: "Maybole Castle is a 16th century castle located on the high street in Maybole, South Ayrshire, Scotland.Originally built for the Earls of Cassillis, it is an L-shaped construction with Victorian two-storey extensions. It is associated with a legend of John Faa, in which an Earl killed Faa and imprisoned his wife the Countess of Cassilis in the castle."
The base URL (roslinydodomu.pl) is not contained on the page's code and the full URL, when clicked, randomly redirects to dodgy music streaming sites or porn links. Anybody got any idea where this comes from? Schwede6603:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Schwede66, I can safely say I've never come across roslinydodomu.pl before. Regarding how it found it, looks like "Use search engine" is enabled, so beyond the URLs in the article it can search Google too. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not real excited about this photo on the front page. I tried a closer crop and some exposure adjustments, but it's fundamentally a low quality image. We should be able to find something better. -- RoySmith(talk)15:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, I really don't have a problem with this one - it makes me want to get on that train and ride arouind the plantation. But let's ping the nominator @Trainsandotherthings: and see what they come up with. — Maile (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
What we have to choose from is at [5]. I originally submitted this hook with Kilohana Plantation Estate, Kaumualii Hwy, Lihu'e - panoramio (2) this image, but the reviewer suggested using the current one and I agreed. I don't really see an issue with the image at 100 px, as shown below. Kauai Plantation TrainTrainsandotherthings (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mandarax: I was wondering about that recently! I still remember it saying "100px"; but no, the rules are changed as well, I must have missed that.
As for the issue, again I think you worry too much, @RoySmith, I don't see a problem with it compared to the other recent ones. These don't have to be Featured Pictures, just "suitable" and "attractive"; and I think the current pic easily passes that. –LordPickleII (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Well if I lived in Hawaii, I'd be happy to take a better image for you myself, but I don't, and we have a limited pool of images to choose from for this topic. I don't see any particular problem with this image, but as I said before, if you think one of the other ones in the Commons category is better, let us know. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
When one goes to review a DYKN, the text that appears above says, quote,:
Well, unfortunately, that's not correct either. The sizes are determined based on the original image's relative dimensions. The squarish ones are around 140x140. This train image is 137x144. The less square the image is, the larger the deviation from 140. For example, in this set from last month, the image was 242x81. It might be best to eliminate any mention of specific dimensions from the instructions. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 04:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
each rounded to the nearest whole number. When you multiply the new dimensions together, the w and h terms cancel out, leaving an area of of 140P * 140P = ~19.6 kP. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
While ALT2 is a decent hook, I'm actually wondering if a hook about him being born a Jew and converting to Islam would be a better focus. Especially if it's tied with the Gandhi portrait thing. However, I'd be fine with ALT2 (the source is offline so while I'd assume good faith here, I'd also like to hear from the nominator). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Golconda diamonds
I'm pulling this from the queue, because The hook and the article are quite ungrammatical to the point of confusing the reader, and also because I'm finding uncited text in the article. The hook is as follows. Discussion welcome. Pinging @Omer123hussain, SL93, and CSJJ104:Vanamonde (Talk)12:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
... that the Golconda diamonds (example pictured), mined in the Deccan region, was the only known source of diamonds for two thousand years until the 17th century?
(Adding later; pulled from prep, and set returned to prep, because I spent enough time on this and the next hook that I cannot finish before I need to log off). Vanamonde (Talk)12:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, I noted the grammar issues before. Tbh I was a little surprised this had passed GA review in its state. All I did with this nom was trying to get the picture (& DYK caption) right; any other issues with the article I'll leave to the other people involved. But out of curiosity, where is the nom now? I can't seem to find it in Prep, DKYNA or DKYN. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, I hadn't bothered reopening, as I'd assumed we would handle it here; I don't usually reopen a nomination unless I request re-review. But no objections to it being open. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 18:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Prep 4: Zack Kelly
... that Zack Kelly received a $500 signing bonus, lost money in his first professional seasons, and was released by two organizations before he made his Major League Baseball debut?
This likely reflects a lack of baseball knowledge on my part, but can someone point out where the article text says he lost money on his first two seasons? Wouldn't that in any case be a subjective assessment? How does an athlete even lose his team money? @Muboshgu, Pbritti, and SL93:Vanamonde (Talk)12:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: The following quote comes from him: "'My first year I probably paid to play to be honest with you,' Kelly said. 'I definitely lost money.'" It goes on to say he paid to play his first two seasons. "Lost money" here applies only to the subject (Zach Kelly). ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@Pbritti: If it's true that he paid to play his first two seasons, I wonder if that could actually work as an alternative hook. Maybe you can suggest such a wording to see if it's better than the current hook? Personally I find the current one a bit difficult to follow. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I agree that if two experience editors are confused, then there's an issue. I'm not sure how to reword it, but if the nominator is ok with it, perhaps something along the lines of "that Zack Kelly paid his way through his first two years of professional baseball?" Pbritti (talk) 03:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@StAnselm, Muboshgu, and Z1720: I have moved this discussion from my talk page to here, where it can be discussed better. My "promotion" was to take it from the Special Holding for its date, and move it to Prep 7. It has not yet been on the main page, so this is a good place to discuss your concerns. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I think it's fine, given that 1) it's literally a theme of his autobiography and 2) Perry was generally quite open about doctoring the ball. Hog FarmTalk00:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Didn't see the ping or I would've defended it sooner. I bet he'd laugh if he knew this hook was going up. As the sources describe, Perry takes great pride in throwing a spitball and faking out hitters with whether or not he was doing it then and there, and staying ahead of the umpires who did their physical checks. It's a huge part of his bio - ask any baseball fan about Gaylord Perry and the first thing they'll think about is the spitter. It got him into the Hall of Fame. Here's a few quote from sources: His confession wasn't to keep other pitchers from going wrong or to cleanse guilt from his soul. There was no guilt. And I felt none for telling his story.[6]"I don't take one thing away from him for winning 300 with the spitter," said former California MVP Don Baylor. "There are loopholes in the rules and you get away with what you can."[7] – Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Queues are completely empty; four Preps filled
Pinging @DYK admins: in the hopes that we can get at least a couple of the filled preps promoted in the next ten hours or so, before the noon promotion to the main page comes around; right now, there's nothing for DYKUpdateBot to promote. It would also be great if more Preps can be filled as well, since three are empty now and more will be empty when the admins promote those preps to queues. Thank you very much to all who aid in this endeavor. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Wow ... I promoted one set to Queue just now, which will get us through the next update. I'll check again in the morning. But, wonder what happened to all our admins. I've been noticing lately that we seem to sparse on who is available. Thanks for paying attention and for pingng us. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: @DYK admins: I just promoted a special occasion hook to Prep 7. As much as we should not promote to queue that which we promoted to prep, we admins might find ourselves doing that, if more prep builders don't surface soon. — Maile (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
@TSventon: Thanks! Ugh, fixing these other articles sounds like an insane amount of work, but thankfully it's not a high priority. Admins, can you adjust the hook link? –LordPeterII (talk) 09:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Why not add British before House of Commons? It's not at all obvious that we are talking about the U.K. particulary with her name and the mention of Ghandi. People might think we mean India, although they don't have a Commons. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I know I promoted this, but the more I look at the photo, the less I like it. The hook is about a serious event (protesting Gandhi's imprisonment), but it's a photo of her engaging in the frivolity of playing polo. That's not a good look. -- RoySmith(talk)13:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Best head shot I could find is here but can't determine who the Douglas in question is and so whether he has been dead long enough. Perhaps Whispyhistory can find the issue and identify Douglas. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
The photo by Douglas is from an old newspaper... but who is Douglas? The other old images are all "as a socialite" or on other polo fields. I will have another look back. Whispyhistory (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay... Couldn't see anything in the Bystander (1938), where the image is from. Douglas may be this. Looking at the image again, besides being not so clear, IMO it is fine... she was a sportswoman and appeared at polo matches from early 1930s to late 1960s. She looks comfortable in both jodhpurs and sarees and the image shows a strong confident woman, but I will leave rest to you. Whispyhistory (talk) 05:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
It's obvious that nobody knows who "Douglas" was or the NPG would have added that information by now. All they say is active in the 1920s so it qualifies as a "UK artistic or literary work, of which the author is unknown". I think we could use it and it's a much more suitable image. It's on Commons here. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
The {{DYKtick}} template needs to be substituted for the nomination to be recognized as approved. I have done so here [8] so the bot should hopefully move it shortly. DanCherek (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
One query I did have, is the land becoming a state park the same date as the park opening? Only one of those facts is cited. --CSJJ104 (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
CSJJ104 I don't know what you mean. It became a state park on that date so that should mean that it opened as a state park on that date. It wasn't a state park before that date. SL93 (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't disputing the fact, but I'm aware of occasions where places have been dedicated or a charter granted on one date, but opened on another date in the future. I was not sure if that applied to State Parks and can't check the offline source, but I am happy to accept that the dates are one and the same. CSJJ104 (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I would just reword it to " that Green Valley State Park in Iowa, which was dedicated exactly 69 years ago, had multiple species of fish added to its artificial lake in 1974?" I reworded the article for that with a source. SL93 (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Done. I still don't like this constant flip-flopping, it's not fair on nominators or admins, but anyway it is what it is. — Amakuru (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I totally hear you, we might want to try brainstorming something else. I'm sorry I forgot, can I ask you to swap the entireties of Prep 1 (the Q.E. II funeral set) with Queue 3 (the set now running on her funeral date)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, done. I'll have a think about possible solutions. Getting some stats on the absolute total number of hooks we promote each year will be useful. — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Oh, very nice! And I would have otherwise gone off and tediously tracked the actions of DYKbot for an entire year... 😂 — Amakuru (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
PS - you've been compiling those pages by hand?! Kudos, that must take a bit of time. I looked at 2019 and found only 3,569 which is significantly less than the two figures you mention above. I wonder what that's about... could just be that editors had *a lot* more time on their hands to write new content during the COVID lockdowns! — Amakuru (talk) 09:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: ha, I hear you on the script-writing thing. Sometimes we just do these things for the fun of it, eh? Check out the image here, which is a little WPF desktop application I wrote for myself a couple of years ago when I was the today's featured picture coordinator. I'd found that the pages available on-wiki for identifying the FPs that had and hadn't yet run were a bit inadequate and not conducive to scheduling a balanced set while roughly respecting the order of promotion. So this digs through the information using the WP API and then allows filtering by category, seeing which members of a FP set have and haven't run yet, seeing the image itself on the right panel... I may have gone a bit over the top in the end though and it took a lot of time to develop, but it was useful for me! Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
"[W]e might want to try brainstorming something else." I've had an idea for a little while - it would represent a kind of radical change for DYK, but it's still an idea... What if, instead of having pre-determined sets to run on specific days, we made a queue of all the hooks that hadn't yet run, in order of when they were promoted. Then, we show the top 8 or so on the main page, and when a new one gets promoted the top one gets booted and everything moves up? Kind of the way ITN works. We would have to not be as concerned with balance - like, we'd have to be be ok with it if there are 2 bios or 2 US hooks in a row until one gets booted off; and we'd be eliminating the quirky slot; and we'd have to do something about the image slot - so yeah, there'd be issues, but I think it would be easier. We could still require 3 sets of eyes on each hook - someone to approve it, someone to review the approved hooks and move them to preps, and admin to move them to queue; but it would be less work and less time consuming as the people promoting to prep and queue could concentrate on one hook at a time instead of an entire set. I know if I'm promoting a set to queue it takes about an hour; but if I only had to promote one hook to queue it would not take nearly as long. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving13:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
A minor point maybe, but it's not really clear to me from the article what the significance or scope of this "Outstanding Teacher Award" is. Is it an award exclusive to the Tufts University School of Medicine, or is it some wider thing? Is there a source somewhere detailing who the winners were in the years before and after when Desforges didn't win it? Ping @97198, Dumelow, and RoySmith: Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Amakuru I just made a newspaper.com clipping of the reference which in the article otherwise seems to need a subscription to the Boston Globe. "Obituary for Jane F. Desforges (Aged 91)". The Boston Globe. 23 September 2013. Retrieved 12 September 2022. I'm not sure what you can get out of this, but Tuffs University of Medicine established a medical chair in her honor in 2003. She was the first woman to receive the American College of Physicians' Distinguished Teaching Award, which seems to have been renamed in her honor in 2007. — Maile (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
IMO, I think the article could use some editorial help. There's enough in the above sources to fluff it up a bit. But as is, its two paragraphs that begin with "Desforge was", and a one-sentence stand-alone paragraph at the end that merely states her retirement date and death dates. — Maile (talk) 03:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
As the award was stated in a Tufts University article I assumed it was a university-level award. The article is short (though exceeds minimum length) and could benefit from expansion, but I can't see any policy issues that would disqualify it under the DYK rules. There's no requirement that articles be "complete" before being posted - Dumelow (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I have edited the article to say that Desforges "received the medical school's Outstanding Teacher Award for thirteen years in a row" and added a reference so I suggest the hook should be clarified. TSventon (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments that the article needs some expansion as it's incomplete at the moment, effectively skirting over 25 years of her career in one sentence. I also think we can come up with a more interesting hook, or at least have more context around it, as there seems to be scant reference anywhere else to the Outstanding Teacher Award. I'm reopening the nom. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a couple of days ago, so I've created a new list of all 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 9. We have a total of 160 nominations, of which 58 have been approved, a gap of 102 nominations, down 6 over the previous ten days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these!
