Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

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

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

Excessively late supply of QPQ credits

I have noticed many nominations coming in with QPQ credits still pending. While I understand this is within the rules, I feel there should be a reasonable time limit imposed. We have a huge backlog of nominations, and this exacerbates the problem.

The nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Leonie Schroder was rejected for not having a QPQ after four weeks.

Another nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta, has no QPQ credit and it now over five weeks old.

Sorry for being grumpy, but this is getting ridiculous. Flibirigit (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Seven weeks later we finally have a QPQ at Template:Did you know nominations/2020 Iran gasoline export to Venezuela. Sheesh! Flibirigit (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Flibirigit, if you're concerned about reducing the backlog, you might also want to call for a time limit on QPQs. A few of our nominators submit QPQs that are two or three years old. Yoninah (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

When I review and the qpq is not there, I ping the nominator, and you could do the same. I confess that I often have no time for a qpq when I'm pressed to nominate in time, and later forget. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I do my part and ping nominators and/or leave them talk page messages if they aren't responsive. At times, if nominations are otherwise good to go and are only lacking a QPQ, I donate a QPQ to let them move forward, but it's not appropriate to do this all the time or when significant issues exist and haven't been addressed in a prompt manner. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah Is there any rules against using old QPQs? I often do QPQs when I have time, and use them weeks later. As far as I see it, as long as a QPQ is done, it should't be problem to do it beforehand. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: I also stockpile QPQs and use them weeks later. But in response to Flibirigit's observation, I was just adding another angle. Really, if all a nominator has is a QPQ that's several years old, they should be asked to do a more recent one. Yoninah (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I would support some sort of time limit to submit QPQs so long as there is a process that provides a reminder (and perhaps evidence of active editing?). I would also support a limit to old QPQs, although set at months rather than weeks. CMD (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not support the limiting of use of QPQs. I do support a time limit on how long a nomination can languish with a QPQ. --evrik ^(talk) 15:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• This is probably the wrong place to be carping about this, but I'll indulge myself since I'm still doing a bit of a slow burn over it. I put a substantial amount of time into reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/1876 Prohibition National Convention, which included searching for and finding sources. After all that, the submitter decided to withdraw the DYK nomination, stating that they would rather use their QPQ credit on something else. I felt like I had been taken advantage of. I put in the work to not just review, but improve, somebody else's article, and then they didn't even want to go through with it. Back when I was a fraternity pledge, we had a term for that, but it's too impolite to repeat here. So, while you're working on redoing the QPQ rules, maybe come up with a way to prevent that from happening again? Maybe your QPQ gets consumed not when your submission is approved, but when it's reviewed? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Abandoning a DYK and then attempting to transfer your QPQ to a new nomination doesn't seem fair to me. If it's not explicitly prohibited, it should be.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

That's the sort of lawyering that results in the addition of new rules. However in this case it's already covered. If it comes up again, inform them that the rules note QPQs are "For every nomination", not for every successful nomination. Another one will have to be done for a new nomination. CMD (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

RFC on using older reviews as a QPQ

We meed something mentioned in the rules if we are to change this. The QPQ process was developed to help clear backlogs. No time limit was set as to how far back a past review can be used for a QPQ. I have approximately 400 reviews under my belt, most of which I have never used as a QPQ. Realistically, this would defeat the original concept. Let us set a reasonable time limit on when the old reviews can be used for a QPQ. Please express your views below. — Maile (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Qualifying QPQs need to be real reviews, not just a checkmark comment like "This is good to go".

• Support this condition. — Maile (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support --evrik ^(talk) 14:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - QPQs were always intended to refer to complete reviews, not just very simple and incomplete checks. However, I would oppose any proposal where only checkmarked reviews would be counted as QPQs, as not all nominations pass (usually for reasons beyond the control of the reviewer). In addition, reviews that checked requirements but are still missing final approval should still be counted for QPQ purposes. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support although this should be clear anyway, there has to be evidence of actually having done a proper review. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support: A QPQ credit should be a complete review from start to finish, not just a second opinion. Flibirigit (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support if this needs clarifying, although I would hope all reviews should be real reviews. CMD (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support sensible approach. ——Serial 16:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support for sure. Yoninah (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support but listing off the areas checked is a complete review --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support of course. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. It needs to be a real review anyway. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Common sense on this one.--Kevmin § 19:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Two years or older time limit

• Conditional support - only in cases where the nominator has been absent from DYK for more than a year. — Maile (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose --evrik ^(talk) 14:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary. ——Serial 16:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment below --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – per my comment below. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Any time limit is unnecessary in my opinion. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as rule creep. this is very very rarely happening and in general the QPQ supplied HAS helped the backlog of the time it was done--Kevmin § 19:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• One-year time limit

• Support - as a reasonable option. — Maile (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose --evrik ^(talk) 14:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary. ——Serial 16:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment below --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – per my comment below. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Any time limit is unnecessary in my opinion. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as rule creep. In general the QPQ supplied HAS helped the backlog of the time it was done--Kevmin § 19:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Six-month time limit

