Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 946: Line 946:


{{archivebottom}}
{{archivebottom}}
:[[User:Gatoclass|Gatoclass]], I'm sure you wrote the article specifically for this purpose, so I'd like to see it run on Christmas. How about substituting "coal" for "poop"? It's very Christmas-appropriate for Santa to be delivering coal. (This would just require a duplicate citation at the end of the sentence.) '''[[User:Mandarax|<span style="color:DarkGreen">M<small>AN</small>d<small>ARAX</small></span>]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandarax#top|<span style="color:Blue"><small>XAЯA</small>b<small>ИA</small>M</span>]]''' 19:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


== Philip Moger ==
== Philip Moger ==

Revision as of 19:08, 24 December 2022

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

Backlog mode

I have added a new heading so the backlog mode discussion can be found more easily when it has been archived. TSventon (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting that this is not because we have few DYKNs coming in, but because DYKN is seriously backlogged. I heard a suggestion to give DYKNs WikiCup points (2.5 for submitting, 2.5 for reviewing, to avoid people who create DYKs getting "free" points for QPQ) and I think something like that would be good to try. Maybe even a DYKN backlog drive, in the style of GAN backlog drives? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trainsandotherthings, if you are interested in the question of backlog drives there was a discussion about them earlier this month here. TSventon (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion wasn't all that fruitful and now the backlog is even larger with 207 hooks needing to be approved and 63 approved hooks. SL93 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think one issue is that most of the "delayed" nominations are noms that are quite difficult to review, either due to being mostly reliant on technical sources, or due to their subject matter (usually politics). A backlog drive would be nice but given the circumstances a backlog was probably inevitable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have a mechanism all set up for dealing with large numbers of unapproved nominations per the RfC last summer and subsequent discussions: extra QPQs for experienced DYK nominators. The suggestion of a GAN-style DYK backlog drive was roundly panned at the time. Pinging EEng, who worked so hard to devise the process and shepherd the RfC to completion, to help get it rolling for real. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Me and my big mouth -- I've been dreading this day for the last 12 months. Yes, we came to a policy decision as BMs describes, but what hasn't been done (I think -- haven't been watching DYK) is to set up the automation that will identify editors subject to the new requirement. We may need to use the honor system temporarily. Give me a few days to review where we are and recruit technical firepower. EEng 06:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: I'm happy to help :) fools rush in, etc. I think the most straightforward way is to add a note to the {{NewDYKnomination}} template. Something like "effective 30 May 2022, DYK is in "unreviewed backlog mode". All nominations made by editors with 20 or more prior DYK nominations will require an extra QPQ." That way, it'll appear on all new nominations (but not currently open nominations) until we remove it, and timestamps itself. Beyond that, we already use the honour system anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm vaguely remembering is we needed some new machinery for counting "credits" or whatever we called them. EEng 14:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: You mean like User:SDZeroBot/DYK nomination counts.json that @SD0001 mentioned below? —Kusma (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, you were quite insistent that "credits" were to be a thing of the past; the only thing that mattered was nominations, which were set as the determinant going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said " new machinery for counting credits or whatever" -- I remembered there was to be some change in what was counted, just couldn't remember what the change was. (I'm not Superman, you know, despite appearances.) Now that you mention it, that's exactly right. I've been reviewing the two big archived threads and there's a lot to it. It seems they ended with intentions to install new apparatus (template behavior at when new noms are saved etc.) and from other discussion some thought or work has been put into that, but not clear what still needs to be done to make it seamless. It actually sounds like others are more up to speed on the current status than I am, though I'm happy to help once I've got my sea legs again. EEng 12:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to add a note on the DYK script that most editors use? It also doesn't support natively adding multiple "reviewed" pages without manually typing, say, {{subst:dykn|ArticleA}} and {{subst:dykn|ArticleB}} in the window. Some editors might miss this otherwise. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The DYK-helper tool is maintained by @SD0001, so that feature should probably be taken up with them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a page from which DYK-helper can get to know if backlog mode is currently active. For instance, we can adopt WP:Did you know/unreviewed backlog mode to read enabled or disabled as the case may be – which could then be used by templates/scripts. Let me know once this is created – I'll then update the script accordingly. – SD0001 (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If a switch like that is added, it should also be used to conditionally display a backlog notice at the top of Template talk:Did you know. —Kusma (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:SDZeroBot/DYK nomination counts.json is already in place that records nom counts and is updated in real-time, which can be read by {{subst:NewDYKnomination}} to determine if the current user needs a 2nd QPQ. (For 9 months now, server resources are being wasted on keeping that page up-to-date despite zero use – maybe that will change now :)) – SD0001 (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SD0001: oh, that's actually incredible, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
is there a page where the nominations themselves are available? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What would be needed to actually start the 2 QPQs per nomination rule? SL93 (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a backlog tag to at least alert people. —Kusma (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If something like this is added to the WikiCup, I'd rather go for 4/1. A DYK review isn't like half a GA review. —Kusma (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may be honest, I have some skepticism as to whether the planned backlog mode (i.e. two QPQs for editors with 20+ nominations) is going to help out much in the long run. One reason is basically simple arithmetic: if the number of nominations being made exceeds the number of QPQs being done, it doesn't matter if nominators are providing one or two QPQs, a backlog will still build up over time. Secondly, not all nominators meet the 20 nominations requirement: many nominations are done by editors who have 6-19 nominations and so would be exempted from this requirement. If they too make nominations without more work being done on the backlog, the backlog would still get bigger and bigger. Finally, the way I see it, it's not that people don't want to review nominations, or not enough people are doing them. The backlog isn't necessarily anyone's fault. The issue is that many nominations are controversial from the get-go owing to their content. For example, I cannot blame anyone from being discouraged from reviewing any nomination that has to do with Israel-Palestine considering how much of a hot potato that topic is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of nominations are made by people with over 20 nominations. Just Gerda, Corachow, Epicgenius, Sammi Brie, Z1720, you and me together have something like 25 nominations on the page right now. 25 extra QPQs done would significantly reduce the number of unreviewed noms, and I would expect the number of affected noms to be closer to 50. I take your point that some nominations are more attractive to review than others, but I don't see how we can change that.
    The question is what else can we do? We could fail all nominations that haven't been reviewed after four weeks (like at FAC) or reject nominations where the QPQ is provided late, but (unlike the proposal) these would not change the fundamental issue that we need more reviews than people are required to provide as QPQs. —Kusma (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully the planned backlog mode is a short term measure and won't need to be used too often. theleekycauldron posted a chart here, showing that the number of unapproved nominations went down to below fifty in August-September in both 2020 and 2021. DYK depends on some editors reviewing more nominations than they need to, offsetting nominations by new editors that do not require a QPQ, and hopefully backlog mode will encourage them to help. Backlog mode will probably also encourage prolific contributors to divert some time from nominations to doing reviews which can be used later as QPQs. If some of those reviews are of more difficult nominations, they will still be useful. TSventon (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally think we should encourage people to do QPQs before they nominate articles. Currently I count seven nominations by highly experienced nominators lacking a required QPQ, needlessly making the backlog worse. Personally I find it much less stressful to use one of my stack of QPQs than to have to scramble for one at nomination time. —Kusma (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has a bot reminding editors about late QPQs ever been considered? For example, if a nomination doesn't have a QPQ and one hasn't been provided after seven days, a bot will leave the nominator a talk page message reminding them to do a QPQ. Of course, that's only if the nominator actually needs to be a QPQ. I imagine it could be a bit tricky to code, but it could help I guess. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma Good luck with that. I just brought up the QPQ issue at the nomination of a major DYK nominator and they asked why I have it in for the nomination. SL93 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: Ugh. I think a time limit is reasonable, and another week is plenty. (Personally I usually just do not review noms that lack a required QPQ). —Kusma (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technical stuff from the old discussions

