Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

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

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:33, 20 May 2020

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

Error reports

Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

DYK queue status

There are currently 3 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 03:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 24 hours

Last updated: 3 hours ago(

)

Shortcut

WT:DYK

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

• 2011 reform proposals

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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

Asian Pacific American Heritage Month

I request that a special holding area be created for those DYKNs who pass nomination where the article falls within the scope of Pacific Islands Americans or Asian Americans. That way they can be placed on the main page during that month.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 10:42, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - For the month of May. This is a good idea. I would also like to suggest that it encompass in general the Asia Pacific area, as DYK and Wikipedia have always had contributors/admins in that area. — Maile (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be a good idea to get the above-linked Asian Pacific American Heritage Month in basic DYK shape. A lot of it is unsourced, and much of what is intended as sourcing are Bare URLs. — Maile (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I started a header for May in the special occasions holding area. Please let me know which articles should be moved there. Yoninah (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a notice about this at WT:KOREA. The Korean community in America is a sizeable population, and I don't recall DYK ever getting nominations from that project. But this would be a good time to start. — Maile (talk) 23:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Long term solutions/2

So I'm not sure any of these are going to help anywhere near as much as we need something to, but here are the suggestions that have gained some traction.

Nominators who fail to respond for 7 days are an automatic fail.
Go to 7 queues and preps.
Do a week of 2-a-days any time we hit X nominations.
Do 2-a-days every weekend.

Probably #2, 3, 4 we could just go ahead and implement if we feel they're at least worth trying. #1 needs an RfC, I think.

—valereee (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although I would support some variant of #1 being implemented, something does need to be clarified about it: does "fail to respond" refer only to the initial review, or any comments by reviewers or other editors? What about instances where the nominator couldn't reply because they were unavailable, or have indicated ahead of time that they might not be able to respond immediately to feedback? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5, I think we should totally accept, "Hey, wasn't expecting the review to start so soon, I'm headed out of town and will be back the 16th, can we start review then?" as being responsive. Agree that #1 is the one we need to develop and flesh out, as it is the one that actually changes DYK in some way and needs an RfC. —valereee (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging admins who currently have hooks in queues/preps who may not be aware of the fact we're overwhelmed with nominations, looking at 4 more months of 2-a-days and then after that less than a month of 1-a-days before having to go back to 2-a-days, are facing a severe shortage of admin help, and are looking for solutions. Steve Smith Maury Markowitz David Eppstein Bagumba Al Ameer son Drmies Rlendog Dumelow Victuallers Kosack Titodutta Guerillero Girth Summit —valereee (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, hi - thanks for the ping, I'd be happy to help out if I can; trouble is, I've only ever been involved in the input side of DYK, not on a adminny back-end. Is there a handy guideline page for what you need assistance with that you could point me at? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, yep, it's at Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions. The move itself is very simple and takes under two minutes. —valereee (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I would also be willing to help out. As for the question above, 2-a-days on weekends seem good to me. I'm unsure about responsiveness. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, the typical non-responsive nominator is a student who nominated as part of requirements for a class. The class ends, they stop editing. A reviewer picks it up, the nominator never responds, the reviewer makes the necessary fixes and asks for a new review, and the dyk passes. I'm not sure how many of these noms we get, but this would at least alleviate all that work on behalf of someone who doesn't care and probably never even realizes the thing appeared on the MP. —valereee (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: hmm. A 7-day cutoff after a talk page notice seems reasonable on its face --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't offer much in the way of solutions, but some points:

I am failing to get about 50% of my pings - I got this one but did not get the last one from the actual nom.
The reason I was pinged was a long-running nom I have. Since I nomed that article I have written perhaps a dozen new articles or major re-writes with an aggregate of about 100 kchars, several of which went through DYK already. Keeping track of all of this is non-trivial even when ping does work.
I think I hit all of valereee's points immediately above this (at the time of posting) in spite of not being anything like that group. Some of us are just busy IRL and have problems keeping track of it all. So, everyone's busy all around, which I supposed should be expected given current world circumstances.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like all of Valereee's suggestions above; I agree that (1) probably needs an RfC here, whereas the others could be implemented straightaway if we so choose. Here's another thought, though. Our fundamental bottleneck is the rate at which we are featuring articles, which does not match the rate of nominations. This, as has been pointed out before, is thanks to a shortfall in admin effort. It occurs to me, though, that we may have occasions on which we have enough admin-time available to go to more than 2 a day; we just can't do that regularly, because we don't usually have that. At the moment, there's no way to know in advance. What if we create a place for admins who are active at DYK to comment on their availability in the coming week? So, for instance, I might commit to promoting 4 queues in certain weeks, and 0 in others; but on those weeks where it looks like we have a larger than usual availability, we could go to 3 sets a day, for instance. Of course, this could backfire, if people cut back their own involvement after seeing others committing to doing promotions; but I thought I'd offer the idea. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, I think it's a great idea. I'd also love to see us encourage admins who are expert at DYK review to move a prep to queue whenever they make a nom. It would do so much to alleviate the problem here. We could easily go to 2-a-days as our default if that was the norm. —valereee (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Vanamonde is probably right that it would actually discourage admins from putting their hand up when they saw others had already volunteered. I don't think it would work for me personally either, because I generally do promotions when I feel up to it, and that's not something I can predict ahead of time. Gatoclass (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to implement a review limit? Say, after 10 DYK noms are approved in a day, no more can go until it rolls around again? It wouldn't affect the nominations, but would just slow down everything after nominating (including QPQs, which in turn will naturally slow down approval). Kingsif (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible I've misunderstood you, Kingsif, but surely that's backwards? Our problem isn't approved nominations per se, it's that at the moment input is greater than output. Changing our pipeline in between isn't going to make a fundamental difference, and your specific solution would just change the title of the page that has a transclusion problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you got it right. I know it's strange but, most of the other solutions are about upping the hooks on the MP, an issue that starts with more noms than can be handled with the current pipeline, right? I figure that since approving hooks is an easier (in general) process that promoting hooks to a set to the MP, that is where some action would be easier to implement. It might not reduce noms, but it sets an expectation for how long it will take for them to get promoted, and it could streamline everything else. Or am I being optimistic? Kingsif (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently running two sets a day, and that about balances the new nominations, so we will need to continue at this rate for the foreseeable future. I like option 3 "Do a week of 2-a-days any time we hit X nominations." I don't like Vanamonde's suggestion of three sets a day because it is unfair on the nominators whose articles get so little exposure on the main page. Personally, I think that the greatest problem is the 200 unreviewed nominations which are clogging up the system. This number slowly mounts up over time because of the five nomination grace we allow to new nominators. If we asked people to review two articles instead of one for a period, or if more people voluntarily did extra reviews, we could bring that number right down, and then Valereee would not be so shocked at the total number reaching 400! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: I could do extra DYK reviews instead of WP:FLC reviews, but they just aren't as much fun. It feels like everywhere that is looking for peer reviews, from Featured Content to Good Articles to DYK, has a similar backlog --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is unfortunately accurate. I don't know of a review process that is lacking both for reviews overall, and lacking in quality reviews among those that occur. I've participated substantively at GAN, FAC, and DYK, and it's certainly true in each of those places. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I kinda want to launch a reverse WikiCup where you only get points for high quality reviews --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, but the problem is DYK is unique in that it has deadlines. We have to feed the beast 8 (or 16, or 24) reviewed items per day. If we don't, the main page becomes unbalanced. And if we don't keep up that pace, our systems breaks. We're burning the candle from both ends. If we don't find a way to either decrease nominations or increase admin help, this project will fail due to burnout of the existing admins. —valereee (talk) 18:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: I'd participate...@Valereee: You're not wrong. We've tried a number of things, god knows, but fundamentally we need a level of prep-to-queue effort that is commensurate with the number of approvable nominations, and I don't know how to fix that. It isn't fair to ask any one of the regulars to put in more than they are. The non-admin regulars don't want to be admins. And other admins seem not to be terribly interested...Vanamonde (Talk) 18:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, what would you think about requiring admin nominators to do a move for every X noms? —valereee (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a mop and some time. Maybe another set of hands would help --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, it would be a huge help. We have posts regularly pinging dyk admin regulars, begging for someone to move a prep to queue because we have six full preps, zero full queues, and a few hours before the next queue is due on the MP. —valereee (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I quite like the principle of the idea, but I wonder how comfortable folks are with making an admin-specific requirement; how about all editors with a certain number of noms need to either build a prep set or promote a queue (because theoretically the checking requirements are very similar; the copy-pasting is slightly more onerous for prep building, as are formatting checks, etc, but I don't think it's a huge difference) and that way the extra requirement is linked not to status but to experience. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, that totally would work for me. We really need prep setters too. I don't know what we'd do if either Cwmhiraeth or Yoninah decided they'd had enough. And I think it would be good if noms and reviewers understood how preps were built. —valereee (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: We should probably start a separate discussion for that, so it doesn't get lost in here; I'm busy for the next some hours, but could do that later, if you haven't already. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee and Vanamonde93: Template:DYK Prep Set Instructions has been transcluded above the prep areas for 4 years. Please feel free to improve it as you see fit. — Maile (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66, sorry, already had a glass of wine...are you saying the darn thing looks so complicated the average nominator won't touch it with a ten foot pole? :) —valereee (talk) 23:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Certainly not, but then I'm not sipping modified grape stuff. I wrote that for myself years ago. It's clearly step-by-step. I was replying to your comment, "it would be good if noms and reviewers understood how preps were built." That, and Vanamonde's comment about a separate discussion for that. There were no real step-by-step instructions available before I wrote that. — Maile (talk) 23:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: I am aware of those instructions, and they're extremely valuable; thank you! I think we crossed wires, though; my suggestion of a separate discussion was for the "make experienced editors fill preps/queues" part of our conversation. And when Valereee says she wants people to understand the process, I think she means more in the sense of "experienced contributors should be doing their bit to help the process along" (unless I misunderstood you, Valereee?) Vanamonde (Talk) 01:27, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93:, Oh, I see, re your above comments. I misunderstood. I'll leave it at that, because any comment here about who does what, or who should, results in a lot of posting, but no concrete solution. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66, oh, I'm sorry! Yes, the information is available, anyone looking for it can find it (I think I used either those instructrions or some other similar ones when I first started promoting to preps). —valereee (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valereee, I saw you pinged me above, and I saw the link to the instructions. Given COVID, and homeschooling three kids, and finishing up the spring semester, and starting the summer semester, you can imagine I don't have a lot of time--I wonder how my activity level compares to other months, and I wouldn't be surprised if a whole bunch of other admins/boomers aren't having the same trouble. I'll be happy to help but I just don't have the time, I'm afraid... Drmies (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, the reason for the ping was more to let current admin/noms know that in general, we need help (and the need long predates COVID), and we're hoping that admins who are regular nominators will consider giving it as they're able. If you (understandably) can't give it now, that's fine. Maybe you'll be able to in six or eight or ten months when we'll definitely still need it. Best wishes with the homeschooling. —valereee (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on the queues and be more proactive with promoting. — Wug·a·po·des 20:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 1-5, 2-5 are fine but on 1 (originally my suggestion I think?) , I think a week is too probably short. 10 days would be better I think. The nominator should always get a proper message on their talk page, which we have a template for. Another idea might be to ask the Wiki Cup, and similar competitions to drop awarding points for dyks (cries of horror), or insist on 2 reviews per dyk for any points. Johnbod (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We already do have templates for informing nominators of any DYK nomination issues. Perhaps that can be modified to also mention that a response not being given could result in the nomination being failed? Of course, this only applies to the original review as there are also cases where a nominator responds once but not afterwards despite issues still remaining and more comments being given. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, or possibly wikicup could award points for filling preps and moving preps to queues. :) —valereee (talk) 10:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they'd give points for admin-only things, & frankly I think the risks of inexperienced people doing these are too big. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to hear what the DYK-regular WikiCup judges, Cwmhiraeth and Vanamonde, would think about making the awarding of points for WikiCup DYK submissions contingent on doing an extra QPQ review. WikiCup has always put a strain on DYK, but as DYK seems less able to absorb it these days, would an additional requirement to help things along here be feasible? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, inexperienced people have to do it to become experienced, and building preps isn't admin-only. Building preps is something anyone can do. I don't see any greater risk to having people gain experience during WikiCup than during any other time of the year. We desperately need more people to develop experience at these tasks. —valereee (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: not necessarily opposed, but a little hesitant about us making different rules for people based on anything except their experience at DYK itself; hence my proposal from above. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde, that's understandable. I looked at your proposal, and building a prep set with the proper degree of care and checking is a much larger task than promoting a prep set to queue. Perhaps we could offer a choice for those with major experience (say 50 or 100 DYKs): a second QPQ, promoting two (or three) approved noms to a prep set, or promoting a prep set to queue with checking. (Of course, only admins would be able to do the prep to queue promotion, but this gives the others a couple of choices. Some people just aren't going to be good at building prep sets, so having the second QPQ option gives them something they already know how to do). BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I wouldn't be opposed to giving different weight to prep sets vs queues. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, does having more qpqs done help avoid the failure-to-transclude issue? —valereee (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

