:Well, I noted the grammar issues before. Tbh I was a little surprised this had passed GA review in its state. All I did with this nom was trying to get the picture (& DYK caption) right; any other issues with the article I'll leave to the other people involved. But out of curiosity, where is the nom now? I can't seem to find it in Prep, DKYNA or DKYN. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPeterII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 14:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
:Well, I noted the grammar issues before. Tbh I was a little surprised this had passed GA review in its state. All I did with this nom was trying to get the picture (& DYK caption) right; any other issues with the article I'll leave to the other people involved. But out of curiosity, where is the nom now? I can't seem to find it in Prep, DKYNA or DKYN. –[[User:LordPeterII|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">LordPeterII</span>]] ([[User talk:LordPeterII#top|<span style="font-family: Georgia; color: darkgreen">talk</span>]]) 14:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
::[[User:LordPeterII|LordPeterII]], thanks for pointing out that the nomination was missing in action. I've just reopened it and it's on the Nominations page under August 23. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 15:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
::[[User:LordPeterII|LordPeterII]], thanks for pointing out that the nomination was missing in action. I've just reopened it and it's on the Nominations page under August 23. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 15:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Well, I hadn't bothered reopening, as I'd assumed we would handle it here; I don't usually reopen a nomination unless I request re-review. But no objections to it being open. [[User:Karellen93|Karellen93]] ([[User Talk:Karellen93|talk]]) <small>(Vanamonde93's alternative account)</small> 18:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
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 4 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!
I think it's worth noting that this is not because we have few DYKNs coming in, but because DYKN is seriously backlogged. I heard a suggestion to give DYKNs WikiCup points (2.5 for submitting, 2.5 for reviewing, to avoid people who create DYKs getting "free" points for QPQ) and I think something like that would be good to try. Maybe even a DYKN backlog drive, in the style of GAN backlog drives? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion wasn't all that fruitful and now the backlog is even larger with 207 hooks needing to be approved and 63 approved hooks. SL93 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think one issue is that most of the "delayed" nominations are noms that are quite difficult to review, either due to being mostly reliant on technical sources, or due to their subject matter (usually politics). A backlog drive would be nice but given the circumstances a backlog was probably inevitable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have a mechanism all set up for dealing with large numbers of unapproved nominations per the RfC last summer and subsequent discussions: extra QPQs for experienced DYK nominators. The suggestion of a GAN-style DYK backlog drive was roundly panned at the time. Pinging EEng, who worked so hard to devise the process and shepherd the RfC to completion, to help get it rolling for real. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Me and my big mouth -- I've been dreading this day for the last 12 months. Yes, we came to a policy decision as BMs describes, but what hasn't been done (I think -- haven't been watching DYK) is to set up the automation that will identify editors subject to the new requirement. We may need to use the honor system temporarily. Give me a few days to review where we are and recruit technical firepower. EEng06:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: I'm happy to help :) fools rush in, etc. I think the most straightforward way is to add a note to the {{NewDYKnomination}} template. Something like "effective 30 May 2022, DYK is in "unreviewed backlog mode". All nominations made by editors with 20 or more prior DYK nominations will require an extra QPQ." That way, it'll appear on all new nominations (but not currently open nominations) until we remove it, and timestamps itself. Beyond that, we already use the honour system anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm vaguely remembering is we needed some new machinery for counting "credits" or whatever we called them. EEng14:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, you were quite insistent that "credits" were to be a thing of the past; the only thing that mattered was nominations, which were set as the determinant going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I said " new machinery for counting credits or whatever" -- I remembered there was to be some change in what was counted, just couldn't remember what the change was. (I'm not Superman, you know, despite appearances.) Now that you mention it, that's exactly right. I've been reviewing the two big archived threads and there's a lot to it. It seems they ended with intentions to install new apparatus (template behavior at when new noms are saved etc.) and from other discussion some thought or work has been put into that, but not clear what still needs to be done to make it seamless. It actually sounds like others are more up to speed on the current status than I am, though I'm happy to help once I've got my sea legs again. EEng12:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to add a note on the DYK script that most editors use? It also doesn't support natively adding multiple "reviewed" pages without manually typing, say, {{subst:dykn|ArticleA}} and {{subst:dykn|ArticleB}} in the window. Some editors might miss this otherwise. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a page from which DYK-helper can get to know if backlog mode is currently active. For instance, we can adopt WP:Did you know/unreviewed backlog mode to read enabled or disabled as the case may be – which could then be used by templates/scripts. Let me know once this is created – I'll then update the script accordingly. – SD0001 (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If something like this is added to the WikiCup, I'd rather go for 4/1. A DYK review isn't like half a GA review. —Kusma (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I may be honest, I have some skepticism as to whether the planned backlog mode (i.e. two QPQs for editors with 20+ nominations) is going to help out much in the long run. One reason is basically simple arithmetic: if the number of nominations being made exceeds the number of QPQs being done, it doesn't matter if nominators are providing one or two QPQs, a backlog will still build up over time. Secondly, not all nominators meet the 20 nominations requirement: many nominations are done by editors who have 6-19 nominations and so would be exempted from this requirement. If they too make nominations without more work being done on the backlog, the backlog would still get bigger and bigger. Finally, the way I see it, it's not that people don't want to review nominations, or not enough people are doing them. The backlog isn't necessarily anyone's fault. The issue is that many nominations are controversial from the get-go owing to their content. For example, I cannot blame anyone from being discouraged from reviewing any nomination that has to do with Israel-Palestine considering how much of a hot potato that topic is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of nominations are made by people with over 20 nominations. Just Gerda, Corachow, Epicgenius, Sammi Brie, Z1720, you and me together have something like 25 nominations on the page right now. 25 extra QPQs done would significantly reduce the number of unreviewed noms, and I would expect the number of affected noms to be closer to 50. I take your point that some nominations are more attractive to review than others, but I don't see how we can change that.