I may be way behind the times, but I believe WT:Did_you_know/Archive_182#Start and End (and following section) is (or was) a key starting point for technical implementaion ideas. Who are our techies on this? Wugapodes, for startes? Wug, can you ping other techies involved? Possibly this is entirely obsolete but it's where my brain left off, anyway. EEng 03:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Wugapodes. TSventon (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wugapodes did you see this? Who else needs to be involved? TSventon (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon and EEng, sorry I missed these pings. What's needing done? Implementing a "some people need two QPQs" system? SD0001 had some ideas in that previous thread but to my knowledge no one's worked on anything yet. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably best if we both go back to the top of WT:Did_you_know/Archive_182#RfC_Discussion:_Details_of_implementing_EEng's_propsal_"Unreviewed_backlog_mode" and review forward from there (maybe skimming it all first to see what early stuff was obsoleted by later parts of the discussion). Then we can compare notes. I don't think there's anything too hard in there, but that's easy for me to say since I'm assuming you're volunteering to do all the work (bless your heart). Shall we start that way? Oh yes, first question: What happened to moving everything out of Template space (which, some may recall, I predicted would never happen)? EEng 03:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the main things are (1) a way to keep track of "backlog" mode and (2) a way to note how many QPQs are needed for a nomination. The first we can do pretty easily by having WugBot update a page on-wiki with the number of untouched nominations. The second is slightly harder and not something I know much about. We'd need the on-wiki templates and lua modules to get the content of that page and parse it appropriately. I'm not sure how to do that. Substing the page into the template? As for moving out of Template space, I was looking today and WugBot has code to handle it, but I don't think anything's moved on that front. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can handle (2) – all that's remaining is to edit Module:NewDYKnomination to read the nom counts and the "is backlog active?" page and show a message accordingly (the module is used in a substed template so no performance issue).
As for moving to template space, there was agreement in the last discussion that it should be done, but some insisted that a formal RFC should be held – we're waiting for someone to start that. – SD0001 (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like data on other pages can be accessed via lua which is good to know. I'll look into modifying the module this weekend and see how far I can get with lua. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you think this new "untouched" category of nominations is feasible? Right now we've got (courtesy of your hard work) a separate page for unapproved vs. approved. Would we move to three pages, or just have the two kinds of unapproved ("unapproved, untouched", "unapproved, touched") remain on a single page? Offhand I don't see clear plusses or minuses either way (other than inventing a third page is probably more work than leaving just two pages). EEng 16:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I imagined keeping our current two-page system. The page WugBot would update would just be a counter, kinda like the next queue counter. So it wouldn't distinguish the modified from unmodified nominations on the page, but doing so is feasible for WugBot if that would be helpful. Adding a third page is extra complexity for no clear benefit, so I'd rather try page sections before moving to a 3-page system. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng and SD0001: I've modified the module and it seems to be working. Check out the module sandbox and examples in my sandbox. I still need to modify WugBot so to update Template talk:Did you know/Unmodified nomination count, but after that everything should be good to go on this. — Wug·a·po·des​ 16:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wugpodes any news? I am asking now to prevent the thread being archived after a week of inactivity. TSventon (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wugapodes might be a tad distracted over the next few days. Schwede66 17:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon Oh, I was waiting on feedback from others. Looks like SD0001 did some fixes on the template, and given EEng's silence I take it everything looks good. I'll get to work on WugBot and update you once everything's in order. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've had almost no time for WP for about the last two weeks. I have total confidence in you, Wugapoo, but if you fee=l you need me to pass my hand over something, give me a day. EEng 23:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I get being busy. No pressure to review anything, I just wanted to make sure I didn't rush something past you. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The template sandbox version looks good to me, sorry forgot to comment here before. I just added a minor check (to avoid an error just in case someone edits the page to contain a non-number). – SD0001 (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good, Wug! Questions:
    • What keeps Template talk:Did you know/Unmodified nomination count updated? Is it done in real time, or daily, or hourly, or what?
