Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Valereee (talk | contribs) at 14:18, 14 February 2021 (→‎Prep area 6: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


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

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

John C. England (prep 3) hook grammar

Should the hook for John C. England have a comma after his name? The current text is:

.. that John C. England who died heroically after saving three other sailors in the sinking of the USS Oklahoma (BB-37), only received a Purple Heart, but had two ships named for him?

I think it reads better as "that John C. England, who died heroically", but it's already a bit of a long compound sentence. What does everyone else think? Pinging @7&6=thirteen as the hook's writer and @SL93 as its promoter. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.. that John C. England. who died heroically after saving three sailors in the sinking of the USS Oklahoma (BB-37), only received a Purple Heart, but had two ships named for him?
"other" was superfluous. Comma is better. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The comma has been added, and I have removed the word "other", but I would prefer the phrasing "had two ships named after him?" Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes and 5x expansion

Could I get a 2nd opinion at Template:Did you know nominations/Kristoffer Domeij on whether it's at 5x expansion? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891, greetings. Just did a quick check on the DYK check tool. Seems like 5x expansion started on January 19th. Given that this one was nominated on January 23rd, seems like it is in the 5x window (or atleast was at the time of submission). Cheers. Ktin (talk) 19:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queues

@Casliber, Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, Maile66, Valereee, Wugapodes, Lee Vilenski, Gatoclass, and ONUnicorn: There are 4 empty queues and it's soon to be 5 empty queues. SL93 (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Guerillero, who promoted a prep to queue last time we asked here. (It's now five empty queues and five filled preps.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Between Amakuru and me, I think we got it down to one empty queue. — Maile (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Am God hook

Bit of a bare-bones post, for which I apologise, but the situation is best learned through reading than summarizing. In short: the hook for I Am God (novel) has been the topic of a debate that can't find a consensus. Is the original hook appropriate -- for any day or for April Fools only? Are proposed alternative hooks appropriate or inappropriate, and for what days? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5 Template:Did you know nominations/The School for Good and Evil (film)

Pinging Vaticidalprophet. The hook promoted to Prep 5 is not the hook approved. I specifically stroke-down this hook since it is unsourced. --Muhandes (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muhandes I changed the hook. SL93 (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Muhandes (talk) 05:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Low performing hooks

We have long tracked our best performing hooks (WP:DYKSTATS) but have not done the same with our lowest performing hooks. On the theory that we learn as much from the extremes on both ends of the spectrum, I've begun tracking our lowest performing hooks in my user space. Anyone interested can find the list at User:Cbl62/DYK low performing hooks. Cbl62 (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not surprised to see most of "my" nominations there, being niche topics, but was seriously disappointed that our readers were interested in Beethoven's monuments (pictured, 347 the last 30 days) but little in his Cello Sonata (678 the last 30 days), both on his (assumed) birthday. Pic or not, and placement in the set, and what kind of day and time will play a role. Also: there's often nothing sensational to report about some 19th-century musicologist, but better 500 views for him than not. DYK should be a vehicle for otherwise overlooked articles rather than those that get attention anyway, right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
adding: performannce is not only the performance of the bolded subject, I think. Wolfgang Marschner's hook was worded in memory of Jerome Kohl to promote Stockhausen, and it worked, 1,222 that day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's that surprising that a lot of the opera-related hooks are that low. Opera is a niche subject to begin with, European opera even more so, and I imagine global readers only have so much appreciation for hooks about performers (whom they've likely never heard of) playing such and such roles in operas (that they've also likely never heard of). I also think that to some extent, you may be overestimating just how much general audiences care about opera, and speaking as an editor who himself focuses on a niche topic, perhaps extra effort is needed to make hooks interesting and catchy enough that even non-opera fans would want to click it. The "opera singer X performed in the world premiere of opera Y" angle can only go so far. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting historically, I guess. I always looked at the top performing lists (which Wikipedia and Signpost aside from DYK tracks overall) as a way to say "Hooray! You did good, editors." Tracking it the other direction would seem to have the opposite message to anyone who worked really hard on an article. Thanks for the work, but I'm not sure it's good to tell nominators their hard work landed at the bottom of the tank. .— Maile (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the argument that this information would be upsetting. That said, it interests me from the perspective of how to write, for lack of a better description, hookier hooks. I've seen criticism of DYK both on and off wiki (and by non-Wikipedians) for producing dull hooks. I'm a little surprised the classical music ones are so heavily represented. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not upset, just think it tells us more about the interests of our Main page readers than the hookiness of hooks. They don't care much about a Beethoven Cello Sonata, period. Mention Nazi in a hook and you get 1,000 extra clicks, - that's my experience. I have suggested to simply offer links to new articles, but it was not accepted. Look at Libuše Domanínská's views when she was on Recent deaths (WP:ITN): 5,6k first day, 2.5k second day (the first days of spike were just from news that she died, not our Main page). I bet DYK will be around 1k, no more. I really prefer to write for ITN these days: no struggle about hook wording, and immediate presentation and readers' response. I keep doing DYK for these extra 500 a subject deserves compared to being completely overlooked. - Which wording for the Cello Sonata wold you have suggested. - I now have another Recent death bio to begin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beethoven Cello Sonatas strike me as interesting enough to click, but I did play violin for seven years. Most of the times I see people disparaging hooks, it's things like relatively unimportant buildings or species or similar, and I think I'd expected to see more things along those lines. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, I am a little surprised that the number of hits on these DYK hooks is considerably lower than that of Laguna Amarga, arguably one of the most boring DYK hooks ever. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, too, was surprised that classical music and association football were so heavily represented. (On the other hand, it didn't surprise me that articles on small town radio stations weren't generating much buzz.) That said, I don't think these statistics should upset anyone. Rather, they should inspire us to work on coming up with hooks that are tighter and more interesting. Regardless of the subject matter, many of the low performing hooks have one thing in common -- they aren't very hooky. We've all had our share of DYK duds (myself probably more than anyone back in the days when I was churning out Michigan football DYKs). Bottom line: The list was not intended to bum anyone out but as a tool to help us understand what kinds of hooks work especially well (DYKSTATS) and which ones don't work particularly well. Cbl62 (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many station hooks are @Sammi Brie's work, and while some are generic, I also see her turn out a lot of high-quality examples of "how to write an interesting hook about a topic most people won't read otherwise". Her recent "Miss Ultra High" for WFMZ-TV (channel 67) was pretty amusing, and the pageviews (nearly 3k) pretty solid for a topic like that. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Miss Ultra High" is a great example of how we can take a topic that might not normally draw views yet do so by crafting a solid hook. Cbl62 (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to say this but it seems to me that a "Hall of Shame" is sticking the knife in when it really isn't needed. Whilst the idea might not name hook writers, the hook writers themselves don't really want to be reminded their hooks didn't do so well. Also, is this really necessary? After all, we did mothball our other "Hall of Shame" for hooks that get pulled so why do we need this? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "shame" in having a low performing hook. What's shameful is calling it a "Hall of Shame". Cbl62 (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Probably true that English speakers may be intimidated in clicking on an article titled "Udyavara Madhava Acharya", "Kafilur Rahman Nishat Usmani", or "Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland". There may be ways to work around that (e.g., bold linking "Now come, the Savior of the Gentiles" instead of "Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland" ... or "an Indian short story writer" instead of "Udyavara Madhava Acharya"). Cbl62 (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well DYK can be clickbaity- put words that catch people's eyes quickly (Nazis, COVID), and you tend to get a lot more views. I guess the opposite is true- people skim pass lots of hooks about non-English/US things. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. And I can provide evidence of this. I when I ran Mungu ibariki Afrika in a hook with the English translation of "God Bless Africa", it got more views than the hook for Ishe Komborera Africa which used the native language title. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl62, Thanks so much for this one Cbl62. I was the one who nominated Udayavara Madhava Acharya. In this case, I had submitted the hook as South-Indian theater artist Udayavara Madhava Acharaya... here. But, somewhere in the progression pipeline, the descriptor seems to have been dropped and I did not catch it before it went to the homepage. Ktin (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl62, that said, I have a super hooky hook coming up with this one. If only I had a picture, it would perhaps bring the roof down. C'est la vie. Ktin (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktin: Ah, yes. That photo of Cheryl Tiegs in the nipple-baring white mesh swimsuit (here) was published when I was a hormone-crazed lad of 15. It is indelibly burned into my memory along side the Farrah poster. I didn't know (or care) at the time who designed the garment, but I extend my belated kudos to Ms. Tilley. Cbl62 (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Non-hooky hook that was used: ... that despite Sandpaper Ballet being choreographed to music by Leroy Anderson, his piece of the same name is not used?
I can't believe that this wasn't used: ... that Sandpaper Ballet does not include "Sandpaper Ballet"?
The first strikes me as "musician writes music". Yawn. The second makes me think "Do what? This I've gotta read."--Khajidha (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting observations and comments. I've kept stats on views of all DYK hooks I have written since the first ever "views" tool (stats.grok.se, I seem to remember!) became available c. 2007. I have had a good look down the whole list today. Thinking about articles I have written myself (identified with a green background on the list), which are almost exclusively related to England and mostly about churches/other buildings/English places: while there are some where I simply can't account for the unexpectedly high or unexpectedly low number of views, I can draw these general conclusions...

