Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies and processes can be discussed.

The goal of hook perfection

Per EEng above, DYK's first hook happened in 2004, a hook that didn't even have an article until 3 days after the hook was on the main page. here We have somehow evolved from that, through our own goals and standards, as well as how we reacted to criticism at any point. That's all well and good, but I think in the process we've lost sight of the idea is to encourage editors. We are so concentrated on getting those hooks as interesting and flawless as can be, that we are willing to override the wishes and efforts of the nominator. We proceed with the faith that opinions of the non-involved are more informed, or more correct, than the editor who worked hard on creating the article. Maybe we don't have to be so nitpicking. After all, it's only one person's opinion vs. another. Eh? — Maile (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I am so glad that you raised this issue, and I agree with what you say. It seems to me that the review process on the DYK nomination template for the page constitutes a content discussion (usually just between two editors, the nominator and the reviewer, but sometimes attracting multiple editors), and it involves those who have given the most thought to the page and to its sourcing. Once the nomination is "good to go", there's a sort-of consensus for that version of the preferred hook. A lot of the time, subsequent edits are done on-the-fly, even though they are almost always done in good faith. If they unintentionally introduce something that worsens the hook, that would have been pointed out and discussed in the nomination discussion, that's a net negative. And I think that problem gets compounded once the queue becomes full-protected. I suggest reviewing Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 13#Admins editing through full protection: proposed addition, even with its mixed opinions. The community generally agrees that there should be limits to admins editing through full protection to make content changes to their own preference, and there's no reason why that should be different for DYKs than for mainspace articles. Correcting obvious errors, BLP violations, and the like, and to enact edit requests that have been discussed and agreed to is fine. But just making an "I think this would be better" edit unilaterally, no matter how much in good faith, can have unexpected repercussions. At least informally (as opposed to an actual rule), I'd like editors and admins who edit hooks after the review to try to check with nominators and reviewers before making changes. And even when that's not practical given time pressures, there's a sort of obligation to consider whether the change would have been agreed-to, if it had been discussed. It's awfully easy to think "I think it's better this way", and to make the edit, but it creates a sort of "last mover advantage". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

On my own hooks, the breaking point was a few years back. I'm not going to open that specific can of fish worms, because it took on the absurd that I don't want to accidentally re-hash here. Eventually, it was rejected on a legitimate issue. But in the process, the whole a lengthy spat developed from someone - not a DYK regular - who was disrupting the process over wanting us to swap out article images with some from Commons they preferred. There was nothing technically wrong with the images in the article, just that this person preferred others to be in the article. The article itself was in the process of being reviewed for one of the other projects, and this individual pretty much shut down that nomination also with disruptions over the images. To my memory, we just withdrew that other nomination rather than waste our time. The only other time I almost quit DYK entirely was because of someone (no longer active here) who was just dogging everybody with their objections. At some point, everybody can reach an apex of (pardon me), "F-it! I don't get paid for this shit!" We can do better. And after my own experiences just mentioned, a little courtesy doesn't hurt. — Maile (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Can of fish? I agree: I don't wanna get canned! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, sardines do come in tins of some sort. — Maile (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Can of worms: that's much better. Sounds yummy! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Everyone has heard of the Diet of Worms, right? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

We are so concentrated on getting those hooks as interesting and flawless as can be, that we are willing to override the wishes and efforts of the nominator

Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more with the thrust of these remarks. The entire Wikipedia project is based upon the "wisdom of crowds" and the notion that more eyes on the job leads to better results, and I strongly concur. Most people are aware of how much more difficult it is to judge one's own work than that of somebody else, so it should be no surprise to find that nominators not infrequently turn out to be indifferent judges of their own hooks. While all things being equal, nominators preferences should be respected, DYK should never be run solely or even chiefly to satisfy "the wishes .. of the nominator" - that is a surefire road to mediocrity and clunky and embarrassing content making it to the main page on a regular basis. BRD applies just as well to hooks as to any other form of content, and in my experience, the vast majority of changes made to hooks on their way to the main page are improvements. If the occasional hook is worsened by the process, that is the price one pays for overall significantly better results. Gatoclass (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I lean toward the idea that more eyes create a better hook. I've seen it go both ways, and in general I tend to open discussion for anything I think might be problematic for the nom, but there's a recent discussion at my own talk of a change I made that, at the time, I didn't think was big enough to open a separate discussion on (because there was already a discussion in progress). The nominator disagreed, and we came to a place of agreement, but it made me think that maybe nearly any change other than obvious typos should get a section opened and ping the nom. Courtesy ping to @EEng. —valereee (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

All I can say, again, is we should stop with the newness fetish and take GAs only, and run only those hooks that come out in the top 50% in a popularity vote for interestingness. EEng 21:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Setting aside what EEng said (whatever that was... ), something that I think a couple of the editors here are not taking into account is that no one is saying that there is anything bad about open discussion with more participants. I, for one, don't want to lock anyone out of the consensus process – but I'm saying that's a two-way street. Someone who acts unilaterally when it's too late for anyone else to opine is not engaging in open discussion, and is replacing the "wisdom of crowds" with the "wisdom of me alone". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Reading further what others are saying, I want to add that I understand that, sometimes, other editors have a better understanding of what is needed than the nominator does. And I would not advocate that the wishes of the nominator should be prioritized to such a degree that no one should be able to override them. I get that. And I'm OK with putting a limit on the nominator's wishes during the nomination stage, because there is always dialog at that stage: nominators have to work with WP:Consensus along with everyone else. But there is already another editor, at a minimum, who reviews the nomination, who can say no to unreasonable requests. And even when the reviewer gets it wrong, an admin gets to say yes or no to moving it from the approved page to a prep area. But after that has happened, there's nothing unreasonable about checking back whenever practical (within time constraints) before acting unilaterally, when it's not a matter of correcting a policy violation. I think it's reasonable to expect changes that are made, without discussion, at the prep and queue stages not be matters of "I know that this was already agreed to at the nomination template, but I have a personal preference for doing it this other way." I wonder whether the discussion here is self-selecting for editors who are DYK regulars, who are consequently less likely to see anything wrong with the kinds of edits that they, themselves, do. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, EEng I applaud your enthusiasm for GA nominations. However, if we eliminated all but them, DYK would have the same problem. When I first tried reviewing GA nominations, I was very quickly reminded by BlueMoonset that GA does not have the same criteria (WP:GACR) for eligibility as DYK. The example I give, is GA nomination for Marian Anderson that I reviewed and passed. And then it was nominated for DYK, and the very thorough Yoninah took the reigns (DYK nomination Marian Anderson). The reason the close paraphrasing came up, is because at GAC, I relied on one of the DYK template copyvio tools. Can't remember which one, but nothing stood out when I did it. Yoninah went a different direction. She reallly dug her heels in on this, and she was correct in the long run. But it was a big mess of who copied who first - somewhere in the chain of events, the University had copied verbatim from the Wikipedia article on Marian Anderson, which made it look like we copied from them. There was some notation on the university page about how they got the info, but the university page was updated while DYK review was happening, eliminating the statement they'd copied from us. Or something like that. Back and forth. Either GA would have to restructure its rules - which won't happen in my lifetime - or DYK would have to lower theirs - which is like waiting for a snow blizzard during a San Antonio summer. Total overhaul of rules ain't gonna happen, either direction.— Maile (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