    • Same question for the nominator's count of prior nominations -- is it updated in real time (so that if a user does nom A and then immediately nom B, the module processing nom B sees a count that includes nom A), or daily, etc?
EEng 04:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template talk:Did you know/Unmodified nomination count will be updated by WugBot. I intend for it to be run alongside the approval checks, so it will be done every other hour. The count of nominations is handled by SD0001, and it looks like it occurs every couple of hours. SD0001 would know the specifics. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are some race conditions here which may or may not matter (much), and when I get my thoughts together I'll say something about them. In the meantime (and apologies if this is answered above) where exactly are the counts-of-prior-noms-made-by-each-editor compiled? EEng 00:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The counts can be seen at User:SDZeroBot/DYK nomination counts.json. There certainly are a few race conditions, and I can see two at the moment: (1) the race between WugBot and SDZeroBot and (2) the race between nominators and both bots. For (1) that can be handled by SD0001 and I coordinating a staggered run schedule so WugBot doesn't run ahead of the by-nominator-count update. For (2) it's harder given the run schedules. We'd need some way to have the update triggered by an edit to the main nomination page or just have the bots run really frequently. I don't know how to do the first one, and either could actually make the race condition between bots worse since it would become an execution time issue not a scheduling issue. There's probably some sweet spot where the coordination is tight but not perfect, and the slack could be handled by a "hey, don't bulk nominate DYKs to try and end-run the backlog mode" message. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let' start with the most obvious problem (and correct me if there's a flaw in this narrative): (a) Editor has 4 nominations (no QPQ); (b) Editor makes a 5th nomination (also no QPQ); (c) before bot updates DYK nomination counts.json, editor makes a 6th nom. This last nom should require a QPQ, but because the counts.json still shows the editor has having only 4 prior noms, machinery mistakenly reports that no QPQ is required.
Now, as I've said before we're talking about QPQs here, not someone's prison release date, so this isn't the biggest deal in the world, and at most it would happen maybe once a year. But when it does happen, consternation will follow and there will be a Talk:DYK thread opened, and a congressional investigation, and there will be gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair and wrending of garments, all for nothing. So if we can avoid it easily then we ("we" means you, of course) should do it. Tell me if this makes sense: Can the nomination processing machinery, when it reads the nominator's value from counts.json (to see if it's < 5, between 5 and 19, or >=20 -- if I'm remember the boundaries correctly) then ++ it and write it back? That would "patch" the count without waiting for the bot to run again.
There's a similar race for crossing the 20-nomination boundary which triggers the double-QPQ requirement, and this would solve this too. Also, unless I'm not thinking of something, with this in place it's really not necessary for the counts.json bot to run frequently -- once a day would be fine.
Does what I've said make sense, and can you swing the writing back of the incremented count? EEng 21:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather we not wrend garments, I just bought mine. Unfortunately what you describe is not possible. The DYK nomination template uses a Lua module, but while these modules can read arbitrary pages, they cannot write to arbitrary pages. The only way to do what you described would be using an automated system like a user script or bot. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, shit. EEng 22:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above and in earlier discussions, updating of counts.json takes place in real-time. It doesn't run on any schedule. To take the latest one, Template:Did you know nominations/Adele Nicoll was created at 2022-06-24T16:39:29Z and SDZeroBot updated the count at 2022-06-24T16:39:33Z. If the difference of 4 seconds also seems too much, I'm sure we can find a way to make it faster. – SD0001 (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have made you repeat yourself; last year I was told I needed a brain transplant, and the only brain available was from a goldfish. 4 seconds is plenty prompt; just out of curiosity, how exactly does the bot find out it needs to run? EEng 18:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It uses the Wikimedia EventStreams API. Basically it asks the wikimedia server: "notify me whenever a page with title beginning Template:Did_you_know_nominations/ is created". The bot runs 24x7 looking out for such notifications to arrive. When they come, it finds out who created the page, and increments that user's count.
It's similar to the technology that enables your phone to notify you of new emails – immediately when the email arrives. – SD0001 (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can it notify you whenever someone creates a nomination with a boring or erroneous hook? EEng 21:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike being the guy who just pokes holes while others do all the work,[1] but this raises some new questions.