  • Things that seem to improve the interest of unpromising articles: mentions of Hollywood or US-related things in general; mentions of famous people; anything related to World War II and bombing; surprising or eye-catching quotes, especially short, negative ones (Nikolaus Pevsner is a never-ending source of these); any mention of toilets (!); death, dead things, ghosts and hauntings.
  • Things that seem to hinder rather than help: a hook consisting of a long list of things, especially of the form "DYK that [something] includes [a list of one or more things]"; anything too specific to England or a local part of England; anything where the hook gives enough away that there is no need to read the whole article; anything too focused on specific architectural or ecclesiastical terminology.

Overall, I have certainly adapted my approach to hook-writing over the years based on what has/hasn't worked for me in the past. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 17:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that certain subjects are more eye-catching than others (Napoleon's penis being a recent example), but if you look at our most successful hooks of all time (All-time DYK), they most often have nothing to do with Nazis, sex, profanity, or Hollywood celebrities. What they share is good writing, succinctness, and a sense of "hookiness" that makes one want to find out the rest of the story. Cbl62 (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've had luck with railways and bridges in the past; some topics do seem to get more hits than others, independent of position, image, time of day, or apparent hookiness. Hits in general seem to be going down; I used to get >2.5k on even the duller hooks but now that's exceptionally good. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another valid point. When we have a hook that is far more likely to appeal to a particular region, we can try to target it to the time slot when they are awake. Cbl62 (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the am/pm slots should be highlighted, and the day of the week also should be in there two. It's not just about hookiness, it's about other things (e.g. was the audience asleep? was the audience watching SuperBowl? etc etc) The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also we should track which slot in the DYK section the hook ran, i.e. one imagines the top hook and the bottom (quirky) hook will get higher traffic as they're not lost in a wall of text. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be interested to see the correlation of hook length and pageviews. It strikes me that a lot of those here are longer than average, but without seeing the stats, hard to say. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, Two succinct and great points by TRM. Tagging Cwmhiraeth as well. a) timezone for the intended audience. Maybe we give that as an informal guidance for prepbuilders. and b) trying to see a correlation between hook position in the set and clicks. Cbl62 is that something you can run analytics on?
Feedback a) is actionable while b) gives us some more information about readers choices. Ktin (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't have the technical skill to "run analytics". The list I compiled was done the old fashioned way -- manually and one hook at a time. Cbl62 (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's mildly interesting, don't get me wrong, but it is extremely dangerous to start drawing any kind of conclusion without all of the data such as time of day, day of the week, number of hook in set etc. It's never quite as simple as a dull hook. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While it's great to look at other factors, expecting prep builders to factor in the time and audience a hook will be running for is simply way too much, given all else they already have to balance, imo. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TRM's point about the 0.00 t0 11.59 UTC slot being less than ideal for UK readers. I have just promoted a similar football article to Prep 3 where it should appear on the main page from 12.00 to 23.59 UTC on 13 February. It will be interesting to see how it compares. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I agree with Eddie, putting preps together isn't easy, and honestly, from my point of view I'm not worried about pageviews in the slightest. I know I work on niche stuff, and I'm not fussed one way or another how a few Americans who aren't watching the Superbowl find them. For Cwmhiraeth, several football hooks which ran in the afternoon slots aren't on that list, so we know the answer, but as I noted, it's not just the hook, it's where it is in the prep, the day of the week, the length of the hook etc etc etc. This is a fun exercise (which I won) but nothing more really, unless someone is prepared to dig into the analysis in much more detail. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are clearly a number of variables at play, particularly in yesterday's hook faring so badly in an non-UK friendly time slot and on Super Bowl Sunday. That said, we can learn things from the high and low performing hooks. Black Kite's observation above is an example of something that can be drawn from the data and that we can work to alleviate. Cbl62 (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well you say that, but unless we have a comparison of hooks that did really well (just pageviews at a minimum) and conducted a similar survey, it's hard to draw any kind of conclusion from the data as it stands. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niche topics draw a niche audience. We work with the articles nominated. --evrik (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, this discussion has actually reminded me, I was working on such an essay covering how to write a good hook that will garner clicks but never really finished it. Could this be the sort of thing you were thinking of @Ktin:? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must be in the minority here in that I always thought that obsessing over page views was a rather silly endeavor, and that the goal is just simply for the article to be featured on the Main Page at all, with good page views being merely a bonus. Perhaps it's because I tend to focus on rather niche topics (anime voice actors and singers, with the occasional anime series-related hook here and there) or maybe that very few of my nominations ever ended up at WP:DYKSTATS, but personally my enjoyment in writing hooks comes from just being happy to see the articles on the front page of one of the world's most visited sites, regardless of whether it does well or not. Admittedly, in my case there's really only so much material that could be potentially be used as hooks given the lack of information about subjects, and the "voice actor X pursued the career because reason Y" angle that I (reluctantly) used often made for rather bland or contrived hooks, but I guess that's the consequence of me choosing to stick to a topic that admittedly has little room for material. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The DYK process is useful in itself, as it means at least one additional editor takes a good look at your work and can provide advice and spot mistakes. I've not found main page appearances provide as much engagement as the single DYK review. CMD (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I concur. The DYK review is a good sense check for new articles. I do find that a main page appearance does lead to article improvements from other editors in almost every case (even if it is sometimes just to fix the dash styles!) - Dumelow (talk) 11:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. My favourite example of that (which I don't know if I am allowed to say the name) involved a statue of a certain popular poet whereby the article was so much greatly improved by the participation of other editors which arose as a result of said article's appearance on the main page. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are in the minority, then our own stated "Aims and Objectives" are in the minority. WP:DYKAIM. Nowhere do they mention page views:
  • To showcase new and improved content, illustrating to readers the continuous improvement and expansion of Wikipedia's corpus of articles;
  • To highlight the variety of information on Wikipedia, thereby providing an insight into the range of material that Wikipedia covers.
  • To present facts about a range of topics which may not necessarily otherwise receive Main Page exposure;
  • To acknowledge the work that editors do to expand and improve Wikipedia, encouraging them to continue their efforts and thereby contributing to editor retention and ongoing content improvement;
  • To encourage readers to edit articles that appear on DYK or start their own, thus facilitating the recruitment of new editors.
— Maile (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We "encourage readers" to edit articles that appear on DYK by enticing them to click on them. That's why we solicit interesting hooks and discourage dull hooks -- to encourage people to click so that new articles get eyes on them so that they can be improved. Cbl62 (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's a dated opinion, especially since GAs were allowed at DYK. The main purpose (for me) is not to get people to improve articles, it's to get them interested in Wikipedia in general, to find interesting facts and information they didn't even realise was covered by the project, and thence getting involved. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Getting people interested in Wikipedia is clearly a vital goal. That's precisely why we strive to promote well written and interesting hooks. A main page filled with poorly written, boring hooks that very few people click on would do nothing to get people interested in the project. I would never suggest that the main page should be filed with sexy, prurient, and sensational material, simply that we strive to make hooks interesting and enticing whatever the topic. Measuring page views is the only objective tool we have to determine whether we are succeeding in this effort. Cbl62 (talk) 19:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I never thought of it from the point of view of encouraging others to edit articles they click on, but there is that aspect of it. But, generally, I think people submit subject areas they are interested in. I also think some editors put a lot of thought and effort into subject matter they care about, enough to get it mentioned on the main page. I've gotten to the point where I edit what I'm interested in. If others like it, that's icing on the cake. But I do it because I like whatever subject I'm writing about. — Maile (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a little while ago. The list below includes all 33 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 2. We currently have a total of 195 nominations, of which 94 have been approved, a gap of 101, down 11 from eight days ago. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New reviewer needed?