• Oppose - as too limiting — Maile (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose --evrik ^(talk) 14:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support Already a significant period, and any older reviews will have long been worked through the system. Also support higher. I do think the other question was the more important one to address however. CMD (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as unnecessary. ——Serial 16:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment below --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – per my comment below. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Any time limit is unnecessary in my opinion. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support I'd happily make it one or two months. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as rule creep. In general the QPQ supplied HAS helped the backlog of the time it was done--Kevmin § 19:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• No time limit at all

• Oppose - — Maile (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support as per my comments in Other section. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per status quo. ——Serial 16:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment below --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support per my comment below. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Any time limit is unnecessary in my opinion. As long as a QPQ has been done, this should be sufficient. While I understand implementing a time limit may reduce a review backlog, it is (1) an additional complex rule over those that we already have, (2) discouraging to editors who may not want to do a QPQ in the first place, and (3) a solution that doesn't really solve a problem. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There should be a limit. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose A nomination adds to the existing backlog, QPQs are intended to help prevent that backlog from growing. CMD (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support--Kevmin § 19:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support no time limit. This allows reviewers to build up an excess of QPQ reviews ahead of time, rather than doing them late after the nomination that needs it. It thus keeps the flow of noms working. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• Other

• Oppose all time limits as instruction creep. Making DYK more complicated than it already is will just lead to more issues. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose all time limits as making DYK over complicated, and it will worsen the problem this thread was actually about- QPQs being done late. QPQs being done early isn't a problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose any new rules. We already have 16,000 characters of "rules" and 18,000 of "supplementary rules" that are surely discouraging any new contributors. We should be paring these back to the minimum necessary - Dumelow (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose time limits I don't see that this is a pressing problem that needs additional rules. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose all time limits – unfairly penalizes someone who wants to help clear a backlog but doesn't want to submit a DYK at that time. Remember WP:NO DEADLINE. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

RFC on a time limit to supply a QPQ

Currently the DYK rules do not state any time limit to supply a QPQ credit. As per the conversation above, I feel that too many nominations are taking an excessively long time to do this, and it exacerbates the backlog. I suggest the following options. Flibirigit (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• QPQ must be supplied at time of nomination

• Support in times of large back logs of nominations. Flibirigit (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Question - If QPQ is not supplied at the time of the time of nomination, what is the recourse? Is it rejected immediately, or does it fall on someone else to remind them? Whose responsibility is it to remind the nominator, to flag the nominiation? Then what is the waiting time for a response, given that we have no set waiting time on any other process here. — Maile (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Many people nominate then add a QPQ within 24 hours or so --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think within 24 hours is reasonable. Flibirigit (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Guerillero. Yoninah (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC) for the article
• Oppose The needs for flexibility arises because of the 7-day deadline for the article itself. That is the priority and the QPQ is secondary. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose --evrik ^(talk) 20:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose too restrictive. MB 03:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Guerillero and Andrew Davidson. Regards SoWhy 12:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I see where this proposal is going, but I almost always don't have time to do a QPQ at the time of the nomination itself due to real life concerns. Not to mention the 7 day deadline is pressing enough. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per others. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I'm not sure why it wasn't always that way, I think it's best practice to do the whole nomination in one swoop and I try to keep a few QPQs ready to be used. Mujinga (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: while this would be ideal, sometimes articles take a full week to get to the point that it meets the DYK criteria, leaving no time to do a QPQ. In those cases, I think we need to be flexible; not everyone has time to accumulate a backlog of QPQs, and people newly with five credits doing their first or second QPQ conscientiously are likely to take longer at it and need extra time. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• QPQ must be supplied within one week of nomination

