Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
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 its processes can be discussed.

What would solve the problem if we could get buy in from the majority

Since burning out a while back, my solution for my own mental health is that for each nomination I make, I do my required QPQ, and then I either move a set to queue or build one, whichever need is highest. I'm therefore doing 9 reviews, but I only get credit for 1, so I feel I'm doing more than my share of the work to keep this project going. We could absolutely motivate more people to do this work if they actually were rewarded for the tedium and frustration and risk and unpleasantness that often accompanies it if we changed our system so that every review counts as a QPQ:

1. Reviewing a hook counts for a QPQ
2. Promoting a hook counts for a QPQ
3. Moving a set to queue counts as 8 QPQs
4. Each nomination after the 5th requires 1 QPQ
5. Each nomination after the 10th requires 3 QPQs

This obviously requires buy-in from the vast majority here, those who nominate regularly and would be required to do 3 QPQs for each nomination, since every nomination actually requires 3 reviews.

It means recognizing that many of those doing the work are often stressed by it. It means being willing to help alleviate that stress by doing more themselves instead of simply loading more and more work onto the minority. I'm afraid I'm not optimistic that we can get that buy-in, but I'll give it another shot. Valereee (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

On the one hand, I like this, because I do a lot of promoting; on the other, prep-building will become negatively affected—it's typically a one-person job at the moment, and I don't know the repercussions of making it an eight-person job. Why don't we just rule that each nomination requires two or three reviews, and two or three QPQs? That would get the quality control business out of the way at WP:DYKN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

That seems like it would just lead to loading up the approved hooks page; how does it get hooks to prep and preps to queue, which is the main problem here? Each nomination already requires three reviews; it's just that prep builders and movers-to-queue aren't getting credit for theirs. Valereee (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, so you're saying prep builders and movers to queue don't need to do quality checks at all? I think that's a recipe for a ton of ERRORS reports, and the admin who moves to queue is going to get the brunt of it. As an admin, I wouldn't be willing to send a queue full of eight hooks I hadn't even glanced at to the main page. Admins would still end up doing 8 full reviews and not get credit for them, which means they'd still have all the same tedium and frustration and risk and unpleasantness associated with it, except now we, too, would have to do 3 QPQs for every nomination. Valereee (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well yeah, it would probably need some intermediary infrastructure, but promoters/queuers wouldn't have to focus on quality control either. I don't know.

Also, are admins/prep builders typically the biggest nominators? By this system, I would have around 30 QPQs for this month alone (after nominations are factored in). It seens to me that we'd have people with gigantic QPQ stockpiles that would never be used. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You can donate QPQs. That happens often. And unless it didn't motivate people to build preps or move to queue, which would mean it was a failure, there shouldn't be many such people. No, I don't think admins or prep builders are typically the biggest nominators. There's one admin who was an extremely prolific prep builder and nominator when she was active, but typically the biggest nominators don't move to prep or queue. Which wouldn't frustrate me nearly as much if they were doing 3 reviews for each and I could count all the reviews I do. Valereee (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'm up for it then? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

If you think there's an issue with having too many cooks in the kitchen when building preps...maybe a prep builder could mark the prep as in use to indicate they're intending to build the entire set? And also much of the actual balancing could be done via switchouts. That is, when someone is switching hooks from set to set to improve balance, they don't usually do a full review of a hook that's already been checked by the promoter. Which means there could be people who specialize in the balancing of sets, which is the actual fun part of prep building. We used to have a prep builder, the much-missed Yoninah, who did a lot of that, and was excellent at it. Valereee (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

While I understand that this would give more recognition to prep building (and request more participation from frequent nominators) I don't think this proposal addresses the main flaw of DYK right now: we have too many steps where people can lazily assume that others already did their work properly. We have reviewers who assume that the sources support the hook without checking, we have promoters who assume that the reviewer checked the hook fact (or that an admin will do so later), and we have admins (including me) who assume that others have checked hook and article length and other formal requirements, and sometimes admins who do not check anything at all. This means that despite three levels of checks that are supposed to be done, some hooks do not get proper scrutiny at all.

Here's my proposal:

• 5 or less nominations: no QPQ required
• 6-25 nominations: 1 QPQ required, can only be a review.
• 26+ nominations: 2 QPQs required. At least one QPQ must be a review. The second QPQ may be a review or a promotion. Only promotions after the implementation of this new system will count. (I do not think I should be able to use a promotion from 3 years ago, as the goal is to reduce the backlog by encouraging more involvement.)
• Trial run in February or March (of whatever is chosen) and reassess at the end of that month.

This system will prevent newer reviewers from attempting promotions to get their QPQs (as I think promoters should have experience reviewing before doing promotions). I do not want to increase to 3 QPQs yet because DYK might run out of unapproved hooks. I would rather start with a lower number and increase it if needed later. I also am not convinced that promotions need to be counted: DYK has been pretty good about having enough prep sets built and struggles with getting reviews approved and getting admin to promote to queue. Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This effectively punishes movers-to-queue by requiring them to also do 2 QPQs when they're doing multiple reviews every time they move a set to queue. Valereee (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm worried that if we allow movers-to-queues to use these as QPQs, it will contribute to the "awaiting reviews" backlog. I won't be bothered if a QPQ for prep-to-queue is implemented and tweaked if needed. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, @Z1720, not following...those two sentences seem to contradict one another? Valereee (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: I would prefer not to include prep-to-queue as a QPQ. However, my feelings are not strong on this specific topic and I won't resist if the consensus is to include prep-to-queue or promotions to QPQ. Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha, thanks! Valereee (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I can certainly support Z1720's proposal, if a QPQ for a move-to-queue is included, as it's exactly what I'm doing now out of a sense of duty and might help encourage people to promote. But it doesn't do anything to encourage other admins to pitch in. It's basically saying to other frequent-nominator admins, "Okay, you have to do two QPQs, but if you prefer, you can do 9 instead."