I added a slight revision to the proposed hook at Template:Did you know nominations/M. Bala Subramanion. Can I still review this nom, or is a new reviewer needed? Joofjoof (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're concerned, you can review all the other aspects and ask for a second opinion on the hook. CMD (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, if a reviewer merely rewords an existing hook, it's usually still acceptable and doesn't need a second review. If a reviewer does include new information or new hook facts, then that would need a second opinion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CMD and Narutolovehinata5 Joofjoof (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5 Queues open

@Casliber, Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, Maile66, Valereee, Wugapodes, Lee Vilenski, Gatoclass, ONUnicorn, and Guerillero: 5 queues are open to be promoted. Thank you — Amkgp 💬 04:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved two sets into the queue. Please can other administrators move the next two, Prep 3 and Prep 4, because I cannot do it having built these sets. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth Someone else did 3, and I've done 4 —valereee (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis

DYK has a crisis on its hands. Yoninah, whose presence was ubiquitous on DYK, has not edited since 18 January, and I hope that all is well with her. Besides keeping up the standards in hooks and nominations, she did much of the prep set building. So in her absence, we need people to move hooks into the prep area and build prep sets. Without this essential task, DYK will grind to a halt. You don't have to be an admin to promote hooks, you just need a familiarity with the DYK rules. You will find instructions for promoting hooks just above the Prep area on the Queues and Preps page, and you can always ask for help if you need it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps go back to one set per day instead of rushing things, until it's clear that quality isn't being compromised. It doesn't really matter if the backlog increases a bit, but it does matter if DYK sets go downhill. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds sensible, although the proposal might be opposed because the number of sets per day is calculated by a "strict formula", devised by RFC no less, based on the number of outstanding approved nominations.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going to one set a day won’t make there be more people interested in building prep areas. Maybe the project should end if not many people want to build preps. SL93 (talk) 09:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it might stop half-arsed sets making it to the main page because more time will be afforded to those who are around. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is still assuming that there will even be a few promoters at all times. SL93 (talk) 21:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uhhuh, goes without saying. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that every time some new people try and build preps, they get criticised for reasons that are often pointy and so get discouraged from building preps. If people in this project didn't scare all the new prep builders away the first time they build preps, then maybe we wouldn't have an issue. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do think we need to be a bit less nitpicky. After all, the J sections of WP:DYKSG is supposed to be a broad rule of thumb guideline, not a strict rule. I have just made Prep 1 but its not always easy to stick to the guidelines depending on what hooks are available. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I got pinged accusingly because I copied and pasted a different hook to the one I thought I did... Vaticidalprophet (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily apparently I had a lovely time building a prep, but I also agree with The Rambling Man that creating a backlog is less of an issue than quality dipping. Another potential bottleneck is not prep builders, but admins who shift preps to queues, and lower quality preps will cause more work on their end. CMD (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree a bit. Not that I don't want quality to be high, but the answer isn't going back to 8 preps a day unless we can limit the number of nominations somehow. Because when we go to 8 hooks a day but are receiving 20 and sometimes 30 -- which is what happens during the first rounds of WikiCup -- we develop a backlog that breaks the pages. We can't simply slow down during WikiCup because we've lost a prep builder. —valereee (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's slowing down to maintain quality not to deal with the WikiCup. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, but that doesn't fix the fact that if we slow down, we'll end up breaking the pages. This is a perennial problem here. We are just up against it during WikiCup. We can't slow down. —valereee (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean, we could find a way to limit nominations, that would allow us slow us down without breaking the pages, but I don't think anyone wants that. —valereee (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a software-driven project. There are myriad workarounds to almost every problem. Saying "we can't slow down" is not correct. We can slow down and then speed up again once the situation is resolved. Indeed there was a time when three sets a day was the norm. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, yeah, software: I guess we could fix the problem by fixing the page templates to not break at 500 noms or whatever -- maybe make it infinite? No idea what that entails, but maybe someone who understands it will explain. GA doesn't fret if backlogs are years. I have no real objection to that, personally, and I'm not being facetious. I don't really care whether my creations get attention now or next year. But I think a lot of folks wouldn't want their DYK appearance to take years. We get complaints because noms made two weeks ago haven't been scheduled. —valereee (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who's talking about years? That's a proper hyperbole, goodness me. What I'm saying is to reduce the throughput to guarantee quality temporarily until practical solutions for prep-building are implemented. Then run three sets a day, whatever. Making claims like taking years to run a DYK is not helpful at all and derails the conversation at hand. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet, one thing I will say...giving someone instruction isn't easy to do without risking also giving offense. It's possible the ping felt more accusatory to you than the pinger intended. :) When people start to build preps, there are a ton of little details they may not have realized are part of that because they didn't realize that the fact we've got a German opera singer hook means we don't want another German hook or another music hook, and that the opera singer doesn't get placed beside another bio but instead between two non-bios, etc. So other workers can either quietly fix your preps, which you may not notice or may notice but not want to ask about. Or they can tell you, "Hey, you've got two music hooks in that prep, move one somewhere else, and break up the bios, they shouldn't be next to one another." Which may feel terse or critical, when all it was meant to do was give you information. —valereee (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support going to one set until we get more stable. I so far avoided building prep, as not a native speaker, unfamiliar with what the audience wants (see about performing poorly), and supplying too many myself. I volunteer to look at newly created preps and comment or change, - how is that? Today, I wonder how Innisfree Garden will perform, and how it would have performed with an image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You strike me as probably being good prep builder material, Gerda. You certainly have an impressive amount of experience with the rest of the project. If you want to review, how do you feel about how prep 6 is working out, and what might you add? I added 3/5 of the ones there at the moment. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks good at a glance, and I have no time for more right now. Perhaps a few longer ones in addition. Thank you for promoting the lead hook that I approved ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never had confidence of completing DYK preps. You're asking me to overview reviews on 6 topics I am almost certainly going to know nothing about, which takes hours of my time (as TRM says, better to do the job right than quickly). Andrew, the instructions can really be distilled to simple common sense - "is the article in reasonable shape", "is the hook interesting and factually accurate", "would we compromise the main page if we put this up". Anyway, I think one set per day is essential for now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts above re. Gerda probably go double with you, and really spells out how much the prep-building idea is imposing to people who haven't done it (it's still absolutely terrifying to me having just worked on a couple). Re. the distillation of the instructions, I wonder how much that can be a guide to building a new set of instructions that aren't so immediately imposing? Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prep-building is imposing in part for similar reasons that nominating to DYK can be so imposing: it's prima facie quite a complex system that requires keeping multiple tabs open and juggling between them. Prep builders have to copy two things into the preps, hooks and credits (occasionally images), and yet the locations to paste these two items are separated by a sea of wikitext. Hook wikitext in nominations is not alone on a line, and thus mindless to copy and paste, but kept on the same line as sources, thus requiring more attentive selecting. DYKmake/nom templates are included below the initial comments but before subsequent comments, rather than right above the hook where they would be easier to access. The two lines you have to adjust when closing a nomination are inexplicably separated by a line you don't have to touch. The image code is hidden within other irrelevant text on the opposite side of the big "Please do not edit above this line" than the hook and credits which you also have to copy. All small annoyances on their own that are easily overcome by experience, but which make the initial impression more daunting. CMD (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's technically imposing at first, which is a barrier on that aspect. I think even bigger, imo, is the matter of having that sort of influence on the main page -- combined with the degree to which people get upset if it goes wrong. It's [surprisingly/unsurprisingly] high-stakes. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs someone clever to write a script to be able to parse the DYK template and extract hook and credits etc and add it to a prep set. You're right, the process is completely off-putting. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis, On a couple of occasions, where there's basically going to be no DYK update because the queues are empty, I've said "Okay, I can fill the queues but any problems with the noms, not interested, don't have the time, put them on WP:ERRORS". Interestingly, I don't have this problem with OTD or ITN, because the topics are generally far better known and discussed, as you might expect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, ITN has fewer problems because each individual item is discussed by many people. Despite DYK's complexity, hooks are effectively evaluated by as few as three people! (My impression is OTD has no problems because almost nobody looks at it until Rambling Man posts on ERRORS.) CMD (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333 what we really need is more people with that attitude. This isn't brain surgery. No one is going to die because someone missed something in a DYK review. "Hey, I know what! Next time you do it, and I'll provide feedback after it hits the main page, 'kay? C'mon, it'll be fun!" :D @Chipmunkdavis IMO the reason OTD has no problems is because 1. it's a one-man show and everyone figures SHHH don't piss 'em off! :D and 2. no one has skin in the game. No pissed-off noms dropping into ERRORS red-hot demanding that heads roll because a word was changed on their hook and they didn't notice until they saw the post on their talk. And, yes, at ITN there's an entire community evaluating each of the new suggestions and coming to some level of consensus for, what, a few blurbs per week plus RD articles? DYK has 112 per week right now. And at FA they've got 1 per day to get right. I'm not sure we can really even compare the processes simply because they all appear on the same page. —valereee (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A good point in there about nominators: there should be a much better notification of when DYKs are going to run too, enabling nominators a last chance saloon to make sure what they wanted wasn't too corrupted throughout the Chinese whispers of the DYK process. You only get told once it's on the main page and that's far too late. If DYK wants to keep its place on the main page it has to understand that it needs to keep up its current standard as a minimum, and if that means double-checks, unbundling prep-building from promotion, finding scripts to semi-automate the process, seeking to find bots who can send out notifications to nominators when queues are locked and loaded etc. It's evident that the process is somewhat stuck in the past and needs a refresh to make it more efficient and more approachable. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TRM, nominators can see when their hook gets promoted, as that goes by on their watch, so they should know it's been scheduled, which gives them a couple days at minimum. Maybe a script to tell them it's in Next-but-one? Although stuff gets changed after that, too. Queues are never locked and loaded, not even after they've gone on the front page. Maybe a script for showing people where their nom is in the system and what the last change made to that prep/queue was?
I'm not sure who this DYK that wants anything is...I mean, I guess that's the nominators? I love being able to get more people to look at my newer efforts because usually someone improves them. So as a nom, I'd hate DYK to go away. That's why I bother to work here: because I value getting other editors to look at my new efforts, and I'm willing to do the work to make that happen. But purely as a worker bee here, my concerns aren't whether a nom doesn't bother to keep track of their hook or whether the average non-DYK worker thinks our quality control isn't up to snuff. Whether we need to unbundle promo from prep to keep from burning people out, that I care about; we'll need an RfC. Semi-automating the prep-building process so it doesn't look daunting and will maybe encourage new prep-builders, that I care about; we'll need one of our script-builders to be willing to take a look at that. —valereee (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure you know exactly what I mean. Right now the level of quality of DYKs is acceptable. If that is compromised because of a perceived required rush to get two sets a day out to the main page then the quality will doubtless drop and if it goes too low that it becomes conspicuous again and then it becomes a talking point for removal from the main page by the community. Nominations are hard to keep track of, especially if one does a lot of different things and has a large watchlist (I seldom know when anything I've nominated is ready until the announcement on my talkpage that it's already on the main page arrives). Prep-building should not require a re-visit of the review, that is clearly the root of the problem here when it comes to building sets, far too time-consuming. If we split the re-review and the prep-build down the middle, we're hardly creating any extra work at all as that is (in total) what a current prep-builder needs to do anyway. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's no extra work. It's an extra worker, though. Possibly 50% more workers than we have now, because someone who reviews can't promote, and someone who promotes can't move. If we insert an extra set of eyes in there, we're also inserting an extra conflict. When I was promoting, I tried to put something Cwm had touched into every set, because if she nom'd it or reviewed it, she couldn't promote it. Today she was cut off from moving two sets because she'd promoted both, so she needed to ask other admins to move those sets.
And, no, I don't know exactly what you mean, which is why I asked for clarification about who "wants to keep its place on the main page". Who do you think is benefiting from DYK? To me, it's the noms. I work here because I nom here and enjoy the people here. The promoters and movers and folks who do the gnomish work on preps aren't getting any benefit beyond the fact that their own noms are moving through the process and they want to help with the work of that. But most noms don't actually work here. Most reviewers review because they have to, which unlike for GA is necessary. If DYK ended, I'd be sad because I wouldn't have that opportunity to get multiple other editors to help improve my work, but I really don't care that it's necessarily appearing on the mp. All those clicks are just fun. It's that other editors are helping me that I'm here. —valereee (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made plenty of suggestions as to ways to improve the process, both here and on my talkpage, but as there seem to be perceived blockers every step of the way, I'll just quit suggesting and allow the DYK regulars to decide the way forward, it's obvious that a view from the outside is just too difficult to consider or implement. Keep it as it is. Good luck. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis, there's a script you can use for nominations at User:SD0001/DYK-helper, makes it very easy to nominate! —valereee (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If only such niceties works for prepbuilding too. Thinking about it now, you could set something to receive 8 Template page names, along with which prep queue you want them to go into, and then a script could put at least all the make templates into the queue and do all the promotion coding, leaving the promoter to fiddle with only the hooks. CMD (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would build sets, and would be willing to donate the time, but I find the circular firing squad mentality of some veteran editors off-putting and is a barrier to me volunteering. --evrik (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Evrik, I can't remember if you've built preps before. If you haven't, and one of the barriers for you is feeling like building the first few is running a gauntlet, I'd be more than happy to help. (Sorry if you've built dozens! I can't always remember whose name I've seen where!) —valereee (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shortage of promoters