The question is what else can we do? We could fail all nominations that haven't been reviewed after four weeks (like at FAC) or reject nominations where the QPQ is provided late, but (unlike the proposal) these would not change the fundamental issue that we need more reviews than people are required to provide as QPQs. —Kusma (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the planned backlog mode is a short term measure and won't need to be used too often. theleekycauldron posted a chart here, showing that the number of unapproved nominations went down to below fifty in August-September in both 2020 and 2021. DYK depends on some editors reviewing more nominations than they need to, offsetting nominations by new editors that do not require a QPQ, and hopefully backlog mode will encourage them to help. Backlog mode will probably also encourage prolific contributors to divert some time from nominations to doing reviews which can be used later as QPQs. If some of those reviews are of more difficult nominations, they will still be useful. TSventon (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I generally think we should encourage people to do QPQs before they nominate articles. Currently I count seven nominations by highly experienced nominators lacking a required QPQ, needlessly making the backlog worse. Personally I find it much less stressful to use one of my stack of QPQs than to have to scramble for one at nomination time. —Kusma (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has a bot reminding editors about late QPQs ever been considered? For example, if a nomination doesn't have a QPQ and one hasn't been provided after seven days, a bot will leave the nominator a talk page message reminding them to do a QPQ. Of course, that's only if the nominator actually needs to be a QPQ. I imagine it could be a bit tricky to code, but it could help I guess. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma Good luck with that. I just brought up the QPQ issue at the nomination of a major DYK nominator and they asked why I have it in for the nomination. SL93 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: Ugh. I think a time limit is reasonable, and another week is plenty. (Personally I usually just do not review noms that lack a required QPQ). —Kusma (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Technical stuff from the old discussions
I may be way behind the times, but I believe WT:Did_you_know/Archive_182#Start and End (and following section) is (or was) a key starting point for technical implementaion ideas. Who are our techies on this? Wugapodes, for startes? Wug, can you ping other techies involved? Possibly this is entirely obsolete but it's where my brain left off, anyway. EEng03:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon and EEng, sorry I missed these pings. What's needing done? Implementing a "some people need two QPQs" system? SD0001 had some ideas in that previous thread but to my knowledge no one's worked on anything yet. — Wug·a·po·des03:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably best if we both go back to the top of WT:Did_you_know/Archive_182#RfC_Discussion:_Details_of_implementing_EEng's_propsal_"Unreviewed_backlog_mode" and review forward from there (maybe skimming it all first to see what early stuff was obsoleted by later parts of the discussion). Then we can compare notes. I don't think there's anything too hard in there, but that's easy for me to say since I'm assuming you're volunteering to do all the work (bless your heart). Shall we start that way? Oh yes, first question: What happened to moving everything out of Template space (which, some may recall, I predicted would never happen)? EEng03:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the main things are (1) a way to keep track of "backlog" mode and (2) a way to note how many QPQs are needed for a nomination. The first we can do pretty easily by having WugBot update a page on-wiki with the number of untouched nominations. The second is slightly harder and not something I know much about. We'd need the on-wiki templates and lua modules to get the content of that page and parse it appropriately. I'm not sure how to do that. Substing the page into the template? As for moving out of Template space, I was looking today and WugBot has code to handle it, but I don't think anything's moved on that front. — Wug·a·po·des05:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can handle (2) – all that's remaining is to edit Module:NewDYKnomination to read the nom counts and the "is backlog active?" page and show a message accordingly (the module is used in a substed template so no performance issue). As for moving to template space, there was agreement in the last discussion that it should be done, but some insisted that a formal RFC should be held – we're waiting for someone to start that. – SD0001 (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So you think this new "untouched" category of nominations is feasible? Right now we've got (courtesy of your hard work) a separate page for unapproved vs. approved. Would we move to three pages, or just have the two kinds of unapproved ("unapproved, untouched", "unapproved, touched") remain on a single page? Offhand I don't see clear plusses or minuses either way (other than inventing a third page is probably more work than leaving just two pages). EEng16:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I imagined keeping our current two-page system. The page WugBot would update would just be a counter, kinda like the next queue counter. So it wouldn't distinguish the modified from unmodified nominations on the page, but doing so is feasible for WugBot if that would be helpful. Adding a third page is extra complexity for no clear benefit, so I'd rather try page sections before moving to a 3-page system. — Wug·a·po·des23:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon Oh, I was waiting on feedback from others. Looks like SD0001 did some fixes on the template, and given EEng's silence I take it everything looks good. I'll get to work on WugBot and update you once everything's in order. — Wug·a·po·des21:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've had almost no time for WP for about the last two weeks. I have total confidence in you, Wugapoo, but if you fee=l you need me to pass my hand over something, give me a day. EEng23:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I get being busy. No pressure to review anything, I just wanted to make sure I didn't rush something past you. — Wug·a·po·des23:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same question for the nominator's count of prior nominations -- is it updated in real time (so that if a user does nom A and then immediately nom B, the module processing nom B sees a count that includes nom A), or daily, etc?
There are some race conditions here which may or may not matter (much), and when I get my thoughts together I'll say something about them. In the meantime (and apologies if this is answered above) where exactly are the counts-of-prior-noms-made-by-each-editor compiled? EEng00:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The counts can be seen at User:SDZeroBot/DYK nomination counts.json. There certainly are a few race conditions, and I can see two at the moment: (1) the race between WugBot and SDZeroBot and (2) the race between nominators and both bots. For (1) that can be handled by SD0001 and I coordinating a staggered run schedule so WugBot doesn't run ahead of the by-nominator-count update. For (2) it's harder given the run schedules. We'd need some way to have the update triggered by an edit to the main nomination page or just have the bots run really frequently. I don't know how to do the first one, and either could actually make the race condition between bots worse since it would become an execution time issue not a scheduling issue. There's probably some sweet spot where the coordination is tight but not perfect, and the slack could be handled by a "hey, don't bulk nominate DYKs to try and end-run the backlog mode" message. — Wug·a·po·des20:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let' start with the most obvious problem (and correct me if there's a flaw in this narrative): (a) Editor has 4 nominations (no QPQ); (b) Editor makes a 5th nomination (also no QPQ); (c) before bot updates DYK nomination counts.json, editor makes a 6th nom. This last nom should require a QPQ, but because the counts.json still shows the editor has having only 4 prior noms, machinery mistakenly reports that no QPQ is required.Now, as I've said before we're talking about QPQs here, not someone's prison release date, so this isn't the biggest deal in the world, and at most it would happen maybe once a year. But when it does happen, consternation will follow and there will be a Talk:DYK thread opened, and a congressional investigation, and there will be gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair and wrending of garments, all for nothing. So if we can avoid it easily then we ("we" means you, of course) should do it. Tell me if this makes sense: Can the nomination processing machinery, when it reads the nominator's value from counts.json (to see if it's < 5, between 5 and 19, or >=20 -- if I'm remember the boundaries correctly) then ++ it and write it back? That would "patch" the count without waiting for the bot to run again.There's a similar race for crossing the 20-nomination boundary which triggers the double-QPQ requirement, and this would solve this too. Also, unless I'm not thinking of something, with this in place it's really not necessary for the counts.json bot to run frequently -- once a day would be fine.Does what I've said make sense, and can you swing the writing back of the incremented count? EEng21:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather we not wrend garments, I just bought mine. Unfortunately what you describe is not possible. The DYK nomination template uses a Lua module, but while these modules can read arbitrary pages, they cannot write to arbitrary pages. The only way to do what you described would be using an automated system like a user script or bot. — Wug·a·po·des21:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above and in earlier discussions, updating of counts.json takes place in real-time. It doesn't run on any schedule. To take the latest one, Template:Did you know nominations/Adele Nicoll was created at 2022-06-24T16:39:29Z and SDZeroBot updated the count at 2022-06-24T16:39:33Z. If the difference of 4 seconds also seems too much, I'm sure we can find a way to make it faster. – SD0001 (talk) 22:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have made you repeat yourself; last year I was told I needed a brain transplant, and the only brain available was from a goldfish. 4 seconds is plenty prompt; just out of curiosity, how exactly does the bot find out it needs to run? EEng18:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It uses the Wikimedia EventStreams API. Basically it asks the wikimedia server: "notify me whenever a page with title beginning Template:Did_you_know_nominations/ is created". The bot runs 24x7 looking out for such notifications to arrive. When they come, it finds out who created the page, and increments that user's count. It's similar to the technology that enables your phone to notify you of new emails – immediately when the email arrives. – SD0001 (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dislike being the guy who just pokes holes while others do all the work,[1] but this raises some new questions.
(a) So, to be clear, the bot operates only by ++ing a user's counts on file -- it never rebuilds the counts from scratch (by looking at ... I don't know, I guess by looking at every page, going back forever, of the form Template:Did you know nominations/)?
(b) But the bot hasn't been around forever, so where did the initial counts come from?