valereee, the two are completely unrelated. I consider failure-to-transclude a non-issue, to be honest. The final step in any DYK nomination is transcluding to the main page. If people forget, no one sees their nominations. DYKHousekeepingBot will post a reminder on their talk page about 48 hours later, reminding them that they still need to do the transclusion, and pointing them to info on how to do so (and what to do if they've decided not to nominate after all). If they still don't transclude, there is a report that I have run for me every month or two, and I'll query the three or four nominators on it who still haven't transcluded their nominations after all that time. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, I thought failur-to-transclude was the reason we had to go to 2-a-days? —valereee (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

valereee, sorry, we're talking past each other. There are two forms of failure to transclude: one is when a nominator fails to transclude their nomination, which is a negligible problem. The other, which you were referring to (I think of it as a "page too full" or "too many templates" problem, which is why it didn't immediately click), is when a page like the Approved page gets so big that not all of the transcluded nominations can expand to their full size—there's too much text on the page to transclude more templates. That is indeed what's happening now. Oddly, having nominators do more QPQs will, in the short term, aggravate the transclusion problem, because a higher percent of nominations will be approved, so the Approved page will have more of the total nominations on it. But getting more reviews completed needs to happen: as I noted elsewhere, we have almost 200 unapproved nominations, which is a problem over the long term. If we get down to 240 nominations, but only 40 are approved, it becomes hard to build balanced sets even though our backlog is still pretty high. I've been mulling over an idea to reduce the number of unapproved nominations for a while now, and I think I'm just about ready to propose it... BlueMoonset (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, oh, sorry, I see I wasn't reading closely enough! So what's the problem over the long term of having 200 unapproved noms? If too many on the approved page is the main issue, why not just stop or slow reviewing? —valereee (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, how would you pull off stopping or slowing the reviews? Wouldn't that just cause a worse backlog, as people will continue to open nominations? How do you stop new nominations, or limit them to a given number per nominator per time period? And who would police the excess nominations by anyone? — Maile (talk) 13:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66, I don't know, that's what I was asking. Is a backlog necessarily a bad thing? I know it keeps templates from expanding on the approved noms page, but ...well, why is that an emergency? I've always had the philosophy that if there aren't enough people willing to do a task, maybe that task isn't valued by enough people. If we worked and produced sets at the rate we happily could, and the backlog grew, maybe a few people producing the backlog would think, "Hm. Maybe I should learn how to promote to prep/move to queue so we can get this process moving a little faster." Why is it the responsiblity of a dozen people to try to do the work of two dozen when there are literally hundreds of people who could easily learn these jobs? —valereee (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point. How do you pull it off, any of it? Who is going to police it? — Maile (talk) 13:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, that's what my suggestion was: slow the reviews by imposing an arbitrary limit for approvals per day, then lock the page. Eventually it will also slow down opening of nominations because of QPQ issues. Hopefully editors would selectively review enough to get some varied preps. Don't know if it would work, but it's an idea. Kingsif (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66, I kind of feel like how is easier than getting consensus. If we get consensus, ask people to not nom more than X per month or week or whatever. Let them police themselves. If someone loses track and does one more than allowed, no biggie. If they're just egregiously ignoring it, someone will rat them out. :) Or set up a bot that rejects or pulls the Xth nom within 30 days or whatever from the same username. —valereee (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