  • (a) So, to be clear, the bot operates only by ++ing a user's counts on file -- it never rebuilds the counts from scratch (by looking at ... I don't know, I guess by looking at every page, going back forever, of the form Template:Did you know nominations/)?
  • (b) But the bot hasn't been around forever, so where did the initial counts come from?
  • (c) You look at who created the nom template page, not the name of the nominator given in the template itself? (Wugapodes -- maybe those two things can't be different? The nominated by (or self-nominated) stuff in the nom template -- does your machinery enforce that the named nominator is the same as the editor creating the template?)

EEng 21:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I was just oversimplifying. The EventStream API isn't perfect – it can miss a few notifications and deliver a few ones twice. To account for those glitches, we DO rebuild the counts from scratch -- every 24 hours. The process for that is simpler – it queries the database (quarry:query/59696). This is also where the initial counts came from.
As to (c), yes we only look at who created the template page. So multi-user nominations are credited to solely to one person. If we wanted to overcome this limitation, it's easy enough in the real-time update component. But the build-from-scratch component of the bot might would become a BIG task involving reading in the contents of 58318 pages, as opposed to a simple 1.5 minute database query. Is it worth it? – SD0001 (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
W/r/t (c) they can be different. Thanks SD0001 for the clarification; I also missed the part where you explained the event stream API. It's the first I'm hearing about it so I look forward to reading up on it. @EEng: So with this information, it seems like the race conditions are minimized. There is still the issue of a bi-hourly WugBot run which would be what triggers "backlog mode". That is, we'll have up-to-the-minute counts of nominations but the backlog mode would only change once every two hours. I think that might actually be reasonable--we wouldn't want it yo-yo-ing around every few minutes as things get added and removed. What do you think? — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wugapodes, SD0001, EEng, has backlog mode gone onto the back burner? There are currently 61 unapproved nominations and it is nearly August, so the situation does not seen critical at present. TSventon (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. When the situation does become critical, then we'll get off our asses. Brilliant minds such as ours work best under pressure. (Just to repeat what I've taken pains to point out before, W and S are doing all the work; I just sit around trying to find flaws.) EEng 15:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Who am I fooling? It's nice, actually.

Temporary solution

@EEng, SD0001, and Wugapodes: I've implemented a temporary solution with {{Did you know/Backlog mode?}} and an update to {{NewDYKnomination}}; feel free to revert. It seems like you guys got caught in trying to figure out exactly who needs notifying of the backlog mode, but I'll be honest: we don't notify editors when they need a QPQ right now, backlog mode or no, so I don't think that's a necessary step to implementation. Owing to that, this works by simply placing a note on every new nompage when {{Did you know/Backlog mode?}} is toggled on. This can be disabled by reverting the changes to {{NewDYKnomination}} – if I've made an error, feel free to do so. Otherwise, I think we should just live with this for now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember what we got caught up on. I just remember looking guiltily at this thread every few days for however many months its been, dreading the moment someone says "When the hell are you going to finish this up so we can archive this thread???" EEng 06:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. SD0001, now that we have a template that toggles backlog mode, could you implement it in your DYK-helper script so that nominators are aware of it before they make their nomination? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron I made some changes to the setup so that a user script can easily determine if backlog mode is active. So Template:Did you know/Backlog mode? now contains just a true/false value (the page has an editnotice explaining this). This would also help if someone were to write a bot to automatically update that based on some criterion. Let me know if this looks good, will then make the user script changes. – SD0001 (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SD0001: Thanks, looks good to me! I'm a total beginner with Lua, didn't know where to start re: reading a wikipage. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Background

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

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

Timeframe

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

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

!Votes

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

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

!Votes

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

Discussion

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

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

Prep 3: Daily Dozen Doughnut Company

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christmas set

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

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

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

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

Boxing Day set (26 December)