I wonder if it's worth revisiting this discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, the thing is that there could be any number of reasons for one editor not being around for a few weeks. I can think of two of three, or more, here who are excellent at the task at hand, but just aren't here lately. The thing is, people reach burn out, people take vacations, or the current world situation that none of us is 100% safe from the effects of the current pandemic. And then we have admins who sometimes do double duty at preps and queues, while trying to avoid COI between the two. — Maile (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I've recently been reading some old talk page archives out of a hyperactive sense of curiosity/wanting to understand references I see/wanting to Learn Things, so this isn't the first time lately I've seen the "end DYK" position. I'm sympathetic to the frustration involved, but I think -- paradoxically -- it comes from an overly insider viewpoint. One of the big things that gets reiterates is "most TFAs/DYKs/etc don't actually get that much views as a % of the main page", but this feels like entirely the wrong axis to me -- the views they get compared to their baseline strikes me as much more significant, and in that respect even the worst-performing DYKs are resounding successes. As the discussion there notes, 'visitors to the Main Page' and 'actual views of the Main Page' come apart quite significantly. When I've been a reader, and I've been on the Main Page for more than a split second, more than a few DYKs have caught my eye.
The thing is -- the 5k or so people who click on a DYK (and the far higher proportion who read it and get some enjoyment without necessarily clicking) are far more important than the ultimately small group of people who work behind the scenes on them. Some parts of the process might have reputations for drama or instability, but a TNT (so to speak) solution would be cutting out a section of the main page that readers demonstratably value as a bandaid solution on the general matter of "parts of Wikipedia get reputations for drama and instability". The point of writing encyclopedia entries is that people will read them, hopefully learn some things, hopefully be happy they read it. DYK is one of the better means towards that end we currently have, even if it's flawed. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man I'm not sure anyone here has yet taken on "planning" DYK staffing. Maybe you'd like to take that on? :D Maybe you could draw up a schedule so that one person/team is in charge of prep 1, another of prep 2, etc., ditto for queues.
@Ritchie333 my feeling about volunteer work is that if no one is willing to do a job, it's not worth doing. The problem with DYK is that it's so visible. The work is closely scrutinized, and hundreds of people who aren't willing to do that work are happy to criticize how it's done. —valereee (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee LMAO! Hee...hee..hee! Assigning schedules would be like trying to keep frogs in an open box. Hee...hee..hee! — Maile (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66 :D That's a great image! —valereee (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO? Planning is a good idea. How do you think TFA works? Co-ordinators plan who is around and who can make promotions etc. That way, there's not a blank space at TFA suddenly. Still, I can see that the concept of a little forward thinking may not be appreciated, so I'll just let the project continue as-is. I still believe reducing to one set a day, even temporarily, is not the worst idea ever postulated, to avoid any quality crashes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333 That's perfect. — Maile (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man - I know how TFA works, because I've been through it a few times. Yes, planning is a great idea. No argument on that issue. But TFA is a much more simplified process. Not the least of which, is that they don't have the dictate of a newness factor on the article or the nomination. And they deal with fewer submissions, each of which is voted on before it's approved for the main page. We deal with 8 articles on the main page a day, 16 if it's 12-hour sets. That's 480 articles a month to review and promote from nomination to prep and from prep to queue. But as mentioned above, you are certainly welcome to come up with a workable plan. — Maile (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm welcome to come with a workable plan, thanks, your invitation to do so is "noted". Prep building should make basic assumptions that people who have "promoted" the articles can be trusted. If that isn't the case, the problem isn't with prep building, it's with the review and promotion process. Pulling eight different hooks together isn't rocket science if you can assume the hooks and articles have been appropriately quality controlled. If there's overhead associated with actually coding up the prep set, find someone to create a script to help do that. Then it's literally just a case of feeding in eight DYK templates and a prep set comes out the other side for final verification. But as I said, if builders are worrying about the quality of reviews/promotions then the problem needs to be addressed at source. Perhaps two people need to review each nomination before it's promoted, for example. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man, the promoter is the person building the prep. I think you mean the reviewer? Remember that many of our reviewers are brand new themselves, and often they're reviewing hooks from brand new nominators. This is the training area for peer review. Two reviewers means two qpqs, of course, but that might actually help to decrease the overwhelming numbers of noms we get, so win-win.
TFA has one item to promote per day, and that promotion is of a featured article, which we assume is in good shape? DYK currently has 16, all of which need rechecks, sometimes including pinging people to talk for discussion. Scheduling yourself to build a prep means planning for a possible a 2-hour time commitment, occasionally spread out over a couple days while you wait for responses to your pings. I agree that scheduling would be ideal, but many people want to build a prep when they feel like building a prep rather than because two weeks ago they agreed to build one today. The coordinator could schedule two people as a team, I suppose, to make it more likely at least one of them will actually be free on the day/days, but that means 32 slots a week. We could drop to 8, so 16 slots per week, but if we do that for more than a very short time during WikiCup, while we're getting ~20, sometimes more, hooks per day, that puts us so far behind that when we do go back to 16, we're looking at months and months of 2-a-days, which everyone hates, with no end in sight. I seriously considered walking away from DYK last year over it. —valereee (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then go to splitting between promoting and prep building. There's no reason that promoting and prep-building have to be done by the same person. Promoting can just be verifying that all the aspects of the review has been conducted correctly, like a second review. Then the hooks all go into an "approved" melting pot for a "prep builder" to select from. It all seems to boil down to trusting the quality of the reviews because so much time has to be spent making sure they're okay before then trying to conjure up a set. Divide and conquer. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man, so a set of eyes inserted between review and prep -- I guess a third list, which has noms that have been both reviewed and promoted -- from which prep builders could build preps. It would probably protect prep builders a bit, at any rate, if they only had to put the puzzle together rather than re-review. But you've just increased the number of regulars DYK needs by 50%. I suppose we could require noms do both a review and a promotion. That might slow down the number of noms we get, so win-win, especially during the first couple rounds of wikicup. :D And that would certainly require an RfC, the doubling of the qpq requirements, basically. —valereee (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is an approved list. So "promoters" are simply taking hooks from there, mixing them up and adding them to a set? No further reviewing at all? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, promoters also do a full rechck. The approved list is just hooks that have been reviewed. You know, maybe you could go build a prep, then you'd understand this all a lot better? Totally willing to help you through that! Seriously, I am. —valereee (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how it works: Hook is nominated. Hook receives what is supposed to be a full review. When it's been reviewed, it's moved by a bot to the approved list. Promoters come in, do a re-review, and promote, slowly building a prep. Admins do another re-review and move to queue. —valereee (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what should happen: Promoters should promote to "approved" status. Prep builders should take from the approved list. It's pretty clear that prep builders are being expected to do far too much quality control. Put that back into the review cycle, not the promotion cycle. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And we get the extra reviews from...doubling qpq? That'll take an RfC. I'm thinking it might not be very popular with nominators who've never built a prep and don't see the need, but I could be wrong. We could try. —valereee (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ease the mechanics of prep building and this issue is solved from the other direction, as the prep builders then are more focused on second-layer quality control rather than dealing with lots of code. CMD (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis are you talking about a script? That would be helpful for new prep builders. For me after I'd done it a few times, it wasn't the mechanics that was the time-consuming part. It was the quality rechecks (not fun) and the multiple trips through the approved list trying to put the puzzle together (fun) that took the time. And unfortunately no script can prevent the criticism from the peanut gallery. :) My very strong feeling is that the most common reason someone builds a prep and decides not to do it again is because someone criticized their, or even simply instructed them how to improve in a way that didn't feel good. It's not easy to say to someone, "Thanks for building that prep! Now, here are all the things you need to correct!" without making them feel like their efforts weren't appreciated. Maybe we need a DYK prep-building school. (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going through "approved" is a mess. If all we had was a pure list of approved hooks, it would be much easier than wading through pages and pages of reviews and commentary. Add in the second line check when moving a hook from nominated to approved, and prep builders are literally just picking from a list of hooks, not nominations. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
—valereee, a script is one option, just reorganising the wikitext would be a useful interim step. What you raise is an issue with prep builder retention, whereas my comments are concerned with the initial barrier to entry. Different aspects that both contribute to the wider problem. CMD (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis, wait, what?! You're suggesting we might organize these multiple pages into one coherent set of instructions?! Crazy talk. :) Yes, I do agree that however we can figure out to make it less daunting to even consider putting a toe in, that would be great. —valereee (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How difficult would it be to develop a DYK prep script or gadget? It would be pretty helpful and in my case would probably encourage me to try helping building preps again. I used to help out in the past but the demands and pressure felt too much since I was scared of promoting inadequate nominations, or hooks that I promote end up being pulled due to issues. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically it wouldn't be particularly difficult, if it was clear what the rules for such a script were and that all parts of it were fully automatable, not requiring any subjective judgement. (So the "balancing" part of the prep building would have to be left to a human, unless each hook is labelled with a clear category of some sort). I could potentially write such a script myself, although that would be dependent on whether I had the spare time, which varies a lot day-to-day....  — Amakuru (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Amakuru, above I wrote "you could set something to receive 8 Template page names, along with which prep queue you want them to go into, and then a script could put at least all the make templates into the queue and do all the promotion coding, leaving the promoter to fiddle with only the hooks." I think this covers the automated portions, leaving the subjective portions to the human. CMD (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it difficult to see such a huge problem here. We've lost Yoninah, at least temporarily, and that's unfortunate because she was such a ubiquitous presence at DYK. But nobody is indispensable. Every time this has happened in the past, others step up to take their place - it just takes a little time for word to get around, that's all.