valereee, responding to your earlier question: the total backlog is bad because the greater it grows, the harder it is for DYK to meet its purpose, which is to feature recently created, expanded, or GAed articles. When you have a 400-nomination backlog, the average nomination has to wait over seven weeks at a one-set-per-day rate of eight hooks per prep, and half that if we go to two-sets-per-day. That's really a lot. Also, the mechanisms get creaky at the high numbers: nomination and approved pages are longer, some nomination templates only appear as links, and so on. Without reviews, the nominations stay high while the number of unapproved hooks continues to grow: 200 is exceptionally high. If the nominations weren't themselves so high, getting reviews done wouldn't overload the Approved page, so it's hard to push for reviews when it makes the bottom section of Approve unreadable. Yet the longer we wait for reviews to be done, the more disappointing it is for nominators who have to wait a month or more for a review. The idea of throttling back reviews is one I do not understand: in my experience, we want reviews done and distinct majority of the extant nominations to be approved. At the same time, I'm in favor of moves to make the review process more efficient, and requiring timely responses from nominators to reviews; with a lower backlog, it will take less time for reviews to commence, and thus it will be more likely that the nominator is still actively waiting for the review, rather than have gotten discouraged or entered a period of lower activity. So: lower backlog, and a larger proportion of that backlog approved and ready to go, are both desirable states. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this about a week ago and haven't had much opportunity to respond. But I don't think #1 would address the issue. It seemed like there were no unreviewed noms (maybe I missed one or two) that were more than about a month old. But there were a lot of noms where there had been some back and forth but now the issue has stalled. In some cases a new reviewer would be needed. But in others the back and forth ceased with the issue(s) unresolved. And I am not sure how to best address that. If the reviewer has stopped responding then it would be unfair to punish the nominator by removing the nom from queue. Maybe that is where admins involved in DYK (of which we need more) may be mediate any remaining disagreements. But there are probably some where the nominator has given up (or is just unable to make the necessary changes) and maybe we need a stronger process to remove those from the queue.Rlendog (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original LT solutions 2/update

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

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

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

I would hope that nominators can note when they aren't available even later on the nomination process: if it takes a month or more for a reviewer to show up, a nominator may not be available for reasons that did not exist when the nomination was made. Perhaps "Nominators may note at any time that they will not be available"? As RfCs take a month to conclude, I'd like to point out that there is nothing stopping reviewers right now from giving nominators a set period of time to respond (and posting to their talk page accordingly), and marking nominations with the fail icon if no progress is made. Since pings from the nomination are not always reliable, the talk page post is needed. I'd like to suggest that the initial (full) review be given the talk-page notification, and a final warning be given after seven or ten days, also with another talk-page notification. Since this will be a new way of doing things, it's only fair to make clear that prompt responses are now required. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, would you revise the statement to reflect your suggestions? —valereee (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments made before, I would suggest increasing the time for either or both messages from seven days to ten, to allow for more time to respond. In addition, there's also the question of how this will affect class contributions; from past experience, a proportionally high number of "nominations that failed due to nominator inactivity" were cases where the nominator was a student editor who worked as part of a class and stopped editing after the class ended. If the nominator simply stops editing as soon as the edits are done, who should be contacted: the student or the coordinator? And perhaps in such cases, maybe it would be a good idea to mention to coordinators that the students should be ready to answer feedback regarding their nominations? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5, whoever was the nominator would get the notifications. I guess I don't have an objection to ten days for each. Not sure any length of time is going to help when the class is over and the student has no actual interest in editing. —valereee (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gatoclass, that's a little hard on new nominators, I think. Many time I'll discover a reviewer has completed an initial review on one of my nominations and not pinged me, and I haven't noticed for several days. I don't care whether it's talk page notifications or pings, but one or the other should be tried before failing a nom, I think. I don't have a strong opinion on how many days we need to give. —valereee (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that in many cases, nominators sometimes disappear after nominating, which tends to happen in the case of student nominations. With that said, I have encountered cases where active and regular editors simply don't reply to talk page or ping messages despite being active elsewhere. In these cases, if the nominator is simply unresponsive despite still editing, I wonder if less leeway should be given or to otherwise treat these nominations as abandoned, because from experience in these cases the nominators rarely ever return or end up responding after all. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also one thing that has been forgotten about in this section: it's not too uncommon for nominated articles to be put up for GOCE copyediting, which can takes weeks or even months. In these cases, I would suggest that the countdown not start until the copyedit request is either completed or rejected, and that the nominator should be informed of any updates to said copyedits. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

subsectioning to make it easier to see

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

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

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

Thank you !! — Maile (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

7 queues and preps

Support - as a simple and practical move forward. The possible flaw here, is when we go to 2-a-day, and the prep builders are trying to keep track of which will appear when on special dates. Or not ... since we have that convenient Local update times chart. Awaiting feedback here from prep builders. — Maile (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support This only makes sense --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some benefit, in terms of increasing our holding capacity; no obvious downside. Advantage of matching number of days in the week, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Practical and no flaw that I can see: prep builders should always use the Local update times chart. While I think the "matching number of days of the week" is going to be a marginal benefit—among other things, which prep goes with which day can change every time we go to two-a-day and come back out—having the extra queue and prep will reduce the frequency that we're all full up in queues or preps or both, and adding only one of each will keep the Queues page at a reasonable size without getting too long. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~. And to make it easier to remember, the numbering convention should be either 1=Monday or 1=Sunday per Names of the days of the week#Numbered days of the week (sorry Swahili speakers). As a Chinese speaker I'm obviously biased towards the former, but a good rational case for 1=Monday is that it's compliant with ISO 8601. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer 8 myself, rather than 7, because when we're running two per day as now, you end up with the odd situation of it taking 3.5 days to complete a round and then having the individual queues flip flop from morning to afternoon. An even number looks easier to maintain. — Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should hold off on implementing this change until we're back to one a day. Actually, you just reminded me of something. If we implement the second proposal below (automatic rate adjustment), then two-a-days are bound to pop up from time to time, disrupting the canonical mapping from numbers to days of the week (whatever we decide it to be). We'll need to come up with some way to restore the mapping in a seamless manner, or we'd be mapping arbitrary numbers between 1 and 7 to days of the week, which I do not consider to be an improvement over the current situation of 6 queues/preps. I am withdrawing my support until this issue is addressed. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this again, and because 14 is divisible by 7, the canonical order can be maintained so long as handovers are only done at the same time every week (e.g. Monday at 00:00 UTC). So we can use the following algorithm: every Saturday at 00:00 UTC, check if the current backlog size has hit the threshold (whether up or down). If it has, give everyone 48-hour notice that the rate is about to switch. Then the set that shows up Monday at 00:00 UTC will always be from Queue 1. Reinstating my support. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amakuru maybe at some point we could talk about how to manage the queues by going up to 8 during 2-a-days, then managing the move back to 7 so that Q1 during 1-a-days is always Sunday or whatever. —valereee (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: yes that's fine with me, there's probably a way to do that somehow. The above was only an idea, I recognise that others have been thinking about this more than I have! — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support 7 days of the week, 7 queues sounds easier. And the extra prep/queue should help a bit with reducing the number of approved but not promoted noms. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seven queues and prep sets is logical. It works great for when one set per day is used. I also note that two set per day is just awkward no matter how many queues or prep sets there are, at least one per day will be easier. Flibirigit (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2-a-day after 120 approved

Maybe - although, 120 seems pretty low to be promoting 2 a day. Would like input here from our regular prep builders. — Maile (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I too would like to have some input from the regular set builders on appropriate trigger levels, both high and low. As I said above however, I don't think we should be going any lower than 120 for the high trigger point. Gatoclass (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that the 120 approved number (or any other) is not meant to count the number already in queues and preps. As I type this, there are 82 hooks promoted there. To me, 120 seems high, but workable. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience, anything over 100 approved hooks feels like a riches to choose from, anything under 40 starts to make achieving balance difficult. But we can easily change these trigger points at any point if it turns out we've chosen numbers that are too high or too low. :) —valereee (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Placing automatic triggers makes the most sense for me. No idea what that number should be --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Would support going lower on this limit, but it makes sense; that way there's no repetitive discussion every time this issue comes up. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My reasoning aligns with Vanamonde's. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support general idea of an automatically floating rate, oppose specific proposed numbers. Let's contextualize them a bit. Suppose we start off with 1 set of 8 hooks a day and 60 in queue, stable at a rate of 8 in, 8 out. The rate increases to 10 hooks a day, so the net increase is 2 a day, taking 30 days to hit 120. At that point we start promoting 16 a day and net -6 a day, so we're back at 60 after just 10 days. This oscillation between 1 and 2 sets of 8 hooks is great for handling massive surges like right now, but not for when the level of new noms stays consistently near some value between 8 and 16 per day. We need more granularity. I propose an intermediate level of, say, 2 sets of 6. Here's an example of what I mean:

Current Rate	Go up if backlog >	Go down if backlog <
1 set of 8	100	N/A
2 sets of 6	150	50
2 sets of 8	N/A	100

The specific numbers are subject to tweaking, but this is the gist of what I'm suggesting. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts, DYK is under certain constraints these days which prevents promoting sets of fewer than eight; while we used to run six back in the day, eight is what balances the increased size of ITN and OTD on the main page. There has been strong resistance to going above eight here at DYK, so eight is where we stand. Doing sets of six simply is not possible. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to the discussion about 6 vs. 8? Anyways, if it absolutely has to be 8 hooks then I would make the intermediate step be a set of 8 hooks every 16 hours (so 3 sets per 2 days). I am just worried that the jump is too wide and will lead to too much oscillation - and it's not really a problem that can be solved simply by stretching the thresholds. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. We periodically consult with folks like David Levy, and they let us know when we're not balancing the page. If it gets too bad, they start inserting previously run hooks to get our section to balance the rest of the page, which is far from ideal. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, though I'm still not sure what the trigger points should be, and am inclined to agree with Maile66 that 120 may be too low. Regardless, whatever numbers we adopt, we can of course change later if necessary. Gatoclass (talk) 12:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems the best option. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support King of Hearts I see going back to 1-a-days after only 10 days (in cases like the one you describe) as an intended feature of these set trigger points. I'd much prefer doing a couple/three weeks of 2-a-days followed by a week or two of 1-a-days rather than doing 1-a-days for two months then having to do 2-a-days for 4 months to get out from under a massive backlog. We can manage 2-a-days for a short period; we can see a light at the end of the tunnel. It's when we start with a huge backlog and even going to 2-a-days see it decreasing almost imperceptibly that it feels as if it'll never end. —valereee (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suppose that the rate is fairly steady at 12 new hooks per day for a long period. Then we can either run 12 hooks per day, or keep bouncing around between 8 and 16. I definitely prefer the former; if we do the latter and it becomes a predictable pattern then we might end up with people gaming the system to get their own hooks 24 hours. As for implementing a rate of 12/day, if running 2 sets of 6 is not possible as BlueMoonset says, then we can do 1 set of 8 every 16 hours. Having three tiers minimizes the disruption of switching between them IMO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
King of Hearts, 12 hooks a day (either 6x2 or 12x1) is a non-starter; 6 hooks is too short, 12 is too long. —valereee (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as I've said: 1 set of 8 every 16 hours. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
King of Hearts, also a non-starter as confusing. When we're on 1-a-days, the switchover is at X o'clock, everyone working DYK knows to be alert just before and after that time. When it's 2-a-days, it's Xam and Xpm. If we go to sixteen, we're constantly thinking, "When's the next update?" —valereee (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we can start with the proposed 8 and 16. If the right model is a consistent 8 (or fewer) per day with occasional surges, then this would work perfectly. If the long-term average ends up being closer to 12, then we would need to revisit. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Totally, I completely expect this to be revisited over the next few switches from 1 to 2-a-day and back. The people setting preps and moving queues will undoubtedly soon be figuring out whether the switches are happening more quickly than is productive, the approved noms are getting too low, whatever. —valereee (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd even go lower on the threshold to 100. Flibirigit (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2-a-day weekends

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

Prep 2: Tatiana Calderón

I have two issues with this hook. For 1, it was the thickness of her neck that grew by 9 cm (3.5 in). That is not clear from the wording. When we say a human body part "grew", we usually mean the length or height. Second, her goal was not to grow her neck. It was to strengthen it. Can we rewrite this hook like:

... that Tatiana Calderón (pictured) increased the thickness of her neck by 9 cm (3.5 in) while training to cope with the g-forces felt by a racing driver in a Formula One car?

This should also be clarified in the article. I found it misleading but I am willing to admit I was being stupid if no one else finds it misleading. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 11:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a better way of expressing it. I'll change it in the article. Yoninah (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeandcrumbs and Yoninah: You might want to read the source before changing. I can see why it's worded that way. Nominator @MWright96: was following DYK protocol to the letter. This is what the source says: The interviewer asks, "Is it true your neck has grown nine centimeters?" To which Calderón explains that women's bodies don't have as much mass as men's and that she trained at expanding her mass, "For the F1 car I need to strengthen the neck, so yes is true it grow 9cms" — Maile (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it grew in thickness, not in length. Yoninah (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, true. — Maile (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thickness to me implies diameter, but neck measurements are typically in circumference, as are most similar body measurements like waist and chest. If the nine centimeters is a circumferential measurement, then that comes to a little over an inch in extra (diameter) thickness, which is impressive, but the context needs to be clear. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this when I promoted the hook. I think it is the circumference as she said she needed to change all her shirts. The safest thing is to use the words she used. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't "grow" a neck, unless you're a mad scientist. Yoninah (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fond of possessives in bold links right before "(pictured)", but perhaps this will inspire another wording:

... that Tatiana Calderón's (pictured) neck expanded by 9 cm (3.5 in) during training to cope with the g-forces felt by a racing driver in a Formula One car?

I suppose it could be "that the neck of Tatiana Calderón" to avoid the possessive, if that's preferable. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: @Coffeeandcrumbs: @Cwmhiraeth: @MWright96: @Maile66: @Yoninah: did we reach any consensus on this one? I've just promoted the hook from prep to queue, but personally I assumed when I first read it that her neck had grown in length by 9cm, which clearly is not the case. Can we come up with an alternative wording to make clear it's the circumference that is meant? — Amakuru (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to:

... that Tatiana Calderón (pictured) underwent training that increased her neck measurement by 9 cm (3.5 in) in order to cope with the g-forces generated by driving a Formula One car? Gatoclass (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gatoclass, this might be better:
- ... that Tatiana Calderón (pictured) increased her neck measurement by 9 cm (3.5 in) while training to cope with the g-forces generated by driving a Formula One car?
The goal of her training was not to increase the size of her neck. That was just a byproduct. The goal was to strengthen it. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the source says, it says quite specifically: ... in F1 the neck suffers a lot more due to the G-forces ... As women, we have 30% less muscle mass so I have to train a lot to be able to drive the car, mainly the upper body ... For the F1 car I need to strengthen the neck, so yes is true it grow 9cms… now I have to change all my shirts (laughs). Your suggested alt implies that the increase in neck girth was just an incidental byproduct of her training, which it wasn't - she trained specifically to increase neck strength, which meant increasing muscle mass, so I think my alt is more accurate. Gatoclass (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I have substituted your hook as it's more concise, but just changed it slightly from "while training" to "in training" to emphasize that this was the goal and not just an incidental effect of other training. Gatoclass (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, I was just saying a fat neck would not do at all. The desire was a strong neck which also happens to be wider. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we have to ping Girth Summit because of discussions at their RfA.—valereee (talk) 21:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, yikes! Girth takes on yet another meaning! FWIW, I read that as meaning an increase in circumference too - the standard way in which necks are measured when it comes to shirt sizes. Cheers all GirthSummit _(blether) 22:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Proposed template changes

Thanks to Gerda Arendt and Mandarax, I finally got around to consolidating some templates. Since this will change the look of the wiki code (but not how you promote to prep), I wanted to give everyone here a heads up about what changes will be made and give a chance for objections or problems before implementation. The changes are:

Module:NewDYKnomination is modified to pass arguments on to DYKsubpage instead of a bunch of different templates
Three new parameters have been added to {{DYKsubpage}} which accept these new arguments |nompage=, |linkargs=, and |heading=
The templates {{DYK conditions}}, {{DYK header}}, and {{DYK nompage links}} are no longer needed as their functionality has been incorporated into {{DYKsubpage}}.
The {{DYK tools}} box is removed from closed nomination pages (this is a new feature and not a necessity for the above to work)

The main benefit is that this halves the number of templates each nomination uses and it makes maintenance easier. When a problem comes up, instead of having to check a dozen different templates, we only need to check two or three; when a fix is found, the chances that we forget to update a niche template are also reduced. Promotion still works the same so instructions will not require an update. The main difference prep builders will notice is that the wikitext of nominations will be rather different. Unless someone has major concerns, I plan to implement this in about a week. — Wug·a·po·des 03:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes, this sounds good. Thank you. The fewer templates that need to be expanded (and the less text they expand into), the better. How does the linkargs parameter work? This, presumably, is the name(s) of the article(s) involved, usually one, but for multi-article nominations there could be several, so what's the syntax/separator? This is also the parameter most likely to be adjusted (in the event of an article move or a new article added to the nomination), so it's important that this is well documented. Also, since we had a recent discussion about it on this talk page, I was wondering whether your updated code will now make sure that every DYKmake has a subpage parameter at the end, rather than just the first DYKmake. If not, then could you make the necessary adjustment? Much appreciated.