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

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

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

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

Concentricities (I'm sorry)

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

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

where Gerda's hook did not fail

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

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

Prep 3 / "despite"

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3 has two adjacent hooks that start with "... that despite". I'm not sure if some copyediting will fix it, or if one of the hooks needs to be yanked. I'm deep in some other stuff right, and don't have time to get into it right now, so could somebody else look at it? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RoySmith, I moved the JH Ely hook further down the set, and I also put the "despite" phrase at the end of the sentence. Since his being pro-choice seems to be drawing most of the shock factor here, I think the hook would pull a bigger punch if readers get this information right when the sentence ends. ‍ ‍ Elias 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
    📝 "Don't get complacent..."     03:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That works fine. However, I think the comma in the sentence is unnecessary. GuardianH (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Christ, that despite stuff is so heavy handed. See my post below. EEng 20:45, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: there were also two sequential "despite" hooks in Prep 2; I moved the one that was also one of five bio hooks in that set to Prep 4. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an overabundance of bios and "despite X, Y" hooks in the older approved noms at the moment. Unless we leave them longer and draw from newer hooks, the ratios are going to be off. Kingsif (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This gives me an opportunity to complain about something that's irked me for some time, which is that despite is WAY overused in hooks. I mean WAY, WAY overused. There are plenty of other ways to signal incongruity or contradiction (real or apparent); though, although, but, and notwithstanding come to mind immediately. However, in many or most cases the reader doesn't need to be hit over the head with the incongruency -- simply juxtapose the two facts and let the reader notice. Maile did this in his "Suggested" above, but even better might be
    ... that American legal scholar John Hart Ely, who penned a law review article castigating the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, is pro-choice?
or (with further refinement)
... that legal scholar John Hart Ely, who wrote an article critical of the US Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, is pro-choice?
(I'm pretty sure only people can be castigated.) Having said all that, I'm going to raise an additional point without resolving it: How many people outside the US know what Roe was about?

Finally, two more of my pet peeves:
Now that I've got all that off my chest, I'm gonna go yell at some kids to get off my lawn. EEng 07:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The overturning of Roe was front page news all over the world, and I think educated people know Roe has to do with abortion (I find this hook easier to understand than hooks that assume I know who Babe Ruth is, or any football player other than Colin Kaepernick). To clarify that there is a surprise in the hook, maybe add "1973" so people don't think he criticised the recent overturning. —Kusma (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that lots of people outside the US know that [soomething something] US court [something] abortion [something], but I seriously doubt we can rely on an international audience recalling what Roe was, just from its name. Therefore, I'd suggest:
... that legal scholar John Hart Ely, who wrote an article critical of the US Supreme Court's 1973 ruling that abortion is a right, is pro-choice?
EEng 20:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like- point well made ... except it's"was", as he is deceased. — Maile (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

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

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DYK-Tools-Bot incoming

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

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

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

Solution for two problems?

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

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

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

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

Signup sheet

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

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

Survey says...

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

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

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

after...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Easier solution

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

I'm sorry to hear that, Gerda. I don't think that solves the problem of the prep builders' workload, but I do apologize if the discussion made you feel ostracized for other reasons. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What leeky said, but also: we push because we care. Kingsif (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't one particular discussion, but constantly being told (in different wording by different people) that my approach is wrong. I can't change my (Old world, traditional) view that to say something specific about the subject is what I owe the subject, especially when a BLP but even when an old piece of music. I'll still nominate those I had planned, another singer and a choral piece for New Year's Day, and I'll probably make an exception for GAs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that's what you wanna do, if you still want somewhere to put the impressive specific stuff, you have already sent some to my talkpage and I have found it thoughtful and read them. Was it last year that you sang in a canticle(?) and linked me the piece? I appreciate your interactions, even if sometimes frustrating, so you can at least show me your new articles, if you want. Kingsif (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My new articles are and will be on my user page. Working on Dieter Henrich for RD. Tough, - not my field. He published a book a reviewer found fascinating just before he died, at age 95. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, you make this threat pretty regularly. :D I actually do agree an easier solution would be for you to nominate only when you have a hook that will address both your own goals and those of DYK, though. I know it's frustrating and stressful for you, and it's obviously frustrating and stressful for workers here when the two goals don't coincide. Valereee (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, nice idea in principle, only then I'm sure, and what happens is Vom Himmel hoch (Mendelssohn). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks like a nom that probably isn't a good fit for DYK. Your goals are not the same as DYK's. Valereee (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gerda, sorry if you thought this was targeted at you, I can assure you it was not. I think it's now clear that there are not sufficient volunteers (not a complaint, the prep builders and admins do stellar work and I don't think I could do it) to commit to running two sets of hooks a day and we need to trim down the nominations, I think this is the simplest way but happy to hear other alternatives. Appreciate the suggestion leaves a lot in the hands of the prep builders to chose what should run and what shouldn't but at some point 8 hooks a day need to be selected from the (slightly) wider pool of available nominations - Dumelow (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read above, it wasn't this alone. Looking at my goals, I asked myself: what is it that keeps me from writing quality articles, and arguing about misunderstandings in DYK noms contributes to loosing not only time but also energy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good approach to editing, most of the behind the scenes project stuff doesn't really matter at the end of the day, we just need to keep improving the encyclopaedia. Hopefully this proposal will remove some of the endless back and forth that happens on some nominations currently, though I wouldn't want anyone to feel excluded from DYK because of it - Dumelow (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's really wise to choose your battles. Valereee (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer wanted