• Support as possibly the best option. One week is the time limit to nominate an article when it was created/expanded, and I feel most reviews can be completed within a week at most. Flibirigit (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support--evrik ^(talk) 20:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Partial support Nominators can be issued a warning notification at at least a week (whenever a reviewer looks at it), after which a week seems a reasonable timeframe to expect a QPQ if they have actively edited. CMD (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• What about multiple nom hooks? Users still sometimes submit hooks with five or more nominations, is a week a long enough period for such noms? Gatoclass (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I think a week is long enough. The nominator would know in advance that multiple QPQ are required, and have ample time. Flibirigit (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support a week is a fair enough time to expect someone to do a QPQ. Given we get 1 week to nominate the article, that effectively gives up to 2 weeks to do it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I'm not a big DYK contributor. I think I've done 8 in my 15 years here. Looking over them, it looks like (other than the first couple of freebies), I supplied a QPQ with the submission about half the time, and the other half I marked it "pending" then followed up in a day or two. I find the submission process cumbersome (lots of fidgety multi-step template editing), so I perceive being forced to do the review at submission time as a burden. But, a week is plenty of time. Maybe even something shorter like 72 hours. I'd also love to see some kind of automation to make the submission and review processes easier. If the mechanical work of submitting and reviewing were easier, I'd be more inclined to support requiring QPQ done at submission time. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gatoclass --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support It's nice when we can review noms as they come up on the noms page and not have to wait for a QPQ to approve them. Regarding multiple noms, we may offer a 2-week time limit. But there should be a time limit. Yoninah (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support This seems reasonable. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• I could support this on paper, however we recently had a discussion about a similar proposal about unresponsive nominators. Sometimes nominators are unable to do QPQ reviews due to a lack of time or due to unavailability, and one week may actually be a short amount of time for many people. Instead of an outright fail after one week, I could instead support some kind of notice or warning after one week, with rejection only happening if they haven't responded again for about another week or so. In addition, there should probably be some kind of change to the guidelines making the QPQ exemption for new nominators more visible in some form. Many QPQ-exempt editors do not mention their exemption during their nomination, which can make things confusing considering even reviews are backlogged to begin with. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support reasonable as it is consistent with the spirit of DYK highlighting "new" material. Noms are often held up for weeks or months even over content/hook issues. We should not allow further delay that can easily be avoided. MB 03:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Support if it's not a hard rule and with the possibility of exceptions if the nominator requests an extension in good faith. As Narutolovehinata5 points out, many people simply don't have time to do it within a week if real life is busy and they should not be punished for it. Regards SoWhy 12:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support as second option. This is less bad than having to supply a QPQ immediately, and can even be a good compromise. But it's still limiting, especially in cases of unresponsive nominators. And it doesn't really solve the problem of QPQ backlogs, it just changes when the QPQ review is done. I agree with Narutolovehinata5 that we could give warnings or notices after a week, since I am one of these people who are busy in real life. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose too restrictive - why not 2-4 weeks. It's actually good to force reviewers to looik higher up the queue, and changing that is more likely to increase the backlog. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support There should be a reasonable time limit, otherwise someone reviewing the nom has to delay, or come back again later increasing the review effort. I think we can allow some delay, but don't put it off too much. Otherwise if any delay is acceptable when can a nomination be failed for no QPQ? If someone cannot do their reviews within a week, they should be putting in less nominations themselves. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Partial support in that if the QPQ has not been completed in a week's time, a notice that the QPQ is needed (not an outright failure) should be placed on the nomination, and the nominator allowed another seven days. If they haven't done it after the extension (and haven't engaged with the reviewer), then I think a failure is justified at that point. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• QPQ can be supplied whenever/status quo

• Oppose as per original comments. Flibirigit (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as per the discussion before these RfCs. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. If somebody hasn't gotten around to it in a week, they never will. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support with a caveat that the QPQ needs to be supplied within a reasonable amount of time and DYkers can decline nominations without a QPQ after a while --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This wastes the reviewer's time. Yoninah (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not sure how long nominators shoud have to complete a QPQ, but I believe there should be a limit. There is no good reason for nominators to take weeks to do a QPQ when they are notified on their talk page quite a while back. SL93 (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support I'd be comfortable with this too. In practise, all stale nominations will expire regardless of the issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose --evrik ^(talk) 20:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose MB 03:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support as first option. As long as the QPQ is provided sometime before approval, I don't think this should be a problem. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Somewhat self-serving support as often I sent articles to DYK that I just expanded, and am short on time for a QPQ review because the expansion itself took up all time. I think it stands to reason though that once a reviewer has said "QPQ needed" it's reasonable to expect a prompt QPQ. But not at the time of nomination. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: there should not be an indefinite "whenever"; the expectation should be that if the nominator has not done a required QPQ at the time they make the nomination, it should be done with reasonable promptitude thereafter. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• QPQ timeline exception can be eased in special circumstances for multiple-hook nominations, or multiple nominations for special occasion events, such as Christmas

• Support - as someone who has been involved in such events that fill an entire queue or two. — Maile (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support within reasonable amount of time, as long as an honest effort is being made. Flibirigit (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support I'm always inclined to be flexible if it gives a better result. This is our general policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support as long as people are trying to do the QPQs. And support for special events as long as the special events list isn't just limited to US holidays (e.g. if we choose to give people more time around Thanksgiving weekend, then do the same for UK bank holiday weekends as well). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I say, unironically, that I don't see why not. epicgenius (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support This seems reasonable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose for me this is just making everything more complicated. Why not just do the QPQ before the nomination. Mujinga (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support: we should always be open to exceptions and special circumstances if warranted, but nominators need to work with the reviewer and show a willingness to follow through. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on a time limit to supply a QPQ

• I'd support 2-4 weeks. Personally I rarely do them before/at the same time, & often not for a week. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

If it was a few cases I don't think this would have been raised as an issue, but quite a few do seem to languish unattended and uncompleted. There may be a more creative way to deal with this issue than the blunt options discussed above, which is why I supported a more flexible timeframe than the strict limit. If the issue is the backlog, perhaps there's a way to have a bot automatically detect missing QPQs, and send the reminders, or a way to have a bot mark them in some obvious manner so that reviewers can simply skim pass over them until a QPQ is actually done (ie. until the nomination is actually complete and ready to review). CMD (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• Returning to this, I think enforcing very quick QPQs is likely to make noms that are less attractive to reviewers, for whatever reason, take even longer to get one (as most reviewers want to see a QPQ before they start). Thus it may make the back of the backlog worse. I'm rather puzzled by the votes so far - reviews from up to 2 years ago can be used, but new ones must be done within a week. I often do reviews and never claim them as QPQ unless I have a nom on; then I do a "fresh" one. If those limits became policy I would start to "hoard" them, and so do fewer reviews overall. This doesn't seem to be the intention of these proposals, but it might be the effect. Johnbod (talk)