Before you go live with this, please check with SD0001, who created the DYK-helper script that a number of people use to create their DYK nomination templates and transcludes them on the Nominations page. It's best to be sure that there won't be any issues between the two before going live with the changes. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone promote a prep set please?

I need to juggle around some hooks. Pinging @Casliber:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Amakuru:@Gatoclass:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done Queue 2, and it looks like Queue 1 has already been done. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red cells in table?

In Template talk:Did you know, what does it mean when cells in the Count of DYK Hooks table are red? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It means they're more than a week old. — Maile (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, RoySmith, the white cells show the dates that are within the seven-day "newness" period for nominating articles at DYK. The light red area is for dates after that period has expired, and it's officially too late to nominate articles for which the initial creation/start of expansion/move to mainspace/promotion as a GA occurred on a date "in the red". Nominations are sometimes made after that date, but can be rejected as insufficiently new; we're more likely to allow some days of leniency for first-time nominators. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1: A red bird

Male vermilion flycatcher

... that the vermilion flycatcher (pictured) is unusual among the tyrant flycatchers because of its vibrant red coloration?

@CaptainEek:@Morgan695:

This is a pretty humdrum hook for an image slot. Can you suggest anything hookier? Yoninah (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, I found a few possible alts. File:Vermilion Flycatcher, Crooked Tree Wildlife Sanctuary, Belize.jpg, File:Vermilion Flycatcher (33673211760).jpg, File:Vermilion Flycatcher (33807751141).jpg, File:Vermillion Flycatcher (male) Slaughter Ranch San Bernadino NWR AZ 2015-06-06at12-38-364 (19128798636).jpg. What about the current image seems to be lacking? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also the Relevant commons category CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The hook is lacking, not the image. Yoninah (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor who just read the page, how about:

alt1 ... that though the vermilion flycatcher (pictured) is a popular bird, it is not usually kept, as captivity can lead to discoloration?
alt2 ... that the vermilion flycatcher (pictured) was first described by Charles Darwin in 1839 and identified in 1840, but had its taxonomy changed in 2016?

Or variations upon these facts, which I find interesting? Kingsif (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ALT1 sounds good, but neither "popular" nor "favorite" (the wording used in the article body) are mentioned in the source, so if that can't be verified it might have to be deleted from the hook and only the mention of the "not being kept in captivity" part remains. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

something along the lines of ALT3: ... that the vermilion flycatcher's genus name Pyrocephalus literally means "fire head"? (this actually isn't in the article, but would be trivial to add). Black Kite (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kingsif and Black Kite. ALT1 and ALT3 are both very good. @CaptainEek: which do you prefer? Could you add the necessary citations so we can run one of these alts? Yoninah (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to the Pyrocephalus name was already there, as it turns out, I've just expanded it (fire headed or flame headed) and put an extra cite in. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like ALT3, thanks for the work there @Black Kite: CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad this worked out so well. ALT3 is verified and cited inline. I'll substitute it in prep. Thanks, Black Kite and CaptainEek. Yoninah (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1: Violinist

Helmutt Stern in 2011

... that violinist Hellmut Stern, whose family escaped Nazi Germany to China and Israel, worked for 23 years to achieve his dream of a Berlin Philharmonic tour of Israel?

I moved this out of the image slot because the hook (which is very hooky) talks about him bringing the Philharmonic to Israel, but in the picture he's pointing to China. While the image itself is very colorful, I find this confusing. The nominator disagrees with me. What do others think? Yoninah (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this was a private discussion among you and me (or else would have come here to start with). I see no need to absorb discussion time. No image, fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I just removed 'and Israel' from hook (family went to what is now China in 1938 and didn't go to Israel until 1948, so they didn't escape Nazi Germany to China and Israel but just to China, I think? Now that 'to China and Israel' is just 'to China,' could the picture go back in, maybe captioned as Stern pointing to the area of China the family escaped to? Also wondering if we need to say 'to Harbin in what is now China' or something? —valereee (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, valereee, I like your ideas! I'm moving the hook to the image slot in Prep 2 and revising the hook and image caption. Yoninah (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pages moved, should the DYK nom be moved as well?

Beaune Altarpiece was moved from Last Judgment (van der Weyden) but the dyk nomination is still at Template:Did you know nominations/Last Judgment (van der Weyden) leaving a red link at the talk. Should the DYK nom be moved or a redirect created to this page? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, generally the DYK nom shouldn't be moved; it breaks something, IIRC. —valereee (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, Tks for responding, I just fixed the link on the talk. Regards, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:23, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q6 May 15b

Template:Did you know nominations/Geneviève Poitrine

... that the wet nurse of Louis Joseph, Dauphin of France, was named Madame Poitrine, which translates to 'Madame Chest'?

Chienlit Victuallers

This isn't an error, but I'm feeling like the last clause just reads clumsily but can't put my finger on why. Can anyone suggest a tweak? —valereee (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we're translating properly to English, wouldn't it be Mrs Chest? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph2302, I wondered about that, too. I think that again it wouldn't be an error -- it's not uncommon for an English speaker to use Madame or Monsieur to address a French speaker. So maybe it's a word that doesn't require translation? The fact it's in quotes, though...dithering, here. :) —valereee (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that the French word "poitrine" also translates to "breast". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) valereee, according to my Webster's Collegiate, "madame" is used for married women "not of English-speaking nationality". I don't think it needs to be translated to "Mrs". You might want to use "which translates as 'Madame Chest'?", but it isn't ideal either. I suppose "which can be translated as" could be used, since another translation for "poitrine" is "bosom" (according to the article). And Cwmhiraeth (while I was typing my own response) points out that "breast" is another translation; if it was used in a hook, it would need to be specifically mentioned as a translation in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset, oh, that's fascinating that Webster's makes that note. It makes me wonder about the origins of that. Was it being polite, or was it a subtle pointing-out of foreignness? Hm, I feel like either bosom or breast would be better, as in English chest has alternate unrelated meanings. —valereee (talk) 11:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a lot of discussion here, the original author lost interest. Chest, bosom and breast all have alternate meanings ... the original point was about the final clause not being quite right and now the concern is that the word "chest" when applied to a wet nurse may need to be disambiguated to more precise word. Would be good to move on I think Victuallers (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3 fix

In the fourth hook of Queue 3, [[Vitex thyrsiflora|the liana]] should be bold (this edit correctly removed italics, but also incorrectly removed the bold). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done —valereee (talk) 20:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3 empty queues, 6 full prep sets

Pinging @Casliber:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Amakuru:@Gatoclass:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've done Q4. Will do the admin checks on that set, and do another later if nobody else has stepped in by then. — Amakuru (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Favor

Sorry to jump the line, but would anyone mind doing a fast review on Pamela Chelgren-Koterba? I'm trying to get it approved to run on May 22. THANKS!!! Chetsford (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done The nomination has been reviewed, but the template seems to have disappeared from either WP:DYKN or WP:DYKNA. I added it to the special occasions section for May 22. Yoninah (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6