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) 00:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Are there any Chinese speakers here who can help assisting in moving forward with this nomination, whether to improve the article or to review it? The nominator, except for a single edit on the 6th, has been inactive since the day after the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:55, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I assume this'll get shot down pretty quickly, but it seems like we could keep this talk page a little tighter if we split off discussions of specific nominations... we could use tabs so that they're both within easy reach. I assume we would keep the old archiving system. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
A variation on this, I've been thinking about for a long time. Don't split off the nomination discussions, exactly, but you're on the right track IMO. The thing with nomination discussions, is that we don't know if editors would pay attention to them if they weren't right here in their faces. #1 to split off, I think, is anything resembling an RFC, whether it's listed as one of not. Those things go on forever. Split it off, but leave a section comment that links to it. — Maile (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
As a starting point, we could have a header "Special occasion" and have all requests as level 3 headers below, archiving - or deleting - when done. - We could do the same for image issues, hook changes - you name it: sort by topic. I think I'd prefer that to different pages to look up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Post-promotion discussions
Along those lines, after a nomination is promoted, there is no one place to continue discussions. (Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know). It happens on all of those places and more (e.g. other User Pages). It would be nice if there was only ONE place. MB03:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
As you say, I assume this'll get shot down pretty quickly, but why not on the nomination itself even though it is promoted/closed. There could just be a separate Post-closure discussion section. That would keep everything in one place, and IMO, the most logical place. MB03:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
After a nomination is promoted, it's generally removed from WP:DYKNA, and users will remove it from their watchlists. The problem would be that no one sees a discussion that continues at the nompage or nom talk page – whereas if it's at WT:DYK or the promoter's talk page, you can pretty much guarantee that at least one person is going to be actively monitoring and shepherding the discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't whoever starts a new discussion be the "shepherder" and ping the involved parties. Maybe if we ever go through with moving the noms out of Template space, then we could make use of new discussion tools and the Subscribe feature for notification. MB04:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Often a discussion is brought here because someone working in preps or queues wants more eyes. If the discussion is continued on the nom, even if all involved parties are pinged and answer the ping, those are the same people who've already seen it and approved it. Valereee (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, per Valereee it's very useful to have queries and issues with promoted hooks raised here (while also courtesy pinging the nominator/reviewer and promoter) so that everyone interested in the DYK project as a whole can have their say on the matter. — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it is sometimes necessary to come here to get "more eyes" on a discussion. But that doesn't require that discussion happen here. You could just post here something like "More opinions needed on xxx" (and/or give a more detailed summary of the issue). We do equivalent things all over the project. MB13:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Each nomination template has an associated talk page. It's almost never created, but it was meant to be available for post-closure discussions if necessary. As it says at the top of every closed DYK nomination, The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page. (The phrase "this nomination's talk page" is a red link to create such a page; "the article's talk page" is a blue link to the article's talk page.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I'd agree, we should remove the nom talk as a suggested discussion page. I'm not sure I can think of a discussion that would be most appropriate at the nom talk. Valereee (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
@MB, we do the equivalent all over the project because in the rest of the project there is no time urgency. If it takes weeks or months for people to get to the discussion, no worries. If in the meantime someone changes something that causes discussion to actually start up and that change gets reverted months later, no worries. Here at DYK, we're very often needing the discussion to happen basically right now. Most hooks brought up here have already been scheduled, often for within the next day or two. Valereee (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
OK, even if some discussions are so urgent they have to happen at here, couldn't they happen just here or one other place, instead of here, the nomination talk page, the article talk page, the nominating user TP, the promoter TP, the reviewer TP. MB01:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
You're forgetting WP:ERRORS. :) I think probably most regular/experienced prep/queue workers do bring most discussions here unless they feel there's a reason to have it elsewhere. Are you seeing a lot of discussion happening in those other places? Valereee (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I didn't forget ERRORs, I just didn't mention it because the special nature of those discussions means that is out of the scope of this discussion. I'm not sure that new/in or semi-frequent nominators would think to start a post-nom discussion here first, especially when the instructions quoted above say it is one of three possible appropriate places. What about Leeky's original idea to use a new "general" nomination-specific talk page and we try to steer all post-nom discussions there? MB15:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I was joshing. :) I don't love the idea of a separate page. This page has 850+ watchers. I think we need that level of attention as part of our QC process. Valereee (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
That's a valid point. We would have to encourage at lot of those people to watch the new page too. Some of the 850 probably watch this page to keep abreast of DYK project issues and just ignore updates about specific hooks. Something else to consider is that we leave a link to the nomination discussion on the article TP that says The nomination discussion and review may be seen at.... Well, if the hook is changed, the post-nom discussion can be much longer that the original discussion, yet it's location (s) are missing from the history. If post-nom discussions were more structured (I mean just being in one place with a consistent header), a bot could update the closed nomination with "There is additional discussion here". MB15:36, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
For me getting more eyes on concerns about specific hooks is the most important thing we do here, and I hope many pagewatchers here at least skim those. Concerns include major issues such as inaccuracy, bad sourcing, POV-pushing, promotional work, and BLP issues, not just tightening wording, reducing overlinkage, or trying to fix 'hook is boring'. Valereee (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
I understand that we have a queue ready for 19 September, funeral day. Today I stumbled across James O'Donnell (organist), the master of music at Westminster Abbey who will be in charge of the music for the event. The article looked tagged and short. I did what I could for decency. Now, if you tell me that there is a chance to get a hook about him to that queue even if this late, I'll try to expand further to fulfill the 5* requirement. But if not, I'd rather expand knowing more about the event, and after. Hook could be that after this, he'll move on to Yale, which has some perspective of a future. What do you think? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
@Dumelow and Gerda Arendt: Hmm, tricky. The funeral set is already in queue – however, we've only 5 themed hooks in the set. I think I'll review Dumelow's hook – we can have an admin promote directly to queue. Gerda, if you'd like to try as well, do keep me posted :) I'll say that there's a chance, if a little slim. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment - I've promoted the state hearse up to the set. Just thinking that if Gerda's article gets put in as anticipated, we'll be left with just one non-Queen hook in the whole set. That being the case, it would be really nice if we could add one more. One idea is if we could maybe get Balmoral Castle (the Queen's Scottish home, where she died) turned around as a GA in the next couple of days and then promoted up on that basis? The article looks like it's in quite a decent state already. If we can find enough people to be a nominator / reviewer / DYK reviewer on that and carry out any work needed on the article, does that seem like a good plan? Or does anyone have better ideas? Happy to put in some legwork where helpful, although I may struggle to write a whole article from scratch in the time available! Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru: What I'd recommend, if I'm being honest, is simply running a six-hook set. If gerda gets hers in, that's seven – but that's better than having two random ones stick out like sore thumbs. Maybe take the two non-Brits currently in there, haul 'em back to prep, don't leave blanks? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:24, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
(ec) Not in competition, only to fill in if wanted: if we know a piece of music in the service soon enough, I could write an article about it, with possibly less effort than making a GA. For her husband there were two which I noticed only the very day, so the DYK came later, which also isn't bad. Let me know if you find the exact program. - Anybody to review the organist?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I've had a look at the organist, but it seems we might be in a small bit of disagreement over capitalisation of job titles and suchlike... Anyone else got a view? — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
(back:) Thank you all for copy-editing. English is not my first language, and it gets worse towards midnight. I found the job titles capital when I started expanding, and just remained in that style but have no problem with lc which I would normally use. I hope I could satisfy the requests for clarification, please check. About the long quote: quotes don't count towards DYK size, therefore I tried to rephrase, but hopefully - in case someone notices - it would still be long enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I’m too late to the party, but I just want to mention that I personally don’t think it’s really nice that all the DYKs are about Elizabeth today – I find it extremely weird. Between this, the featured article, and the featured picture, over half of the front page (not counting the static parts like sister projects) is currently dedicated to her memory, which I find very disproportionate. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 08:15, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Extremely weird on the English Wikipedia? I'd say most people who read English have at least some interest in the funeral of the QofE after the longest reign lol. They had to limit diplomatic attendance to delegations of two. Valereee (talk) 11:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Weird... Tone deaf... Colonialist... Eurocentric... Take your pick, all are valid criticisms. The vast majority of English language speakers have no relationship to the Queen besides for vestigial colonial ties which are not generally positive ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Which is why the predictions were that half the world would watch some of the funeral? Positive reasons don't matter. Not all notable people are universally loved. The set was created because this was an historic event, the likes of which most of us will likely not see again in our lifetimes. Valereee (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Such predictions are largely a pseudoscience, I didn't know anyone serious took them seriously. This is not the largest historical event of our lifetimes, it isn't even the largest historical event of my life or the decade, its barely arguable as the largest historical event of the year. You've taken hyperbole beyond what is reasonable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I didn't say it was the largest historical event of our lifetime. I said it was an historic event the likes of which (that is, 70-years' sitting monarch's incredibly ceremonial state funeral attended by hundreds of heads of state and watched by half the world) most of us wouldn't see again. Do you really think we're going to see anything like that again? I guess I don't. Valereee (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
ohferheavenssake...various diplomatic delegations including heads of state. Good grief. You realize this is about the fact more of (X) attended than has happened? Valereee (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Thats fine but don't piss in my mouth and tell me its raining. It just makes you look like you can't string together an argument without making stuff up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I've been wishing I could emigrate since Bush II. No one will take me, I'm too old. I've told my kids they should definitely try to marry Swiss. Valereee (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Church of St Giles, Stoke Poges
I’m not very good at DYK, finding the technical elements a little above my pay grade. But if anyone wants to try with the Church of St Giles, Stoke Poges, they are very welcome. It offers:
DYK that the churchyard of SG features in the opening sequence of the Bond movie For Your Eyes Only or;
DYK that the churchyard of SG features in Judy Garland’s last film?