No, if DYK switched to carrying only GAs, we wouldn't have the "same problems". We'd no doubt still have problems (uneven understanding of rules and review procedures, difference of opinion, etc etc) and because of the new focus those problems would tend to manifest themselves in new ways, but at least all the effort would be directed at presenting reasonably good-quality articles instead of new and often inchoate articles. EEng 02:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Gatoclass's concerns about how nominator's wishes. While we try to respect them as much as possible, there are times when it's simply not feasible to do so, especially when the hook wording is too clunky or frankly uninteresting. We should try to compromise as much as possible but there are really times when what the nominator wants isn't what is best for our interests, although I agree that especially when it comes to newcomers we should strive to be more forgiving and guiding. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• The whole point of DYK is to give new articles a chance to be seen on the main page. While it's nice if it's an "interesting" hook, it shouldn't have to be interesting to everyone. We are not capable of judging what the millions of people who see the main page daily will find that piques their interests - and I haven't seen a single DYK hook that hasn't resulted in at least 1000 extra page views for the page when it runs. That's 1000 people that found the hook interesting enough to click on and go see an article about it. And that's more than enough - maybe one of those viewers sees an error, corrects it in that article, and goes on to become a productive editor - or maybe not, but who cares? If the point of DYK is to reward new content/greatly expanded content, why would we even consider these onerous criteria for "interesting-ness"? Unless it's a completely useless hook like "This person lived and is now dead" or "The <species name> is a species of <animal>", why do we care? Just because you or I don't find something interesting does not mean others won't, and even 1000 extra views on a topic has 1000 potential editors who will see it and potentially edit more too. This all seems like an attempt to make more rules/criteria for something just for the sake of some people feeling special for enforcing them, and honestly, the fact that people are going so far as to propose a literal voting contest really makes me sour about submitting future content to DYK. I guarantee you at least half of my hooks wouldn't have been considered "interesting enough", and even I didn't find some of them interesting to me, but that shouldn't matter if the goal is truly to recognize new/expanded content and provide links people may want to click on the main page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, because I never stated explicitly, I have no problem with the review process making grammatical or flow improvements to hooks at all. But hooks/articles should not be outright declined just because they are a little bit clunky - the reviewer can certainly suggest improvements but the nominators wishes as to what fact should be presented should be honored whenever possible - even if the hook isn't exactly their proposal. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    • It really depends, because there are times when even the hook fact itself would be unsuitable for DYK, or is simply not engaging enough. For example, if the nominator's hook fact was an outright attack on a living person and they pushed for this hook, or if the fact was discriminating against a person or a group of people, should their wishes be honored? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Berchanhimez, we get 8 slots a day (16 sometimes) to promote new content. If your hooks are so uninspiring that "even I didn't find some of them interesting to me", then perhaps we should be choosing more interesting hooks from others. After all, we get well more than 8 new hooks submitted on most days. Given our limits, perhaps we shouldn't be running hooks "just because it's new"—we've got more than enough new content to choose from. I haven't submitted DYKs for some of the poorly-known species I have written articles about, because I just couldn't think of anything really compelling to put into a hook. MeegsC (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

There also probably needs to be a change in mentality among us. It's not uncommon for us to nominate an article for DYK for nominating's sake even when there's really no suitable hook fact that can be used or the article really wasn't meant for DYK. Perhaps if we could instead focus on articles that are more deserving of a DYK slot that would help maintain quality, among other things. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with the points being made by Maile and Tryptofish. I have an article going through DYK currently but take little pleasure in it because the approved hook has now been bloated in violation of my wishes. The process is supposed to be that hooks are nominated, reviewed and approved and they should then appear with a minimum of munging and mutilation. The success or failure of the hook is credited to the nominator and those who have edited the article. Others should stay out of this because they are distorting the competitive process. If they want to demonstrate their superior prowess then they should do so by entering their own articles and making reviews. See also: perfect is the enemy of good. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

A more narrow focus

I think that editors have been making good points about the fact that, sometimes, nominators put forth hooks that really should not go through. But I still think that, buried within this discussion, there's something valid to be considered about greater deference to nominators. So I'd like to consider, more narrowly, the process of what happens to a hook after it has been reviewed and passed. I've commented about this in detail just above, so I won't repeat what I said unless someone asks me to. But I think that, once a nomination has been passed by a reviewer, and moved by an administrator from the approved page to a prep area, there should be some caution about further edits to the hook, with a particular caution about not changing the meaning from what was agreed upon at the nomination template. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Promoting an approved hook into the prep area is normally done by an editor with experience at DYK, but not by an administrator. However, moving the prep set into the queue is an administrative task, and that administrator is ultimately responsible for the accuracy of the hook. If nominators provide accurate, well written hooks, referring to facts cited inline in the article, there will be no need for the final changes in the hook that you are objecting to ("the pioneer" rather than "a pioneer" being a case in point). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me about the move into a prep area. Although I became interested in this issue as a result of that hook (obviously), I'm thinking of the issue here in broader terms. However, based on your comment, I have to ask. Do you believe that the change you made to that hook ("a pioneer" rather than "pioneered") was a necessary one, that corrected an error? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes I do. At that late stage in the process, I am not concerned about interest or hookiness, and only make changes that I think are really necessary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your honesty. I, on the other hand, consider myself quite capable of writing "accurate, well written hooks, referring to facts cited inline in the article". And the hook came out of a discussion with the reviewer, MeegsC, who is an experienced DYKer, and was selected from the nomination page and moved into the prep area by valereee, who is both an experienced DYKer and an admin. And neither of them saw a problem with it. So it seems to me that you are overestimating your judgment, if you think that this was something sufficiently necessary that you needed to edit through full protection without checking back with anyone. Now, that said, I'm not actually accusing you of doing anything wrong, and I very much appreciate that you went along with going back to the earlier iteration of the hook, that rendered the issue of "a" versus "the" moot, and that you were overall very responsive and open to accountability. But I think – generally speaking – that this is something where there ought to be, not a strict rule, but an understanding that (1) admins do not have more say about content style than other editors do, and (2) that it's generally a good idea to avoid edits that are not matters of policy, but rather matters of personal preference, at that stage, without checking back whenever practical. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I note what you say. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The system in use at DYK was developed through years of experience and experiment, and has been found to be the best method given existing constraints. The number of complaints raised about hook edits is vanishingly small by comparison with the overall number made - probably a fraction of 1%. That is an extraordinarily good track record. The notion that we should change everything because a tiny fraction of edits may not be optimal is to my mind absurd. No system is perfect, but time has proven this one to be remarkably robust.

It's been said time and again but it bears repeating: set verification is a time-consuming, difficult and unpopular task. One might be able to verify a complete set of hooks in 20 minutes if there are no problems, but usually there are, and then the job can take up to an hour or even more. Expecting administrators and other quality controllers, on top of their existing responsibilities, to notify every user about every change and then have a conversation about it is just totally impractical, given the number of hooks that are featured on a daily basis. We don't have enough quality controllers as it is; adding more bureaucracy to the system is a sure-fire method of discouraging even their participation.

For those users who object to their hooks being edited without consultation, there is a straightforward solution: keep a close eye on your hooks as they make their way to the main page, so that you can raise any objections about hook changes yourself. If you think that too onerous, might I suggest to you that what you are expecting quality controllers to do on your behalf is far more so. Gatoclass (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of unnecessary hyperbole in what you say there. It certainly is not my "notion that we should change everything": there's a big difference between that, and the idea that the "quality controllers" should – as a matter of something to keep in mind, and not as a hard and fast rule – remember that there should already have been quality control at the nomination review stage, and that there are limits to using editing through full protection to enforce personal preference as opposed to policy compliance. In effect, I'm encouraging those who edit at the last stages to be a little more aware of "think before you save the edit", which is hardly changing "everything", nor a discouraging or onerous task. It's not like a proposed rule that one must always "notify every user about every change". As for keeping a close eye on one's hook, I, for one, did exactly that. And when I contacted the administrator, everything worked out fine in the end. What I'm saying is that sometimes, that same discussion could be initiated another way – without someone like me, who is not an admin and cannot correct a fully-protected mistake, being the one to initiate it.

I find it disappointing but illuminating that the reaction here was not something like: "To do that all the time would be impractical, but that's a useful thing to keep in mind informally." Instead, I'm being told that the existing way of doing things is already "the best method given existing constraints", as though it's an affront, and perhaps a threat, to discuss even the possibility of minor adjustments. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Having not commented before, I am unsure what the minor adjustment proposed is. The opening statement here calls for "caution about further edits to the hook", but there's no evidence that such caution is not already applied, or that the admins do not already think before saving edits. I suspect the individual admins probably feel they do think before saving, so that wouldn't be an adjustment to the procedure at all. Could you clarify what the proposed adjustment is, if not notification? CMD (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a very fair question, so thank you for raising it with me. First, I'm not asking for a rule or policy change, more like asking DYK regulars to think about what I'm saying and to keep it in mind. And I'm also not asking for any kind of major change in the process. I agree with you that people naturally think that they already are making edits thoughtfully, and, now that you point it out, I realize that it may sound "off" for me to imply otherwise, so my apologies for that. As for notification, I think that it can be a good idea, in the sense of consultation, so it's worth considering (but again, not mandating). So what this boils down to is that I think it can be easy, when doing this over a long time, to get comfortable with just going ahead and making whatever edit one wants to make, and to think that, now, it's going to be the final version in just the way that one likes it. And I'm asking people to check whether that has become a bit too much of a habit, and to re-calibrate where appropriate. Keep in mind that making a change that immediately becomes full-protected is a different kind of edit than what happens in mainspace, where there is WP:BRD – it's more like B without R or D. So, that's fine to enforce policy. But not necessarily to enforce personal preference. And RfA is not intended to give admins a higher status with respect to writing style.