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

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

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

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

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

Prep3 - John Custis

John Custis @SL93, Onegreatjoke, and CeeGee:

Current hook:

There is a note by reviewer CeeGee regarding an alternative wording of the hook:

I happen to agree with CeeGee on this, but have not changed it. I would make a slight adjustment thusly:

"Slave owner" really is better right in front of the name. Without saying the slave was his own child, the hook doesn't make the user want to click and find out more. — Maile (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with changing it to whatever either one. SL93 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Maile (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added to hook. Good catch. — Maile (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1: Arun gas field (nom)

  • ... that victims of atrocities committed at Arun gas field allege ExxonMobil's responsibility in a lawsuit that the energy company has stalled for over 20 years?

Listen, I'm not exactly jumping at the chance to keep something off the main page because it's mean to Big Oil. However, I'm also not super cool with saying a company "allegedly" committed gross human rights violations, when the lawsuit hasn't concluded and there was never a chance of criminal conviction. WP:DYK#gen4d says that hooks... should not be approved if they promote one side of an ongoing dispute. I'm concerned we've fallen afoul of that rule here. Pinging @Larataguera, Arsonal, and SL93. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This hook does not promote one side of the dispute. It merely states that the dispute exists (and has been ongoing for 20 years). Larataguera (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The hook states in wiki voice that atrocities were committed. The source only says "alleged human rights abuses". This needs to get fixed or the hook pulled. There's similar language in Accusations of ExxonMobil human rights violations in Aceh, sourced to the same Aljazeera article which only says "alleged"; that one isn't a DYK issue per-se, but it should also get fixed. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source states that Since the end of the civil war in 2005, the government-backed Truth and Reconciliation Commission (KKR) and the Commission for Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS) have extensively documented abuses committed by the Indonesian military both around Arun field and across Aceh and in the NYT we have that The Indonesian Human Rights Commission has documented hundreds of killings, rapes and cases of torture and also that Exxon Mobil does not deny that atrocities took place. There is no question that the atrocities occurred. Exxon's responsibility for those atrocities is disputed, and this is made clear in the hook. The WSJ reports that Indonesian military confirmed...that troops in the area had been involved in "excesses" Larataguera (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that there was enough discussion to have me reopen the nom. SL93 (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Book of Common Prayer (1604) in prep 3

@Theleekycauldron @Pbritti @Epicgenius The hook that use of the 1604 Book of Common Prayer was authorized by the king of England, but later outlawed by Parliament? is ambiguous. It doesn't say which king, or when. I know the book is from 1604, but for all I know, it could have been the current king (Charles III) who authorized it 4 centuries after it was published, and banned by the current parliament. Could this be reworded to make that clear, hopefully without making it excessively verbose? Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: My understanding, although I don't want to step on Pbritti's toes, is that it's called the 1604 Book of Common Prayer because that's when the king authorized it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith, how about this?
– Epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, I should mention that I agree with TLC's comment. On the other hand, if the 1604 book was authorized in 2022, then that might be noteworthy. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like the first suggestion by Epicgenius (nice name) but maybe we could add "outlawed by a later Parliament" to further prevent confusion? ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that works for me. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Street Terminal overquoting?