If anyone could combine all three into a single hook, they would have my undying admiration. Something like, but less clumsy than;
DYK that the churchyard of SG, claimed as the inspiration for Gray’s Elegy, features in the opening scene of FYEO and in Judy G’s last film. KJP1 (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
theleekycauldron - many thanks indeed. And you’re right, the two movies do counterpoint quite nicely, while the Elegy factoid is not a very new piece of information. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding this DYK nomination: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Consumption_of_Tide_Pods I know we had the issue with the IKEA shark photo having to be removed from the Main Page as a derivative work...and so was wondering if the same rule applies to a close-up image of a single Tide Pod? It seems like "Fair Use" within the context of the article, but is it really Commons-safe? Pinging @SoulbustCielquiparle (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
(Or is this an overreaction? Is the correct answer that it's not clear that that photo of Blåhaj actually was a "derivative work" in the first place? And that we just have a general preference not to publish images of potentially ambiguous or contentious status on the Main page?) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I promoted one, which gives us two queues lined up. Hopefully, others will do likewise. Thanks for keeping alert on this. — Maile (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@DYK admins: We're down to two queues again, and also we're on fast mode now! I'm not sure if I am supposed to give this ping, but it seems that it's somewhat urgent. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll also fill one or two later on, but for once it seems like the preps are behind... Preps 2 and 3 aren't full, and I'm not sure if it would be correct to promoted P4 to Q2 instead as I don't have insight into what the prep builders are doing. — Amakuru (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Having this be a continuing thread means no one but those signed up for the group ping or who've subscribed to this post ever sees it. Wouldn't it be helpful if at least a few other admins at least saw it occasionally? It might encourage other DYK-regular admins to help out once in a while if it were coming across regularly. I don't actually see the fact the request happens regularly and people see it go by on their feed regularly is a bad thing. Valereee (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
We may need more European admins and admins who are more active on the weekends to sign up to get the ping. It seems the call for people to promote almost always happens in the middle of the night US time when I am asleep; and usually on a weekend. Right now (5 hours later) there are 4 filled queues and no preps ready to be promoted. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving11:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
ONUnicorn, I tend to post a notice at midnight UTC, when a new DYK set is published, or at 9am UTC the following morning. Would it be better to post a notice the previous day when there are still two filled queues? And what point would be best if there are 2 sets a day? TSventon (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Honestly, if a warning or a head's up went out when we are down to 2 sets a day (approximately 24 hours before it becomes an emergency), or anytime all preps are full and there are empty queues, that would probably help. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving13:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately the only way other admins will likely see it is if we don't thread it but instead open a new thread each time. Valereee (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I've been searching for a bit but I can't find anything about a standard procedure for removing a reviewer if they are not cooperating. Would the nomination have to start over?
In particular, I'd like to do this at Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Carlsen–Niemann controversy, where the reviewer is claiming that it is against policy to quote any self-published source such as a tweet. The nominator and I have been trying to explain how ridiculous that is, but the reviewer has only been repeating the same wrong interpretation of the policy seven times now and not actually responding to us. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 10:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Jochem van Hees: in general, I'd let you know that local consensus can overturn any reviewer's decision; the best way to leave space for someone else is to 1. leave a note here, and 2. try to not engage with the reviewer endlessly. It looks like you two were in a back-and-forth for quite a while, which generates a lot of text. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Problems creating a nomination
Back in January, an anonymous IP stole copy from my sandbox and tried to pass it off as their own work. I discovered this, quite by accident, when they created a DYK entry for it. After investigation, the article was removed, and I was told I could submit the article again when I'd moved it to article space myself. I am now trying to do so, but am unable to make a new nomination for it using the Nominations bot. The existence of the previous nomination appears to be the problem. Any suggestions on how to get around this? MeegsC (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Just a note about this discussion at ERRORS about a seemingly inaccurate hook. I'm not here to blame anyone, it was a good-faith mistake by all, but I'm just looking to how we can improve in the future and ensure that inaccuracies don't slip through to the net in future. In this case, it doesn't seem like the "second-oldest" claim was cited in the article at all (this was the version before the error was spotted, and ref [4] neither gives the date of opening nor says it was the second oldest). With three separate editors looking at hooks, one at least should spot this I'd have thought. Two very clear takeaways for reviewers, prep-builders and promoting admins alike would be:
Check every part of the hook to make sure it's cited and accurate, not just the "main" fact.
For any claim of holding a record, e.g. the "first" or "second" to do something or the "oldest", do a sanity check. A quick Google around or a look at other Wikipedia articles, to check whether the claim is plausible. This seems to be an area where the media seems notorious for being inaccurate - hyperbolic claims generate good headlines, and they probably feel the need to check that deeply, believing claims by whoever runs or owns the entity in question.
Certainly when I'm promoting a hook set, I make these two aspects the starting point for all my hook checking. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely correct, Amakuru, and thanks for the reminder :) I generally hold "first" claims to a higher standard for sourcing – usually the HQRS standard for FA, along with a rule of no local news. They've been wrong quite a lot at ERRORS lately, so I do want them to pass higher muster before they are aired. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of all 34 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 16. We have a total of 210 nominations, of which 97 have been approved, a gap of 113 nominations, up 11 over the previous eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these!
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) 22:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
preps
things are quite hectic in the meatspace at the moment, so i think I'm going to need a relief team for all the open preps I can't sit down to do. @RoySmith and CSJJ104: want to take a stab at it? Would be very appreciated :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I'll take a look, but I'm hesitant to commit. I did a bunch of them a few weeks ago, but to be honest, I wasn't very good at it, and I didn't find the process enjoyable. I do feel your pain, however. It's no fun having things working properly depending to such a big extent on a very small number of people.
I've been doing some, but agree that the process could be improved. Another issue I have is what to do with templates where the nomination should be reopened? For example, if the article has been updated and no longer contains the hook fact? Is there a process for this that I may have missed? CSJJ104 (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@CSJJ104: When in doubt, the best thing to do is bring up the issue at WT:DYK and ping the nominator and reviewer. @RoySmith: I've been wanting to do that for a while, but I can't think of a way to easily differentiate approved noms from non-approved noms in the category system. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
The reason I decided to link committees was because, in the hook, it isn't clear if it has some special meaning. The link can help clarify for readers (especially those for whom English isn't a first language) that committees can be in government, business, and social contexts; and the article further clarifies that the 44 committees were a mix of local government and social organizations. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving14:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm seeing two rather sad hooks, but if the hooks are individually okay, I'm not sure there's a need to swap. Others may disagree. Conversely, if the hooks themselves are a problem (and DYK has had disagreements about this before) perhaps that's a discussion to be revisited. Vanamonde (Talk)20:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
On another note, I'm confused by the hook which says "that Saudi Arabian poet Hamad al-Hajji lost three members of his family in childhood..." does it mean they were lost during his childhood, or that they died when they were children? Not sure if "lost" counts as a MOS:EUPHEMISM too — Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Possibly a euphemism, but it simply means they died when he was a child, and it is more concise than alternative constructions I could come up with. Would the confusion be addressed by writing "in his childhood"? Vanamonde (Talk)21:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron and Vanamonde93: I assume you're talking about the torture of a black employee hook#2, and the #4 hook about Hamad al-Hajji. I think it's OK to have them both in the same queue. But I'm hoping someone might come up with a better hook for Hamad al-Hajji. The man was a poet of some accomplishment, and perhaps a hook on his work or accomplishments. The current hook just tells us a lot of bad stuff happened in his life, and then he died of lung disease. — Maile (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
No objections to a different hook. Many of the literary sources are in Arabic, though, and I'm not personally willing to try to craft a hook with google translate. Suggestions are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk)21:07, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, I can see a possible different hook, if someone with the resources wanted to do a little re-writing and linking. The first sentence under "Early years" tells us that he could trace his lineage to the Banu Hudhayl tribe. Click on the tribe, and you find out they were a tribe of poets and intellectuals. That's a nifty tie-in for a hook. — Maile (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Sounds interesting, but it's a non-trivial exercise, with non-English sources. Pinging nominator Ruwaym to see how they feel. At this moment we have 26 hours to revise this; I'm not keen on pulling only because we can make a better hook, but I will not object should someone else wish to. Vanamonde (Talk)22:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
... that according to Risingbd.com, in 2022, the residents of Bhadun can get US$5.30 by renting a wife per day for shooting?