So am I proposing a formal adjustment to procedure? No. I am encouraging a moment of reflection (even when already believing that the edit is well justified) about whether a change after the nomination discussion has already reached a consensus, is really necessary (as opposed to preferable), and whether it might be wise to attempt (within time constraints) a bit of consultation and discussion before making the change. Just think about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I think just out of courtesy, if a hook is going to be significantly changed while in prep/queue, it is in DYK's interest to inform the nominator in some way (maybe through a ping or a talk-page message). Not all DYK nominators have the time or interest to follow Queues, so some awareness of what is going on should still be provided in any case. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I certainly agree there is a lack of courtesy to nominators when substantial changes are made to hooks in preps and queues. Yes, no need to notify them if its a spelling/grammar/link change. But when its something that does alter the hook beyond that by adding or taking away from it, the nominator (and the reviewer to add to that) has a right to reply to these changes. A case in point I have today was on my Hampden Park square goalposts hook due to run tomorrow. On WP:ERRORS an addition was made to the hook without them pinging or notifying me which I felt diminished the hook. Thankfully this issue was sorted out amicably and the extra addition was removed (full discussion here). But it just goes to show that nominators need to know what's going on and especially if there is going to be a change that they feel is not necessary. My view has always been once a hook is approved, aside of copyediting or link additions, it should be left as approved and not just changed on the whim of users who just feel that it might be nicer if extra parts were added or parts taken away. I would really like us all to extend fair and reasonable courtesy to each other in an area that I know can get fairly heated easily. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, your hook got altered at WP:ERRORS, which is not part of DYK (but it has no obligation to inform nominators either). Secondly, your hook actually got improved there, so I don't think you have a lot to complain about. Gatoclass (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

it has no obligation to inform nominators either: Sure, there's no rule or guideline, but it seems like common sense—if it isn't, maybe it needs to be yet another rule. The best of both worlds is a notification and an unsolicited improvement. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. And the hook wasn't on the Main Page yet. It was not that urgent to not have had time to notify and wait a bit for a response.—Bagumba (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

There is probably a better case for notifying nominators at ERRORS because they are last-minute edits and because one has to start a discussion to post there anyway, but I maintain that it is completely impractical - and unnecessary - to do so for edits in prep and queue at DYK, especially since nominators are perfectly capable of tracking their own nominations as they make their way through the process. Gatoclass (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I have started promoting hooks this week (and completed my first prep area a couple days ago.) I do not notify the nominator when doing minor copyedits to the hook. If my changes would delete text or change the meaning, I did not promote the hook and instead proposed ALT text. I feel this is the appropriate action. This might mean that a hook needs to be unpromoted while discussion is ongoing, but I would rather have that than a person unfamiliar with the topic making changes that could cause an error. Z1720 (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Gatoclass, a ping to the nominator in the edit summary while doing copyedits on hooks would be a good way to prevent some good faith errors. I've had

... that although author Lao She declared it a failure, Cat Country has been translated into at least six languages?

turned into

... that although author Lao She declared her satirical novel Cat Country a failure, it has been translated into at least six languages?

which is not quite as much of an improvement as it looks because Lao She was male. I didn't catch it before it came up at WP:ERRORS. So encouraging pings would perhaps be good practice? —Kusma (t·c) 14:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm pleased that multiple editors are noticing this problem and commenting on it – multiple thanks to you. I notice that the discussion is focusing more on the issue of "notification" than on "discussion" or "consultation". Since, as noted, notification can consist of a ping-by-edit-summary, I have trouble swallowing the assertion that it would be too difficult, time-consuming, and impractical. On the other hand, I'm sympathetic to the concern that it can be impractical to wait for a reply from the nominator or reviewer if those people do not respond promptly. So I'm fine with the idea that there should be some very serious limits to how long the notifier should feel obligated to wait for a reply. But this isn't an issue of "notification as requirement". It's an issue of "consultation as common sense". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's great that we have a new set builder who is willing to notify about any edit he considers to be more than minor. But set building and promotion to the queue are different actions, there are no particular time constraints in prep building. When an administrator promotes a set to the queue, all eight hooks have to be verified as accurate at once, which is a difficult and time-consuming process - you can't just do one or two hooks and then walk away from the job. It also often has to be done quickly, when the queue is near empty. Many previously unnoticed issues can be revealed at this stage, and they all have to be resolved quickly, either through consultation and discussion or by finding and verifying new nominations to replace the problematic ones. As I've previously noted, a single set can take an hour of hard, concentrated work. To expect administrators, on top of this, to also be opening multiple discussions about every change they think needs to be made is a great way to ensure that they will just stop bothering with fixing issues altogether, resulting in suboptimal content making it through to the main page on a regular basis.

So I maintain that the burden of checking that errors have not been inadvertently introduced by quality controllers is best left to nominators. It is surely not much of a burden, after all, to take note of when your hook has been promoted to prep, to track its progress from there and to raise objections yourself if you think a change has been made that is undesirable. Certainly, that is a much better option in my view than expecting overworked set promoters to take on yet more responsibilities in addition to those they already have. Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Gatoclass, it is not reasonable to expect nominators to follow all changes to all preps and queues. It also isn't reasonable to start a discussion for every change. A ping to the nominator may be too much when decisions must be made quickly, but just to say it is good practice should not be too onerous. —Kusma (t·c) 06:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why there's resistance to even the idea of at least pinging the nominator in some way if a hook will be changed in any significant way. Like what Kusma said, it's probably expecting too much to think that noms can follow every step of the way. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Nominators do not have to follow their noms "every step of the way". They only need to take note of when their hook is scheduled to make the main page, and to take a look at it, say, 24 hours beforehand to ensure no changes have been made that they might find detrimental. It's far easier for them to do that than it is for copyeditors to be pinging every nominator or starting a discussion for every change they make, and as I've been at pains to point out, the burden on promoting administrators is already very high and should not be gratuitously increased for a vanishingly small benefit, particularly when it is likely to lead to an overall reduction in quality as copyeditors simply stop bothering due to the increased red tape. Gatoclass (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem with assuming that nominators check on their noms is that they have to actively search for where their hooks are. Also, why should they even expect there to be changes after the hook has been approved? Basically, if nominators follow the DYK instructions, then after "promotion", the hooks disappear into The Big DYK machine and then only come out again when the article hits the Main Page. If you want nominators to check, at least they should have a bot notification "your article is scheduled to hit the Main Page the day after tomorrow, please go to WP:ERRORS if there are any issues with the hook". Informal pings whenever a hook is changed could be less annoying for everyone involved, though. —Kusma (t·c) 09:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Kusma, that's a wee bit of hyperbole there. ;) All of the queues and preps are on the same page. A simple search shows you right where your hook is. It's not like it's some onerous task to look for it. And most of us prep builders indicate in our edit summaries which prep your hook is being promoted to. Yes, sometimes they later get moved, but not very often. As a nominator, I always keep an eye on my hooks. As to why hooks change? Because some reviewers don't have a good grasp of English grammar. Because some reviewers know more about a subject than the average reader, and gloss over things that would make no sense to someone who doesn't. Because some reviewers avoid having potentially difficult discussions with nominators over issues that should have been addressed before the hook was approved. Lots of reasons. MeegsC (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

MeegsC, I figured this out only after I encountered a problem with my nom that was introduced by copyediting. The official instructions do not expect the nominator to do anything in terms of hook quality control. As to hyperbole, I am responding to the claim that any improvements to the copyediting process are a terrible "gratuitous increase to the burden on promoting administrators". I think the process is bewildering to new nominators (there is one process to get the hook approved, followed by another process to get a prep built, followed by another process that involves an admin, and only then does the hook hit the main page) and if you expect them to interact with more than the first step, you need to tell them. —Kusma (t·c) 09:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay, given that some users clearly have ongoing concerns about this issue - and admittedly, it's long been a grey area that I myself have struggled with - I think it's probably time we did something to address it. I therefore propose that we reprogram the bot - or have a new bot written if necessary - to activate whenever the queues are rotated, and to send out notifications to all nominators whose hooks are in the queue that is scheduled to reach the main page in 24 hours. This will (a) relieve both nominators and administrators/copyeditors from having to monitor the queues or send out manual notifications, (b) ensure that all nominators have ample time to review their hook in what is likely its final form, and raise questions or objections in a timely manner, and (c) relieve administrators and copyeditors from having to decide when a notification may or may not be appropriate, since all nominators will automatically get one.