In the meantime Cwmhiraeth, I'm not sure how active you have been at set building lately, but you have been our other go-to set builder for many years, so you could quit queue promoting for a while and go back to set building for a while until we stabilize again - just a suggestion. Gatoclass (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Prep building instructions

Template:DYK Prep Set Instructions Note: This section split from the above "Crisis" section

  • Just as an FYI here, I wrote those instructions in 2016 for my personal use, because I found that if a prep builder wants to do it correctly, there are so many things to look for that good-faith editors miss steps. Yeah, it's a lot. But if you're attempting your first prep build, you need instructions. And if you think the prep building instructions are a lot, you should see what admins have to know to promote from prep to queue: Admin instructions - this lingered as a shortened version for years, with much of what was needed left out. Some of us admins worked together a few years ago and came up with not only what an admin has to know, but why they need to know it. And it might not still be complete. DYK processes can be complicated. — Maile (talk) 14:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, having worked at FAC, FLC, GA, Peer Review, etc., I find DYK processes the most complicated of all. But if someone wants fewer instructions, they need to simplify the process. It's not the instructions, it's the process itself. — Maile (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66 and personally I don't think it's the process or the instructions. I think it's the scrutiny. You have to have a pretty thick skin here. How many people have we seen say something along the lines of, "I tried building preps, and I got criticized, so I don't want to do it any more." —valereee (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, I think Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Valereee can be summarised as "I suck at building DYK preps. Here's somebody who doesn't." :-D Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, Same song, different version of what I was trying to say. I was always hesitant about building preps as a pre-admin - because no matter how carefully I thought I did it, someone would say, in effect, "Hey ....you forgot to ..." It's like having a lot of armchair quarterbacks sitting on the sidelines waiting to tell someone else how run with the football. Then I became an admin, specifically to help out here, and almost deserted DYK entirely after a few "Hey ... why didn't you ..." Nevertheless, the instructions help cut down on the sideline complaints. — Maile (talk) 14:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
hahaha...but I sucked at building preps when I first started doing it. I bet I had a comment from Yoninah here or at my talk or hers for the first twenty preps I built. :D Normally that kind of teaching is more or less private. Here it's visible to hundreds. And Maile, I too like the instructions, and I've added to them, too, also partially because it helps me remember what is going to draw complaints. Maybe we should just replace them all with instructions that say, "Only those who have built a full prep are allowed to complain about preps" and have done with it.[Humor] I think that might solve the issue.[hyperbole] —valereee (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Only those who have built a full prep are allowed to complain about preps" I like it. --evrik (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the rules you speak of?

--evrik (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

evrik They're talking about the DYK Prep Set Instructions on the template. Admin instructions are otherwise linked in a paragraph from me above, but not relevant to this thread, except that I personally mentioned that it had been expanded for the benefit of admins. This is my view, and why I wrote the instructions, is that if you want to help anywhere doing anything, you better have a clue of how to do it. Nobody is forcing anybody to read those instructions, and doing so is not a requirement. But if you've never done it before, you're gonna have to know the procedure. People can complain until the cows come home and their milk dries up (old Texas saying), but there still needs to be a how-to-guide for those who have never done it before. And I never saw anybody else trying to create the instructions for prep building. Those who don't like the instructions, should write a better one that works, not just complain. — Maile (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Evrik, no one expects prep builders to know all those rules when they're first building a prep (and prep builders don't need to know the admin instructions at all). It's just a place to point people to when we say, "Oh, hey, you've got two military history hooks, move one someone else" if they wonder why. It's the kind of information that you go back to and understand better after each time someone says, "Hey, that hook was too long" or "Hey, that set has nothing in it from non-English speaking countries." —valereee (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee yeah. I actually first had what I wrote on a user space of mine, because before I was an admin, I could not mentally remember every little detail of what I had to do to promote a hook. I needed a form of checklist for myself, and I figured others might benefit from having the information available somewhere — Maile (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine's day hook

I have just noticed Template:Did you know nominations/Maiden & Princess, already approved, had a request for a potential Valentine's day posting. Template:Did you know/Queue/5 seems the best for this timezone-wise, and there is currently a book in that set Template:Did you know nominations/The Best Years (story) which could be switched out. There doesn't seem to be much Valentine's Day related on Queues 4-6, so if people agree this isn't a bad idea perhaps an admin could switch these? CMD (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a space in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3 that Template:Did you know nominations/The Best Years (story) could be moved to instead. CMD (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the number of approved hooks has fallen below 60, we should be going back to one set per day starting at midnight. As such, it would be best if the proposed hook be moved to Queue 3, which will be the one set on the main page on February 14 (UTC). BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done in Queue 3. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 00:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In case you want another Valentine, I just nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Doris Stockhausen. If not, please consider it for her birthday, 28 February. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to review this so it can go in queue 3, it could probably go where the one about the First Anglo-Sikh War war is. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 00:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed Gerda's hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Time to go back to one set per day

The number of approved hooks has dropped precipitously today due to the number of prep sets having been created: it has gone from 69 just after midnight UTC to 48 as of 16:58 UTC. Under the circumstances, we should switch over to one-a-day at midnight. Aside from the hook mentioned in the previous section, I was unable to find any special occasion hooks in the existing queues and preps, so no other hooks will need to be moved. Pinging @Casliber, Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, Maile66, Valereee, Wugapodes, Lee Vilenski, Gatoclass, ONUnicorn, and Guerillero: in the hopes that one of you will be around after 00:00 UTC, about six and a half hours from now, when it will be safe to set User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates to 86400 (from 43200), which does the necessary change from two sets to one. If you can also do the move mentioned in the previous section (to Queue 3 rather than Queue 5), that would also be appreciated. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I have changed the time setting and will swap the hooks next. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 00:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5

It was mentioned at Template:Did you know nominations/Sheryl Cormier that adding "Cajun accordion musician" to the hook in prep 5 would be very helpful. I'm seeing if it's possible for someone to add that to the hook. SL93 (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please? SL93 (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The hook that was promoted was ALT0, so the request would make the hook redundant with the double mentions of "cajun". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5 It’s not redundant - I don’t think it’s common sense that Cajun accordion refers to a specific type of accordion. SL93 (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least pipelink to Cajun accordion. CMD (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I linked accordion to the Cajun accordian. There are all sorts of accordian varieties: Template:Squeezebox. — Maile (talk) 14:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prep area 6

Normally I would agree, however there was already agreement that that specific hook wouldn't run (since it was dependent on both articles being approved for DYK, as opposed to a single one). It would probably be a good idea to just pull the hook for now, propose a version of that hook with only Stadium, then let another promoter make the final decision. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we have to resolve this tonight. As the reviewer, you nixed one DYKs, and @ZKang123: agreed. I think AltS1 would be my next choice, but I want to sleep on it. --evrik (talk) 06:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, @Valereee:, I started working on {{Did you know/Preparation area 6}}. You said you would help ... ;-) --evrik (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Evrik, K, let me take a look. (I'll assume the rechecks are fine, as you're experienced with that, so I'll only look at the puzzle itself.)
    Okay, the choice of image slot was a good one, as in prep 5 we had a non-bio, and we alternate bio/non-bio. You also have four bio, four non-bio, which is what we usually go for if possible.
    We also alternate bio/non-bio within the set, so you'll need to reorder them to alternate. (If you also can remember to change the order of the credits section, too, it make the admin check easier.)
    You have two musical hooks; generally we try to have only a single hook about a general topic. You've also got three politician hooks.
    You only have two US hooks, which is fine as long as we aren't overwhelmed with US hooks. Normally we end up with 3 or 4 because there are so many US hooks and we don't want to end up in a situation where eventually a set has to have six of them, so we try to spread them out. Unless you were having a hard time finding US hooks on the approved noms list, you may want to swap for one. Also normally we'd try to prevent putting two similar hooks next to each other; in the case of US hooks it generally is unavoidable, but in this case, if you really could only find 2 appropriate US hooks (based on all the other moving parts as I've described above) then it's best to separate them.
    You have a hook from Gerda but not from Cwmhiraeth. Because they're so prolific, most sets probably need to contain a hook from at least one of them. And Cwmhiraeth can't promote her own hooks or ones she's reviewed, so if you come across one of hers, it's kind to slot it in if you can fit it into the puzzle.
    A few things that I'd have questioned when promoting or fixed: Indo-Trinidadians is a redirect; that needs to be fixed, as DYK hooks can't contain redirects. I can't remember why lol...also, I'd have wondered if the fact Troy, Montana has flying squirrels was really the most interesting thing we can say about Troy, Montana. I go to the nom page to see if that's been discussed and learn that apparently not everyone knows we've got flying squirrels all over the place here in North America, so I guess it's interesting enough if the multiple people who commented at the nom thought it was interesting enough. If it had been a new reviewer and no one experienced had posted to the nom, I might have questioned it for interest level. Still, is it really a quirky? Maybe it's also quirky enough, the idea of a flying squirrel, if other people think it's that interesting?
    I hope that's helpful feedback and doesn't feel like criticism! —valereee (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: The hooks were struck by Evrik, not me. For the purpose of this nomination, the only hooks that were approved were the two Stadium hooks (i.e. ALTS1 and ALTS2). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5, ah, gotcha! @Evrik, it's best not to strike hooks simply because you as promoter haven't chosen them. If you see a problem with one, definitely strike it, but if it's just a preference, leave it, as editors dealing with the prep after you've promoted may need to make a change, and they need to know which alts are still possibilities and which have been struck for cause. —valereee (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For now I've pulled the Stadium hook from prep as it wasn't an approved hook in the first place (I'm not sure if a reviewer pulling a hook they've reviewed is allowed; if it isn't then feel free to revert the edits and let me know). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evrik, they're alternating correctly, and thank you for reordering the credits, too. You do still have two music hooks and three politician hooks, and only two US hooks. Ideally you'd have only one music hook, only one politician hook, and at least three US hooks unless we're low on US hooks. —valereee (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CMD, credit order in the credits section doesn't matter, since main page readers don't see it, and the bot that distributes credits doesn't care. Many prep-set builders like to put credits in the same order as hooks because it makes checking to make sure every hook has at least one credit much easier to do and less susceptible to error. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CMD, what BlueMoonset said. It's purely to make it easier for other editors to do their checks accurately. It's not required, it's just a kindness to others. :) —valereee (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7