(c) You look at who created the nom template page, not the name of the nominator given in the template itself? (Wugapodes -- maybe those two things can't be different? The nominated by (or self-nominated) stuff in the nom template -- does your machinery enforce that the named nominator is the same as the editor creating the template?)
Okay, I was just oversimplifying. The EventStream API isn't perfect – it can miss a few notifications and deliver a few ones twice. To account for those glitches, we DO rebuild the counts from scratch -- every 24 hours. The process for that is simpler – it queries the database (quarry:query/59696). This is also where the initial counts came from. As to (c), yes we only look at who created the template page. So multi-user nominations are credited to solely to one person. If we wanted to overcome this limitation, it's easy enough in the real-time update component. But the build-from-scratch component of the bot might would become a BIG task involving reading in the contents of 58318 pages, as opposed to a simple 1.5 minute database query. Is it worth it? – SD0001 (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
W/r/t (c) they can be different. Thanks SD0001 for the clarification; I also missed the part where you explained the event stream API. It's the first I'm hearing about it so I look forward to reading up on it. @EEng: So with this information, it seems like the race conditions are minimized. There is still the issue of a bi-hourly WugBot run which would be what triggers "backlog mode". That is, we'll have up-to-the-minute counts of nominations but the backlog mode would only change once every two hours. I think that might actually be reasonable--we wouldn't want it yo-yo-ing around every few minutes as things get added and removed. What do you think? — Wug·a·po·des02:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. When the situation does become critical, then we'll get off our asses. Brilliant minds such as ours work best under pressure. (Just to repeat what I've taken pains to point out before, W and S are doing all the work; I just sit around trying to find flaws.) EEng15:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the technical problems is see with DYK is that it's too hard to find hooks that need reviewing. There's one huge list of templates and you need to manually scan them to find the ones that aren't done yet. What I generally do when reviewing is just go to the newest days and pick one from there, because it's easier to find them at that end. I know that it's more useful to review older submissions, but human nature being what it is, I just go for what's easier. The #Older nominations needing DYK reviewers section below is great. Something like that should be a regular (automated) feature of the system. -- RoySmith(talk)14:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also fill one or two later on, but for once it seems like the preps are behind... Preps 2 and 3 aren't full, and I'm not sure if it would be correct to promoted P4 to Q2 instead as I don't have insight into what the prep builders are doing. — Amakuru (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, WP:DYKA archives DYK hooks "according to the date and time that they were taken off the Main Page". However, at present, the bot that updates an article's talk page will state "A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on [Date]" with "Date" linking to the archive. This means that talk page links are taking users to the wrong archive.
The archives have always been dated with when the hook was archived from the main page, rather than when it was first promoted to the main page. It's a known issue, one that gets mentioned here once or twice a year; it isn't possible to predict the removal time with any accuracy (indeed, sometimes hooks are removed altogether so they aren't archived at all). The link typically is to the adjacent archive, so it can be found. Unfortunately, there's not an easy fix; if there were, it would have been fixed by now. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Is there a consensus policy on whether the link should be corrected? In my example, I changed the date to 26 June and linked to the correct archive, though not necessarily the correct date it was posted on. Perhaps the link should be changed but not the date? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No consensus that I'm aware of. If it's considered desirable, perhaps a bot could be created to adjust the links after archiving if necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider that desirable, considering that this issue is added to eight articles each day. Perhaps a discussion could be started on that. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what if the bot simply posted to the archive in chronological order (instead of reverse chronological order) and posted its updates with the hooks appearing before the new section heading (instead of after)? this way, the new section heading will contain the post time of the hooks that will eventually be archived under it, rather than the archive time of the hooks being concurrently archived. dying (talk) 10:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oh, sorry! i should have attempted to illustrate this by showing what happens over a couple of updates. for simplicity's sake, let us assume that updates are being run at a rate of one set a day, and ignore the utc timestamps that the bot includes in its posts. currently, the bot posts its updates to the top of the hook list, so the earliest hooks remain at the bottom, and the archive is in reverse chronological order. in addition, each update consists of a section heading containing the date of the post, followed by the hooks being archived. over a couple of updates, the archive grows as follows:
== yesterday ==
* day-before-yesterday's hooks
→
== today ==
* yesterday's hooks
== yesterday ==
* day-before-yesterday's hooks
→
== tomorrow ==
* today's hooks
== today ==
* yesterday's hooks
== yesterday ==
* day-before-yesterday's hooks
as each update contains a heading with the date at the time and the hooks being archived, in the end, the date of each section heading is the archive date of the hooks that were concurrently archived below it. this is why "DYK hooks are archived according to the date and time that they were taken off the Main Page".
if the bot were to post to the archive in chronological order, then updates would be posted to the bottom of the hook list, so the earliest hooks remain at the top. now, if the hooks were to be posted to the archive above the new section headings rather than below, the archive would grow as follows:
* day-before-yesterday's hooks
== yesterday ==
→
* day-before-yesterday's hooks
== yesterday ==
* yesterday's hooks
== today ==
→
* day-before-yesterday's hooks
== yesterday ==
* yesterday's hooks
== today ==
* today's hooks
== tomorrow ==
using this method, in the end, the date of each section heading is the post date of the hooks below it. note that a new section may not contain any hooks when the heading is first added to the archive, but the hooks will eventually be archived in the update following. dying (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC) [copyedited. dying (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)][reply]
Thanks for the elaborated explanation, I understand what you mean now. This is certainly an interesting remedy to the issue. I'm not sure if this is the right channel, but if so, perhaps a proper discussion could be started to see if community consensus could be reached on the topic. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i am admittedly still very much a neophyte in dyk space, so i am not sure if there is a more appropriate place to discuss this. however, i did manage to find this issue about the recent additions page raised in this page's archives, here, here, and here, so i am assuming that this forum is as good a place as any. (any editor with more experience is welcome to move this discussion to a more appropriate place.) would it make sense to ping the participants of the discussions linked above to try to form a consensus? my search was by no means exhaustive, so feel free to point out any other relevant discussions that are in the archive. dying (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@dying: I think the technical issue would be arise we switch from 12 to 24 hours a day, and vice versa. For example, imagine the bot posts an update that is supposed to run for 24 hours, placing the new section heading and bullet point below the hooks as normal. What happens when we switch to 12-hour sets, and now the future empty timestamp in place is wrong? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reason this setting is this way is because the only thing DYKUpdateBot can be instantly certain of when it shelves a set is what time it is right then – scrabbling around for the previous (upload) time is difficult and inefficient. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While it would be easier, we have enough instances of a hook being changed during the time on the Main page that perhaps we keep archiving the last version. Bad enough that usually the credits remain wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the fact that we don't have a comprehensive and accessible way of knowing how a hook has been changed while on the Main Page is a whole other can of worms. I just remembered that it's technically my can of worms, since I promised to do something about that with my modification detection script... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron, i could easily be wrong about this, since i am still new to dyk, but i admittedly cannot seem to see the problem you describe, since the time one set is archived is the same as the time the next set is posted, regardless of what the posting schedule is. (i am ignoring the negligible time difference between the two edits, made during the same bot update.) whenever the posting schedule is changed, the last section heading will still contain the post time of the set on the main page at the time, so when the next update happens, that section heading will still have the correct post time of the set being archived.