I have moved Prep 6 to Queue 6, my first such move. However, it was not ideal, because the Téléfoot hook was originally reviewed by me. I could solve this problem by swapping that particular hook with another hook in prep, or I could ask somebody else to do a third party check on the hook. Neither courses of action is ideal, and I will have to work out how best to arrange my participation in DYK. If I stop promoting hooks to prep, will there be enough people willing to take up the slack? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth, I think you'll find it difficult to avoid moving queues that don't contain a hook you've already touched at some point. Even I often end up moving a queue that contains a hook I nominated or reviewed. It's hard to avoid, and there's at least one person (the prep builder) who is reviewing it in between. You shouldn't move a prep you built or make changes to your own hooks in queue, of course. Re: promoting...I think we'll just have to see how that goes. We have had several people step up to build preps recently, with any luck a few of them will enjoy it and stick around. :) —valereee (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth, we've grown rather dependent on your prep-building, especially when we need to fill two per day to keep going. As odd as it may seem, given our need for admins, until we have more regular prep builders, we may need you to continue doing that rather than promoting preps to queues in general, if you're still willing. Perhaps you might be able to team up with another admin to check your own noms in a prep while you're checking the rest before doing a prep to queue promotion? It isn't ideal, but it's the rare prep that either wasn't built by you or has a nom by you, given your all-around activity here at DYK. Editing hooks in queue (except your own) is something that will be useful, if not all that frequent. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems sensible; I will go on filling preps while the need is there, but I will be flexible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

introduced error

This is probably a big enough change that it should have been brought up here and the nom/reviewer pinged. I agree that the hook was crying out for that piece of information (an officer of which army?) but the nom undoubtedly could have answered that question easily, and the information needed to be included also at the article. The error stayed on the MP for ten hours. —valereee (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q6 May18b

Template:Did you know nominations/The Pink Swastika

... that The Pink Swastika claims that homosexuals were "the true inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities"?

Buidhe Maleschreiber

Not an error, but we've had discussion before about using 'claims' in hooks, generally because it throws immediate doubt on the statement. Should we change this to argues? Or is the statement offensive enough that we leave it at claims? —valereee (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

que asco. Leave it at 'claims' (my true opinion would be to add an 'erroneously' too) Kingsif (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article would support erroneously, so I think it should be added for clarification. b uidhe 19:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, cautiously adding erroneously...please if there are objections, we do have time to fix. —valereee (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use "erroneously" because you are putting somebody's opinion in wikipedia's voice. Also, the claims are not "erroneous", according to the cited reviewers, they are falsehoods. I had a feeling this hook was going to cause issues, and as I can't see a straightforward fix at this point, it may need to be pulled for further discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably pull it, then. I'm leery of having the quote itself in the hook; just posting it gives a falsehood extra credence no matter how it's hedged with qualifiers. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it depends on the content of the claim. This particular claim is extremely WP:FRINGE, there is no need to maintain some sort of formal neutrality about something so blatantly fringe.--Maleschreiber (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with BlueMoonset here that the quote needs to go, apart from its fringe issue, it's too long to allow the addition of adequate context. Perhaps we could go with something like:

... that the book The Pink Swastika has been described as a product of American culture wars? Gatoclass (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this hook. — Maile (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this hook is better --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 22:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 (soon to be 3) empty queues

Pinging @Casliber:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Amakuru:@Gatoclass:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:@Cwmhiraeth:. Thanks for filling the queues. Yoninah (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1 " ... that one in six people in the world with diabetes is from India?" is word-for-word how it is in more than one source. To avoid any questions of copyvio, I'm switching the hook to ALT2 ":... that every sixth diabetic in the world is an Indian?" — Maile (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maile, I think we can go with WP:LIMITED on the original hook wording. Your alt is a little contorted, and it could also refer to American Indians. Yoninah (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah Good point! I just adjusted the alt hook to end in "is from India", but left the beginning of the sentence as is. At least it's a little helpful is not being a copyvio. — Maile (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maile: thank you. But if you've reviewed as many sports hooks as I have, you know that there's only so many ways you can report something. Yoninah (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least I ran it past here when I did it. That statistic, however, is rather alarming for the people it affects. — Maile (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: @Yoninah: I have another concern about the hook mentioned - it seems unremarkable. The population of India is 1.35 billion, while the world population is 7.8 billion, meaning 1 in 5.7777 people in the world is Indian. So if anything, the 1 in 6 figure means that India has a slightly lower than average diabetes rate. What is the hook telling us? I'd be tempted to pull it and ask the nom for another hook, but maybe I'm missing something. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, that's a good point. I was also wondering about the statistic in light of the article fact that China has a higher diabetes rate. I think the hook was worded to be just that, a "hook" to grab readers' attention. If you would like to return it to the noms page and ask for a different hook, that's fine with me. You could substitute it with another hook from the prep sets and I'll fill the hole. Yoninah (talk) 10:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Terror

Copied from the Errors page:

"... that the crew of HMS Terror had to abandon ship in 1917 because the captain refused to sail the ship backwards?" - The article does not say this. DuncanHill (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you feel the article says differently? @From Hill To Shore and Yoninah: courtesy ping — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:01, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a causal link between not going backwards and developing a leak. "The ship sailed first to Dover on 21 October but on the next leg of the journey to Portsmouth two days later, in heavy seas, a major leak developed off Hastings." The inquiry absolved him of any blame which doesn't suggest the admiralty thought he could do it any differently. Woody (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the hook from the next queue and replaced it with another hook. It is now in Prep 5. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this seems a legitimate error. The hook implies that the decision not to reverse into Dock directly led to the leak and evacuation. But the article goes on to say that an inquiry concluded the captain was not to blame. So the causality is not proven, and shouldn't be stated in Wikipedia's voice. I suggest reopening the nom. — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, no error here. The sources are clear that the leak was a direct result of the captain ingnoring the advice of the salvage expert and putting pressure on the temporary patch over the bow. The sources are also clear that the captain was a bit lucky with the inquiry; its scope was very narrow and only looked at the decisions taken in the lead up to the abandonment, not the root causes (in other words, was it right for him to order his men off a ship that looked like it was sinking but actually stayed afloat?). It is a non-sequitur to claim that the inquiry approved his decision to put pressure on the bow by ignoring the salvage expert's advice. I'll have a go at rephrasing the article to try and alleviate your concerns (I'll just have to get a little closer to paraphrasing the source rather than use my own words). From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DuncanHill, MSGJ, Woody, Cwmhiraeth, and Amakuru: I've brought in a third source to expand the section and clarify the sequence of events.[1] Is this sufficient or do you have any residual concerns? The use of the third source has allowed me to avoid any close paraphrasing. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for expanding and clarifying the article. Could we rephrase the hook

ALT2 ... that in 1917, the crew of HMS Terror had to abandon ship after the captain refused to sail the damaged ship stern first? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm happy with that. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The alt hook and the expanded article alleviate my concerns. Woody (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied this discussion to the nomination page and renumbered the new hook to ALT2 to avoid confusion with previous hooks. Can someone please update the hook currently in preparation area 5? From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First time promoting

I moved Prep 3 to Queue 3. Can another admin check my work? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, thanks for doing the promotion. I haven't checked the queue side of things, but after you were done with the promotion you didn't do the final two-part step, the prep reset, correctly:

To reset the prep page itself, the easiest thing to do is to replace the old contents of the prep with the entire contents of Template:Did you know/Clear, which I have just done. You omitted the hooks and credits section code entirely, rather than resetting it to the boilerplate.
You also need to update the next-prep counter (which I've also done), which can be done at the update count link in the first line under the Prep areas header. Update the number to the prep following the one you just promoted, which is either an increment by 1 or a reset back to 1, depending.

When you're done, the next prep should be at the top of Prep areas section, and the prep you just promoted at the bottom of it, with a full set of empty hooks showing. If this isn't clear, let me know and I'll try again. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1: NYC subway stations multi-hook

Nikkimaria has returned this nomination to WP:DYKN because some of the bolded links may not meet the minimum 1500-character count. Could this be taken care of quickly, and if some of the bolded links need to be unbolded, then to unbold them, so we can return this to prep? Pinging Kew Gardens 613, Epicgenius, DannyS712. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah and Nikkimaria: Thanks for telling me. I totally forgot about the 1,500 characters of original text. I think the text breakdowns are as follows:

Union Street station (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) - "Proposed accessibility" = 1550 bytes
Fourth Avenue/Ninth Street station - I think this clearly meets the 1,500-character count, given the amount of text about the Culver Line.
Prospect Avenue station (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) - The material after the first paragraph of "station layout" = 1600 bytes
25th Street station (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) - The material after the first paragraph of "station layout" = 1300 bytes. I'll try expanding this
45th Street station (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) - The station layout = 2000 bytes (note that the first paragraph is different)
53rd Street station (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) - The material after the first paragraph of "station layout" = 2000 bytes
59th Street station (BMT Fourth Avenue Line) - Everything except "history" - 3,000 bytes.