This isn't very clear to me; I think it means that women in Bhadun can earn $5.3 a day by acting as an extra in a film shooting, where they are playing people's wives; but lacking source access, I cannot confirm it. Some copy-editing is needed. @Mehediabedin, Sammi Brie, and RoundSquare:. Vanamonde (Talk)04:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Yes you are right on track. But slight difference - They don't act as wives in series, they are actually housewives of the residents of the village. They playing for extra for any role. I am not good at copy-editing but I will do my best. Do I need to c/e hook related passage or the whole article? Mehedi Abedin04:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I purposely left the ambiguity in as part of the hook (though certainly it needed editing in the article, which I carried out). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The shooting must be explained that it is not real. This is not April Fool's and death should not be used as a hook. Nxavar (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I think if the hook is going to be a little ambiguous on purpose, it needs to go in the quirky slot. Otherwise, I would suggest "that according to Risingbd.com, in 2022, the residents of Bhadun can earn US$5.30 per day by being hired as extras for film shootings? The current formulation implies the residents are doing the renting, which isn't correct. We could potentially also drop the first half, for a punchier hook. Vanamonde (Talk)13:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: That make sense but males don't get US$5.30 for film shootings, only wives of village residents get that. So we can replace "residents" with "wives of the male residents" or something like that. Or we can use better words. Mehedi Abedin17:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mehediabedin: How about "In 2022, married women living of Bhadun can earn US$5.30 per day by being hired as extras for film shootings?" That's punchy, and appears to be accurate. Vanamonde (Talk)15:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93 and Mehediabedin: I just noticed this hook in the queue, and I'm not sure it's actually consistent with what the source says. I don't speak Bangla, but relying on Google Translate here, the cited article starts with Need a wife? Get it for rent and then The role of the village wife is necessary for the drama? It is possible to get a wife by paying 500 rupees. I think the hook thus fails verification on two counts: Whether the wife gets the money, and what role the wife has in the shoot. Both "earn" and "extras" seem to be assumptions. (Also, why are we using USD here? And is "shooting" valid in South Asian English, or should this be "shoot" as it would be in AmEng?) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)20:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@Tamzin: I don't read Bangla either. I presume the nominator does: I'd like them to opine on the translation. Having looked at the translation, I'm concerned about a slightly different aspect; the 500rs comes not from the article's author, but an interviewee. As such it's not usable directly. The "extras" I'm not actually concerned with; I think it's implied pretty clearly; but we could amend that to "appearing in a film shooting" if needed. Vanamonde (Talk)20:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@Tamzin: Sorry I totally missed that part. And I thought that it will be better to use USD because Wikipedia is an international platform. And for the english part, in Bangladeshi English we know "filming" as "shooting" but we also use "shoot". Then how about this if I write "In 2022, production companies can get women for film shooting from Bhadun for the role of wife for US$5.30 per day?" Mehedi Abedin20:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Maybe: ... that film production companies in Bhadun, Bangladesh, can hire a local woman as an extra for ৳500 per day? Something like that? I won't begrudge the "extra" point, but it's not at all clear from the article whether it's the women or their husbands who get paid. And I'm not sure what the precedent for currencies on the main page, but to me what makes sense is either BDT only, or BDT with USD in parentheses. But I'll defer to the DYK experts. :)-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)21:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@Tamzin: That's okay except "film production companies" because they only shoot drama series here. But okay if there isn’t distinction between film production companies and drama production companies. Mehedi Abedin21:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Are you referring to Wikidata? It's a pretty new article. As far as I know, Wikidata is usually after the creation of an article, and done so by volunteers at Wikidata. Or ... you could go over to Wikidata and set it up yourself. — Maile (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
It's not English Wikipedia's job to link everything to Wikidata, and it certainly isn't a requirement for a DYK for it to be linked. If a Wikidata page exists for it, then you can always link it yourself (as this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit), and if one doesn't exist, I'm sure someone/a bot will create one in time (not sure the process for it though, as that's done on Wikidata, not here). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
DYK tools
I have a DYK button in the horizontal toolbar and one in the left vertical toolbar. Yet both usually indicate my articles do not qualify for DYK due to length issues. I then ignore the advice and nominate anyway, as I know the article is long enough. If anyone experienced the same or similar, it might be worth to check and probably fix it. And if someone knows of working DYK button of which I am not aware of, I'd be glad to know about. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
It is not about Natasa Pirc Musar, but more a general thing. I use User:SD0001/DYK-helper.js with which at the Reindorf Review, that was created today and is sure long enough, the result appears in red and says Prose size:68 words, 451 characters.
At Guido Chigi Saracini which was created in 2 August 2022 and their last edit was on the 16th August, the result appears in green script: Prose size: 228 words, 1518 characters.
I interpret green script that an article qualifies and red script that it doesn't qualify which is maybe a cause of the question mark beside the red script stating that an article needs 1500 characters of prose size for DYK which the red script says it doesn't. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@DYK admins: , we are at 120 approved nominations, but with only one filled queue and three filled preps. I think this means that we should stay at one a day for the present and fill some preps and queues as changing to two a day would put more pressure on prep builders. Also if we change to two a day at four filled preps and queues and then back to one a day at ten filled preps and queues, that leads to much more frequent changes up and down. TSventon (talk) 07:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely agree that this approved nominations number is artificially high since we don't have enough queues and preps filled. When the number filled stays relatively consistent, the switches at under 60 and 120 and over work; when there's significant variation in the numbers filled, we change more often than it makes sense. If six more preps were filled, we'd be at around 75 approved, nowhere near where a changeover would take place. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree – sorry that I've been away, the meatspace has been tumultuous. Just got consistent wifi access, so that's hopefully a return to normal activity soon. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Another consideration might be the fact that some of the articles on the approved list have had problems found by the promoter. These are generally fixed quickly, but it does suggest that the number of approved articles is higher than it should be. CSJJ104 (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Prep 1 - Earthrise
@Hawkeye7 and Theleekycauldron: I did not do a swap on the current image, but If you all are interested, I created a cropped version so the earth is a teeny bit bigger:
This is a historic image. I'm not thrilled with the idea of a crop. There's clearly no legal impediment to creating a derived work, but it seems inappropriate from a historical and artistic point of view. -- RoySmith(talk)23:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
You might be interested in the documentation of the original image at Commons, "This is a retouched picture, which means that it has been digitally altered from its original version. Modifications: rotation, cropping, level adjustment, dirt removal. This work is based on a work in the public domain. It has been digitally enhanced and/or modified. This derivative work has been (or is hereby) released into the public domain by its author, Earthsound. This applies worldwide" National Aeronautics and Space Administration is the source. Earthsound is the person or entity who uploaded it at Commons. — Maile (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
So im new to DYK reviewing and i'm noticing this problem i'm having where every time i review a nomination the message "{{DYKsubpage |monthyear=September 2022 |passed= |2=" appears above the template. Is there any way I can fix this? Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Howdy! My original hook was modified from "... that the lichen genus Felipes is named for the fruiting structures of its sole species, which are said to resemble a cat's paw?" to "... that the lichen genus Felipes is named for its fruiting structures, which are said to resemble a cat's paw?". The problem is, a genus doesn't have fruiting structures! I understand the desire to shorten hooks, but I fear this one no longer makes grammatical sense. Thoughts? MeegsC (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't see why a genus can't have a characteristic if a species can have one, but if there is a need to change the hook I suggest simply substituting in the species name. CMD (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Because a species has structures. A genus is a collective noun for a group of species. Its members have structures, but the collective noun itself does not! MeegsC (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
But a species is a collective noun for a group of individuals! We could talk about the wings of birds, or the scales of fish, which are even larger groups. CMD (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Maybe it is due to the fact that I was born in the previous century but when I started "eponymously" editing Wikipedia 15 years ago this idea was already cemented in my head: An "encyclopaedia" means learning about a great variety of subjects that are completely disconnected with each other. This was probably reinforced by the fact that, in printed encyclopaedias, the articles are listed alphabetically, so you are exposed to the above principle each and every time you look up something.
The "Did you know?" section must be a statement of identity as an encyclopeadia for Wikipedia. Certainly, Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopeadia but everything else is supposed to run second and in support of it. It would appear as common sense, as an unwritten rule, but apparently it needs to be articulated as Wikipedia rule: The "Did you know?" section must have the kind of variety that you find when you browse articles alphabetically. Nxavar (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Context: ALL items in the "Did you know?" section on 19 September 2022 were about the funeral of Elisabeth II of UK (link). That day Wikipedia did not look like an encyclopaedia at all. Nxavar (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Did You Know changes every day, sometimes multiple times in a day. It has plenty of variety. A snapshot of any particular instance is not a great way to gain an understanding of what shows up on DYK. CMD (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
For the record, I'm pretty sure themed DYKs are relatively common. It was just particularly obvious due to all of the Main Page having a theme. As POTD co-ordinator, I was a little surprised to see how many parts of the Main Page had independently gone for it, but POTD themes happen all the time. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs01:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
OK then, the consensus appears to be that the Main Page can be "themed". Those who find this an insulting piece of PR when it also covers the implicitly versatile "Did you know?" section (regardless of intentions, this is what it amounts to), do they have a choice? Can we have a secondary "Did you know?" section that is neutral and random, and then opt-in at our preferences? It can be a random selection of "Did you know?" items from the last year. Nxavar (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Nxavar, variety is a good principle, and observed most days, with a clear objective for prep builders to present DYK sets about different topics. Every once in a while, however, we make an exception to honour an event. Such as Beethoven's 250th anniversary of birth. This funeral attracted many world leaders, and had the highest interest for any featured article so far. If you don't want to see themed hooks, you can simply look at the DYK archive (linked below the hooks of a day) and browse in the archives from the beginning for things you want to learn about. I think to learn about the conductor who will move to Yale University was interesting beyond a certain event, no? Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
One of the principles of objective article writing is to not tell the reader what is interesting, important, etc. In Wikipedia, it is enshrined in the WP:MOS. I understand that the Main Page is treated differently, so my proposal is about limiting the theming tendency. Granted, the letter of MOS:NOTED is not violated, but I would very much prefer a "Today is a special day because this happened" than seeing content about that event all over the Main Page. Nxavar (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
One of the principles of DYK is letting a reader know something is interesting. If something isn't interesting, that is grounds for rejection from this process. The aim of the main page hooks is to get people to click on articles, not to be article-writing themselves. CMD (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Technically speaking, you can opt-out of any part of the Main Page by editing the stylesheet of your preferred style. Right now, it is a privilege reserved to those who know some CSS. Nxavar (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
The thing is, until you read it, you don't know if reading it is a good idea or not. And applying self-discipline so that you never read it, is kind of ridiculous and error-prone. Completely hiding it provides a certain comfort, anyway. Nxavar (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree. English Language Wikipedia is not English Wikipedia. It is unfortunate to have a complete focus on one event that is also intrinsically connected to oppression and colonialism. I do not think Wikipedia is following the 5 Pillars when platforming an event like this. Traanarchist (talk) 18:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I think that DYK has a slightly different goal than the rest of the encyclopedia: we are here to educate by content, but also to educate by hooking readers in. On a day where the world's eyes are turned to a single event, an event we had ten days to prepare for, it presents to us a unique opportunity. I'm sure we could've gone for broader consensus, but I think the main point here is that we had an opportunity to educate readers on topics we thought were timely and already in their minds – despite a somewhat conflicted legacy, I think we did a good job upholding our sacrality. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
It is not a hook if you leave people no choice. When the FA, POTD, and ALL the did you know items are related to the funeral of Elisabeth II of UK, we are basically forcing people to pay attention to Elisabeth II of UK. Nxavar (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Forcing people to pay attention to Elisabeth IIforcing people to pay attention to Elisabeth II – Hyperbolic, much? EEng16:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC) P.S. If it was really true that you'd been forced to pay attention, you'd probably have learned to spell Elizabeth correctly.