I have actually been considering this proposal for some days, but needed some more time to think about it. But the more I think about it, the more it seems like the most obvious and best solution to an admittedly sensitive issue. Comments? Gatoclass (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I like it. MeegsC (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Gatoclass, thinking further, I wonder if we shouldn't have the bot send out notifications as soon as the admin moves the prep to a queue. My thinking here is that queues seldom change (while preps often do). Sending a notification as soon as the queue was set would give several days (up to a week, at only one set per day) for any issues to be resolved. If we wait until 24 hours before moving to the main page, we run the risk of some nominator not responding in time and then being upset when the hook appears on the main page. MeegsC (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

That was my initial thought, but then I recalled that I often find it necessary to go back later and make additional tweaks, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. So I think the best approach is to have the notification go out as close as possible to the promotion of the set to the main page, while still giving nominators reasonable time to respond. 24 hours seemed to me a good compromise, bearing in mind that there is never going to be an ideal interval, especially given that hooks can be changed right up until the minute before they are promoted to the main page, and indeed afterwards. Gatoclass (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's enough time. How about notifying the nominator when the hook is promoted to a queue and then suggesting the nominator continue to keep an eye on it until it hits the front page, with instructions on how to do so? MeegsC (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

That's a possibility I guess MeegsC. I'd have to think about that some more. Gatoclass (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that will work, and I hope it doesn't cause other issues. —Kusma (t·c) 14:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I also like this. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I like it too. Thanks very much for this idea. A suggestion: the language written into the bot should specify where to post questions and objections. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with MeegsC about the timing. (I actually misread it the first time, and thought that's what it was, but that's my fault). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the bot is a good idea, but I wonder if it should instead work when the hook is promoted to prep, as opposed to the queue thing, in order to give the nominator a lot more time. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Promoting to queue makes more sense as a notification time, as it is generally the final point of likely editing, and there is no specific alert for it. Promotion to prep shows up on watchlists on a per-hook basis. CMD (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

See my response to MeegsC above. Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

As to when nominators should receive the notification, in the interest of simplicity, I would suggest that it should be so late that we are ok with handling all complaints through WP:ERRORS. Probably the moment of moving to queue works. —Kusma (t·c) 10:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that notifications should go out at the latest practical moment, but "the moment of moving to queue" is generally anything but. When we are on a 24-hour cycle, the moment of queue promotion can be fully seven days away from the set going to the main page; even on a 12-hour cycle, it's 3 1/2 days.

Take a look at the edit history of any of the queue pages, and you will find that a great many copyedits are made after promotion from prep - and that's because hooks generally start attracting more scrutiny once they are locked into the queue, as administrators know that the set will not have any more major changes from this point and is now on a countdown to the main page. The whole point of this proposal is that it provides nominators with a chance to review a hook at the last practical moment after most if not all copyediting has been done. Sending out notification on queue promotion would basically be doing so only halfway through the process, which would be far too early. Gatoclass (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Nominators may still be too busy to check when their hook is promoted to queue, and as stated by others above, 24 hours may be too short for nominators who are busy or don't edit often. While I would have preferred prep promotion as the trigger for notification, I would also support queue promotion as a compromise, but I think 24 hours before promotion is too late (especially when there's always the risk of having to do emergency pulls). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Well it sounds as if you are essentially endorsing the suggestion of MeegsC above, that notifications go out at a relatively early stage and nominators reminded to keep an eye on them from that point to ensure that no untoward changes are made. My notion was to have the notification as late as possible in the process, at a time when all copyedits had likely been completed, so the nominator could just check that. But Meegs' suggestion is probably a viable alternative approach, if that's what users would prefer. Gatoclass (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I think that Meegs' suggestion is the better way to go, because there can be a lag between notification and reading the notification, particularly due to different time zones. When I weigh which is more helpful to nominators – giving them a little extra time to respond, or notifying them only after all the revisions have happened – I think that the former is clearly more desirable, and makes no difference in terms of difficulty in the process. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, it seems that consensus is in favour of the Meegs model. At this point, I think I will have a word with our resident coder, Shubinator, to confirm that it will be possible to make such a bot and that he is available for the job. Once that is confirmed, we can return to this discussion to hash out the wording of the notification and figure out the next steps. In the meantime, my thanks to everyone who contributed. Gatoclass (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

How would the notifications happen? Nominator's talk page? I wonder if it'd be sufficient for the bot to update the DYK nomination subpage at whatever time we decide on, and then people who want to track their hooks for corrections can just keep an eye on their watchlist. For example:

The result was: promoted by DYKPromoter (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Queue 3 by DYKAdmin (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The hook is in Queue 3 and is scheduled to appear on the Main Page in a few days. You may wish to monitor the queue as the hook may undergo further revisions; please raise any concerns at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.

—DanCherek (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The point was that noms would have to be notified in such a way that they would be likely to actually see the notification. Not all editors regularly check their watchlist and those that do may not watch all of their DYK noms, so having a more prominent notification (such as a ping of some kind or perhaps more preferably a talk page notification) would be more optimal. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I, too, think that notification by a message on the user talk page is the best, as long as a bot is doing the "work". And I think the third paragraph of that draft is a good model for what the message could say. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the notification should go to the nominator's talk page and yes, I too like the third paragraph of DanCherek's proposed text. My main suggested change to that would be that the notification should give the exact time the hook set is scheduled for the main page rather than the vague "in a few days". Gatoclass (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd rather it goes to a bell notification. (as most well know), I cannot stand canned messaged cluttering up talk pages aside of the formal credits and that will get annoying I feel. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Shubinator suggested an opt-out and I think that's a good idea. Gatoclass (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Something occurs to me about the use of pings. First of all, I think using them instead of talk page messages is fine, as is allowing opt-out. But what occurs to me is that, given that we have long used talk page messages instead of pings to notify nominators that nominations have been reviewed, is there really a valid reason to say that talk page messaging would be excessive in one case and not excessive in the other? In other words, why not use pings for all of this?

(A secondary point: given the ability to opt-out of various types of pings, some editors may have already set their user preferences to opt-out, and not receive the pings even if they wanted them in this case. It would be helpful to mention this in the DYK instructions if pings end up being what we use.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

For one thing, not all editors have pings enabled, and secondly talk page messages have a more visible notification which would suggest to an editor that it's more important. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk page posts can also be pointed to, pings are transient leaving no record even when they do work. CMD (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Please avoid entries so obscure that they do not make any sense to the average reader

In today's list, I see

• ... that the UFC's Dana White said that EliteXC: Heat was "fucking illegal" over allegations of fight tampering in the main event involving Kimbo Slice?

I'm reasonably well-read, and I have no idea what this means. What is the UFC? Who is Dana White? What is EliteXC? What is EliteXC: Heat? What is Kimbo Slice? Is this about entertainment, sports, gaming, TV?? Who in the world will be familiar with the activity, whatever it is, that this item is about?

Please bear in mind that this is an encyclopaedia read by many kinds of people all around the world. The main page is supposed to make sense to all of them. Rp (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@The C of E:. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hooks should be accessible, but I think this complaint is misguided. Hooks should not be restricted to names that everyone will know. From reading the hook alone, it seems reasonably clear that Dana White and Kimbo Slice are both names, and both are wikilinked for those curious (I remember seeing this in the preps and clicking through myself at some point). EliteXC: Heat is clearly some sort of fighting event, which is probably a decent enough summary for 200 characters. UFC could perhaps be wikilinked. In my reading the biggest potential issue with this hook is that the quote doesn't really fit in grammatically with the rest of the sentence structure, but that isn't an issue with obscurity. Surely with en.wiki being as advanced as it is, the majority of new articles are likely to be obscure? CMD (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's a valid complaint. We don't have to limit ourselves to things everyone knows, but the hook-y part should be comprehensible. The main issue here is that it's so wordy, the hook-y part is completely obscured. I think it's X said Y was "fucking illegal" because Z. With things that are not very well-known, and Viriditas is wrong that everything mentioned in that hook is "extremely" well known - especially globally where UFC isn't mainstream in the slightest - it is better to keep things simple so that the hook-y part (which isn't very hook-y here either) gets across and the potential "who the hell is that" just adds more intrigue rather than more confusion. The "punch" of the hook is also dragged out here by needing "allegations of fight tampering in the main event" to be written out, so front-loading that would have helped, e.g. "... that following allegations of fight tampering, Dana White said that EliteXC: Heat was "fucking illegal"?" - of course, it's hookier still without that, simply "... that Dana White said that EliteXC: Heat was "fucking illegal"?" is more eye-catching with its shock and simplicity. Kingsif (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd be OK with that if you'd like to change it @Kingsif:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The complaint was about the obscurity of the names, not the comprehensibility. I agree that the names in this hook are not well known, as I mentioned I had to look them up, but obscurity isn't a DYK disqualifier. The grammar seems better if the context is better known, as it may have been to the nominator. Consider the hook "... that the IOC's Thomas Bach said that Russia at the 2016 Summer Olympics was "fucking illegal" over allegations of drugs tampering in the event involving Athlete Athleteson?" CMD (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I took the last part of the complaint to be referring to the hook as a whole, with hyperbole used to emphasize that the non-household names don't help it. Your Olympics example does make more sense, on that note, though I still think it could just as easily end at "illegal" - that is, unless Kimbo Slice is well known for not fixing fights, which would make the hook even more interesting for people who do know about UFC. @Chipmunkdavis and The C of E: Kingsif (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