Out of the articles listed above, I only counted the 25th Street article as not meeting the criteria. Unless there is something I missed? epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just expanded the 25th Street article, which should now have 1,550 bytes of unique content. Technically, if each page is allocated one paragraph of the shared "history" sections, this should be more than enough unique content for all of the pages. epicgenius (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 45th and 53rd articles are largely identical until just before the Exits subsection, with the only bit of original History content in 53rd being largely identical to the Prospect Avenue article. The "Prior to the station's 1970 renovation" para in Station layout is also shared at least in part across several of the articles. In terms of allocation, what text are you counting in which article? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it'd probably be best to have this conversation at the nom page. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 18 May 2020

This edit request to Template:Did you know/Queue/3 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could this line:

... that the ships MV Coelleira (pictured), MFV Elinor Viking, SV Illeri, and SS Ben Doran were all wrecked on the Ve Skerries in Shetland, Scotland?

be changed to this:

... that the ships MV Coelleira (pictured), MFV Elinor Viking, SS Ben Doran, and SV Illeri were all wrecked on the Ve Skerries in Shetland, Scotland?

The ships were reordered from the original chronological ordering to the current ordering to place MV Coelleira (which the supporting image refers to) first, however my suggestion retains this while also putting the ships in the correct reverse-chronological order.

Thanks! — 🐗 Griceylipper (✉️) 00:14, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Completed by Cwmhiraeth. Jack Frost (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a hook

Here: Template:Did you know nominations/Modern Art Foundry

Can someone either a) vouch for the Alt1a hook, or b) help craft another? Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 05:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the template. Yoninah (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Land of Guyana, of Rivers and Plains

Could I please trouble someone to review the hooks of Template:Did you know nominations/Dear Land of Guyana, of Rivers and Plains? I'd like to get this on the Main Page next Tuesday (May 26) to coincide with Guyana's Independence Day. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Reviewed and placed in special occasions area. Yoninah (talk) 10:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative image for Queue 4

Hi all. I'm of two minds about the image of Eric Thorne in Queue 4. The pose tells a story, but the person himself is hard to see and the image suffers (IMO) from the large signature at the bottom. To that end, I prepared a crop.

Original
Crop

@Moonraker, Cwmhiraeth, and Yoninah: Should we swap out the original for the crop? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of like the whole figure, even if he's seen at a distance. Yoninah (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking me, The Squirrel Conspiracy. Either of them is good for me. Moonraker (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original is good. --evrik ^(talk) 04:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the original one too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:57, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also prefer the original full-length photo. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Poppin'Party and Template:Did you know nominations/Roselia (band)

Hello, if it's okay with anyone here, I'm kindly asking for a second opinion on the suitability of the ALT2 proposed for both of these nominations (a double hook that mentions both subjects): specifically, if they would interest a broad audience. Ideally, this second opinion should come from an editor who is unfamiliar with the BanG Dream! franchise. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5, zero familiarity with the franchise. Yes, some interest in ALT2; it's of some interest to this American non-musician that voice actresses can play the instruments their characters play, as I assume that's likely unusual. —valereee (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee and Narutolovehinata5: I agree --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Ulster

The nominator has disagreements with reviewers over the interpretation of the 5x expansion requirements as well as section A4 of WP:DYKSG. The nominator argues that 5x was met as the current version of the article is a 5x expansion of the version of the article he originally saw. However, there were earlier versions of the article that were longer than the version he saw, but these were eventually cut down. The nominator argues that the rules are vague in cases such as these, and that similar cases were approved before. Second opinions are requested here on the clarification and interpretation of the rules involved. Pinging the nomination participants: @The C of E, Buidhe, and Bloom6132:. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "previously existing article" is the article that existed just prior to the expansion, which in this case was 589 characters long. It doesn't matter if the article was larger than that at an earlier time, unless it's the nominator themselves or somebody collaborating with them that reduced the size of the article prior to the expansion. In this case, the article was reduced in size in December 2018 by Ssolbergj, who AFAIK has no relationship with the nominator, so the expansion looks legitimate to me. Gatoclass (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gatoclass. --evrik ^(talk) 20:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. See this discussion, in which it is revealed that The C of E drastically trimmed an article (removing 54% of the prose), then returned later to "expand" it. If we allow this sort of thing, there's nothing to stop anyone from using a different account to slash an article, then coming back after a sufficient period of time to miraculously expand it. I'm not suggesting that that's what happened this time, but as a general rule, there's no way to determine who's making edits. (Even checkuser data is only available for three months.) The only trimmings which should be allowed in determining the basis for expansion are removals of copyvios or vandalism. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree. This has never been how we deal with this; as of the reasons above. If it was that the user was asking for an exemption, that might be different, but we want a 5x expansion against any prior version (unless that version was copyvio or deleted etc.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a rather blatant attempt to get around Rule A4: Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion. "Previously existing" means anytime, not the day before you started your expansion. On June 3, 2013, the byte count reached a high of 6,918 bytes. Currently it is only about a 2x expansion. Yoninah (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by everything I wrote on the nom page. I was quite confident that Buidhe and myself were interpreting the DYK rules re. 5× expansion correctly. Thanks to Mandarax, Lee Vilenski, and Yoninah for confirming our reading of it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I have just seen this discussion having been away. I do not believe that people are bringing up something from 2 years ago to try and make a point today. Especially when what happened then, did not happen in this occassion. My interpretation of the rule is simple. That previously existing means the version that existed prior to expansion, not from one 2 years ago. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this discussion, should the rule be clarified and the relevant pages be edited to make this interpretation clear? And for the nomination itself, based on The C of E's claim that they were unaware of the previous versions, should an IAR exemption be allowed or should the nomination be failed? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narutolovehinata5 the rule has been clear and applied for a very long time; it only seems like The C of E keeps asking for an exemption. I don't see the need to amend the wording of the rule, and I would not IAR. We all work very hard on our articles to meet the criteria for a main-page appearance. Why shouldn't he? Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just an additional sentence or two that states that "previous version" refers to the entire article history and not just the version prior to expansion? The wording is vague enough that his interpretation can plausibly be applied even if in practice it's not followed. Reading that rule it seemed like "no matter how bad it was" was referring to the current state of the article and didn't explicitly mention also applying to even prior versions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, his interpretation is not plausible or reasonable (and I, too, would not IAR). If the intent of the writer of Rule A4 was to refer to the "current state" of the article, the rule would have read, "no matter how bad it is". The fact that it is in past tense means the rule is intended to encompass prior versions of the article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively new editors (like me) don't have the longer-term experiential knowledge of how the rule is applied or necessarily pick up on nuanced uses of was/is etc. When I read the rule quoted above, my face-value interpretation of "previously existing" was that it simply meant the article as was currently available immediately before an editor began improving it. I wouldn't have trawled through an article's history to explore its various relative sizes, especially if the DYK check tool supported the 5x expansion based on the most recent changes (which I think it does?). One approach would be to clarify the wording (and possibly the DYK tool), another would be to assume general good intent and encourage editors to expand articles as they currently exist (and deal with any suspected subterfuge on a case by case basis). ~ RLO1729^💬 23:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RLO1729: Well, The C of E isn't a new editor like you. He's a seasoned DYK regular with 431 DYK credits to his name (4 times the number that I have). So he knows the rules (or at least he should know them by now). —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, I do not constantly ask for "exemptions" for I rarely do expansion DYKs. I've only been doing some recently to help out with the destubathons. When I do expansions, I take things at face value using the cut and paste character count, I don't go diving into the history because it isn't relevant. What is relevant is the article in the state I found it before making the expansion based upon what is present at that time. That is why my understanding of the rule is of the article as it is at the point of the expander's intervention. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rule says "previously existing article", not "longest previously existing article". And the "previously existing article" is the version of the article as it existed immediately before the expansion began. I've been doing this a long time - since before this supplementary rule was added, in fact - and the rule has always been interpreted that way. It's absurd to suggest that reviewers should have to hunt through the page history looking for the longest-ever version of the page. And how about pages that were converted into redirects? Again, we've always accepted such nominations, except where the nominator themselves or an associate is the one who shortened the article. Mandarax's example is one where the expansion was disallowed because it was the nominator himself who had previously shortened it, which is consistent with the rule as it's always been interpreted. Gatoclass (talk) 00:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Gatoclass on this, and it's how it was explained to me by my DYK mentor Orlady eight years ago: if the article has been a size (and pretty much untouched) for a significant period of time, then that is the "previously existing article" as far as DYK expansion rules are concerned. In this case, as the article has been that size for 16 or 17 months, I don't see a problem with that size being the baseline number from which the expansion is made. (DYKcheck was not designed to handle this situation, if the article had been longer years earlier, which is why it is sometimes necessary to check the current size vs. the size immediately before the expansion began, something I've done numerous times.) While it's true that this nominator has played fast and loose with the rules in this regard, previously cutting an article in the hopes that it would be reviewed as starting its expansion from this lower base number (and it being disallowed), the December 2018 size is a legitimate starting point since they had never edited the article prior to May 15 of this year. (I don't see any evidence that they reused material from the pre-2019 versions of the article, which is another thing to check, since it wouldn't be original material as required in an expansion.) I've accepted expansions on this basis over the years, and would be disappointed if the rules changed now. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @BlueMoonset: and Template:Gatoclass. I'm glad i'm not the only one with that understanding. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be not the only one with that understanding, but you collectively are in the minority. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Mandrax, Lee Vilenski and Yoninah. serial ^# 17:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Pamela Chelgren-Koterba