• Comment on special occasions set aside for an entire set or two. The editors most likely to understand this without an explanation, are the ones who have been around to do the writing and promotions. There are some occasions where there's only one or two or three editors/admins to carry it off. Christmas is often a mad scramble to get it together. DYK is then lacking its reliable regulars who do the heavy lifting - last-minute nominations, while some nominators hurriedly scurry to come up with the necessary QPQs. And hope there are promoters around. If they don't readily have the QPQs, they have to quickly take care of that. Aside from Christmas, the 2016 Star Trek 50th anniversary also comes to mind. To my memory, all (or almost all) the nominations came from one dedicated Star Trek fan. That was a ton of writing, while also having enough reviews in the wings for QPQs on every hook. There have been other similar events. Having a little leeway on the QPQ timeline for the full-set special occasions, benefits DYK. — Maile (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
• Personally, the procedure for nominating an article starts with my doing a review. And when considering what article to review, I actively select articles where the QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• As I mentioned earlier, rather than an outright fail after one week without a QPQ, I would support a more flexible timeframe where a notice could be given after one week then the nomination would only be failed if there's no response after a certain amount of time after that (about a week or so, for example). Even then, in certain cases where the QPQ is the only thing that's missing and every other criterion is met, reviewers or commenters could at their discretion donate a QPQ to allow the nomination to move forward. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

• Siddhantasara is now two weeks old without a QPQ being supplied. Nominator has been reminded. Flibirigit (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion/Fivefold expansion definition

Hate to do this with a messy RfC already open, but at some point we need to have the further discussion required by the overwhelming consensus at both

1. Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article the day before the expansion started, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion.

and

A. Fivefold expansion is calculated from the longest previously existing article the day before the expander began substantive work on it, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion.

We need to agree on what the final language is. I tried to call it "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article the day before the expander began substantive work on it, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception), no matter whether you kept any of it and no matter if it were up for deletion," but there were concerns. —valereee (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

• I thought we resolved this? --evrik ^(talk) 21:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

  Evrik, well, we closed the discussion as needing further discussion to determine exact wording. —valereee (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

• I think you should go ahead with the changes and cite the discussion. --evrik ^(talk) 20:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
• Archived RFC discussion closed July 10 — Maile (talk) 22:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This has gone on long enough I think. The article that was the source of this has finally run today (about 3 months late, taking my WikiCup points away too so I am really very cross about the whole thing) so I would say let sleeping dogs lie. We had an RFC and the definition was pretty clear, no need to keep prodding it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
    • We approved this, will someone just make the change?--evrik ^(talk) 16:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

• The two wordings are at odds, and we need to bridge the difference. Currently valid expansions would not be allowed under the A wording because the nominator couldn't count an expansion that started with other editors the day before they began their work, while the 1 wording fails to prevent the problematic case where the nominator/expander cuts down the article and later comes back to expand it from a lower base, which was also deemed important to disallow. This is why some careful wordsmithing is needed, a fact pointed out by a few people at the time, and is why the close punted on the exact wording. I think we can handle any cases that fall between the cracks of 1 and A should they occur before we come up with a wording that addresses these issues, but suggestions on that wording would be helpful. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Rakkestad

Hi all. I need an uninvolved user to add Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Rakkestad to prep 2 (date request). I can't add it because I'm the nominator. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of Prep 2, I noticed that the hook promoted for Broken Wings (ballet) was ALT0; however the review only approved ALT4. In addition, the nomination page hasn't been substituted with the promotion yet. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:51, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Queue 5: Rembrandt's Mughal drawings

@TerentiusNew: I have noticed that the "List of 23 extant drawings" section has no references. It ideally needs the data in every line (including the dimensions and where the drawing is held) to be cited somewhere within the section, or on each line. Will you able to fix that before the scheduled go-live time at 00:00 (UTC) on Tuesday 4 August? If it will take longer than that, I will replace the hook in the queue and reopen the nomination page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the drawings are taken from the Getty exhibition catalogue here, which is mentioned in the References; so don't think we need to repeat the same reference for every drawing. Hope that solves the issue! Best, TerentiusNew (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

PS: I've now made it explicit and added a line for sourcing under the Notes section. Regards, TerentiusNew (talk) 15:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 3 image: UNESCO World Heritage Sites

According to the website this logo is legally protected. Yoninah (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Does the logo fall under "too basic to be copyrighted"? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Since it's not merely text in a font, but also has a design element around which the text is arranged (and also has a non-texted version of the design), possibly not, but note what could not be copyrighted on the Commons:Threshold of originality page. Pinging nominator Kareldorado and also uploader Siyuwj. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I did have some reservations, but I figured that if someone was going to challenge the PD-textlogo determination, it was going to have happened already. The image is very heavily used across several projects. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