My Olympic example actually makes less sense, because unlike the original hook it does not indicate the context of what the bolded event is (lost the "fight" word). Sure the hook could perhaps be more hooky, but that applies to most entries and it got through three gates as SL93 notes. Personally, I clicked on Kimbo Slice because I was hooked to see what the origin of the name was, but I agree concision is generally better. CMD (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

(The C of E here) Plus it's also a bit of a "meme" too so you'll have that interest too. The Royal C (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not a good hook, but the UFC, Dana White, and Kimbo Slice are extremely well known in popular culture. We're talking tens of millions of people know these things, possibly 100 million or more. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You could always just add MMA to the hook if you feel it's needed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's worth changing after being on the main page for 13 hours. I have no opinion on what hook wording might be better, but it did go through the prep, queue, and the main page for half a day before this potential issue was brought up. SL93 (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

The UFC is a reasonably well known term. We shouldn't be just including terms that people "know"- how would this even be properly defined? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest the UFC is only "well-known" to a young men of a certain age from the US and maybe the UK; beyond that cohort, I'd suggest that it's not particularly well-known. Linking or writing out UFC would probably have helped. My two cents! ;) MeegsC (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

As the promoter of this hook to the prep, I want to let the community know that I am following this discussion and hope to incorporate this feedback into future reviews and prep-building. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion. Z1720 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

MeegsC, I appreciate your suggestion, but it's been estimated that MMA has one billion fans, so the notion that UFC is only known by a small group of people is absurd. I should also point out, that women UFC fighters are a thing, and this is no longer considered a male-only sport, and hasn't been for some time. An old 2018 report published by Nielsen Sports DNA, concluded that "MMA is the world's third most popular sport, behind soccer and basketball [with] 451 million people interested in MMA". There are reasons to consider this a lowball number. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with CMD, I think the hook is OK. Even without knowing the names of the characters, or what the UFC is, t's obvious it's about a fight, and that there was some suggestion of foul play going on with respect to that fight. That's enough info for a hook to convey, and readers can click through for the rest.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

My problem with it is that not enough context was provided for the item to make sense to those unfamiliar with these names. That pointlessly annoys readers. This could have been avoided by mentioning the context (e.g. just by starting with something like "In the MMA league, ") Rp (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, as the hook was deeply flawed, but all of these topics have been part of popular culture for many years and are widely known by millions of people. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

No doubt. When it comes to "popular culture", cricket is bigger than WWA, yet I doubt the proposed of this hook would accept a hook quoting a cricket player without saying it's about cricket. The subject is not the issue, the lack of context is. Plus the fact that this doesn't really teach us anything except that on occasion, some people badmouth other people, which is not something I need to learn from an encyclopaedia. Rp (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Please define criteria for "average reader"

Our Main Page had 6, 475, 024 views yesterday . Is there some Wikipedia global poll that answers who the "average reader" is, and what "The main page is supposed to make sense to all of them" means? We don't know who is out there reading us, what language or intellectual level they fall under, what country they are operating from, or even the gender. I think we are going by our own knowledge and background to assume we know what is best for the rest of the world. And at the end of the argument - that's what the links are for. If they're curious, they'll click on the link. — Maile (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I kind of answered what (I assume) most people mean when they chime in "average reader", in the top section (diff). In short: it's not any one person, and we don't want to be catching the "average", really, we want to be catching the lowest common denominator. We can only assume people using English Wikipedia can read English, and have basic general knowledge. I prefer hooks that are either self-evident or where they hookiness comes from something that doesn't need you to know what anything mentioned is. I almost think we should call the "average reader" clause when a hook requires any background knowledge, because we cannot guarantee they know anything, but to be generous we might as well assume that the LCD has the general knowledge of a 10 year old and proceed from there: knowledge of farm animals expected, wild animals not. Knowledge of common and mediatized professions expected, complex professional jobs not. This doesn't mean simplify everything, because interesting - certainly interesting (and not confusing; intrigue, don't confuse) enough to click - is the main hook criteria from my perspective. I don't want to lick my own ass and say "check out some of my hooks", but there is a list of them in my userspace if anyone wants to see what I think hooks should be. Kingsif (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

"I think we are going by our own knowledge and background to assume we know what is best for the rest of the world." - That is my thought during most of these discussions. No matter how well someone explains why they think a hook should be changed, especially in this case with the hook being on the main page for hours, I feel that is typically what they are doing. We don't even know when the lowest common denominator or average reader is viewing the main page anyway. It's just educated guesswork. SL93 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I think (here we go with my opinions again) that DYK contributors fall into two main categories: the regulars and the non-regulars. You know who they are. The non-regulars are more like readers than the regulars, and so they are good representatives of the views of "the average reader" or "the rest of the world". And the regulars, well, I don't know about you but I have certainly looked through the stats page, DYK talk history, and DYK at ERRORS. So regulars honestly might know what is best for the rest of the world, in the sense that with the level of hook-study, we have seen what works more - an example of this in practice is why we have the quirky slot. DYK has too much IAR to be "perfect" but it functions pretty well with non-regulars bringing up an issue and regulars debating how to make it work better. I'll repeat what I said a few weeks ago: we can't ask all the MP readers what hooks they want to read, so what's wrong with the people who contribute to the functioning of DYK being the ones who come together to suggest improvements? Multiple voices, wherever they come from, will probably give a better "average" view than just the nominator (who possibly knows too much about the subject to judge?) Kingsif (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Multiple voices are normally fine, but there are times where I don't understand a decision being made when it isn't that many voices which happens frequently at DYK. Two editors or even one editor can easily change a hook and I don't think that is right. SL93 (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Maile66 and SL93: If you really think we need more than anecdotal evidence, I'm sure we could suggest the WMF do a study on its MP readers: build a survey, put it at the top of the page. It should be quite easy. Kingsif (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
• Basically, what we should aim for are hooks that are funny or interesting even to someone who is unfamiliar with the subject or bolded links. Some background knowledge would be acceptable, but not to the extent that hookiness should be solely reliant on it. For example, if a hook is really only going to appeal to a niche audience (or even pretty much solely to the nominator) it's really not going to work out for our purposes. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion

Indeed, it's pretty clear that the initial complaint lacked mostly any kind of substance. If we can provide hooks which are in English and get our readers to engage with Wikipedia, by clicking on bold target articles etc, it's job done for DYK. This "complaint" is pointless. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 00:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Canada Day July 1

There has been some interest expressed on the Wikiproject:Canada discussion board in running a Canadian hook set (or two, if DYK is running 2-a-day at that time) for July 1, which is Canada Day. John Mercer Johnson, Canadian Idiot and Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Nova Scotia have already requested July 1 placement. Is there consensus among DYK editors to pursue a Canada Day hook set or two for July 1? Thanks, your input is appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I like this idea. I'm not sure if my hook for Who Killed Canadian History? has been scheduled yet, but it's another one that could be moved to 1 July. Tkbrett (✉) 15:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tkbrett: Who Killed Canadian History is in Queue 5, so it might be too late to move it for July 1. However, we've got over a month to get hooks set up, so there will be more opportunities to get hooks in for Canada Day. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems a good idea to me. Perhaps an admin can pull the Queue 5 hook. There's also Template:Did you know nominations/Bernie Willock in Prep 3 (@Joseph2302:). CMD (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't want Bernie Willock to be moved to 1 July, as I don't like the idea of a whole day of DYK hooks from the same country, as in my opinion DYK works best when we have a large variety of topics and countries in each set. And we have never suggested doing it for other countries (e.g. US on 4 July, England on 23 April), so I don't see a benefit to doing it for 1 or 2 sets of all-Canadian hooks. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I highly agree with Joseph2302. We don't do this for other countries. SL93 (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: The precedent would be how DYK handles the July 4th American Independence Day. Last year, we had List of New York City Designated Landmarks in Manhattan on smaller islands as the lead hook, with an imagge of the Statue of Liberty. But nothing else. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a solution is to keep four articles in the Canada Day special occasions holding area (John Mercer Johnson, Flag of Nova Scotia, Canadian Idiot, and either Walter Bean Grand River Trail or Murray Dowey) so two can run in the first DYK set, and two in the second? This wouldn't overload the sets with Canada topics but honours topics that honour the occasion. If DYK is only running one set, we can discuss closer to the date which ones we want to keep for July 1. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I suspect DYK doesn't take such actions regarding other countries as it isn't often proposed. While 154th isn't the most exciting anniversary, as there isn't any occasion currently competing I would support the special occasion holding in whatever format that best encourages article creation. CMD (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I would consider running 2 or 3 Canadian hooks per set on 1 July as fine, just as long as it's not all of the set. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Marie-Adolphine