I agree with the premise of this section, that we should always strive to make DYK random and generally unrelated facts. BD2412T04:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
If the OP just wants random articles then they can get this by clicking on Random article in the menu. The main page sections are expliclity not random as they all have some theme – OTD does anniversaries; ITN does news, DYK does novelties and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Davidson (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Donations are everything
It just clicked. Today is currency day and we have a gallery of USD. The Main Page should cater to its more affluent and donation-prone readers, I guess. Nxavar (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
You mean that the viewership of the Main Page is not linked to the viewership of the donation messages? How can you say "We aren't linked" when the WMF funds Wikipedia and uses its Main Page to draw funds from the public ?!? Nxavar (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
The WMF does not use the main page, the main page is under the control of the community. As an aside, this is not the POTD talkpage, you will need to raise your concerns there. CMD (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
To get back on track, I believe we have a case of social exclusion due to poverty. Should WP only focus on themes that attract the interest of middle class? We should care about him too:
Nxavar: so DO something about it! Write an article that would be of interest to homeless people (not sure they read Wikipedia, but we can hope) and submit it to DYK! It's no good complaining about the fact that nobody else is writing such articles if you're not willing to write them yourself. MeegsC (talk) 08:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
It is not about whether articles about poverty, or what can lead people to poverty (e.g work accidents, mental issues) exist. My complain is not that Wikipedia does not have such content. However, they do not receive nearly as much coverage, let alone theming, as more "hip" subjects, such as the Queen dying, today's aniversary of the Mandate of Palestine (lets fight antisemitism), LGBTQ stuff etc. Nxavar (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Nxavar, they don't have such coverage because nobody champions them. October 17 is the UN-sponsored International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. An article about that could certainly be a DYK post for the day. That would be the "equivalent" to Mandate of Palestine, which is one listing in "on today's date" – hardly a "theme". With more leadtime, you could have proposed a themed day for it; I don't think two weeks would give you enough time to organize for this year. But next year is certainly a possibility. MeegsC (talk) 09:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
So does this mean that you're NOT planning to submit articles to change the conversation? As I said before, don't complain about it if you're not willing to do the work to change it! All of us who submit articles to DYK are writing about things we are passionate about. You can't expect somebody else to take up your torch. You can't expect volunteers to write about things "because they should". That's not how it works. If this is what you're passionate about then write about it! MeegsC (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
You posted you believe we have a case of social exclusion. If you believe so, then please write some material that helps include whoever is being excluded, and we can include it in DYK. Otherwise, there's not much we can do about it here, DYK is not a place where content is created. For POTD, you are again in the wrong place, as WT:DYK has no influence on POTD choices. CMD (talk) 10:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
A lot of the time, when I'm scrolling through building sets, I get bogged down by super-long discussions that haven't finish and take up quite a bit of scrolling space. Can we please add some code to the template, in between <includeonly> tags, that adds a {{Hidden}} template when the {{PAGESIZE}} exceeds 20,000 bytes? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
who has the prose size/5x expansion tools installed, to check if Tibetan art has been 5x expanded since this edit, or how short it is. I'm afraid i hate adding yet more stuff to my computer. Many thanks, Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Johnbod, when I run DYK check now, it says, Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 109 edits ago on September 26, 2022. As I type this, a nomination would only be a few hours late; I think under the circumstances it should be allowed since the expansion was completed on October 3 and was therefore within the requirements of a seven-day 5x expansion, as long as you complete the nomination as soon as possible. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Currently, WP:DYKA archives DYK hooks "according to the date and time that they were taken off the Main Page". However, at present, the bot that updates an article's talk page will state "A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on [Date]" with "Date" linking to the archive. This means that talk page links are taking users to the wrong archive.
The archives have always been dated with when the hook was archived from the main page, rather than when it was first promoted to the main page. It's a known issue, one that gets mentioned here once or twice a year; it isn't possible to predict the removal time with any accuracy (indeed, sometimes hooks are removed altogether so they aren't archived at all). The link typically is to the adjacent archive, so it can be found. Unfortunately, there's not an easy fix; if there were, it would have been fixed by now. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I see. Is there a consensus policy on whether the link should be corrected? In my example, I changed the date to 26 June and linked to the correct archive, though not necessarily the correct date it was posted on. Perhaps the link should be changed but not the date? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
No consensus that I'm aware of. If it's considered desirable, perhaps a bot could be created to adjust the links after archiving if necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
I'd consider that desirable, considering that this issue is added to eight articles each day. Perhaps a discussion could be started on that. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
what if the bot simply posted to the archive in chronological order (instead of reverse chronological order) and posted its updates with the hooks appearing before the new section heading (instead of after)? this way, the new section heading will contain the post time of the hooks that will eventually be archived under it, rather than the archive time of the hooks being concurrently archived. dying (talk) 10:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
oh, sorry! i should have attempted to illustrate this by showing what happens over a couple of updates. for simplicity's sake, let us assume that updates are being run at a rate of one set a day, and ignore the utc timestamps that the bot includes in its posts. currently, the bot posts its updates to the top of the hook list, so the earliest hooks remain at the bottom, and the archive is in reverse chronological order. in addition, each update consists of a section heading containing the date of the post, followed by the hooks being archived. over a couple of updates, the archive grows as follows:
== yesterday ==
* day-before-yesterday's hooks
→
== today ==
* yesterday's hooks
== yesterday ==
* day-before-yesterday's hooks
→
== tomorrow ==
* today's hooks
== today ==
* yesterday's hooks
== yesterday ==
* day-before-yesterday's hooks
as each update contains a heading with the date at the time and the hooks being archived, in the end, the date of each section heading is the archive date of the hooks that were concurrently archived below it. this is why "DYK hooks are archived according to the date and time that they were taken off the Main Page".
if the bot were to post to the archive in chronological order, then updates would be posted to the bottom of the hook list, so the earliest hooks remain at the top. now, if the hooks were to be posted to the archive above the new section headings rather than below, the archive would grow as follows:
* day-before-yesterday's hooks
== yesterday ==
→
* day-before-yesterday's hooks
== yesterday ==
* yesterday's hooks
== today ==
→
* day-before-yesterday's hooks
== yesterday ==
* yesterday's hooks
== today ==
* today's hooks
== tomorrow ==
using this method, in the end, the date of each section heading is the post date of the hooks below it. note that a new section may not contain any hooks when the heading is first added to the archive, but the hooks will eventually be archived in the update following. dying (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC) [copyedited. dying (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)]
Thanks for the elaborated explanation, I understand what you mean now. This is certainly an interesting remedy to the issue. I'm not sure if this is the right channel, but if so, perhaps a proper discussion could be started to see if community consensus could be reached on the topic. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
i am admittedly still very much a neophyte in dyk space, so i am not sure if there is a more appropriate place to discuss this. however, i did manage to find this issue about the recent additions page raised in this page's archives, here, here, and here, so i am assuming that this forum is as good a place as any. (any editor with more experience is welcome to move this discussion to a more appropriate place.) would it make sense to ping the participants of the discussions linked above to try to form a consensus? my search was by no means exhaustive, so feel free to point out any other relevant discussions that are in the archive. dying (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
@dying: I think the technical issue would be arise we switch from 12 to 24 hours a day, and vice versa. For example, imagine the bot posts an update that is supposed to run for 24 hours, placing the new section heading and bullet point below the hooks as normal. What happens when we switch to 12-hour sets, and now the future empty timestamp in place is wrong? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
I think the reason this setting is this way is because the only thing DYKUpdateBot can be instantly certain of when it shelves a set is what time it is right then – scrabbling around for the previous (upload) time is difficult and inefficient. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
That's a valid point. I'll be honest, I still don't entirely sure why DYK hooks are archived under the day after they go on the main page. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
@Krisgabwoosh: They're archived when they leave the main page, which is 12 or 24 hours after entry, depending. But you're correct that it'd be much simpler for DYKUpdateBot to archive hooks when they enter the main page. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
While it would be easier, we have enough instances of a hook being changed during the time on the Main page that perhaps we keep archiving the last version. Bad enough that usually the credits remain wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
the fact that we don't have a comprehensive and accessible way of knowing how a hook has been changed while on the Main Page is a whole other can of worms. I just remembered that it's technically my can of worms, since I promised to do something about that with my modification detection script... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, i could easily be wrong about this, since i am still new to dyk, but i admittedly cannot seem to see the problem you describe, since the time one set is archived is the same as the time the next set is posted, regardless of what the posting schedule is. (i am ignoring the negligible time difference between the two edits, made during the same bot update.) whenever the posting schedule is changed, the last section heading will still contain the post time of the set on the main page at the time, so when the next update happens, that section heading will still have the correct post time of the set being archived.
i had assumed above that updates happened daily to simplify the illustration, but we can easily generalize this to any posting schedule. let us define ax and px as the archive time and post time of the xth set, respectively. clearly, ax = px + 1 since the bot archives one set and posts the next in the same update. technically, the bot posts both a section heading containing a date, and a bullet point in bold italics containing a utc timestamp, but in order to not complicate the illustration below, i will represent both with a section heading containing a utc timestamp. after n sets have been posted (and n − 1 sets have been archived), the current behaviour of the bot for the next two updates is as follows:
== an − 1 = pn ==
* (n − 1)th set of hooks
→
== an = pn + 1 ==
* nth set of hooks
== an − 1 = pn ==
* (n − 1)th set of hooks
→
== an + 1 = pn + 2 ==
* (n + 1)th set of hooks
== an = pn + 1 ==
* nth set of hooks
== an − 1 = pn ==
* (n − 1)th set of hooks
with this current method, the nth set of hooks is found under the heading containing an as its timestamp, so the hooks are archived according to their archive time. however, using the proposed method would result in the following behaviour:
* (n − 1)th set of hooks
== an − 1 = pn ==
→
* (n − 1)th set of hooks
== an − 1 = pn ==
* nth set of hooks
== an = pn + 1 ==
→
* (n − 1)th set of hooks
== an − 1 = pn ==
* nth set of hooks
== an = pn + 1 ==
* (n + 1)th set of hooks
== an + 1 = pn + 2 ==
in this case, the nth set of hooks is found under the heading containing pn as its timestamp, so the hooks are archived according to their post time. the bot makes no assumptions about the posting schedule and needs to make no calculations to determine what timestamp to put in the heading, as it simply relies on the fact that the archive time for any set will be the post time for the following set. in both implementations, when the nth set is being archived, the bot will post a heading with the timestamp an at time an.