For some reason, I was asked about this at User talk:Marchjuly#Opinion on image requested at DYK. If the image being discussed is File:World Heritage Logo global.svg (the "emblem" linked to above), then my first impression is that this is probably {{PD-logo}} in the US per c:COM:TOO United States; so, it would be OK to upload locally to English Wikipedia as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} even if it's not PD in its country of origin (Commons requires a file to be free/PD in both the US and it's country of origin). Since it appears to also be an official work of UNESCO, there's a possibility that it could be OK for Commons per c:Category:UNESCO logos. Of course, there's no guarantee that all those files are licensed correctly, but it does seem possible for this to also be OK for Commons. My opinion is, however, nothing more than that; so, if you really want more opinions, then perhaps asking at WP:MCQ or c:COM:VPC would be a good idea. If you really want to sort this out, on the other hand, then c:COM:DR would probably be the way to go. Since it's a Commons file, it can be discussed on Wikipedia, but there's not much that can be done about it on Wikipedia other than to remove it from the articles where it's being used. If it needs to be deleted, it needs to be deleted from Commons-- Marchjuly (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

First of all, we do not care if the creators/owners of a image claim that it is copyrighted, as we always do our own due diligence; see Monkey selfie copyright dispute. For me this is clearly under TOO. Secondly, they aren't even making a claim that it is copyrighted, as I don't see the word "copyright" appear anywhere. They are making a trademark claim, and Wikimedia Commons is allowed to host images which are protected by trademarks (c:COM:NCR). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

But what about posting it on the main page? Yoninah (talk) 00:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

If you believe the Commons licensing is wrong and you want to challenge it via c:COM:DR, then you can. From a copyright license standpoint, it seems fine to me; so, I don't see why it can't be used on the main page simply based upon that reason alone. Commons is only really concerned with how the files it hosts are licensed; it's not really concerned with how they are used. Matters related to image use are pretty much left up to each local Wikipedia community to decide. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Q6 Aug5a

Template:Did you know nominations/Palika Kendra

• ... that the Palika Kendra (pictured) is one of the few buildings in Delhi in the Brutalist architectural style?

Deepak G Goswami

I'm not finding in the sources that it's 'one of the few' brutalist buildings in Delhi? The source says Today many of these buildings are part of Delhi's everyday urban landscape and the preservation of these structures has become more important than ever. and then goes on to talk about eleven buildings. I like this hook, and it's a good hook for the image, but is there a source that says there are few examples of brutalist architecture, or few left, in Delhi? Or should we recast this hook (and article sentence) to say something like it's an example of Delhi's Brutalist architecture? —valereee (talk) 11:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, as per the Atlas of Brutalist Architecture, there are only 23 Brutalist buildings in whole India. (source) The cited source in the article doesn't specifically says that those are the only 11 buildings (of Brutalist architecture) in Delhi but considering there are only 23 such buildings in the entire country it's implicit that Delhi doesn't have many in the Brutalist architecture style. Please share your thoughts on this. Also, as per Vice, "this building was the tallest on Delhi’s skyline", can it be used to augment the interestingness of the hook?--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Deepak G Goswami, I would think adding to the article and the hook that the building is one of only 23 in all of India would completely solve the problem as well as increasing the interest of the hook! If you suggest new wording, I can approve. —valereee (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

hm...hold on a minute. That article says there are 23 buildings in India that are included in the Atlas. Does the Atlas claim to comprehensively list all buildings? —valereee (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee: as per the Hindu, "(Brutalist architecture) from across the world is documented in the Atlas of Brutalist Architecture and its commissioning editor says that "[they] wanted to put together a comprehensive volume".--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Deepak G Goswami, for me the problem is "wanted to put together a comprehensive volume" doesn't necessarily mean they found and included EVERY building of that style in the world. How would you feel about

ALT 4 ... that the Palika Kendra (pictured) is one of 23 buildings in India documented in the Atlas of Brutalist Architecture? —valereee (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, your uneasiness is understandable. Alt4 seems alright.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Can someone approve ALT 4, Yoninah or Wasted Time R maybe? Thank you, Deepak, for your flexibility. :) —valereee (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done ALT4 is good to go. It is reasonably interesting, mentioned inline, properly cited and verified by the source. Flibirigit (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/e5 Project

5225C, there's an unsourced para, first para in 'Ship design projects' section. —valereee (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Citations added.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 22:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago with only a couple of entries remaining, so here is an updated list with the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through July 23. We currently have a total of 229 nominations, of which 103 have been approved, a gap of 126. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

• June 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Penn v Lord Baltimore (awaiting a second review)
• July 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Bola Maya

Other old nominations:

• July 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Soegondo Djojopoespito
• July 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Sunny Cheung
• July 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Muhammad ibn Sulayman ibn Ali
• July 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Hamilton McWhorter III
• July 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Rolando Del Maestro
• July 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Martha Moulsworth (two articles)
• July 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Lynching of Irving and Herman Arthur
• July 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Central Industrial Security Force Act
• July 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Governor of North Sumatra
• July 20: Template:Did you know nominations/William John Bishop
• July 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Alonso Martínez de Espinar (two articles)
• July 20: Template:Did you know nominations/CENTOS (charity)
• July 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Joy Parr (two articles)
• July 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Özge Kanbay
• July 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Ghansi
• July 20: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Roman Catholic archbishops of Montreal
• July 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Carl Linde (football manager)
• July 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Graziano Mesina
• July 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Harold Huglin
• July 21: Template:Did you know nominations/American Bank Note Company Building
• July 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Fermanagh County Council
• July 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Ali Janbulad
• July 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Leo J. O'Donovan
• July 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Chinese Consulate-General, Houston
• July 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Exchange Place (Manhattan)
• July 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Siddhantasara
• July 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Scalia v. Ginsburg
• July 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Led Zeppelin Played Here
• July 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Villa Tunari Massacre
• July 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Khalili Collection of Swedish Textiles
• July 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Folklore (Taylor Swift album)
• July 23: Template:Did you know nominations/WIGO (AM)
• July 23: Template:Did you know nominations/New Atlantis (micronation)
• July 23: Template:Did you know nominations/"What! Still Alive?!": Jewish Survivors in Poland and Israel Remember Homecoming
• July 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Miranda Du