I went to promote this one this afternoon, but am wondering about the 1500 word requirement with regard to similar content in multiple entries. I know we had another nom recently fall foul of this, and don't want to open a can of worms by promoting this without similar discussion. These are all very short entries, and a significant amount of the material is virtually the same in all four. Pinging PamD as writer, Victuallers as nominator and Floydian as reviewer, and looking for help from the community as to what is acceptable. Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, these aren't long enough currently. The "On 5 July 1900, the Boxer Rebellion..." paragraph is present in each of them, and the "On 27 June 1900 the level of threat..." information is present in most of them. These should only count towards one article, and with the articles hovering just above 1500 characters, further expansion will be needed. DanCherek (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I've never personally handled a multi-article DYK before, so I was not aware that there was a condition regarding duplication of content in the target articles. I'll defer to the users with more experience in this type of matter. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Those articles have clear overcitation in their leads, which while good to cut down (catholic.org seems particularly useless), shows there may be room for expansion. Looking at Marie-Adolphine, this source seems to have some information that isn't in the article yet. The articles should also separate out "Legacy" sections from the "Life" sections, which may help make clear what additional information could be included. CMD (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've put the nom on hold, with a note explaining why. Hopefully, PamD will be able to provide some more text. MeegsC (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Possibly although its not PamD who volunteered her articles... @MeegsC: I had a re-look at them and did a bit of expansion/ paraphrasing. There are four articles there which are now 1700 plus-ish. If still not big enough them I suggest you unbold or delete some of the names in the hook if you feel that some of the articles fail the rules. I would do it but not sure how. I was not aware of the duplication rule and its obviously going to happen where four people did the same thing. Victuallers (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC) (wrt "Particularly useless"? fix it?)

I've taken the articles as far as I'm interested in doing - and not a DYK geek - so i'll just observe with interest! PamD 12:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Without time to look specifically: when there are similar articles, bold one as new, and mention the others. They will collect as many views with and without bolding, my experience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

A gain

I will once a gain reiterate I love the DYK section. I will once a gain note the quality often sucks. Look at Uriah F. Abshier. It has existed for 3 weeks. In that time no one reading the article has actually read the article, a gain.

What is "a gain warehouse" ? What are "gain sacks" ? What is a "gain shipping business" ? These have existed since the initial creation.

If y'all aren't reading the text, what are you paying attention to? Shenme (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project. It would be more helpful if you fixed errors when you find them instead of complaining that other volunteers aren't doing their "jobs" well enough. MB 02:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has always been a project of unpaid human volunteers, including the admins, who do this for the love of adding something informative and/or positive to the world. And every area of Wikipedia has always had the Armchair Critics who hang to the rear on everything, and then criticize those who do the work. We all have choices to make. I choose to be one of the unpaid volunteers, and I don't get even a penny to haul around the admin mop and bucket to help out. — Maile (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Queue 1

• ... that Thurston Clarke found it "a chilling thought" that The Chariot of Israel would be "cluttering library shelves"?
• @No Swan So Fine: I would like this hook to be rephrased because it was not Clarke who found it a chilling thought, but his view that Harold Wilson would find it chilling. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • ... that Thurston Clarke felt if he were Harold Wilson he would find it a "chilling thought" that The Chariot of Israel would be "cluttering library shelves"? No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought that a bit clunky, so I have changed the hook as below. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

• ... that Thurston Clarke felt that Harold Wilson should find it a "chilling thought" that The Chariot of Israel would be "cluttering library shelves" for years to come?

Prep 1 7 - missing special occasion requests

I've just looked at Prep 1 (due to run on 5 June) and it seems to have missed the 2 special occasion requests with one of them being a picture one that was in there but removed due to going to 12 hours. Can we please switch Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Serbia and Montenegro and Template:Did you know nominations/British Forces Rugby League in please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Should be Prep 7, not Prep 1. Prep 7 runs from 02:00 to 14:00 on 5 June, Serbian and Montenegran time, and 01:00 to 13:00 British Summer Time, so it's more appropriate for these hooks. While someone is at it, the Hughie Miller hook for 6 June will need to go into Prep 3, which runs 07:00 to 19:00 local time in St. Louis, where Miller was born and lived much of his life. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It's gone into queue now @BlueMoonset:. We'll need an admin to do the switch if possible please. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Only two queues filled; all preps are filled

We need to get more queues filled, and we can't move any hooks to make room for two special occasions hooks that belong in Prep 7 until we get a prep or two cleared. Pinging admins Pinging admins Amakuru, Maile, Cas Liber, valereee, Cwmhiraeth, ONUnicorn, Wugapodes, Gatoclass and Lee Vilenski, in the hopes that some of you are available to do some prep to queue promotions. If you get as far as Prep 7, please be sure the special occasion hooks for 5 June have been placed there before moving it to Queue 7. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

On it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yoninah DYK medal design

Sample design

Since the RFC was closed with unanimous consensus to implement a DYK service medal or award in honor of Yoninah, not too much progress has been made on this front. I put together some initial ideas for the design, shown here. This is just a starting point, and I'm hoping to spark some good discussion. I am not at all committed to these and am happy for someone else to try their hand at designing something.

I think the folks at WP:MILHIST have a good system for selecting their annual military historian of the year awards. In short, anyone can nominate anyone else with a brief statement, and after nominations are closed each person can vote in support of up to three candidates. The top three are awarded and other nominees receive a barnstar. I think that would be a great system to base this on, with tweaks as necessary. (Again, just throwing things out there, we should absolutely discuss alternatives, including non-competitive processes, as well.)

In terms of what this award is about, I would support nominations based on anyone who helps with an organizational aspect of DYK, including prep building, promotion to queues, thoughtful input to internal discussions, technical assistance, etc. I believe general consensus was that these should be emphasized, rather than awards based on quantity and/or quality of DYK submissions. Eager to hear everyone's thoughts and to get this started. DanCherek (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Using the MILHIST process as a model is a good idea. That would distinguish it from Template:The DYK Medal (not the prettiest award itself mind). Such a process is also generally is a nice way to acknowledge contributions to the project management, even to those who do not receive the final award. Given the number of times there are notices on this page saying preps are full recently, there's some good work going on. On the design, I would be interested if someone who knew Yoninah well might opine about whether or not the username should be directly in the image. Otherwise I'm not a strong design person, but I like the inclusion of DYK within the question mark. CMD (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@DanCherek: I like what you have done. I wonder if we might have it say in smaller letters somewhere, that this is a service medal. Or not ... maybe that's not necessary. I'm just so happy to see this design. Hope others chime in here. — Maile (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Great work, looks good! I just want to note that the "DYK" in the circle at bottom isn't terribly legible due to size, using an outline font, and low colour contrast. But I understand if you're going for that embossed look and don't want it to stand out too much. I feel that the stylized DYK question mark identifies it, at least for those familiar with such things. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Could Yoninah be written in solid black to add some much needed contrast? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Videos in hooks

Can a hook have an associated video in place of image, and does it comply with the DYK rules? Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Well good news for you! Under WP:DYKIMG, yes it can providing the video is appropriately licenced of course. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@The C of E Thanks for your quick reply! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

DYKnom template tweak

I've just noticed that while Template:DYKmake has provisions for a |subpage=parameter, which provides a "View nom subpage" link to the nomination page in the preps/queues, Template:DYKnom does not. DYKnom also doesn't display the relevant article title outside of the code. If there's no particular reason for this discrepancy, then changing DYKnom to match DYKmake would be a nice QoL improvement for when a hook is pulled/shuffled around. CMD (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Since there should never be a DYKnom without a matching DYKmake in that set, there will always be a link to the relevant nomination page in the prep or queue set. I don't see why this change would be a true QoL improvement to anyone who knows what they're doing. We can always ask Shubinator, whose bots process both DYKmake and DYKnom, whether there are any issues with the proposed change, if it's deemed a useful change. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The subpage parameter is perhaps not as important as the DYKnom template not displaying what article the DYKnom is for. I can't see why that wouldn't be useful. Take current Prep 4. I assume the two nom templates for Casliber are duplicates, but I can't know this unless I also check the code. CMD (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of adding subpage to Template:DYKnom. This wouldn't affect the article talk tags, but would ensure the nominator credits in user talk have the right DYK nomination page. DYKUpdateBot will pick up the subpage parameter automatically - the code was already written for DYKmake. And even better if we can rename the subpage parameter to nompage to match everything else, though please give me a heads up as I'll need to tweak DYKUpdateBot for the rename.