i had assumed above that updates happened daily to simplify the illustration, but we can easily generalize this to any posting schedule. let us define ax and px as the archive time and post time of the xth set, respectively. clearly, ax = px + 1 since the bot archives one set and posts the next in the same update. technically, the bot posts both a section heading containing a date, and a bullet point in bold italics containing a utc timestamp, but in order to not complicate the illustration below, i will represent both with a section heading containing a utc timestamp. after n sets have been posted (and n − 1 sets have been archived), the current behaviour of the bot for the next two updates is as follows:
== an − 1 = pn ==
* (n − 1)th set of hooks
→
== an = pn + 1 ==
* nth set of hooks
== an − 1 = pn ==
* (n − 1)th set of hooks
→
== an + 1 = pn + 2 ==
* (n + 1)th set of hooks
== an = pn + 1 ==
* nth set of hooks
== an − 1 = pn ==
* (n − 1)th set of hooks
with this current method, the nth set of hooks is found under the heading containing an as its timestamp, so the hooks are archived according to their archive time. however, using the proposed method would result in the following behaviour:
* (n − 1)th set of hooks
== an − 1 = pn ==
→
* (n − 1)th set of hooks
== an − 1 = pn ==
* nth set of hooks
== an = pn + 1 ==
→
* (n − 1)th set of hooks
== an − 1 = pn ==
* nth set of hooks
== an = pn + 1 ==
* (n + 1)th set of hooks
== an + 1 = pn + 2 ==
in this case, the nth set of hooks is found under the heading containing pn as its timestamp, so the hooks are archived according to their post time. the bot makes no assumptions about the posting schedule and needs to make no calculations to determine what timestamp to put in the heading, as it simply relies on the fact that the archive time for any set will be the post time for the following set. in both implementations, when the nth set is being archived, the bot will post a heading with the timestamp an at time an.
by the way, i also agree with Gerda that the bot should archive the last version of a hook. the bot already posts the first version on the talk page, so that should be easily accessible if desired. dying (talk) 10:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dying: Oh, I see! So the change is that the archive time is simply posted below the hook set at the time of archiving, instead of above. Clever! I should think that simplifies matters quite a bit. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
to me, it seems like there is at least some sort of consensus to implement the solution and see how it performs before deciding if it should be made permanent if it works. the majority that have participated in this discussion are interested in the idea, no one seems to be against it, and one editor has expressed skepticism that there was a simple solution, but has yet to comment on the solution proposed. also, the way the bot currently archives hooks is "a known issue, one that gets mentioned here once or twice a year", so i think it is agreed that something should be done if possible. however, as the one who proposed the solution, i don't think i should be the one to make the call (in the same way one shouldn't approve one's own hooks).DYKUpdateBot is operated by Shubinator, and the bot's code is available here. Shubinator, what are your thoughts on the proposal above? i admittedly have not grokked all of your code (thanks for making it easily understandable!), but i think replacing
ifidx_this_date==-1:# if there isn't, create a new section headingidx_insert_section=str_archive.find('\n',str_archive.find('<!--BOTPOINTER-->'))+1str_archive=DYKUpdateBotUtils._insert_str(str_archive,idx_insert_section,str_section_heading+'\n')idx_this_date=idx_insert_sectionidx_this_date=str_archive.find('\n',idx_this_date)+1returnDYKUpdateBotUtils._insert_str(str_archive,idx_this_date,str_set_heading+'\n'+hooks_outgoing+'\n\n')
with
idx_insert_section=str_archive.find('<!--BOTPOINTER-->')ifidx_this_date==-1:# if there isn't, append a new section heading after the hooksreturnDYKUpdateBotUtils._insert_str(str_archive,idx_insert_section,hooks_outgoing+'\n\n'+str_section_heading+'\n\n'+str_set_heading+'\n')returnDYKUpdateBotUtils._insert_str(str_archive,idx_insert_section,hooks_outgoing+'\n\n'+str_set_heading+'\n')
should be sufficient to implement the idea.incidentally, the proposed code is simpler because there is no need to find the appropriate section heading to write under if the heading already exists; under this implementation, the section heading will always already exist, and the correct place to insert the update will always be right before the bot pointer. the if statement is only used to check to see if a new section heading should be included after the hooks. the idx_this_date variable isn't used beyond that check, since the insertion point will be at idx_insert_section in any case. (also, i think the last three lines can be compressed into one line using the ternary operator (with the empty string as the alternative), but am not sure if that would improve or degrade readability.)admittedly, i haven't tested this code at all, and think there might be an off-by-one error somewhere, so please look it over carefully. also, the bot pointer should be moved to the end of the archive, right before the navigation template at the bottom, before this version of the code runs. (the lead of the archive page should probably be updated too, but to the bot, that is just flavour text.) dying (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reaching out with the note on my talk page. As BlueMoonset mentioned above, (and at the risk of raining on your parade) this is a perennial conversation, and having seen many of these conversations fizzle out, it's best to set similar expectations here. A few thoughts:
The code above will more-or-less work as expected, thanks for the concrete illustration!
When DYKUpdateBot is out of service, human admins archive DYK sets. Manually archiving like this would likely feel unintuitive.
Both the flow (reverse chronological to chronological) and associating timestamps with when the set appeared on the Main Page break "backwards-compatibility" from the historical archives, and may be confusing to future archive readers.
I'm not sure I sense (yet) a consensus to move forward - and ideally we want a consensus for the upsides that acknowledges the downsides, like those mentioned above. Shubinator (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this is not as straightforward as reading the existing archives and flipping them around. Back in the day (before I joined DYK), hooks were added and removed from DYK a lot more fluidly, and not as part of full sets. Think of how ITN operates today. So an effort to adjust historical archives may require recreating the archives from scratch. Shubinator (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was DYKHousekeepingBot's original purpose, back in the day, so it surely can be done. There are a fair number of edge cases etc to watch out for though, and if memory serves, some manual massaging was required even after handling the edge cases. Shubinator (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we absolutely need to change the archiving method. Could we, as a first step, try to move the explanation closer to the dates? If we said "The dates are when the set was taken off the Main Page; for most hooks, the time mentioned one section below is when it was added" directly under the "Did you know" header, people might actually see it. Currently this is somewhere up the page, somewhere where my eyes do not see it especially on a wide screen. —Kusma (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue for me is that when checking the actual article's talk page, the DYK bot will link to an archive that does not include the actual hook in question. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ViperSnake151: If that's sourceable, you could work that into the hook; would you prefer I pull it? The hook is set to run in six hours, and I'm logging off in one, so I will need to do so soon. Vanamonde (Talk)17:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Given that, and the nominator's reluctance, I have pulled the hook. I will reinstate it in the next available prep/queue as soon as we have sorted this out. Vanamonde (Talk)18:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've just used it for the first time, and can report that it is very easy to use, clear and convenient. Transcluding the nom on to T:TDYK was a nice surprise as well. In 15 and a half years at DYK I have seen/used lots of different methods of creating a nom, and this is a significant upgrade on what has gone before. Thanks to all responsible for developing it! Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!)11:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now one filled queue and one filled prep. Maybe we should make DYKs harder to complete until people start caring about this? SL93 (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've previously thought about promoting items myself, but wasn't sure if there were any guidelines or rules of thumb as to what should be promoted, e.g. when to promote a hook without the image it was nominated with, or if there is any order to how items should appear. Have I missed anything, or is it simply at the promoter's discretion? CSJJ104 (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CSJJ104@RoySmith: Feel free to leave a note here or at my talk page if you need any assistance of have any questions regarding promotion hooks; I'll be more than happy to help. Promotion of image if upto discretion of the prep set builder, but there are quite a few things to note while doing so, namely: How many biographical images do we currently have in the preps and queues? Whether the image would contribute to the knowledge of the reader reading the hook? And the mostly ignored criteria, is it really clear at 100px? Similar unwritten rules exist about order of hooks and regarding other aspects. Every editor has the technical ability to promote hooks to preps, and anyone who has nominated over 5 articles and/or reviewed quite a few can be a "good" prep builder. Anyone interested can approach me! Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith and CSJJ104: What I'd say is that mistakes and messes are somewhat inevitable in a new field, and this is no exception. I made a ton of mistakes when I was starting out last year – you can ask BlueMoonset, who had to clean up a lot of my messes :) but if you're willing to learn from your mistakes, adapt to the unwritten rules, and invest the time and energy, I think you'd both do great! And of course, like Kavyansh, my talk page is always open for anyone who has questions. I'll also shamelessly plug my handy-dandy script, User:Theleekycauldron/DYK promoter, as it cuts through a lot of the technical mumbo jumbo. Then again, RoySmith, i've seen you around SPI, so you probably could figure it out manually as well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to install DYK promoter. The first thing that happened is it asked me if I trust user:theleekycauldron. Always the hard questions getting in the way of progress :-) -- RoySmith(talk)21:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Believe me, I understand :) "verified" just means "approved", but it's not common usage around here – I've edited out some instances of the term. There is the related-but-distinct checking that the hook fact meets WP:Verifiability, but verification of a nomination of a whole is just approval. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kavyansh.Singh: I'm not clear what you mean. Do you mean there are lots of bio nominations so we should try to get through these first, while respecting the limit of using no more than four at a time, or do you mean that there are lots of bio nominations so we should deliberately look for others? CSJJ104 (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CSJJ104, it depends. For the hooks, the limit is of 4 biographical hooks in a set. I always put three, rarely anything less or more, as, what I have seen in my 12 months of working here is that at any given point, we always have an abundance of biographical hooks. If you just count the number of nominations currently with images, most of them would be either biographical, or American, or both. As for the image slot, we usually alternate between biographical images and non-biographical images, American and non-American images, to keep balance on the main page. Consider this an "unwritten rule" or just a common understanding between the prep builders. I concur with everything theleekycauldron says. When I started building preps, they were there to guide me (and I did make lot of mistakes)! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Thanks for the heads-up! I'm pretty sure the problem with this one was that prep 2 was a little mangled, and my script didn't know how to handle it. You'll want to check that the hook and credits sets are in general working order if you're getting an error like that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why I was pinged since my only contribution to the nom was pinging DigitalIceAge, but for what it's worth I think going with the original hook would be a better option. However, I guess it could be reworded somehow so that Nuffield Press is mentioned in the hook first instead of the British Motor Corporation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, misread the signatures; I assumed that if DigitalAce was adopting the nomination, they were not also the reviewer, but I see OwainDavies became active again, so pinging them too. We will need a response soon, else I will need to pull this: minor as the change may be, we've had enough complaints here about admins making unilateral changes. Vanamonde (Talk)06:43, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to ALT0, but historically a hook switch has been one of the things admins have copped flak for; so unless the nom or reviewer respond in the next hour, I will pull the hook. Vanamonde (Talk)17:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And pulled. I'm logging off, and I'd rather delay than get yelled at for unilateral changes. I think. There's another discussion open for the same reason further up; at this rate I'll be able to fill a prep with just hooks I pulled previously. Vanamonde (Talk)18:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you've worked through all the steps fine AFAICS. One minor thing I do is to not place the DYK-bot-do template until I've checked the preps; on the off-chance that I'm called away by something in RL, it's something to let other admins know I wasn't done. Not necessary that you do it this way, of course. Vanamonde (Talk)17:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(I used to check hooks in prep, and then promote and tag immediately; but apparently most folks don't do that, so I ended up with one too many edit-conflicts). Vanamonde (Talk)17:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Thanks for these comments. I've observed on this talk page that some admins promote to queue, then check the hooks in order to "claim" the set and ensure that other admin are not accidentally promoting the same set. I was wondering how I would indicate that I was still checking the hooks, and I think your suggestion of placing the DYK-bit-do template after I checked the set might solve my dilemma: I'll try it next time I promote a set to queue. Z1720 (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DYK admins: I believe that almost all of us promote first and then do the checks. I'd be happy to have a go at the admin instructions and bring them in a logical order (and add Vanamonde's "DYK-bot-do template" trick to the steps). We could also have two sets of instructions to choose from (what we currently have and what most of us do). Would you like me to put a draft together? Schwede6623:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a matter of individual choice. Once I have the filled prep, empty queue, and instructions open side-by-side in different tabs ... I then immediately start with adding the DYK-bot-do template. And then I go though the rest in my own order. The first thing I check is to make sure the DYK Make credits are all there. But if someone is talking about promoting first and then double-check the individual listing checks, sometimes you are working on a tight deadline and almost have to do those individual entry checks after you have it in Queue. And while this does not need to be in the instructions - slip-ups happen, and we take care of it. A mistake is not the end of the world, we just fix it. — Maile (talk) 00:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's always the {{In use}} template, to let people know that they shouldn't edit the queue or prep while work is ongoing, which can prevent edit conflicts. I used it back when I was building preps; no reason why it couldn't be used for building queues. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's an individual choice. Instructions are most useful for new editors and if we don't document what most admins do, how do we give new admins that individual choice? Schwede6604:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Call me a stickler for protocol, but I think we ought to have a standardized process, for exactly the reason Schwede mentions. I just haven't found the energy to herd cats try to wrangle consensus. Vanamonde (Talk)07:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I check the licensing of the image, copy the prep set into the queue, clear the prep area and increment the counter, in that order. Then I can check the hooks in the queue without the risk of edit conflict. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66, Vanamonde93, Cwmhiraeth, BlueMoonset, and Z1720: Well, here's a little idea we could whip up, hopefully keeping it quick and simple to go through. I originally wrote the "At-a-glance instructions on how to promote an approved hook to a Prep area" as a green-colored Template:DYK Prep Set Instructions, and transcluded the template right above the prep area. I did it, because I otherwise sometimes forgot a step here or there. Sometimes I still refer to it. Someone else came along later and added much more content to that template, but you get the idea.
Maybe someone would work up a similar instruction for promoting from Prep to Queue, color it something different than green, and post it about the same area - then we'd have both instructions available at a glance. Just something very simple and collapsible. We already have Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions for the extremely detailed-oriented, but something much more simple and basic could be on the prep/queue page itself. — Maile (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, Maile. The problem that I have is that the detailed admin instructions are in a different order to what most admins do. Hence my offer to have a stab at what actually happens. You can't summarise the long version if the long version isn't what editors do. Schwede6605:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Open the prep for editing, and double-check these items before any action:
Make sure <!--Hooks--> is at the top beneath {{DYKbox}} but above the image. <!--HooksEnd--> is on the line just after the last hook.
Make sure {{template other|{{sandbox other||[[Category:Wikipedia Did you know preparing updates templates]]}}}} is at the bottom, with all its brackets in place.
Below "Credits" section, make sure there is a DYKmake template for each hook. Helpful to have them in the same sequence order as the hooks.
You need to remove {{User:DYKUpdateBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}} from the top of the target Queue, and replace it with {{DYKbotdo|~~~}}
Copy and paste the entire contents of the prep into the queue. (Hint: Right-click in the Prep edit window, Select All, right-click again, Copy. Then go to the Queue edit window and paste.)