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) 04:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

3 queues open, 7 prep sets full

Pinging @Casliber:@Amakuru:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Guerillero:@Valereee:@Wugapodes:@Lee Vilenski:. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I did one for now; I also added the queue navbar as an edit notice mostly for my own convenience, but hopefully others find it helpful. If not let me know and I can remove it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

All preps are filled again with 4 queues open. I'm just going to copy the pings from above - @Casliber:@Amakuru:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Guerillero:@Valereee:@Wugapodes:@Lee Vilenski:. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

{{doing}} — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I promoted one, but have to go. If there's some left when I'm free again I'll do more. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Though the lynching article in the next prep has sourcing issues. SL93 (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1 hook substitution

A double hook has been approved for the 2nd hook in the set. Could someone substitute this hook wording:

• ... that during his term as the Governor of North Sumatra in the 1980s, Kaharuddin Nasution ordered all civil servants in the province to wear white uniforms?

... and close this nomination template: Template:Did you know nominations/Governor of North Sumatra. (As I approved the Governor of North Sumatra hook, I'm recusing myself from promoting it.) Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/1946 Londonderry Borough Council election

Before I promote this hook from The C of E, does anyone have any objection to it?

• ... that a candidate for the 1946 Londonderry Borough Council election said that he had only hired one Roman Catholic in 48 years as a result of mistaken identity?

Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• That post is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. ;-) --evrik ^(talk) 15:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Last time I checked, there was no restrictions on Northern Irish political topics (or anything else in terms of subject matter thanks to WP:NOTCENSORED for that matter). The hook is factual and what is in the article and cited. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• NOTCENSORED applies to material within articles and is irrelevant as to whether a hook should be promoted to the front page.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Yoninah Unless you have an issue with this hook, not sure why it's being posted here. Posting here and asking "does anyone have an issue with this?" seems like you're asking people to disagree with this hook. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• No, I don't have an issue with it, but I also don't understand Northern Irish politics. After that huge brouhaha we had over a different Londonderry hook, I thought I'd save myself the trouble of reviewing and promoting it if someone else has an issue with it. Yoninah (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Which by the way, had nothing editorially wrong with the content of the article or hook. Just the day it was due to run had the objection, despite it being held in the holding area for a number of weeks. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what this DYK means ... does it mean a candidate in the election declared himself a bigot? That doesn't seem that interesting in the greater scheme of things. Anyway, in order to give a full answer to the question, I'd like to be able to read the citation, which is page 18 of Contemporary Irish Studies by Tom Gallagher, could someone supply it? The book is on googlebooks, but that page is not available for me. Mujinga (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The dropbox link named Londonderry 1946 is broken and provides no further information about what it was supposed to contain. Londonderry Sentinel - Saturday 19 October 1946 p.4 doesn't name the article or author. Why is Congressional Record: Proceedings of the 81st Congress used for Irish history? We need better sourcing for a hook that is going to be a lighting rod. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed dropbox and expanded the source originally in there before expansion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• I'm leaving the decisions on if this should run or not to more knowledgeable people, but given all the controversies about Northern Ireland politics discussed here before, any Northern Ireland hook that mentions religion or nationality may not be a good idea. For similar reasons, someone should take a close look at Template:Did you know nominations/Rosemary Barton (politician) (ALT1 looks fine to me, but ALT0 is sounding my alarm bells). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• Narutolovehinata5 How is ALT0 of that hook questionable? it's talking about sports fans, which so far as I can see isn't politically-motivated. Honestly, this whole thread just seems like a kangaroo court to me. Whilst I had concerns about the 12th July issue/hook, I don't see why these two articles are being singled out, as they're nowhere near that controversial. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Seeing the words "Unionist" and "intimidation from Gaelic football fans" in the same hook gives me deep reservations. In fact, simply "intimidation from Gaelic football fans" was enough to give me pause, and while I know that "Gaelic football" refers to the sport and not the people, knowing the tensions involved, it just doesn't sound like a good idea. As for this particular hook, the issue seems to be how it mentions both "Catholic" and "Londonderry", which as far as I can understand could lead to problems even if they were not intentional. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• The C of E is simply trying to get the word "Londonderry" on the Main Page through any means necessary (as per the previous DYK). Also, most of the "Campaigns" section appears to be unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That is a grossly baseless remark and completely untrue. I have already explained that this is a by-product of the destubathon and it just so happened to be about a Londonderry council election (before the council changed its name) that had nothing going for it and I gave it new life. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Sorry, my good faith on that front evaporated when you tried to get the last one scheduled for the 12th July (and it turned out it wasn't the first time as well). Black Kite (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• I notice that all the Londonderry mentions redirect to Derry. Yoninah (talk) 10:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: WP:DERRY. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: so the first mention of the mayor in the lead of this article should be unpiped from [[Mayor of Derry|Mayor of Londonderry]]? Yoninah (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Because it's in reference to the city, rather than the county, it should be the unpiped Derry, per MOS:DERRY. ——Serial 10:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Though of course he would have been Mayor of Londonderry in 1946, which is why these DYKs are all pre-1984 when the name was changed. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Also, apart from the citation needed tag, the results in the first table - which is incomplete - don't tally with ones in the tables underneath. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• Which has been removed and a question for clarification asked on the nomination page. In other news, Gerry Mullan (politician) ran yesterday without any comment, which I find interestingly had no comments about it despite also being a Northern Irish political hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to note I have reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Fermanagh County Council, and I am not happy about the hook for all the same reasons The C of E has been mentioned in threads on this page. You can deny you have a pro-Loyalist POV, but as long as you keep trying to plug Londonderry and the Royal Ulster Constabulary on the main page, nobody will believe you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 4 - Article problems