by the way, i also agree with Gerda that the bot should archive the last version of a hook. the bot already posts the first version on the talk page, so that should be easily accessible if desired. dying (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
@Dying: Oh, I see! So the change is that the archive time is simply posted below the hook set at the time of archiving, instead of above. Clever! I should think that simplifies matters quite a bit. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
to me, it seems like there is at least some sort of consensus to implement the solution and see how it performs before deciding if it should be made permanent if it works. the majority that have participated in this discussion are interested in the idea, no one seems to be against it, and one editor has expressed skepticism that there was a simple solution, but has yet to comment on the solution proposed. also, the way the bot currently archives hooks is "a known issue, one that gets mentioned here once or twice a year", so i think it is agreed that something should be done if possible. however, as the one who proposed the solution, i don't think i should be the one to make the call (in the same way one shouldn't approve one's own hooks).DYKUpdateBot is operated by Shubinator, and the bot's code is available here. Shubinator, what are your thoughts on the proposal above? i admittedly have not grokked all of your code (thanks for making it easily understandable!), but i think replacing
ifidx_this_date==-1:# if there isn't, create a new section headingidx_insert_section=str_archive.find('\n',str_archive.find('<!--BOTPOINTER-->'))+1str_archive=DYKUpdateBotUtils._insert_str(str_archive,idx_insert_section,str_section_heading+'\n')idx_this_date=idx_insert_sectionidx_this_date=str_archive.find('\n',idx_this_date)+1returnDYKUpdateBotUtils._insert_str(str_archive,idx_this_date,str_set_heading+'\n'+hooks_outgoing+'\n\n')
with
idx_insert_section=str_archive.find('<!--BOTPOINTER-->')ifidx_this_date==-1:# if there isn't, append a new section heading after the hooksreturnDYKUpdateBotUtils._insert_str(str_archive,idx_insert_section,hooks_outgoing+'\n\n'+str_section_heading+'\n\n'+str_set_heading+'\n')returnDYKUpdateBotUtils._insert_str(str_archive,idx_insert_section,hooks_outgoing+'\n\n'+str_set_heading+'\n')
should be sufficient to implement the idea.incidentally, the proposed code is simpler because there is no need to find the appropriate section heading to write under if the heading already exists; under this implementation, the section heading will always already exist, and the correct place to insert the update will always be right before the bot pointer. the if statement is only used to check to see if a new section heading should be included after the hooks. the idx_this_date variable isn't used beyond that check, since the insertion point will be at idx_insert_section in any case. (also, i think the last three lines can be compressed into one line using the ternary operator (with the empty string as the alternative), but am not sure if that would improve or degrade readability.)admittedly, i haven't tested this code at all, and think there might be an off-by-one error somewhere, so please look it over carefully. also, the bot pointer should be moved to the end of the archive, right before the navigation template at the bottom, before this version of the code runs. (the lead of the archive page should probably be updated too, but to the bot, that is just flavour text.) dying (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for reaching out with the note on my talk page. As BlueMoonset mentioned above, (and at the risk of raining on your parade) this is a perennial conversation, and having seen many of these conversations fizzle out, it's best to set similar expectations here. A few thoughts:
The code above will more-or-less work as expected, thanks for the concrete illustration!
When DYKUpdateBot is out of service, human admins archive DYK sets. Manually archiving like this would likely feel unintuitive.
Both the flow (reverse chronological to chronological) and associating timestamps with when the set appeared on the Main Page break "backwards-compatibility" from the historical archives, and may be confusing to future archive readers.
I'm not sure I sense (yet) a consensus to move forward - and ideally we want a consensus for the upsides that acknowledges the downsides, like those mentioned above. Shubinator (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is not as straightforward as reading the existing archives and flipping them around. Back in the day (before I joined DYK), hooks were added and removed from DYK a lot more fluidly, and not as part of full sets. Think of how ITN operates today. So an effort to adjust historical archives may require recreating the archives from scratch. Shubinator (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
This was DYKHousekeepingBot's original purpose, back in the day, so it surely can be done. There are a fair number of edge cases etc to watch out for though, and if memory serves, some manual massaging was required even after handling the edge cases. Shubinator (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure we absolutely need to change the archiving method. Could we, as a first step, try to move the explanation closer to the dates? If we said "The dates are when the set was taken off the Main Page; for most hooks, the time mentioned one section below is when it was added" directly under the "Did you know" header, people might actually see it. Currently this is somewhere up the page, somewhere where my eyes do not see it especially on a wide screen. —Kusma (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
The issue for me is that when checking the actual article's talk page, the DYK bot will link to an archive that does not include the actual hook in question. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Shubinator, no worries about raining on my parade! as an editor new to dyk, i was fully expecting to get shut down after my first comment, but have been pleasantly surprised that people far more experienced than i am have been entertaining my idea. admittedly, i had not previously addressed the other issues you had mentioned as i had figured that they were all minor details, not worth spending time discussing if the initial idea was to be rejected anyway.
also, many thanks for checking my code! it's a testament to your coding ability that i was able to easily propose a modification. i had figured that whether or not this idea could be easily implemented in the code was the main issue to address, but now that that has been resolved, let's discuss the other details.
regarding manual archiving, i do not think this will be a serious issue if it is implemented, as i believe the most difficult thing to overcome is simply unlearning how archiving has been done in the past. i would suggest moving the manual archiving instructions from the top of the archive page to the bottom (and leaving a comment at the top mentioning this), and adding an additional visual cue by including a note after the last section heading (and the bot pointer), visible on the archive page itself (and not just in the code), stating that the set of hooks to be archived under that section heading is currently on the main page. for example, if the archive page looked like this:
...
• 12:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
• ... that when construction began on the Kauai Plantation Railway, "nobody in the crew knew how to build a train track"?
13 September 2022 [edit]
• 00:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
• ... that the hooks that will appear here have yet to be archived, as they are currently on the main page?
...
and the code looked like this:
* '''''12:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)'''''
* ... that when construction began on the '''Kauai Plantation Railway''', "nobody in the crew knew how to build a train track"?
===13 September 2022===
* '''''00:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)'''''
<!--BOTPOINTER--><!--
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
please add the set of hooks to be archived to the line immediately following the utc timestamp above,
followed by the line "==={{subst:CURRENTDAY}} {{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}==="
if a new day has occurred,
followed by the line "* '''''~~~~~'''''", which outputs a utc timestamp.
this will ensure all times are based on utc time and accurate,
and that a new utc timestamp is created containing the post time for the hooks currently on the main page.
the entire update should be inserted above the bot pointer, so that this comment remains immediately after it.
this page should be archived once a month.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
please do not move this dummy hook or replace it with hooks to be archived. hooks should be archived according to the instructions above. thank you! -->* ''... that the hooks that will appear here have yet to be archived, as they are currently on the main page?''
{{Main Page topics|state=collapsed}}
then i think manual archiving would be pretty straightforward.
regarding conforming the current archives to the proposed format, i do not think this is a good argument against implementing a new way to archive hooks, as it appears to be a case of the sunk cost fallacy. on the other hand, as the bot continues to add links to the article talk pages that often target an incorrect location in the archive, technical debt is constantly being accumulated. in any case, theleekycauldron has graciously volunteered to code up something to automate the conversion, and even though converting some of the older archives may be tricky, i presume that converting the more recent archives should be pretty simple, since adding and removing hooks as full sets has been the norm for a while. (i went through the 2022 archives and found no glaring issues.) in addition, i would also be happy to volunteer to fine-tune any issues manually, even though i know that doing so may take some time.
in any case, even if there were a whole bunch of editors clamouring for this change, i don't think it should be implemented all at once. would it make more sense to, for example, convert this month's archive to the proposed format and then run the bot with the new code for a week to see what people think? of course, if people clearly wish to snow close this experiment at any point, everything will be reverted to the way it was, and i will be the one responsible for reformatting this month's hooks to conform with the previous style, since i was the one who started this whole mess. however, if the idea does not get snow closed after a week, i could then begin converting all the archives to the new format, and maybe after another week or so, we could raise the question of whether or not this proposal is a good idea. dying (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC) [reformatted code. dying (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)]
theleekycauldron, as i was thinking about how to implement something that rebuilds the archives while accounting for hooks that are pulled, it occurred to me that, since the bot currently simply archives the hooks as it finds them on the main page, a dyk notice on the talk page of an article whose hook has been pulled will still point to the archives, even though the associated hook isn't there, regardless of whether hooks are archived by post date or archive date. i am assuming that this is not the desired behaviour, as you mention the "opportunity to correct the record for a lot of hooks". should the pulled hooks be included in the archive in some manner? alternatively, should the dyk notices be removed or altered to be more accurate if the pulled hook is not archived? dying (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
I realize it's a little late to be asking this, but does this particular applecart really need upsetting? EEng04:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
hey, EEng! i had admittedly had not seen things that way, though, being new here, i could easily be misunderstanding things. the way i had interpreted it, i had seen an editor pointing out that there was an overturned applecart, and a more experienced editor stating that this has been regularly pointed out, but no one has been able to figure out how to easily upright it. i then suggested a way to upright it (that i am somewhat surprised does not seem to have been suggested before) and there is consensus that this method would work, so the main question now is whether people wanted the cart uprighted, or preferred it overturned.the apple vendor pointed out that apples would still be on the ground after the cart was uprighted, so two of us offered to move all the apples onto the cart. one editor suggested moving some apples around as a cheaper solution, but the first editor pointed out if we did that, the cart would still be on the ground. i am hoping for additional feedback from the apple vendor, who has posted about not having much extra time at the moment. meanwhile, apples continue to pile up on the ground.that being said, i acknowledge that we both clearly remember another applecart that i had inadvertently overturned at mos:num when i thought i was simply placing an apple i found on the ground back onto the cart. however, with that cart, as we uprighted it, we made the cart sturdier and piled the apples up in a more orderly fashion, so in the end, the applecart was in a much better state.in any case, as a more experienced editor, do you know of any potential issues that this proposed solution may encounter that has not already been raised? alternatively, do you know if people prefer this cart on the ground for reasons i am currently unaware of? for example, if some editors have scripts that rely on the archives being sorted by archive date, i can certainly understand their reluctance for change. also, if most editors prefer an article's dyk notice to not link to the section of the archives that includes the hook, then i would not want to get in their way.by the way, although this was not the primary issue, i had thought that implementing this proposal would also allow us to align the archiving method used by dyk with those used by other parts of the main page, all of which currently archive by post date if they keep any archives. dying (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to suggest new topics, but I'm not technical and it failed :(
Hi IP, DYK is specifically to share new articles, not any fact from Wikipedia. If you know of a new (or expanded five times) article that has an interesting fact, you can let us know here! CMD (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a few days ago. I've created a new list of 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 26. We have a total of 257 nominations, of which 144 have been approved, a gap of 113 nominations, unchanged from the previous list. Thanks to everyone who reviews these!