Show Preview then save.
Go back to the prep template; clear all the text; copy the complete contents of Template:Did you know/Clear into it; save.
Edit the prep counter to bump it to the next prep set to be moved to queue.
Image issue
Maybe we need to not be so conservative with what images are chosen. I can't find a non-US non-biography image for prep 4. I have never had such a problem before. There aren't that many images to choose from. SL93 (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: I somewhat agree, I've lately seen a lot of "heads" or "buildings" in the top spot, hence why I inquired about it. Maybe it is a shift in what people at DYK value? Like, Women in Red is resulting in a lot more female portraits lately I think; it's just that they are not so very different from men (maybe slightly prettier ^^). But it's not that much of an issue for me personally, as long as some variety is maintained: For example, the ring theory does at least visually look distinct (but maybe I'm biased because I promoted that). Might also be that people don't remember to run with an image, or don't deem it worth it since not all pictures are used. Maybe it will change again, if people will see that "creative" images get the top spot more often? For now, just don't put three US portraits in a row ^^. As long as that is not the case, I believe we're still fine. -–LordPickleII (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@LordPeterII: WiR has been quite active at DYK for years now – i usually make a point of including a lot of their noms. What I'd advise is to burn as many U.S./bio images as possible, whether giving them the image slot or not – that way, we encourage a more diverse pool of images in WP:DYKNA. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: You're right ofc, I didn't mean to suggest WiR was to "blame", if it had gotten across as that. I totally agree it's a good thing, because at least in DYK we have had a much better male/female article balance than the project has overall. I just meant that if we want less portraits, it's difficult since a lot of articles are about people. Your suggestion seems good though. –LordPickleII (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this has been raised before, but I've noticed that the DYK "Create new nomination" page prevents submission for hooks that do not end with a question mark; if possible, I'd suggest expanding this so that hooks can end with the template {{-?}} too, avoiding the need to add it manually afterwards. – Rhain☔02:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A quick query about this one - the text in the article (and the source) say "A total of 233,000 cubic yards of concrete were poured to complete the structures, making it the second-largest concrete building in the U.S. behind only the Pentagon"... which seems to suggest that the "second-largest" is measured by volume of concrete poured, rather than (what I'd assume was meant by largest, without other info) the area or volume of the building as a whole. It might be worth clarifying if that is indeed the measure you're using for largest. Pinging @RickyCourtney, Sammi Brie, and Theleekycauldron: as nom/reviewer/promoter. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, per the sources, it's the second-largest building made of concrete as measured by volume of concrete poured. The two buildings serve vastly different purposes, one is an office building, the other is a big parking structure, so other forms of measurement would seem to me to be rather awkward. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru and RickyCourtney: I mean, it seems like what we're saying matches the source — so I don't really see what the issue is. But if that's not all right, we can try this on:
Wow! This one is truly an aha fact! I think both the original hook as well as the one recommended by theleekycauldron are good. Ktin (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is some confusion here between "structure" and "building", as the image shows a rather large elevated tram bridge thing; does that count as part of the concrete pour and as part of the building? If so, are we somehow not counting the Hoover Dam as a building? And does nobody else see a problem with our article's wording "A total of 233,000 cubic yards of concrete were poured to complete the structures, making it the second-largest concrete building in the United States behind the Pentagon." being so close to the AviationPros source wording "A total of 233,000 cubic yards of concrete were poured to complete the structures, making it the second-largest concrete building in the U.S. behind only the Pentagon.", differing only in a single word? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to bring in a phrasing issue, but in the past while we've seen a lot more of these "mundane - then reveal" kind of hooks, which I personally am not a fan of (nor of the overuse of dashes), but moreover it is a format that is a bit of a cheat, using a painfully clear "twist" to create interest, which I think undervalues that there are some genuinely interesting things to say about at least some of these article subjects, things that don't need cheesy marketing to get people clicking. Kingsif (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @Theleekycauldron, crazy busy right now and having internet problems, not loving this change, agree the hook was not great but it was written to make sure there wasn't confusion about whose breast cancer it was and who was saying the quote; the quote change seems awkward, seems like it should be wasn't but then we've got two sets of brackets. Discuss? Please ping. Valereee (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Valereee! Sorry about that – I was trying to copyedit for flow. Maybe there's a middle ground?
... that clinical psychologist Susan Link developed ring theory(pictured) when a colleague said that Link's breast cancer "isn't just about [her]"?
when a colleague said that Link's breast cancer "[wasn't] just about [her]"?
which looks awkward (but reads fine) due to the two brackets. Basically, it looks a bit as if we were changing the quote quite a lot. There might be more options, though; I just can't think of one atm. –LordPickleII (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
i mean, if we change the quote enough, it's then not copyvio?
If we can use her name without a link (and I don't think she's notable yet), I like your ALT. I don't like "isn't just about [her]". I think it needs to be the quote "Isn't just about you" or it needs to be completely recast, as it would be wasn't just about. Sorry, driving by! Valereee (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... that Fernbrook Farms(pictured) was once a model breeding farm named New Warlaby?
Forgive my ignorance here, but what is a "model breeding farm"? At first it sounds like a bizarre place where models are bred and nurtured, but presumably that's not it. perhaps it's a breeding farm that is exemplary in some way and hence a model? Or it's not a real one, it's just a model. Even after looking at the article, I'm still not entirely sure what's meant, so I think it should be clarified in some way for our readers. Model breeding farm is a redlink so it's not as simple as that unfortunately... Pinging @Zeete, Pseud 14, and SL93:. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh ... it seems to be a common term, but what it means, I'm not sure. Such as, "he made his farm famous as a model of scientific management" Robert Bakewell. Some others refer to a farm being a financial model in how it operates. Regardless of the type of farm, I'm finding little, but I think he means something along the lines of setting a standard for others to follow. — Maile (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CSJJ104 Thanks for the article. The phrase "model breeding farm" is used by the NRHP source and also the NYT, but neither describe it in more detail. I had read "model" as the Merriam-Webster definition of the adjective, that is "serving as or capable of serving as a pattern, e.g. a model student". Neither reference source mentions "model farm" or "demonstration farm", but the topic seems appropriate. I'll add it to the See also section. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Non-rectangular image with opaque background?
I just promoted Assumption of the Virgin to Prep 3, but I'm a little concerned about the image. The painting is not rectangular, and there's sections of opaque white on the top-left and top-right background, which might look odd against a tinted background such as DKY uses. Is this something worth worrying about? -- RoySmith(talk)01:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I think it doesn't matter much. However, I've put in a request to transparentize the backgrounds. In the past, they've been very speedy with such requests, and it will most likely be done before Main Page appearance time. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 01:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's done. However, the original image is in jpg format, which doesn't support transparency, so the new version was converted to png. Unfortunately, the converted file loses a lot of detail at DYK size, so we should just go with the original. The opaqueness doesn't bother me at all. BTW, RoySmith, thank you for promoting this image in spite of your concerns. We get so many pictures of things like buildings and people's faces, and it's nice to have variety, especially with fine art. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 17:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree that the opaqueness isn't a show-stopper. On the light-green background I've got for DYK (I'm assuming it's the same in all skins?) it's a minor issue at best. -- RoySmith(talk)20:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list has just been archived, so I've created a new list of all 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 30. We have a total of 207 nominations, of which 99 have been approved, a gap of 108 nominations, up 10 over the previous eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these!