The Campfire ash ceremony article currently in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 keeps getting tagged. The discussion is here: Talk:Campfire ash ceremony. Your comments and assistance are appreciated. --evrik ^(talk) 21:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I moved this to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4, so you have time to work this out. — Maile (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The source used for the hook is from someone's own personal website (https://nrarso.wixsite.com/nighthawk/campfire-ashes-ceremoney). It would need a reliable source. Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't find one either, which is weird if the hook is true given that it supposedly came from Baden-Powell. If it isn't, the entire article shouldn't exist. Surely there must be something... Black Kite (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

This source can be used for the hook: Bowles, Martha (2019-04-06). "Lee's Summit Girls Form Scouts BSA Troops". Lee's Summit Tribune. --evrik ^(talk) 23:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a very local newspaper from 2019, though, which with the greatest of respect they could have got from anywhere - Google? An interview with a local scout person who'd heard the story somewhere? We don't know. And it's only even a passing mention in that source. You certainly can't hang an article on it - as I said, if the ceremony really originated with Baden-Powell, surely there's a decent source in the 80 years since he died? Black Kite (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• The original hook read, ... that Scouting's century-old campfire ash ceremony is meant to demonstrate the history and fellowship associated with the movement? Mac Scouter and "Yanks, Brits forge friendships at Interlink '94". News Briefs. Scouting. May 1995. p. 9. --evrik ^(talk) 03:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

A newspapers.com search revealed 0 hits for the term "campfire ash ceremony". SL93 (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

There are scores of sources, but most are from scouting related websites. --evrik ^(talk) 03:42, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I had a look at this article when it was in the nom page here, and didn't feel confident about the sources. The topic has no hits in a Boys' Life search, so I doubt it should be written as if it is a ubiquitous ceremony. CMD (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Therein lies the irony, the ceremony happens all the time. There are scores of websites about it, but little of it is formal. There are even retailers that sell products for it. --evrik ^(talk) 15:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it is common with some troops and events, but not in others. CMD (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm hoping all issues have been resolved. --evrik ^(talk) 01:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Anyone to adopt a baseball article?

Template:Did you know nominations/Nippon Professional Baseball playoffs is currently stuck, but only needs a few minor changes to be approved. Is anyone willing to adopt this? Thanks in advance. Flibirigit (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

• My extra mental energy is working on the campfire article above. I can offer a QPQ if you want one. --evrik ^(talk) 18:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 7 image

@Hdolf:@SerAntoniDeMiloni:

The image File:LeslieGoonewardenePortrait.jpg is tagged for deletion at Commons. Apparently the licensing has not been sorted out yet. Yoninah (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hdolf:@Yoninah:. The licensing has been sorted, but I haven't received a response from the nominator. Hence, I went and republished on Wikipedia (where an Declaration of consent for all enquiries has been submitted for the File LeslieGoonewardenePortrait70s . jpg – that one should be fine for use. Best, SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I noticed your declaration, but as the file is still tagged for deletion, I wonder if we should wait until everything is sorted out. Yoninah (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

That may work best. It'd be good to see if Hdolf would mind removing the DYK and re-adding when the image is sorted? SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of. A Wikimedia Commons admin is currently having a look at the file's permissions email. It would be super if we could hold off for 24 hours. Thanks, SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@SerAntoniDeMiloni: Apologies for the late response. I'll be on holiday for the next couple of weeks, so will be relatively inactive. Either of your suggestions works for me, and I'd be happy to wait a day to see. If that doesn't go to plan, I'd be happy to remove the DYK pending. You can ping me when the image is cleared up and I'd be happy to re-add. Hdolf (talk) 22:10, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Hooks about things named after people