{{Did you know/Preparation area 7}} I started filling out 7 with the overflow from my efforts on Prep 6. I'm going AFK for the day Feel free to comment on it. --evrik (talk) 01:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to pull Template:Did you know nominations/Robin Schreiber from the prep, as the nominator had requested a March 7 special occasion date but also because reviewers are not allowed to promote hooks where they did the initial review. Evrik, your work on this prep is appreciated, but I would suggest you read both WP:DYK and WP:DYKSG to have a better idea of what kind of hooks to promote and what not. The rest of the prep looks fine to me at least. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing solutions for promoter crisis

So we've had several suggestions for fixing the crisis with promoters.

  1. Be less critical of new promoters. I think this is a nice ideal/goal, but promoters/admins/regular workers at DYK can only correct their own behavior. If the criticism is coming from noms, which it often is, those are people who have very little skin in the game and may not even realize there's a problem with recruiting promoters and that their criticism could mean DYK eventually goes away. I guess we regular workers here could make a habit of actively responding to complaints about promotions by asking people to stop, but even then...I don't know how to fix this one.
  2. Make the job less daunting. Two suggestions have been made:
  • Create a script for promoting so new promoters can easily move hooks. One of the problems recruiting promotes is the fact promoters have to work in multiple windows and remember fiddly stuff that breaks easily. If we had a script, this would be less daunting.
  • Split the job of promoting into two parts: the first would be the recheck, the second would be building the prep from the twice-checked hooks. This would make the job much less time-consuming for the builders, as the rechecks could be done by any experienced reviewer. This likely would require additional qpqs, although it would be expected that the second review in many cases would be quite easy as for any review of an experienced nom/experienced first reviewer, there should be few issues to deal with. And of course it would be just one more check, not the eight the promoters currently do to build a prep. We'd likely still have to require such reviews, maybe after ten DYK noms as we'd want those reviewers to be experienced. We'd likely need to require noms get the second review before being moved to the approved list. Prep builders would no longer be required to be part of the review process, although of course they'd be free to provide review-type input.

Personally I think all of these ideas have merit. I think splitting the job probably requires an RfC, so I'd like to discuss. I'd also like to get input from people who understand our templates and bots, BlueMoonset, Wugapodes, and also script writer SD0001 who wrote the DYK help script and may be able to talk to the possibility of a script for moving hooks to prep (and back, when necessary.)

I'd like to discuss these ideas, and in particular to workshop a possible RfC on splitting the job in two, which will likely require a second qpq from experienced DYK nominators. —valereee (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of defending new promoters from criticism

  • Personally I invite anyone who has built fewer than ten preps to ping me to any complaint they get, because I'll be happy to tell anyone to lay off a new prep builder, and if they're complaining on a prep builder's user talk, that the place to discuss concerns is at DYK talk or at ERRORS. —valereee (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) My position as a new prep builder (I don't exactly think the 'two full preps single-handedly in one day' rate will be sustainable, so please don't build DYK models that incorporate "Vat will indefinitely be a high-activity prep builder", but it's a fun puzzle and I've taken a liking to it) is that criticism is the biggest axis; the logistics of prep-building frankly aren't that hard. A script to simplify it might be useful, but I can see it being problematic with DYK's intrinsic "multiple different options at the discretion of the promoter" concept, especially considering the number of alt hooks varies from 'none' to 'five or more' (and can get very unwieldy for hooks that have been workshopped for a long time). I don't see the need for a second QPQ, and I think it risks being seriously counterproductive -- it would make the process look more bureaucratic and complex from the outside, plus increase the degree to which you see the same people doing the same things all the time (and so make it look like an insular deal of people rubber-stamping one another while biting newbies -- persistently one of the biggest image issues for content-quality aspects of Wikipedia).
From the nominator perspective, an article you've written primarily alone is an important thing to you, and seeing someone misrepresent it (from your position) on Wikipedia's front page can genuinely hurt. I understand why nominators can get overly critical, and I think it's important to instill the sense of perspective of "while we recognize your concerns, being quick to jump on a prep builder is actively counterproductive". While I haven't personally had this, I've heard quite a lot of people being upset that their hook didn't have the picture version in particular, and this has consciously influenced my prep-building -- I hesitate to use preps with images because I want to avoid getting jumped on by a nominator upset I used the wrong version. The shape of the DYK backlog gives me the sense I am not alone.
I also think it's important for experienced prep builders themselves to avoid unintentional biting, though I think we all have that quite forward in mind at the moment. I've been very cautious to justify my thoughts when I've disagreed with how someone's built a prep (e.g. having wanted to use a certain hook in a different place). "Be kind to one another", always and forever. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't want to bite a new prep builder, but if what they've done is not optimal, it's also important to guide them with suggestions on what might be more effective/better/clearer. I would hope that such comments would be constructively written. There are always more layers to building prep sets, even beyond reading through the article and checking the hook sourcing—I remember when someone pointed out after I'd had months of prep-building experience that I'd put together a set with six "... that bold link" hooks in a row, which didn't look good at all, but it's not something you run into with any frequency so I'd never thought about it. Still, without any reminders to alternate bio hooks, to alternate U.S. hooks, and so on, the builder isn't going to improve their set-building skills. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of script

  • Multiple people who've taken a look at the instructions for promoting to prep have said the mechanics looks daunting. —valereee (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One set of guidlenes would be helpful. --evrik (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My suggestion for a script (adjusted from my post above): Create a panel/popup (like the current DYK nom script) to receive 8 Template page names (inc. specific image slot). This could be created on the prep page, or it could have a field noting which prep you are working on. Then the script could put all the make templates and the image into the prep and do all the promotion coding on the template pages, leaving the promoter only the hooks to deal with mechanically. This means the promoter task is in 3 parts: Identify and check good hooks (no need to do any editing to anything if hooks are fine), fill in template, and then just copying hooks over. CMD (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of splitting the job