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
general purpose RfC?
floating a test balloon here – what would y'all think about a general purpose RfC for DYK at the end of the year? It'd be something like WP:RFA2021, where we identify what we want to fix and then propose solutions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure why the need to wait until the end of the year. Considering how many people are on DYK and how many ideas we have, it might be better to start discussing early so that more ideas could flow. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:58, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are three steps: what is the purpose of DYK, does it currently achieve its purpose, how do we improve? Improving DYK is a good goal, but keeping a large RfC organised and focused will be a bit like herding cats. Good luck. —Kusma (talk) 10:53, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is in-scope, but I'd like to see a rule saying you need to supply your QPQ at the time your make your nomination. There's no reason reviewers should be running around nagging people about this. -- RoySmith(talk)13:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, roughly what would this RfC aim to discuss? I've only recently participated in "behind the scenes" DYK here, so I've only limited insight on what might need changing. –LordPickleII (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully we can get more prep and queue promoters, because we rely on a few people to do most of that work. Which isn't helped by the fact that too many people come to this talkpage to complain about prep promotions, particularly if they don't get given the image hook. If there were less negativity towards prep promoters, we may have more people doing the work. Everytime I have done preps, I've got discouraged by other people getting negativity from other people about promotions, usually without merit. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @RoySmith as the promoter – in general, you'll want to make sure that a set of hooks doesn't touch on the same topic twice (i.e. try to avoid two baseball players in the same set). Want to try moving one to a different set? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron @Cbl62. I like the Wilcox hook about the bowling balls in the last slot, so I'll move Herndon to another prep area. I can't make any promises about which hours it'll run. Leeky, I'll be counting on you to look over my shoulder and make sure I don't trash anything by accident :-) -- RoySmith(talk)21:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites I uploaded a new version of your photo which brings up the shadows and exposure a bit. I think your original darker version is more aesthetically pleasing and more true to the actual lighting conditions, but I suspect the brighter one will work better in the small DYK size. What do you think? -- RoySmith(talk)21:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Passing comment - the darker looks terrific in the article, where it is much larger. But reduced, the darker one is not so terrific. Depending on the general reader, after the age of 40 (or so) people's eyesight gradually dims, making the brighter one easier for that viewership. — Maile (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it was a concert hall, I would go for brightness, but for an underground station, I believe darkness is wanted ;) - You see clearly that it is unusual, and we want people to click. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. But the issue I mentioned above is not about what is aesthetically pleasing, but whether or not we accommodate readers who have vision problems with the darker one. — Maile (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't think it's an issue. We frequently have pictures with low contrast and the likes, meaning while you can easily discern what is shown, you can't see all the details. I would interpret "clear" as meaning the image subject can be identified at a glance, and not necessarily that it is visually pleasing or showing a maximum of detail (those are bonus things). It is an underground station, so people would likely not be surprised if it isn't brightly lit. I don't identify as "old" and certainly haven't passed 40, but I don't think the majority of "old" people would see the Original and think something like "hey, this isn't a subway station, this is my nephew's cat!" (well, maybe some, but I don't think the adjusted one would help them much; they would probably rather need glasses) –LordPickleII (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kauai Plantation Railway photo
I'm not real excited about this photo on the front page. I tried a closer crop and some exposure adjustments, but it's fundamentally a low quality image. We should be able to find something better. -- RoySmith(talk)15:46, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What we have to choose from is at [1]. I originally submitted this hook with Kilohana Plantation Estate, Kaumualii Hwy, Lihu'e - panoramio (2) this image, but the reviewer suggested using the current one and I agreed. I don't really see an issue with the image at 100 px, as shown below. Kauai Plantation TrainTrainsandotherthings (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandarax: I was wondering about that recently! I still remember it saying "100px"; but no, the rules are changed as well, I must have missed that.
As for the issue, again I think you worry too much, @RoySmith, I don't see a problem with it compared to the other recent ones. These don't have to be Featured Pictures, just "suitable" and "attractive"; and I think the current pic easily passes that. –LordPickleII (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well if I lived in Hawaii, I'd be happy to take a better image for you myself, but I don't, and we have a limited pool of images to choose from for this topic. I don't see any particular problem with this image, but as I said before, if you think one of the other ones in the Commons category is better, let us know. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When one goes to review a DYKN, the text that appears above says, quote,:
Well, unfortunately, that's not correct either. The sizes are determined based on the original image's relative dimensions. The squarish ones are around 140x140. This train image is 137x144. The less square the image is, the larger the deviation from 140. For example, in this set from last month, the image was 242x81. It might be best to eliminate any mention of specific dimensions from the instructions. MANdARAX XAЯAbИAM 04:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ingenuity, 97198, and Theleekycauldron: sorry, I hate to be a pedant on this one but according to the article footnote, "One other woman, Roberta MacAdams, was also elected in the 1917 general election, but McKinney holds the distinction of being first as she was sworn in before MacAdams". So she was the first to actually be a legislator, but not necessarily the first to be elected. Presumably the election process took place before the swearings in, and we aren't told which of the two of them received their election results first. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, the article didn't say he mowed lawns for a living. He was only 8 years old, and the lawn he mowed was his own family's. A lot of kids that age end up mowing the family lawn, whether they wanted to do it or not. However, managing his own business in high school is notable. — Maile (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but the original is still pretty verbose. Maybe:
... that Home Depot CEO Ted Decker ran his own landscaping business in high school?
Frankly, the sources do not support that he paid his own apartment rent and utilities, bought all his own groceries and his shoes and blue jeans and t-shirts and comic books with the profits of his lawn mowing business at age eight. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The alternative wording is fine with me. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistent rules on hook length
I happened across Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Johnson vs. James J. Jeffries where I noticed comments about the rules on hook length. There does seem to be an inconsistency with WP:DYKHOOK which states the hook should be "no more than about 200 characters" suggesting there may be room for some flexibility, but then the very next sentence starts "While 200 is a hard limit...", suggesting there is no flexibility. Do we know which statement is correct? CSJJ104 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you're right. I've always interpreted it as a "hard limit", because it says that hook lengths below 200 might still get rejected for being too long. I'm not sure if there is any technical restriction; but I would personally never approve a hook of above 200 characters, at least not without a discussion here to see if others agree it was necessary in that specific case. But either way I agree they should be consistent. –LordPeterII (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that all our rules and guidelines were worded, and re-worded, by multiple editors over the years. And sometimes editors decide on their own to add a little tweak here and there. Nobody is going to reject a hook for being a couple of characters over 200. But we have overall limited space in each set, so having a set limit allows us to gauge getting all the hooks in each set. The only way I can see a hook under 200 be rejected for length, is if the hook would read better if it were shorter. — Maile (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is going to reject a hook for being a couple of characters over 200. Actually that's what happens in practice. Usually any hook that goes over 200 is rejected unless it's a multi-article hook. Personally I also tend to advise against (not necessarily reject) hooks in the 190-199 range unless the hook fact can't be explained more concisely. Hooks that are 190-199 characters long are technically allowed but in practice it's usually better to shorten them whenever possible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with Narutolovehinata5 on the hard 200-character limit. It and a full 5× expansion are the two DYK rules that effectively have no flex to them, though extra time is typically allowed for the expansion even as the full expansion has to be done. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's absolutely been a hard limit for the 10 years or so I've been involved. Many are the times I wracked my brain for shorter synonyms and clever compressions to squeeze 206 characters down to 200. EEng01:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Queues are completely empty; four Preps filled
Pinging @DYK admins: in the hopes that we can get at least a couple of the filled preps promoted in the next ten hours or so, before the noon promotion to the main page comes around; right now, there's nothing for DYKUpdateBot to promote. It would also be great if more Preps can be filled as well, since three are empty now and more will be empty when the admins promote those preps to queues. Thank you very much to all who aid in this endeavor. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow ... I promoted one set to Queue just now, which will get us through the next update. I'll check again in the morning. But, wonder what happened to all our admins. I've been noticing lately that we seem to sparse on who is available. Thanks for paying attention and for pingng us. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: @DYK admins: I just promoted a special occasion hook to Prep 7. As much as we should not promote to queue that which we promoted to prep, we admins might find ourselves doing that, if more prep builders don't surface soon. — Maile (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... that Adele moans in "Can I Get It", a song about desire for a real relationship instead of casual sex?