@Theleekycauldron @John M Wolfson @Eewilson Are we OK with the 4 paragraphs copy-pasted from a source, in the "Station details" section? It's properly attributed, but sure seems like an excessive amount of text to reproduce verbatim, per WP:OVERQUOTING. It looks like this was pointed out in the original review and the 4 paragraphs that are there now are the "abridged" version from an even longer quote. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @RoySmith: This exact same concern was brought up by Elizabeth in the review. As I mentioned in the review, I think it provides a good sense of "period flavor" to the article, and will probably be diluted by an article 1.5-2x as large as the current version. While we're on this topic, what do you think of the period quote in Congress Terminal? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I know it was brought up in the review. I don't agree with the result, which is why I'm bringing it here to get a broader range of opinions. My take on the Congress Terminal article is that's also a lot of quoting, but let's concentrate on Franklin Street for now. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I let it go but still would rather see more of it integrated into the prose. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shame there's no photo of the tracks running into the building. Better hooks:
    • ... that the Franklin Street Terminal (tracks pictured) was located inside an office building? (existing hook)
    • ... that the Franklin Street Terminal (tracks pictured) was inside an office building? (see WP:LOCATIONLOCATIONLOCATION)
    • ... that the Franklin Street Terminal (tracks pictured) was constructed by gutting two floors of a building and running elevated tracks into the resulting void?
    • ... that the Franklin Street Terminal (tracks pictured) was constructed by gutting two floors of two buildings and running elevated tracks into the resulting void? (per comment below)
EEng 04:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually two floors of two buildings that were gutted. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do like your last one, User:EEng, if it’s changed to two buildings. Thank you for tagging that essay. Falls in line with the same thing I see with color: “the flowers can be pink, purple, or red in color”. :) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:RoySmith Now that I’m finished reviewing it, unless User:John M Wolfson already has a reduction in the over quote in progress, I could give it a go. Unless I shouldn’t. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson: Once a nomination is closed and promoted, fixing stuff is pretty much anyone's game – I'd definitely appreciate it if you took a stab :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I put this hook to queue, as I think the article is OK. I'm a little iffy on the long block quote in "Station details" and if editors are willing I can summarise this information and remove the quote. I removed "located" from the hook per the discussion above as I think it is better, but I'm not bothered if it is changed. Please ping me if there are any concerns and I will try to address them before this hits the main page. Z1720 (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, if you want to go ahead and summarize the quote, go for it. I may not get to it until another 12 or so hours, or tomorrow. If not, I can do it then. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to use the alt that EEng suggested? the longer one about gutting the floors? IMO, it's more hooky. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 15:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used the alt suggested above, per your request. I summarised and removed the block quote: I think most of it was not NPOV, repeated information later in the article, or was too much detail. The amount of trains at the station might be returned to the article, but I was unsure about what time period the numbers were referring to so I did not want to keep it in the article without further research (which I am not willing to do). Feel free to return that info with more specific dates. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the quote was a little long, in an article in an early stage of development, as this one is, it's better to leave it than to lose important detail. For example, the number of trains per hour is essential, as the Chicago L remains famous (if you're a transit geek) for its traffic intensity. The counts would be those as of the publication of the source, no? EEng 15:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to evaluate the source to determine the dates, which I do not want to do. I'm OK with editors putting the number of trains in the station back into the article if they so wish. IMO, the block quote was probably not necessary and should be summarised. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

QPQ still awaited

Template:Did you know nominations/R. K. Padmanabha is almost ready but QPQ is pending Since question mark existed there I did not think a bot will immediately transfer to approved list. I do not know process of holding on. Sorry for mistake. Can some one help Bookku (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a hold marker and pulled it from approved. Please do not mark it as ready until it is ready, the bot only looks at the most recent mark. CMD (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis Thanks I shall take care henceforth Bookku (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missa Sine Nomine (Schidlowsky) in queue 7

@Gerda Arendt: (nominator), @CurryTime7-24: (reviewer), @SL93: (promoter): At 226 characters, the hook that was in the prep was too long, and I do not think the length is justified. Below I have posted the old hook, and my shortened hook. Please have a look and let me know if there should be any changes:

This change involves removing the instruments. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see, and would not like to see go the unusual setting for speaker and percussion. We could say "Mass texts" instead of "texts from the Mass ordinary", and could drop "composed". How is this:
* ... that Leon Schidlowsky wrote the Misa sine nomine in memory of Víctor Jara for speaker, choirs, organ and percussion in 1977, juxtaposing mass texts with contemporary poetry and Torah verses?
shortened differently. If still too long: the year is less unique, - has to be after Jara died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Gerda Arendt's proposed hook would work better without the year, so it would read as such:
The reader can find out the year by clicking on the article, and the "in memory of" implies to be that Jara was dead when the musical work premiered. I'll wait to hear other's thoughts before changing/not changing the hook. Z1720 (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like your second change to Gerda's hook. SL93 (talk) 15:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above instructions, I have replaced the hook in Queue 7 with the changes I proposed to Gerda's hook. Z1720 (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Colson problems

@Sl933 @Cbl62 @Onegreatjoke I'm going to promote p1 to q1, but the Junior Colson hook needs some attention. I've verified that he lived in a Haitian orphanage, and that he moved to the US when he was 9, but I don't see anything that specifically says he lived in the orphanage until he was 9. Also, I can't find anything that says the team was undefeated; that's not in the article at all. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93 Ooops, pinged the wrong user. Auto-completion fail. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith Will this work? - Colson was born in Haiti and lived there until age 9, when Steve and Melanie Colson adopted him from an orphanage near Port-au-Prince. I would just remove the undefeated team part as more about the team than him. SL93 (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that satisfies the sourcing requirement. I'll fix up the hook, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the source to the article. SL93 (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Brain Damage (film) references

@MatthewHoobin I'm trying to verify the citation for the hook. It's cited to "Drenner & Magliochetti 2017b", but I'm not sure which one that is, because that label isn't actually used in the bibliography. As another example, you've got "Gingold 2017a" and "Gingold 2017b", but they're not identified in the bibliography which is which, and there's no way to tell. If you're going to use that style, you need to explicitly label the references with the tags you use in the citations.