As for displaying the title, the DYKnom template should be just below its corresponding DYKmake, so no need to look at the code to figure out the article. For the Prep 4 example above, the two Casliber nom credits are for the two different tanager articles, as visually indicated by the DYKmake between them. If double-checking, the article is also visible by hovering over the "give" hyperlink. Shubinator (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Striking miners

I can't be the only one who's noticed that today's DYK has two hooks regarding striking miners: Mother Blizzard and Gravel Place, Pennsylvania. Not a complaint against the promoting administrator (Amakuru?), just an observation Sdrqaz (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The Great Margaret would be furious! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@The C of E: well she enjoyed crushing miners' strikes didn't she, so I'm sure she'd be overjoyed to get two for the price of one... As for the issue of there being two of them, I don't really consider such things very much when I'm assessing the hook sets - as long as the language used and the articles are up to scratch, and the hooks don't have errors in them, then I'm happy. Issues of balance and suchlike is in the hands of the set builders.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Special occasion hooks

Some special occasion hooks need to go in for June 5 - June 8. It may require a move around I will check later. Desertarun (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

All done. Desertarun (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Philip Ewell

Hi all. I came across a relatively new article today (created May 21) by another editor that I think deserves attention. I went ahead and nominated it. Is it still eligible, even though I technically nominated late? It's not my article, and it was written by an editor not active at DYK. As you can see by their talk page comments at User talk:SyLvRuUz, the editor is new to DYK. I hope we can overlook the lateness this once to encourage an editor on their first DYK nom. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: It was moved to mainspace today so it should be valid, no IAR needed. DanCherek (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks, I will move the article to the correct date then on the nomination page.4meter4 (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Prep2

The picture hook here, Schools at War, is running overnight in the US. Could this be swapped to some other set that runs in the opposite 12 hours? I think Prep5 would work. MB 22:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. I'll do it tomorrow unless someone objects or has already done it. Desertarun (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, done. Desertarun (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

How is swapping those 2 hooks fair at all? We're now running a European hook in the middle of the night in Prep 2, which means that will get fewer views than in the slot it was assigned to. Swapping hooks to maximise views on US hooks whilst having a detrimental effect on non-US hooks is not appropriate. I have reverted for this reason. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

If you want to swap it, swap it into an empty slot. Because swapping that US hook into prep 5 also meant there were too many US hooks in that set, when many other sets have only 1 or 2 US hooks. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

As there has been an objection I'm not making any further alterations to those sets. Desertarun (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think we should make a habit of moving US-specific hooks into particular UTC morning or afternoon slots to suit time zones. Valereee made a particular request last week with regard to the Meredith Clark hook (see section "#Speedy special occasion idea" above), which was OK as a one-off, but in general IMHO the hooks should just land where they land, without particular reference to WP:TIES or morning/afternoon. After all, the purpose of DYK is to produce material that is interesting to "a broad audience", which should mean that the US-centric hooks are of interest to me or an African/Indian/Chinese/Australian etc just as much as an American.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Hm, good point. Since we expect 3-4 of most sets to be US-specific, I think this should be a rare request for US hooks. I'm not sure it's not reasonable for most other country-centric hooks though. The reason I requested US daytime for Clark was that it was shame for a hook about an African-American being called an expert on Black Twitter by NPR was so US-oriented...I don't know. Hm. I do see your point. But maybe it would be reasonable to consider such requests for other countries, and maybe for occasional US hooks -- like, maybe 1 in 8 is a reasonable number to request, and of course still leaving it up to the promoter's discretion? —valereee (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  Re: this particular case. I think Schools at War, while it's certainly a US-hook, is also a WWII hook. Is that a hook that is possibly more globally interesting than Meredith Clark? —valereee (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  In my opinion, unless a hook is in the special occasions holding area, preppers should not consider the timezone in which a hook is running. DYK hooks are supposed to be interesting to a global audience and limiting hooks from certain countries into 12-hour blocks will make it harder to build global hook sets. Special occasion hooks are the exception because a hook needs to run on the correct date, and 8 am in Australia is very different from 8 am in California. Z1720 (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

  If a non-US hook can be slotted into the time zone where the highest interest is, why shouldn't we do that? Yoninah used to swap hooks all the time for time zones. It was a kindness to the nom. With US hooks, we need a stronger argument, but for almost everything else, it's easy to swap without causing any problems with building a globally-balanced hook. —valereee (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  I think I've changed my mind, and I'm OK with preppers keeping time zones in mind for countries that have less visibility on DYK. However, I am concerned that hooks from high-frequency counties (like US, UK and Canada) will have editors who request the UTC 12:00 prep sets, and there will be less selection for the 0:00 UTC sets. I'm also concerned that editors who are familiar with DYK and know about this talk page's existence will get their hooks moved to their prefered time zones. This might cause new, inexperienced editors to have their hooks run at inopportune times, putting their articles at a visibility disadvantage. I don't know what the solution is, but I hope my concerns will be considered. Z1720 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The list below includes 34 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 16. We currently have a total of 267 nominations, of which 110 have been approved, a gap of 157 that has increase by 20 in the past nine days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

• March 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Cuilin Zhang
• March 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Uyanış: Büyük Selçuklu

Over one month old:

• April 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Ester Wajcblum
• May 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Street Lights (Kanye West song)
• May 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Olivos and Tezonco stations (third article)

Other old nominations:

• May 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Toma Kamijo
• May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/The Songs For the One
• May 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Nurhajizah Marpaung
• May 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Juren
• May 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Les Oréades
• May 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Yūka Nishio
• May 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Halston (film)
• May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Double Tenth Agreement
• May 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Jane Suiter
• May 18: Template:Did you know nominations/September 2019 events in the U.S. repo market
• May 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Lisa Höpink
• May 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Jim Clendenen
• May 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Donato Palumbo
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/John Barefoot
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Enamorado Por Primera Vez and List of Billboard Latin Pop Airplay number ones of 1997 (two articles)
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Ancient Dreams in a Modern Land (song)
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Filiberto Avogadro di Collobiano
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Trial of Abdullah Öcalan
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/2011 cloudburst in Denmark
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Sydney Morton (two articles)
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Sasaki Tōichi
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Kyle Tilley
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Amy Vilela
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Equisetum similkamense
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Portrait of Madame Jacques-Louis Leblanc
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Catherine Belton
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Gang of 25
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Addie Joss Benefit Game
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Jimmy Carter 1976 presidential campaign

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Submitting an article for DYK?

Hello. A Wikipedian suggested Big Time Wrestling (Boston) might be a good candidate for WP:DYK. I wrote the article last year but it was recently approved via WP:AFC. Here's a few hooks that I thought were interesting:

1. Was one the first "outlaw" wrestling promotions according to Jim Cornette
2. Influenced by booker Jack Pfeffer, it was notorious for using parody "soundalike" wrestlers of the National Wrestling Alliance and World Wide Wrestling Federation
3. Bearcat Wright won the promotion's heavyweight championship from Killer Kowalski in 1961, becoming one of the first African-Americans to win a major singles title during the Territory-era
4. They had a promotional war with the World Wide Wrestling Federation over the New England wrestling territory during the 1960s
5. They opened one of the first wrestling schools in the country which produced Les Thatcher and Rufus R. Jones among others
6. It was considered a "safe" territory for GLBT wrestlers and Ron Dupree was able to live openly with his partner [1]
7. The promotion featured a wrestling bear called Black Ozzie which later escaped shortly after being sold by Tony Santos. The promoter joined in a police search and was able to subdue the bear by putting sugar in its mouth.
8. One of the company's first major attractions was a series of wrestling bouts between Black Ozzie and BTW Women's Champion Alma Mills
9. John F. Kennedy, then a Massachusetts Senator, and his wife Jackie attended the promotion's shows in West Yarmouth, Massachusetts
10. While napping in the locker room, Jack Pfefer was once thrown out of the Boston Arena by a rookie wrestler who mistook him for a homeless man who had wandered in off the street
11. Frankie Scarpa, then a longtime regional star, competed with the up-and-coming Bruno Sammartino for the Italian-American fans in Boston during the 1960s
12. The promotion closed after its main star Frankie Scarpa died in the ring in 1969.

Thanks. 173.162.220.17 (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@173.162.220.17: The nomination page is at WP:DYKN. There's a template that will create the nomination for you after you fill it out. There will also be an opportunity for others to review it, tweak it, and give you feedback on it; you're invited to participate in every aspect of that process. Thanks for working on this article! --Jayron32 15:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jayron32: 173 can't create the nomination because anonymous editors cannot create templates. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I have created the nomination page at Template:Did you know nominations/Big Time Wrestling (Boston). Please add the sources that support each hook. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's eligible, as it was moved to mainspace on 26 May, more than 7 days ago. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

It it not at all unusual to offer a little extra time to new DYK nominators who aren't familiar with the process, such as this situation. With such a well-developed article and submitted nine days after its move to mainspace rather than seven, this should certainly be considered for an exception. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Help getting that nomination ship-shape would be appreciated. I believe I've shortened one of the hooks and added links and made general formatting changes (bold text, question marks etc), but it's certainly not perfect and not all of the proposed hooks would be ready for the Main Page. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding altblurb to passed DYK nom?