  • I agree building a prep is a large and time-consuming job right now, and I think splitting is a good idea. I believe this will require a second qpq from experienced reviewers, maybe anyone with more than ten DYKs? And therefore I believe it needs an RfC. At TRM's talk I started on draft wording: Prep builders' jobs are too big, and it's discouraging new prep builders. They currently are required, in addition to building good prep sets, to do a full quality control recheck. These two tasks should be split. We should create a job of promoter, who okays a reviewed hook for promotion to the approved list. That person should be in charge of checking the quality of the review the hook received. This job should be done only by experienced reviewers, so the qpq for this will kick in at ten DYKs. Prep builders will no longer be responsible for checking whether reviews were done correctly or completely. —valereee (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vaticidalprophet, so you didn't find being responsible for 8 complete reviews to be kind of burdensome in building a prep? That was the idea behind splitting the two parts of the task (and the reason behind requiring a second qpq -- because each hook/article would need someone to do that review, if we don't require the prep builder to do all 8.) —valereee (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It felt in-depth, but I don't know if 'burdensome' would be the word. I'm not sure it would have better consequences to split the 'second QPQ' role. It might be worth a trial period, because I can make good arguments with myself both for and against splitting. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I can see where the argument for this comes from, I don't feel comfortable about this proposal. For one thing, not all experienced DYK contributors want to or are interested in building preps or re-checking, so making it a requirement would be an additional burden on editors. There's also always the chance that the "checker" may miss issues that only the promoter manages to find. Adding another step also feels like additional bureaucracy, something that's been a long-running criticism of DYK for years (and adds to the "this process is daunting" feeling that has been expressed throughout this discussion. I'd be more open to it if it was implemented with other QOL changes, like for example the proposed prep builder script. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narutolovehinata5, but the proposed requirement would be only for a review, nothing different than the current qpq. There's no requirement for prep building. All this does is remove the requirement for re-reviewing from the prep building. (And shifts it to experienced reviewers.) Not trying to argue, just to clarify the proposal. —valereee (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is really bureaucracy. Our backlogs can already get pretty bad and it's not uncommon for hooks to wait weeks or even months before being promoted. It's not unthinkable that the process could end up something like "one month for review, another month for the recheck, and at least another week before it finally gets promoted". Many nominators (particularly newer ones) already complain about how long it takes for hooks to actually be on the main page. And finally, it's entirely likely that a nomination could be approved twice and still end up being found out to be problematic while in prep/queue. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get it. The issue we're trying to solve -- hopefully without causing other problems like the ones you're envisioning -- is a staffing issue. Without enough promoters, the project collapses. It's the biggest, most important, most time-consuming job. Losing one prolific promoter, as has happened recently, has caused a crisis. Like you I don't want more bureaucracy. But promotion is a bit of a weak link. —valereee (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see the merits of this proposal, and I think it would be worth a try if people are happy with it. We still have the issue of making sure each task gets done regularly, but at least with this you can say it's one thing or another, and not two unrelated skills that have to be brought to bear at the same time. Incidentally it seems like there's been a flurry of new activity on the prep building side this evening - sets I promoted to queues got new Hooks almost immediately. Let's hope it's a longterm uptick rather than a brief flurry!  — Amakuru (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be an assumption that new prep builders should be building entire sets on their own right out of the gate. Why is this? When I started, I added one or two hooks at a time: there was a lot less pressure, and I learned while asking more experienced DYK set builders to check my work. As I grew more experienced, and steps became more familiar, I did more at one time, and started taking on other issues, like prep set balancing. Even with experienced set builders, taking on what you have time to do thoroughly might mean doing three or four at a time rather than all eight. I feel very uncomfortable about the possibility of a person doing the promoting not doing any checking at all on the nomination being promoted: anything could have happened to the article since it's most recent check. Also, are we actually in crisis at the moment? We have 6 of 7 queues filled and nearly 7 of 7 preps: seems to me like we have a glut. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a relatively new prep builder, and I did start with small numbers of hooks at a time -- I found quickly I like working in large bunches better, though. I've given the advice to start small, but this is an odd time, because yeah -- quite a lot of people have been encouraged to start prepping at once. The glut is a reaction to the crisis, and it'll be interesting to see where things balance. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Amakuru, see my comment above - this always happens in my experience. When DYK nominators realize more hands are needed, they step up to assist, because they realize that if they don't, their own hooks won't get promoted. It just takes a little while for word to get around and for everybody to make the adjustment.
With regard to this particular proposal, it's worth consideration IMO but it may be a little premature. Let's wait and see how things go for the next week or two, if there's still an issue with a shortage of set promotions, we could then revisit this. Gatoclass (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has been most heartening to see the response to this crisis. Many thanks to the several editors who have promoted hooks and built sets, and as BlueMoonset points out, there is no need to promote a whole set at a time, although it does give a sense of satisfaction. I hope some of these editors will continue to do this valuable task. Returning to one set of hooks a day has eased the pressure, and I doubt we need to split the job and introduce another layer of complexity. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admin please remove Frances C. Fairman from Queue 6

Forgive me if this is too late, but if possible could you please remove the above article from queue 6? An editor has insisted on tagging the page, so that I believe that if the article were to go to DYK in that state, the tag would invite all sorts of deletions from many editors, and that context section, called Background, would be lost. I have already disputed the tag because of the risk to context material. That section could do with improvement to citations, which I'm working on, but deletion would be disastrous. A biography about a 19th-century English woman needs context so that you can understand the person and the career. So removing the article from DYK now may save some or all of the article from diminishment. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q4 Feb15

Template:Did you know nominations/KSUB

  • ... that Utah radio stations KSUB and KSUB-FM both suffered tower collapses before going on air—39 years apart?

Sammi Brie

There are a couple of 1-sentence paras in the final section of KXBN that are unsourced. There are also four external links in those two sentences -- do we generally use ext links in such sections? —valereee (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote with the links moved to refs at the end of the sentence to accomplish the same thing. MB 22:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! —valereee (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


No level two header generated on Talk page

I just nominated the James Kendall Hosmer article for DYK. After completing the nomination I posted {{Did you know nominations/James Kendall Hosmer}} on the article's Talk page, which, according to the DYK nomination page, is supposed to generate its own level two header there. This has not occurred, at least for me, the last two times I've nominated an article. Before this, by adding the template to the talk page, it not only generated a level two header, but it also generated a DYK nomination banner with DYK icon. Any ideas? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Might be some miscommunication here, but after you create a nomination, you are supposed to post it under the existing appropriate date subheading at Nominations page. I just now did that for you. Is that what you mean by "level two header"? There used to be (maybe still is) a bot that would also post it on the article talk page. After I create a nomination, I immediately post it on the Nominations page. Then I'll manually also put the nomination on the article's talk page. — Maile (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ohmygosh.. got wrapped up in this. Thanks for posting my template. Anyway, the DYK nomination I did before this did the same thing.  i.e. No level two header, and no DYK banner was generated on the Talk page.. When you added the template under the appropriate date did the level two header automatically appear on the given Talk page, or did you have to manually effect this? What about the DYK banner and icon that used to automatically appear on a Talk page also? What happened to that? No biggie I guess -- just curious. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't Wugapodes write a bot that added transclusions of DYK noms to the article's talk page at some point after a new nom was added to the main nominations page? It could be that when the bot does it, it also adds a level-2 header; so far as I know, there isn't a level-2 header included with the nomination template itself, just a level-4 one. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I manually added your nomination to WP:DYKN. The date subheaders are already there for the nominator to add their nomination template. I then went to the article's talk page and manually added the subheading above where you had the nomination template. Wugapodes did create WugBot that transcludes the nomination. The only other "banner" that appears on the talk page is a bot-generated notice after the hook has run on the main page. — Maile (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I double checked and indeed the template was added by me under Feb.9. Was it missing when you added it? According to edit history, it wasn't. Anyways for years a level two header was automatically generated, along with a DYK nomination banner, w/DYK icon. Now, from my experience, this doesn't happen. Oh well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added it under February 13, the date you created the nomination, so now we have it under both dates. BlueMoonset am I incorrect that a nomination should be added under the date the nomination is created,? I have just noticed that there are more listed under February 8, where the actual date on the nomination is a later date. — Maile (talk) 03:30, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66 I thought that it was the day that the article was created or expanded 5x. I have always did it that way. SL93 (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maile, as SL93 notes, nominations should be placed under the date the article was created/expansion started/moved from draft or user space/listed as a GA. The date the nomination page was created is not relevant. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original question remains. Why hasn't the template on a given Talk page generated a level two section title, along with a DYK nomination banner, witch included the DYK icon? As I've said, this is what has always occurred time and again with other DYK templates posted on a given Talk page. Not a big deal I suppose, but it would be nice that the 'powers that be' get this resolved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7: Pliofilm

This basically checks out, except that the hook fact isn't actually included in the article. The prose mentions that it was "used by the US military during World War II", but not specifically at the Normandy landings. Granted, there is an image caption showing pliofilm in use during Normandy, but I think according to the rules it should be in the prose as well. And anyway, that caption isn't directly cited. @Dumelow: please could you take a look at this? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1006734582"