Maybe this is just me, but I'm not entirely keen on the hook being a bald statement that Adele "moans", in WP:WIKIVOICE, based solely on the opinion of one reviewer. The article characterises this as part of an attributed opinion - "Writing for Slant Magazine, Eric Mason stated that the song's spirited percussion instrumentation and Adele's hushed moans construct a sultry atmosphere but get interrupted by its 'discordantly chirpy whistle drop'", while the source states that "the lively, clanging percussion and faint moans of “Can I Get It,” ... sets up a sultry payoff only to offer a discordantly chirpy whistle drop à la Flo Rida". I've never listened to this song myself, so I don't know what these "moans" sound like exactly, but I'd have thought that before we state it as a bald fact we should have several more sources that verify that she is generally considered to have moaned. Either that, or reformulate the hook as an attributed quote. Pinging @MaranoFan, Thriley, and Theleekycauldron: Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That one totally slipped by me. When I was mousing over the nomination, I stopped myself for a second, because I had actually written that hook. I figured that it was fine, because I had only combined two hook facts that were both previously approved by the reviewer – in the hubbub of the internal debate, I forgot to actually verify the hook facts. Yeesh! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Amaruku, while working on the article I also encountered a second source, The AV Club, which is also generally considered reliable and states "the [song] harnesses a sensuality not often heard in Adele's work, as she moans during the chorus". And I think I do hear something resembling a moan around 2:17. If this is still deemed unfit, then ALT0 and ALT2 from the nomination page are less controversial options.--NØ09:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I've just promoted Prep 3 so whenever this is resolved, ping the admin crew and someone will substitute the agreed blurb (or replace the hook with something different if it doesn't resolve itself). Schwede6600:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just double checking this one, as I think this hook actually might be misleading. When I read it, I assumed that this meant a real lion's head that was "preserved" in the taxidermy sense, but it actually refers to a stone lion which was "preserved" from a prior building which stood on the site. Presumably this pun is intentional, given that the hook is in the last slot and is therefore designed to be "quirky". Personally I have a lower appetite than most for hooks which give a genuinely misleading impression to the reader on first reading, so just putting it out here to see whether others think it's crossed the line between "quirky" and misleading, or not. Ping @Pi.1415926535, IceWelder, and Theleekycauldron: Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured I'd get dinged for this one – it was borderline for me, so I totally won't protest to adding "stone" to the hook. Thanks for the watchful eye, as always! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with adding "stone" here if it helps clear up some confusion, though I would ultimately leave this decision to the nominator. IceWelder [✉] 12:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely prefer the hook as is - I like having hooks that pique curiosity rather than telling every detail up front. But it's not the end of the world if "stone" is added. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While ALT2 is a decent hook, I'm actually wondering if a hook about him being born a Jew and converting to Islam would be a better focus. Especially if it's tied with the Gandhi portrait thing. However, I'd be fine with ALT2 (the source is offline so while I'd assume good faith here, I'd also like to hear from the nominator). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm, Muboshgu, and Z1720: I have moved this discussion from my talk page to here, where it can be discussed better. My "promotion" was to take it from the Special Holding for its date, and move it to Prep 7. It has not yet been on the main page, so this is a good place to discuss your concerns. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Queue 3: Maybole Castle
Kj cheetham, Maybole Castle is the lead hook in this queue. While the reviewer, JeBonSer, says that the article is "free of copyright problems", there is one source that does show up. It looks like a WP mirror to me but I have no idea where Earwig got it from. It's got me flummoxed. Here's what Earwig shows (permalink):
Article: "Maybole Castle is a 16th century castle located on the high street in Maybole, South Ayrshire, Scotland. Originally built for the Earls of Cassillis, it is an L-shaped construction with Victorian two-storey extensions. It is associated with a legend of John Faa, in which an Earl killed Faa and imprisoned his wife the Countess of Cassilis in the castle."
Source: "Maybole Castle is a 16th century castle located on the high street in Maybole, South Ayrshire, Scotland.Originally built for the Earls of Cassillis, it is an L-shaped construction with Victorian two-storey extensions. It is associated with a legend of John Faa, in which an Earl killed Faa and imprisoned his wife the Countess of Cassilis in the castle."
The base URL (roslinydodomu.pl) is not contained on the page's code and the full URL, when clicked, randomly redirects to dodgy music streaming sites or porn links. Anybody got any idea where this comes from? Schwede6603:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Schwede66, I can safely say I've never come across roslinydodomu.pl before. Regarding how it found it, looks like "Use search engine" is enabled, so beyond the URLs in the article it can search Google too. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is currently in prep with the originally suggested image caption, but that one was incorrect. The article now properly states that it is not the Hope Diamond in its modern form (which would be inferred from the caption), but a computer reconstruction of its earlier form, the "French Blue" (so before it was re-cut as the Hope Diamond). I think both the info that this is an earlier form, and a computer reconstruction should be in the caption. –LordPeterII (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pulling this from the queue, because The hook and the article are quite ungrammatical to the point of confusing the reader, and also because I'm finding uncited text in the article. The hook is as follows. Discussion welcome. Pinging @Omer123hussain, SL93, and CSJJ104:Vanamonde (Talk)12:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... that the Golconda diamonds (example pictured), mined in the Deccan region, was the only known source of diamonds for two thousand years until the 17th century?
(Adding later; pulled from prep, and set returned to prep, because I spent enough time on this and the next hook that I cannot finish before I need to log off). Vanamonde (Talk)12:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I noted the grammar issues before. Tbh I was a little surprised this had passed GA review in its state. All I did with this nom was trying to get the picture (& DYK caption) right; any other issues with the article I'll leave to the other people involved. But out of curiosity, where is the nom now? I can't seem to find it in Prep, DKYNA or DKYN. –LordPeterII (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hadn't bothered reopening, as I'd assumed we would handle it here; I don't usually reopen a nomination unless I request re-review. But no objections to it being open. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 18:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prep 4: Zack Kelly
... that Zack Kelly received a $500 signing bonus, lost money in his first professional seasons, and was released by two organizations before he made his Major League Baseball debut?
This likely reflects a lack of baseball knowledge on my part, but can someone point out where the article text says he lost money on his first two seasons? Wouldn't that in any case be a subjective assessment? How does an athlete even lose his team money? @Muboshgu, Pbritti, and SL93:Vanamonde (Talk)12:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: The following quote comes from him: "'My first year I probably paid to play to be honest with you,' Kelly said. 'I definitely lost money.'" It goes on to say he paid to play his first two seasons. "Lost money" here applies only to the subject (Zach Kelly). ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
_adjusted.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