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) 02:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
which I suspect may be unrelated because it happens when I load the page before I even pick "Close DYK Nomination" from the More menu. -- RoySmith(talk)14:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
This is one of those questions that's been bothering me for so long, I'm almost embarrassed to ask it. If I'm looking at a transcluded DYK template, is there any way to get to the template itself in one click? I started digging into how this is implemented, got as far as {{DYKsubpage}} and realized I'm way out of my league on understanding the template magic. It's a template that produces another template???
Anyway, if I'm on say, Template talk:Did you know/Approved looking at a submission, there's a link for "Review or comment" which takes me to ...&action=edit. But most often, what I want is to view the template, not edit it, i.e. I want that link without the "&action=edit" on it. You know, like how navigation templates have self-links for both "View this template" and "Edit this template". I end up clicking the "Review or comment" link, then clicking again to view the template as rendered. Am I just missing something obvious? -- RoySmith(talk)13:21, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
@RoySmith: There is... not, no. At least, not one that I've found. Up until PSHAW, there was really no reason to be on the template subpage unless you were about to add to it, or close it manually. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I moved this from Queue 3 just now, to give time to discuss. First of all, the hook fact doesn't seem to be entirely in the article - the "1906" year is only mentioned once, and that's in the final paragraph, in reference to a trip to Paris, that has nothing to do with him publishing the 385 letters. Secondly, I find the wording odd here - it sounds like he was the [first editor] to [publish them by 1906]. I'd suggest a comma or something. Also, why "by 1906"? Is the year uncertain? Or was it a range of years? If so, maybe state that. Pinging @Gwillhickers, Gerda Arendt, and Theleekycauldron:. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
* @Amakuru: — Another editor added "by 1906". Actually the publication of Smyth's ten volume work began in 1905 and continued to 1907. Statement and cites supporting hook are in the first sentence in the Benjamin Franklin's papers section. Here is a revised hook. Hope this works for all concerned. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
ALT2 ... that Albert Henry Smyth discovered 385 letters written by Benjamin Franklin and became the first editor to publish them beginning in 1905?
... that Mary Ridge blew up the Liberator on her first encounter with Blake's 7, and killed off the crew on her last?
Two queries about this - firstly, there is a requirement at WP:DYKHOOK that "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way", which this doesn't seem to meet - both the hook facts are about "in-universe" storylines. Secondly, the phrasing seems confusing, particularly the last part - "killed off the crew" for a director sounds like it means she actually murdered her cinematographers, sound engineers etc. Perhaps the hook was intended as a play on words, but I think it ought to be made clearer. Pinging @Penny Richards, Espresso Addict, Dr vulpes, Lajmmoore, and RoySmith:. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 08:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I wrote it as a suggestion for the quirky slot -- it's what Ridge is (in)famous for among Blake's 7 fans -- but did wonder whether it would meet the in-universe rule. Actually the first is real world, in the sense that the Liberator set was actually blown up. If it won't stand in that wording then I withdraw it; Penny Richards had an alternative which was only struck because we mostly preferred this one. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello all, +1 for Espresso Addict's explanation, which was what I had in mind when reviewing. Would an alt work as:
... that Mary Ridge blew up the set of the Liberator on her first encounter with Blake's 7, and killed off the crew on her last?
Not keen on "fictional". Will someone really think Ridge gunned down the poor production team?? Seems unlikely. Could also add the word director to make it less in universe, ie "*... that director Mary Ridge blew up the set of the Liberator on her first encounter with Blake's 7, and killed off the crew on her last?" --or-- perhaps "show" is better than "fictional"? "*... that Mary Ridge blew up the set of the Liberator on her first encounter with Blake's 7, and killed off the show's crew on her last?" Espresso Addict (talk) 00:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I like the first of these. I assume the show had a production crew, which she definitely did not kill off, so the second option might not be less worrisome? Penny Richards (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Count me in favour of the second, despite my penchant for humorous misdirection. The assumption that real vs. fictional setting remains constant until changed should probably supersede the assumption that Ridge was not a mass murderer, given that we don't shy away from talking about mass murderers much. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
The Bắc Hà dog nomination has been marked as a fail due to nominator inactivity since the 23rd of September with no other editor taking their hands at the nomination yet the nomination still hasn't closed. Can someone close the nomination? Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
My thoughts are that any editor who produces at scale and gets (many of) their contributions recognised by DYK is most certainly not going to cause a problem for the project. Schwede6602:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Somethine wrong with DYK approval?
I'm noticing that for some reason, Oct 12, 13, and 14 approval templates aren't showing correctly. I'm not sure if it's a glitch or it's just my laptop but something is weird about it. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the Approved page has grown too large—the expanded templates exceed the maximum size allowed, so the last dozen or so templates aren't expanding. This will continue to be an issue until more approved nominations are promoted to prep, reducing the number of nomination templates on the page. Right now, we have only one queue and two preps (plus a partial prep) filled; filling the partial plus another full prep should deal with the problem temporarily; getting the total number of approved noms down to more normal levels will take care of it more permanently. Hopefully, some prep set builders will come along this weekend... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
The previous list was archived more than a day ago. I've created a new list of 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 6. We have a total of 260 nominations, of which 151 have been approved, a gap of 109 nominations, a drop of 4 in the past nine days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these!
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) 22:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Time to switch to two sets a day
There are currently 160 approved hooks. There are also currently 5 empty queues, and 15 hooks left to fill the preps. If we were to fill two queues and the remaining preps, that'd be 129 – since it's over 120, it'd be time to switch, if the DYK admins are up for moving into two-a-days. The switch would be changing User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200, some time between midnight and noon UTC. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Not sure if I overstepped in my review of Template:Did you know nominations/Jeff Jordan (defensive back). In that instance, the hook fact is based on a statement in an obituary on the Legacy.com web site. My concern was with the independence of the source which appears to be an obituary submitted by the family rather than an editorially-independent obituary. Was I wrong in raising this as an issue with respect to DYK eligibility? Cbl62 (talk) 14:54, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@Cbl62: I think that's a valid concern – hooks should ideally have an independent source, and definitely should for claims about outside parties (e.g. socially assigned nicknames). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Queue 1 is filled with approved hooks, but is not slated for mainpage until Oct. 20. Did this get skipped to appear on the mainpage, did a bot forget to clear this queue, or something else? Notices for their mainpage inclusion were not given to the DYK nominators. Pinging @Cwmhiraeth: who approved this queue. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
It seems like the current hooks on the mainpage were in Queue 7, so is Queue 1 accidentally getting skipped? Z1720 (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I accidentally approved my own hook, which is now in Prep 4
Hey folks,
I just realized I approved Template:Did you know nominations/Mutilated chessboard problem, but previously suggested an ALT hook for it which was now used in the Prep. (I also forgot to approve a pic for it, but that's not important). Just wanted to let you know, so that someone else can either pull the nom, or give their approval. I think it's pretty clear that my suggested hook is just a rewording and thus as accurate, but yeah, technically I shouldn't have approved it. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I see that the nominator reopened it, but it really didn't need to be as a rewording, even with a new image request. Prep builders promote rewordings without new approvals. SL93 (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: Hmm, yeah, I actually agree with you there, makes sense. Guess we can have a formal third-party approval there this time since it was re-opened; but when I next encounter such a thing I won't freak out over it, unless of course it was actually a wholly new hook, not just a rewording. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
so I just thought, I've hung around here long enough, and there seems to be a constant shortage of prep-fillers. I would volunteer, although my limited time for Wikipedia means I could only do a few now and then, and not dozens or more like the heroic theleekycauldron and others. I remember someone around here telling me to report back when I wanted to do that, so I guess if help is needed indeed, give me some pointers and I'll try :) –LordPeterII (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Cool, then I will read through that and maybe attempt it tomorrow (getting too late now). And yeah I anticipate making some mistakes, but thankfully DYK admins stand between me and the main page ^^ I'll drop y'all a warning when I start tampering with preps. –LordPeterII (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I went ahead and cleared Prep 4. As for Queue 4, the last hook is:
... that the British Reality TV series Make Me Prime Minister was described by one reviewer as "Technically it’s worth five stars. In every other way, I wish I was dead"?
First, "Reality" should be lower case and the apostrophe in "it’s" should be replaced (MOS:'). Also, the hook seems very awkward to me. I think it would be better as something like:
... that one reviewer of the British reality TV series Make Me Prime Minister said "Technically it's worth five stars. In every other way, I wish I was dead"?
There is no problem. There is one editor who wants to say where she was born, instead of what her art is, and yes similar ideas in other hooks. If that editor would accept that I want to say more about a living artist than where she was born, the "problem" was solved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@SL93, Firvales73, and Yakikaki: apologies, I wrote a reply to this yesterday afternoon and then my internet randomly died on me and I never submitted it. Just to note that I'm happy with SL93's change. The issue was that the article didn't mention who had made the quote in question, which means the reader has no way (other than opening the source) to assess the significance of it. Note that in general we'd even prefer a named individual, rather than just The New York Times, but in this case it's OK because the source doesn't say who exactly wrote it. Finally, and I think this probably isn't an issue here either, but I wanted to check carefully to ensure it's that the quote was paper's own "editorial" opinion on the dress rather than simply reproducing some text that the bride and groom had submitted to be included. The latter wouldn't be worthy of inclusion IMHO as the bride and groom would be a non-neutral primary source on whether their dress was good or not! — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
It's pretty clear once you click on it. It's historical...I think it may not get a lot of clicks, but I think it's good enough? Valereee (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
Do we have any rules on what images are acceptable? I promoted it because it is a clear image in good quality. I personally think it's in good enough quality at a small size. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I will place something else there if it's not considered acceptable. Though I will say that it being a non-biographical GA also influenced my decision. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't know if there are rules for such, and I'm not sure I have an opinion one way or the other. I just thought it wouldn't hurt for a few eyes on it. Personally, I like the hook etc., so if everyone else is fine with the image, so am I. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
@Maile66: I would say no – the fact that it's non-biographical is good, but foreign-language text on a page isn't a great way to get users hooked in. I wouldn't have made the same decision, myself, but it's promoter's choice and I'm not going to argue otherwise. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. I think it's better than many of the boring, to me, pictures of people that are used. I don't think that we can say with certainty what is a great way to hook readers in. SL93 (talk) 09:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd point out that image hooks frequently do better than non-image hooks by virtue of being in the lead – by my count, it's 385th out of the 420 lead hooks we've run this year, putting it in the 8th percentile. Even adjusting for its nighttime run (a 24-hour hook might have done around 1.17x better, according to my calculations), I'd say that the hook's performance was lackluster, if not abysmal. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
There was consensus for it to run. I can honestly say that I don't care how well it did or didn't do. Even in this case, we don't know every contributing factor. Until we do, I just can't feel compelled to care. I have things to worry about that are far more important than page hits. SL93 (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
"check mark" reviews
The current rule on "check mark" DYK reviews – reviews that simply offer the {{DYKyes}} check mark, rather than explicitly affirming that the article meets all of the individual main DYK criteria – is found in WP:DYK#gen5b, which states that Qualifying QPQs need to be full reviews, and not simply a "check mark."