the nominator has requested a special occasion date of May 22, but has not responded to my request for a better hook for two days. Does anyone else have any ideas? Otherwise the designated set will be promoted very soon without it. Yoninah (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah: I would move ahead with the included hook. The NOAA Corps is a uniformed service. I think her first would appeal to a wide group of readers --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:56, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. All right. But I would appreciate other nominators finding things to say about their women subjects other than that they are the "first". Yoninah (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agatha Christie

@Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, RLO1729, and CAPTAIN MEDUSA: I was getting ready to promote Prep 1 and I came across a ho hum hook about Agatha Christie. Can we find something more interesting about her to feature instead of her book sales? Perhaps something about her disappearance? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... that public reaction to Agatha Christie's ten-day disappearance in 1926 included speculation the incident was an attempt to frame her husband for murder? —valereee (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Guerillero —valereee (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I like that! Yoninah (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Sounds good. I moved it to Queue 1 with a copyedit. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, nice hook. It seems billion has lost its impact these days. ~ RLO1729^💬 22:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that may have sounded like a back-handed criticism, not intended. I do like that the new hook mentions murder for a murder-mystery writer. ~ RLO1729^💬 22:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And a disappearance for a mystery! Yoninah (talk) 22:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, Valereee, Guerillero, and Tbytheriver: I suggest that "ten-day disappearance" be changed to "eleven-day disappearance". The article indicates the search lasted ten days, but the time actually missing was always reported as eleven days. Thanks. ~ RLO1729^💬 03:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RLO1729:

Done --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was just archived, so here is an updated list with the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through the end of April. We currently have a total of 398 nominations, of which 184 have been approved, a gap of 214. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones unreviewed from March and early April.

Over one month old:

~~March 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Electricar DV4 (ALT4a hook needs checking)~~
April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Zoltán Peskó
April 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Was mein Gott will, das g'scheh allzeit
April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-defection law in India
April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Gay fascism
April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/The Unplugged Collection, Volume One
April 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Plácido Zuloaga
April 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Hermann Reutter (ALT1 hook needs checking)
April 15: Template:Did you know nominations/2020 coronavirus pandemic in Delhi
April 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Carceri Nuove (Rome)
April 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Ping Yuen
April 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Monstrilloida
April 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Q38 (New York City bus)
April 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Liebster Jesu, wir sind hier
April 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Pierre Schlumberger
April 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Ghen Cô Vy
April 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Boophis fayi
April 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Characters in the Animal Crossing series
April 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Sophia Kianni
April 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Deep Adaptation
April 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Rights of nature

Other old nominations:

April 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Scot Weir
April 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Phoenix
April 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Art Tomassetti
April 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Jaguarundi
April 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Tomáš Cihlář
April 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Teri Mitti
April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/William Birchall (Royal Navy officer)
April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Abu Said Faraj
April 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Meine engen Grenzen
April 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Plav-Gusinje massacres (1912-13)
April 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Jagdschloss Kranichstein
April 28: Template:Did you know nominations/William G. King Jr.
April 28: Template:Did you know nominations/KPS 9566
April 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Bureau of Immigration Bicutan Detention Center
April 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Clinical trial naming conventions
April 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Beyond LIVE

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New wiki-ad for WP:DYK:


Wikipedia ads	file info – #272

«ias!|,,.|^usbk» 02:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bare in mind, you can actually make an article significantly smaller and have it at DYK. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: but are we encouraging slapdash articles? We've had an inventory of 400 nominations for some time now, with less than half of them reviewed. Yoninah (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course not! I'm just saying that you could - in theory take a load of excessive data from an article, take it to GAN and then DYK. It's a good advert, it just isn't completely true! :P Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1:Mexican hydrangea

... that despite being called Mexican hydrangea, Clerodendrum bungei is not from Mexico and not a hydrangea?

@Surtsicna:@Juxlos:@The Squirrel Conspiracy:

Please add a cite to the mention of "Mexican hydrangea" in the lead to verify the common name. I don't find it in any of the online refs. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, Yoninah. Surtsicna (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3 empty queues are waiting to be filled

Pinging @Casliber:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Amakuru:@Gatoclass:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:@Guerillero:@Cwmhiraeth:. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 15:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have done one of the three. Will do another later if nobody else does and I have time to do checks. — Amakuru (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do one now. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did Queue 4 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all three of you! Yoninah (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Q1 May 22a

Template:Did you know nominations/LES-1

... that the communications satellite LES-1, launched in 1965, spontaneously began transmitting again in 2012 after more than 40 years of silence, making it one of the oldest zombie satellites?

Neopeius

The article section says 2012, but the article lead and original hook said 2013 (promoter corrected hook to 2012); this was just passed for GA, so I wanted to make sure these changes are actually correct. —valereee (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eep! Let me check today and get back to you. --Neopeius (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes -- clearly a mistake, my apologies. Thank you for fixing. Valereee --Neopeius (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, moreover, one of the cites was entirely duplicative. That's what happens when one revamps an article rather than starting from scratch. Apologies again. --Neopeius (talk) 18:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neopeius, no worries at all, that's why we have so many levels of review here! Cwmhiraeth saw it first and changed the hook, which is what made me question the lead. Teamwork yay! :D —valereee (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility question

In 2017, a merge discussion led to the merger of the original article at WNAO-TV into WRDC. This was a poor decision—the merge discussion was closed despite even support and opposition to the merger—and is tantamount to saying John and Mark are the same person because they lived in the same house 10 years apart. (The two stations had nothing to do with each other besides being on the same channel in the same area.)

I recreated a new article at WNAO-TV, which on its own as a redirect conversion would be DYK-eligible (6500 characters). However, DYKcheck considers it too short as not a 5x expansion of the previous article that was here before being merged, none of which was used in the creation of the current page (which also contains considerably more citations). Should I proceed with a nomination of this article? Raymie (t • c) 20:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 667: / Line 667: @@
 :::Ugh, moreover, one of the cites was entirely duplicative. That's what happens when one revamps an article rather than starting from scratch. Apologies again. --[[User:Neopeius|Neopeius]] ([[User talk:Neopeius|talk]]) 18:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 :::{{u|Neopeius}}, no worries at all, that's why we have so many levels of review here! {{u|Cwmhiraeth}} saw it first and changed the hook, which is what made me question the lead. Teamwork yay! :D [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 19:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
+== Eligibility question ==
+In 2017, a merge discussion led to the merger of the original article at [[WNAO-TV]] into [[WRDC]]. This was a poor decision—the [[Talk:WRDC|merge discussion]] was closed despite even support and opposition to the merger—and is tantamount to saying John and Mark are the same person because they lived in the same house 10 years apart. (The two stations had nothing to do with each other besides being on the same channel in the same area.)
+I recreated a new article at [[WNAO-TV]], which on its own as a redirect conversion would be DYK-eligible (6500 characters). However, DYKcheck considers it too short as not a 5x expansion of the previous article that was here before being merged, none of which was used in the creation of the current page (which also contains considerably more citations). Should I proceed with a nomination of this article? [[User:Raymie|Raymie]] ([[User talk:Raymie|t]] • [[Special:Contributions/Raymie|c]]) 20:33, 20 May 2020 (UTC)