After my DYK nomination for Robin Ransom was approved, a story was published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch containing an interesting tidbit which I thought could make for a DYK as well:

... that Robin Ransom bowled a perfect game about two months before she became the first African-American woman on the Supreme Court of Missouri?

Given that the nomination has now passed, and says not to edit the page, I'm asking for advice here. To be clear, I have no issue with the prior hooks, but I think this one could be interesting too and should be considered. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: it's currently in Queue 1, which is scheduled to hit the Main Page at 12:00 UTC on June 5 (about 15 hours from now). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

P2 June9b

@Drmies, @Uncle G

I'm wondering if the image at Template:Did you know nominations/1935 New York anti-lynching exhibitions is clear enough at this size? —valereee (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• —valereee, good point. As a thumbnail, of course, no--I think I'm counting on people to want to click on it. Uncle, any thoughts? Drmies (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  Is there another image we could use? Although I almost hate to suggest we use a lynching image that's clearer. —valereee (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Pulled hook - Main Page right now

@Floquenbeam: Per this edit removing a hook from queue, with less than a minute before the bot rotates the main page set. If anyone needs to remove a hook from Queue, you also need to remove the DYK Make on the template. Otherwise, the bot goes looking for the hook to match the DYK Makes it sees. [2]. Other than that, I'm a little dismayed this was a last second pull, and that it all happened on Errors page, instead of being discussed here. — Maile (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

This hook was pulled literally at the last minute, so never hit the Main Page, but the credits still went out to the nominator User:The C of E and the talk pages of the articles in question say that it was featured as a DYK. Not sure what the procedure is in such cases, but presumably Template:Did you know nominations/British Forces Rugby League will need to be reopened. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Thanks for the note about the DYKmakes down at the bottom of the template. I'll try to remember that if I run into a similar situation again. I assume the problem isn't the bot posting to the error page, but the fact that the nominator got 4 incorrect DYK credits on their talk page? I'll leave a note there. It was a last second pull only because I noticed it 20 minutes before 0:00 UTC. If I'd had more time, I'd have discussed possible fixes more before pulling it, but I do not think it was in a condition to put on the main page, and there was no time to change the hook. Once it's in a queue I don't see why ERRORS is a bad place to discuss it, but I'm sorry that dismayed you. Any advice on how to reopen the DYK nom page (and where to relist it as active again) would be appreciated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

IIRC the procedure for such cases is to also revert the credits giving as well as the talk page stuff. I've taken the liberty of reopening the nomination and returning it to prep. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted the bot on the article talk pages. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) @Narutolovehinata5: Thank you. I've left a note for The C of E, and will remove the article talk page stuff. (too slow) --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

To clarify. I didn't say that that ERRORS is a bad place to discuss it. It's just that possibly those who were involved in the article, nomination and review, were more likely to be reading this talk page than errors. And, then maybe the rest of the process just never happens if some here missed the pull. Yes, I think @Narutolovehinata5: has done the constructive process for this situation. — Maile (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I did ping the nom, reviewer, and promoter to ERRORS, and one of them was able to comment before the pull. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I have since proposed a new alt that removes the part that caused this discussion. Hopefully we can get that passed and quickly put in the next set as it was a special occasion hook for today. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• I wonder if the steps to reopen a nomination (revert the close, put back in nominations, right?) could be somewhere visible to admins who have to perform it? I agree that ERRORS is the right spot to discuss for the last two days before appearing, but a short notice here when something happens would help wider attention than pinging only those immediately concerned. - I like to perform urgent reviews but just received an urgent recent death, - hope someone will do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Nazi

Little time, but just saw this in prep7:

• ... that geographer Hildegard Binder Johnson fled Third Reich Germany after the Nazi Party destroyed her scientific paper criticizing the development of European colonies in Africa?

1. Do we need 2 links to the Nazis in one hook?
2. Do we mention Third Reich - a euphemism, no? - instead of plain Nazi Germany?
3. Does a party destroy a paper?

How about something like

• ... that geographer Hildegard Binder Johnson fled Nazi Germany after her scientific paper, criticizing the development of European colonies in Africa, was destroyed? - no time for pings, sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Silver seren, Gobonobo, and Desertarun: Kingsif (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm fine with this change. It doesn't really matter to me. Silverseren^C 18:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Q4 Maria Calegari

• ... that Maria Calegari danced every principal role in every ballet performed by the New York City Ballet during a weekend in her early career?

Should be corrected to

• ... that Maria Calegari danced principal roles in every ballet performed by the New York City Ballet during a weekend in her early career?

That was a mistake on my part, sorry about that. I should note that the hook was promoted before the reviewer approved it. Corachow (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Corachow and Maile66, I changed it to:

• ... that in her early career, Maria Calegari danced principal roles in every ballet performed one weekend by the New York City Ballet?

... because the original hook ambiguously suggests that she performed every role ever performed by the New York City Ballet in a single weekend. Gatoclass (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

ERRORS

I left a note at the Main page errors about a better link for Wo Menschen sich vergessen. Help? Next set, about an hour to go. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I left you a message on Errors. This late, just pick one and we can swap it out. — Maile (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Preps full

Pinging admins Amakuru, Maile, Cas Liber, valereee, Cwmhiraeth, ONUnicorn, Wugapodes, Gatoclass and Lee Vilenski, in the hopes that some of you are available to do some prep to queue promotions. MeegsC (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please fix a hook currently on the main page?

Resolved

The hook for Hercules was modified while in the prep area and now does not make sense. More details at Talk:Main_Page#Errors in "Did you know ...". Could someone please fix the text so this hook can spend its last few hours on the main page as it was meant to be displayed? Thanks. Armadillopteryx 20:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This has been taken care of. Armadillopteryx 22:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Autistic Pride Day

18 June is Autistic Pride Day. It should be highlighted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RIT RAJARSHI (talk • contribs)

RIT RAJARSHI That article doesn't meet any of the DYK criteria for inclusion. DYK only lists articles if they're new, or have been 5x expanded or reached GA in the last 7 days. Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the front page is probably a better bet to ask there. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Ronald Greene

The originally approved hook was:

• ... that after police beat, choked, pepper-sprayed, and dragged Ronald Greene face down while shackled, saying "that shit hurts, doesn't it?", courtesy rules were listed as something that was violated?

Ravenpuff changed it to:

• ... that after police beat, choked, pepper-sprayed, and dragged Ronald Greene face down while shackled, saying "that shit hurts, doesn't it?", a trooper was reprimanded for violating courtesy rules?

- which I think is an improvement, as the original hook IMO is clunky. However, neither hook mentions that the victim actually died, which seems to me an essential piece of information, so I've tweaked the hook again, to:

• ... that following the death of Ronald Greene, who was beaten, choked, pepper-sprayed, dragged face down while shackled and taunted with "that shit hurts, doesn't it?", one of the involved police was reprimanded for violating courtesy rules?

- The end result is a hook in excess of 200 characters, but given that the nominator insisted on including the "that shit hurts, doesn't it" clause, it's hard to see how to include all the relevant information within the usual limit. Pinging Tryptofish and EEng for comment. Gatoclass (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, I appreciate it (although you'll be glad to know that I also have the Prep page watchlisted). One of the problems that you introduced by making this change is that the police officer is also being fired, which misleads readers if we imply that he was merely reprimanded. It sounds cute, but it's misleading. Also, strictly speaking, the source material is unclear about whether the issue of courtesy was raised in a "letter of reprimand" or in a "letter of counseling". On the other hand, there is no question in my mind that your revision is written in a better style. I'll doubly ping EEng, the nominator, since he cares about the hook more than I do. Frankly, at this point, I just want to wash my hands of the review that I did, because it has proved to be more trouble than it was worth. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Would an article be eligible in this situation?

What if I created an article that was from a draft that was created by me asking an administrator to restore a page that was previously deleted via a prod in draft space? Link20XX (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Should be eligible. For articles moved from draft or userspace, the 7 day nomination clock starts from when it was moved to mainspace. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Can't close a promoted dyk

Hi, i've just promoted an article to prep 3. It is SS Ira H. Owen. However I can't close the template. It looks like there was a prior nomination and things have got muddled up. Can someone please close Template:Did you know nominations/SS Ira H. Owen (2). Also I think it may be problematic for the bot to archive the nomination properly and it will stay on the Nominations page. Can someone take a look? Desertarun (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Desertarun: I've fixed it and marked it as promoted [3]. The original nomination was missing some standard templates and "(2)" needed to be added to {{DYK nompage links}}. DanCherek (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Desertarun (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Relevant discussion on the village pump

People interested in DYK may be interested in participating in this village pump discussion about radical reform of DYK. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)