After some head scratching, I figured out that you're probably talking about "Drenner, Elijah (Director and Editor); Magliochetti, Al (Interviewee) (2017). Animating Elmer (Featurette)." It took me quite a bit of hunting to find this on YouTube (I notice that @Narutolovehinata5 was unable to find it at all during his initial review). You should at least include a URL for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I've verified everything else in prep2, so I'm going to go ahead and promote to queue2 but the referencing really should be cleaned up before this hits the main page. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I've made updates; please let me know if there's anything else that needs to be addressed. Thank you! —Matthew - (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed up one more -- RoySmith (talk) 03:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

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

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

Late Christmas Day entries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • @DYK admins: - admin still needed to substitute the Santa Claus (clipper) hook for the Andrew Planta hook, with Planta going back to prep. The rest of the set is otherwise completed. Thanks! Gatoclass (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was brought up by Theleekycauldron at the nom that Santa Claus ought to be italicised,per the MOS on ship names, and we only usually relax adherence to the MOS on April fools day. I'd also much prefer an encyclopedic term like "feces" rather than "poop", particularly when the article mentions poop in a completely different context elsewhere and the term is not used for feces in many parts of the english speaking world. This confused me initially until I read the nom. I wouldn't mind promoting if the hook is tweaked a little along these lines. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question I cannot find Gene Cipriano in any of our holding areas. Was he disappeared out of the set and into the abyss? Bruxton (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you just looked a bit early. He's in p2 now :) Gatoclass (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forget it. The Christmas set is fine as it is - the clipper hook can be run some other time - I can't quite persuade myself that a hook about poop is appropriate for Christmas day anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Gatoclass, I'm sure you wrote the article specifically for this purpose, so I'd like to see it run on Christmas. How about substituting "coal" for "poop"? It's very Christmas-appropriate for Santa to be delivering coal. (This would just require a duplicate citation at the end of the sentence.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Moger

Hello, anyone want to see if they can promote this to the empty slot in Prep 7? Bruxton (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was removed from there earlier today by tlc. Valereee (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee It was a technical removal - because I helped with the hook I could not promote it so Leeky removed it. Bruxton (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, I've moved it back in. I think the fact the credits had been left behind was what was screwing up PSHAW for @Cielquiparle, maybe? Valereee (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P7 3 January

Template:Did you know nominations/Giriyak stupa

  • ... that according to legend, Giriyak stupa was constructed over the body of a dead goose?

@DiverDave @Ploni, I see the emphasis on 'according to legend' was added during the review process, but I don't see a reason mentioned for adding it? Valereee (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read the discussion before promotion and both nominator and reviewer agreed that it was a legend. It is also in the article According to an ancient legend, Buddhist monks built the stupa over the body of a dead goose Bruxton (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But why do we need to emphasize it? Why not just:
... that according to legend, Giriyak stupa was constructed over the body of a dead goose? Valereee (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, nm...it was originally ... that Giriyak stupa was constructed over the body of a dead goose?, and the reviewer suggested ... that according to legend, Giriyak stupa was constructed over the body of a dead goose? Emphasizing the change, that is, but likely not suggesting that the emphasis remain in the hook. I'm going to remove it. Valereee (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I am not sure emphasis is needed. Also I was just trying to go through the source and I cannot see that they call it a legend. The source states it as fact: They accordingly built a stupa over the dead goose, which was interred in the base of the monument, and adorned it I with an inscription. Bruxton (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the end of the previous page/top of the page it says "Goose's Monastery," to account for which he relates the following legend: [legend here] ending with They accordingly built a stupa over the dead goose, which was interred in the base of the monument, and adorned it with an inscription. Valereee (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee Ugh, forgive me for my bleary-eyed research. Bruxton (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all! I was sitting there looking at the source and thinking the same thing, just thought...waitaminute, there has to be more to this story... :D Valereee (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7 replaced?

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

@Theleekycauldron FYI, this looks like something PSHAW should check for and warn about. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the hooks are still in prep 7, I decided to WP:BEBOLD and revert the edit myself. Please ping me here if there are any problems. Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720, no problems, except that I'm not sure what I did! I was at P7 and, intending to add Philip Mogur, stupidly opened PSHAW at the prep instead of at the nom template. And then some sort of black magic occurred and suddenly I realized I'd managed to move to queue something that wasn't ready to be moved to queue. The history told me it was possible to undo the edit, so I did. Valereee (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Looks like the edit to Prep 7 was reverted but the promotion to queue 7 was not. Might be something for leeky to look into when they get a chance. Z1720 (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
lol I was looking at that reversion and thinking...did I go crazy? Because I checked that the undoing had worked and then edited that prep after I made and undid that mistake, and those edits are still there. But this was about the queue not getting reverted. Too many moving parts! Valereee (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1129326945"