It was brought to my attention by @Yoninah: at Template:Did you know nominations/Casilda Iturrizar that hooks about things being named after people are not interesting. However, one of those three things has an article at Doña Casilda Iturrizar Park. There is also the issue that plenty of such articles, including Template:Did you know nominations/Teshio River and Template:Did you know nominations/Agnes Samuelson plus several others recently, have been promoted with no issues brought forth. I can likely find another hook by doing more research, but I'm trying to get consensus on this issue first even though I really am not all that excited by my DYK nomination being the guinea pig. I'm also pinging the original reviewer @Alan Islas:. SL93 (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it's not the most inherently exciting hook, but personally I have a relatively low bar for hooks since I recognize that different people find different things interesting and wouldn't reject it on that basis. Also, I think using an image to enhance the hookiness of a hook is entirely valid, and a hook need not be hooky without the image. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking of a hook which is based on new information I found which states that hers is the only case of someone having two streets named after them in Bilbao (which the article currently lacks). There are also two facts I find interesting also - that she endowed a fund for scholarships which still operates today and that she was the richest woman in Bilbao. SL93 (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• @SL93: I left an ALT4. I don't know if it's helpful, or different, but I tried there. I can't get inside Yoninah's head, but I think they were asking for something that hooks the reader into wanting to read more. The world is full of philanthropists with memorials. I think Yoninah was looking for something to make the reader want to know more. Re the promoted hooks you list above, the Agnes Samuelson hook mentions that she was an inductee into the Iowa Women's Hall of Fame, which is fairly hooky. I don't know about The Teshio River. — Maile (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • What do you think of my two proposals above in this discussion, which is sourced to here? I did use Google Translate, but I do know that the original reviewer knows Spanish. I am more frustrated that the hook was approved on July 14, only to have a long discussion started on August 6 which is essentially a long discussion on one sentence. I wouldn't be as frustrated if the conversation came sooner. SL93 (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Just by doing a search on the Approved nomination page by using the keyword "named", I found these articles - Fort Trump, Acorn Creek, Exchange Place (Manhattan), Moritz Hall, Helen Hope, and more. While in the not yet approved page, there are four such hooks. It could be argued that everything is named after something. SL93 (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

What it comes down to is, (1) is a reviewer asking for something extra; (2) is the promoter saying it isn't hooky? The issue is not (to me) whether or not something is named after somebody. It's whether or not the hook is worded in such a way as to draw in the reader. And since each promoter might see that differently, it still comes down to addressing that particular promoter's questions — Maile (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maile66: I guess a flaw in that reasoning is that a promoter could have no issues with the hook and promote it, but then someone else can come along and have it unpromoted based on if the hook is interesting. SL93 (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that pretty much describes DYK in a nutshell. — Maile (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I realize that and I do believe DYK really needs an overhaul. SL93 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

The issue of "the reader" is so abstract. We don't know which particular demographics will visit the main page during the time that a hook is on the main page. SL93 (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

SL93 there's a different issue you might want to have a look at, and I'm not enough of an expert in this area to tell you. It's that really excellent infobox image. I love the image. But when I look at it on Commons, it's missing information (I think) about the copyright. Obviously, it's an old painting. You can tell by the texture on it that it came from another website. The uploader says it's their own work, but I have my doubts. Probably should get this settled if it's going to be used in the article. — Maile (talk)

Maile66 I brought it up on Commons. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

SL93 Thanks - I added my two cents to your comment there. — Maile (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1 image, Pappajohn Sculpture Park

The US does not have freedom of panorama for sculptures, so the picture being used technically shouldn't even be on Wiki. Infact none of the images of sculptures in the article should be there. From my understanding you can only include images of public sculptures in the US under Fair Use, unless they were completed before 1924 or published before 1978 without a copyright notice. per :Commons:United States Freedom of panorama). Found5dollar (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that. The image has been removed in the article, and in the hook. I've moved the hook down to the 2nd hook, which is not an image slot. — Maile (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Maile66: A "lua error" was left behind in the prep. I would fix it myself, but I'm not sure how. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed thank you for catching that! — Maile (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 2

Wilbur Little

• ... that Wilbur Little was lynched for wearing his World War I uniform after being discharged from the army?

The article has a section disputing whether the lynching actually occurred and the conflict is never resolved. Should the hook be re-worded to better reflect the article or is it fine as is? — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@RoySmith and BTV55: as noms — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:03, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. There was a discussion on this talk page, but I'm thinking it was archived. SL93 (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

SL93, The dispute is total WP:FRINGE based on non-WP:RS. See WP:RSN#Lynching of Wilbur Little. The hook should stay the way it is. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the RSN link, Roy! I think that's reason enough to keep the hook. In light of that, it may be worthwhile to trim the "hoax" section a bit since it now seems WP:UNDUE. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't concerned much either way. I only wanted to point out that there was an earlier discussion. I wasn't even paying attention towards the end of it. SL93 (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I originated the entry and subsequently watched the WP debate over this with great interest. As a Wikipedia noob, I thought it best to watch and learn. But I went to graduate school for American history and spent a career as a journalist and I have to say that, in my judgment, we can't really say what happened to a Wilbur Little in 1919 at this point. Personally, I am satisfied with the conflicting information as the best we can do. But I defer. 71.169.18.200 (talk) 09:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC) BTV55

E (New York City Subway service)

• ... that the New York City Subway's E train has been nicknamed the "Homeless Express" due to its large ridership of homeless people?

@Kew Gardens 613 and Epicgenius: the article doesn't cite the "homeless express" epithet, and I cannot find reference to it in the article cited on the nom page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I've moved it to prep 3 for now — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:20, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Wugapodes, this fact is supposed to be sourced to this ref. I've added it in. epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)