I was looking over Tamzin's nomination of Out of the Blue, and noticed that Compassionate727 left a check mark review – in the process of reminding them that DYK reviews should avoid being "check marks", I did realize that the rules as written don't prohibit check mark reviews; they simply exclude them for the purposes of QPQ credit awarding. Is this by design? Should promoters be accepting check mark reviews as qualifying? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
in other words, would there be any objection to me updating the rules to reflect established practice: an article is not eligible for promotion unless it passes at least one standard full review in accordance with the DYK criteria? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The spirit of the practice is that "check mark reviews" is a bit of an oxymoron, as there is no review to read, so a change in text should perhaps be a bit of an emphasis along the lines of "A review should confirm the adherence to the criteria, rather than simply giving an overall yes or no". CMD (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
My hook originally had an image and I used specific wording in the hook to refer to it. Without my knowledge, the image was removed after promotion, making the hook's specific wording cumbersome and unnecessary. With the promoter's blessing, I would like to request the hook be changed to:
... that Rockstar Leeds was once based at a decommissioned church?
Done May I suggest that in future, you nominate more than one hook if your preferred hook hinges on it being promoted into the lead spot, IceWelder? Only a fraction of the nominated photos make it to the main page. Schwede6602:58, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I was actually under the impression that hook and image are always coupled, even if this leads to longer waiting times for promotion. Now that I know that this is not the case, I will keep it in mind for future noms. However, I do think it should become common practice to notify nominators when their hooks are changed, just so they can give their input and not notice it by chance 48 hours before display. IceWelder [✉] 09:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I remember the first time of being disappointed that my pic suggestion was not taken, which also had been my first nom with a pic (and the frustration when the pic actually taken were just some grapes, instead of the aerial view of a palace). But that was in 2009, and I go used to it. Many more noms come with a pic suggestion than can be accommodated. It's so normal to go without pic that I don't think it's worthwhile to let prep builders make another notification. Better you watch the move from nom to prep, and if it's worth arguing about the pic, do, but in most cases, just let go. In two recent cases, I nominated the missed pic again with a different hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
@IceWelder, we do try to ping noms when their hook is changed, but this one wasn't, I don't think? It was promoted without its image, but that probably happens with 80% of proposed images. Valereee (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Bring back the DYK reviewer bot?
Several years ago there was a trial where a bot would review articles and check if they passed article criteria. After the trial ended the bot was disabled. Would people here be interested in bringing back such a bot in some manner? The bot could check if article is new enough/long enough, as well as checking if the hooks meet length requirements and if either a QPQ is needed or if one is already done. Of course, final reviews will still be left to human reviewers, but perhaps such a bot checking at least the main DYK basic checks for length and newness could help in easing the backlog and make reviews perhaps a bit less demanding (considering many of our stuck nominations are about niche or controversial topics, meaning reviewers may be less inclined to actually do basic checks due to finding the material overwhelming). What do people here think? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I think it was. The thought I had was that a revived bot would just do the basic article checks (mainly article newness/length/QPQ), but other stuff like close paraphrasing, hook interest, referencing, etc. would still be done manually. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Great initiative. One additional check that bot could undertake is to look for a stub tag at the target (bold font) article and leave a note on the nomination if there is one found. Most of the time, it’s no longer a stub and the tag thus needs to go. Obviously, this would also entail a check whether there is a bold link in the hook. This would catch two common mistakes. Schwede6617:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
While I'm usually a progressive in terms of how much I think DYK should change and in what ways, I don't see a tangible net positive on this. Shubinator's DYKcheck script already checks for newness and length, and assessing QPQs actually does need a human element re: determining whether a full review was really done. On the downside, wikibot interactions with humans tend to be rather cold, and I think DYK comes across as bureaucratic enough without that. Implementing a bot might save some small proportion of new reviewers some number of clicks, but I doubt it'll do all that much. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
For me it's more to do with helping ease the backlog rather than clicks and stuff like that. Many of our stuck nominators are stuck because their topics are either too controversial or too niche and thus may be overwhelming. In such cases, it's not uncommon that an actual basic check has yet to actually be done. In addition, many noms go weeks without a review at all, so having a bot checking the basics would at least help get those out of the way easier. As for the DYKcheck script, it's great, but it's still reliant on an actual person checking the nom. And for reasons I explained earlier, it's not always the case that a reviewer actually comes along and checks as soon as possible. At least with a bot, we can have a quick check early so that, if a nomination needs to be quickfailed, it can be done so ASAP rather than having to wait. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
How many nominations need to be quickfailed? And how can you be sure the bot will be correct in its determination? A too-short nom can be expanded, a slightly late nom can be given AGF (but a bot shouldn't be making AGF decisions), etc. You'd end up needing a regular reviewer anyway, and the reviews would all be longer due to the bot-generated boilerplate plus the regular review. If this had been a panacea, there would have been a fuss made when it disappeared. I also don't see a tangible net positive here. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but like I said earlier, DYKcheck still requires manual activation by a human editor. With the bot, it could be done without humans. I mean, I remember back when the bot was running, people seemed to be okay with it back then and didn't find it redundant, and I think they even found it useful. Of course, that was six years ago, which is a long time in Wikipedia terms. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, but, clicking a button isn't that much more manual interaction than a user already has to do, in investigating sourcing, verifying the hook, checking for neutrality... and I don't really want a bot to quickfail articles from new nominators who are trying to figure out how this system works. it feels discouraging. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't know either. FYI, even though you mention that including the image is not required - that is one beautiful, serene image. — Maile (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I like the image, but I mentioned it on the nomination just in case promoters didn't like the image, but didn't want to cause any issues. SL93 (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Schwede66 I misread the source and I guess two other editors did as well. I withdraw the nomination. I'm not going to suggest a new hook after nominating it on September 1 with two approvals. SL93 (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Can we change the wording, please? At least in AmEng, "you can bet" is not taken as "you are able to gamble on this", it's more akin to "this is a safe bet"; in other words, it sounds like a lettuce is slated to become the next PM (when it so clearly should be a leek). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm also American, but took it the same way the hook's author did: "it is possible to bet…." Personally, it would need to say: "you can bet that … will" for me to take it in the sense of assurance. Not saying that you read English idioms wrong, just sharing my own thoughts. —Compassionate727(T·C)22:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Not my hook; happy to see the wording tweaked. But on another front, I've just asked the Daily Star whether they'd consider donating a photo to Commons. Would make a brilliant lead hook, I reckon. So many opportunities. Schwede6623:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
It's the "you (can/could) bet on X" being the problem. May be better as "that you could place bets on..." that makes it clear it was "gambling". Masem (t) 00:47, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
There's also a requested move ongoing on the article; I'm unsure if that would affect the DYK process? And while I support the wording change for clarity, the present tense is technically accurate until a new prime minister is presented. There's only one declared candidate yet afaik (not the lettuce though). –LordPeterII (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Why? When it gets moved, we simply change the link to the new article name. I also note that proposed moves are generally open for 7 days and this was proposed on 21 October, so should wrap up by 28 October. Prep 7 is scheduled to go live on 27 October, hence moving the hook doesn't achieve anything (unless we have a snow close). Schwede6622:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Generally we want an article to be stable when we're moving it to the main page. We don't use redirects, we pull if there's any kind of contentious editing, we protect images. A move is the same thing...we don't want it to move while it's on the MP. This article has a move discussion, just finished a merge discussion. I don't think the article is really stable at this point. Valereee (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, there are ways of avoiding redirects. We can leave a note at the move request to not move it while the item is on the main page. Or we can go to the nuclear option and put a temporary move protection on. I have never thought of a pending move request as signifying any article stability issue. And the merge discussion was a total non-starter; not a single editor supported that idea. Schwede6607:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
On behalf of the stats page, I would request that we do what's necessary to avoid an article move while said article is on the main page – creates significant headache for me, as I'm sure Gerda Arendt can attest to. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Attesting, just don't. The last such case is still not resolved (and won't be until next month, and even then doubtful if permanently), just for a move from upper case to lower case. I can usually be moved the next day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Just fyi, it's still hanging around in a prep, and the move discussion still ongoing. Maybe unpromote it so it's not accidentally moved to queue? Or move it further down the prep line. –LordPeterII (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
With the hook (in Prep 7) being delayed to 27 Oct, it's likely that a British PM would be appointed by then. Maybe just remove "the next" from the hook? Juxlos (talk) 03:24, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
to the nomination page, does anything else need to be done? Does a bot automatically know to transclude the nomination on Template talk:Did you know/Approved, or does something else need to be done? Either way, the documentation needs to say have some sort of call to action. Schierbecker (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Done – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
"No one knows if a bird in flight has an egg in its stomach." African proverb
I have always loved that proverb and I am sure it has many meanings. I hope it has some meaning for you.
No image for the Bohr's law Gunslinger effect number 1 hook (no image) (287,463 views in 24 hours)
Tattoist Amund Dietzel 1914 number 2 hook image (21,343 views in 12 hours)
Claudia Octavia number 3 hook image (31,877 views in 24 hours)
1982 World's Fair Sunsphere number 4 hook image (14,504 views in 12 hours)
The Great Wave off Kanagawa number 5 hook image (28,640 views in 24 hours)
Margaret Abbott number 6 hook image (27,801 views in 24 hours)
Eileen Collins number 7 hook image (26,472 in 24 hours)
.jpg)
_(cropped).jpg)
Not done. Number 1 is probably harmless, number 2 may need discussion (the links are very handy next to the hooks, I would rather remove the other instance), and number 3 is bad, as the extra tag helps against accidentally including bad things on the Main Page. All of these need checking with the other templates and all relevant bot operators. —Kusma (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
EEng 07:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Bruxton (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
_adjusted.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