If Z1720's proposal doesn't even include a QPQ for a move-to-queue, I oppose. That turns it into 10 reviews for me each time I nom, and frankly at that point I'd feel like I really need feel no sense of duty to keep overcontributing in an area that simply keeps asking me for more and more and more. Valereee (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Instead of giving everyone credit no matter how terrible their work is (an admin can literally just click PSHAW to promote p2q and just pretend they have done the checks; they should not receive 8 credits for this click) we need to make sure more of the people involved do their work properly. In particular, more rigorous QPQ reviews would make everyone else's lives a lot easier. Perhaps we should invalidate QPQs when serious issues with a nomination are found later. Bad (too friendly and not rigorous enough) reviews are the source of our problems, let us address that. —Kusma (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I dunno, Kusma, given how many questions are brought up here at the move-to-queue step, I think admins are doing their jobs. No objection to removing QPQ credit for "bad" reviews, not sure how that would work but I'd support something that didn't simply cause more work for those doing the work. Valereee (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, most admins are doing their job, but my proposal is about QPQ reviewers who are not doing their jobs, not about admins. I want to lower the workload for admins instead of paying them with (mostly irrelevant) brownie points. —Kusma (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not brownie points to tell admins they can count a moves-to-queue as QPQ reviews. It's lessening their workload in a way that encourages them to make such moves. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

given how many questions are brought up here at the move-to-queue step, I think admins are doing their jobs It also means that prep builders aren't doing their jobs, and that reviewers aren't doing their jobs. It should be rare for admins to find errors at such a late stage of the process, and not something that happens with the vast majority of p2q promotions. —Kusma (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

p2q? Valereee (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, moves-to-queue? Valereee (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

"prep to queue". —Kusma (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, stupid of me. Valereee (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I should really not introduce my own ad hoc abbreviations and expect everyone to understand me. —Kusma (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Some practical things about the proposal are very unclear. Currently, QPQs are very easy to check manually (you use up one every time you nominate, and you have to state clearly which one it is), but with the proposed system we would need to have a massive database somewhere that keeps track of everybody's credits. This is massively complicated and potentially error-prone, I would rather try to keep it simple. —Kusma (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

We could just trust regulars to keep track? I keep track. This would primarily affect people who have over two dozen noms. Valereee (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Prep-to-queue promotions are kept track of in Template:Did you know/Queue/NextPrep. One option is to allow admin to replace their QPQ requirement with a prep-to-queue promotion, and they can use a diff from the above to verify the completion of QPQ. Z1720 (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no easy way to check whether that diff has been used before, and it would be easy to lose track for the admin. It would be easier if we made these QPQ credits expire, say, by allowing an admin to nominate what they want for a week after each p2q, as a time limited flat rate. —Kusma (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

No objection to that. I trust admins wouldn't game it. Valereee (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Anyone object to putting this discussion on hold while we decide whether breaking the checking of hooks in prep into 8 single actions helps solve the problem? I'm good with it. I like it, actually. It means I can skip over hooks where I have zero knowledge, etc. Valereee (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

As someone who has been a contributor for over 15 years and as such as 460+ noms, BUT less then 10 noms a given year in the last 5 years, I WHOLLY object to being punished with extra QPQ requirements. Regular contributors are not the source of the backlog and should not be saddled with cleaning up the backlog that happens when editors do the 4 "free" noms and then bail.--Kevmin § 21:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kevmin, but each nomination requires three reviews. QPQ only requires you to do one. Someone else has to do the other two. Those someone elses -- a very small group -- are the ones doing the heavy lifting here to allow you to have 460 examples of your work appear on the main page. Anyone know how to figure out how many editors have done four and only four noms? Valereee (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this directly answers your question, but the only recent case I can think of where an editor made multiple nominations but was unwilling to do QPQs was Owais Al Qarni back in December. He nominated several articles, but four of them required QPQs. He declined to make any QPQ reviews, so the latter four were ultimately rejected, the others were either promoted or were rejected on their own merits. Other than that I can't think of any cases of people declining to do QPQs or quitting DYK immediately after their fifth nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

WTF? We actually had somebody who refused to do a QPQ??? RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, my. Special:Diff/1192685118 RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 196#Requesting guidance. The tl;dr is that the editor in question declined to review articles even after the QPQ requirement kicked in. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Another case I can think of was Venkat a few years back, although to be fair that was due to inconsistency in the guidelines (back then, the wording suggested that the QPQ wording kicked in after five credits regardless if they were the creator/expander's nominations; in fact, it was that case that led to the current clarification that it's five nominations). In any case, Venkat did ultimately start providing QPQs once the discussion took place. Other than that, I can't think of any other case of editors declining to do QPQs or retiring from DYK once they were required to do QPQs. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Im going to be blunt, that's not the problem of the nominator, Nominators are responsible for presenting a hook to the project that "should be" ready. Years of drama at MP:Errors has resulted in an exceptionally overburdened reaction to DKY appearances. "The heavy lifting" is NOT my responsibility and for many years it was not the ADMINS responsibility. However, a vocal minority from outside the project have created a culture where everything is looked at with MORE intensity than is done for ANY other main page section. The fact that DYK reactionaries have convinced you three separate passes on a nom/article are required is a massive creep in project structure and rules, and it should be examined, not foisted off on me. ITN, FA, OTD, etc are all looked at with less intensity and appear at Errors as frequently if not more frequently then this project. If the admins here feel they WANT to do this level of overworking, its on them. ALSO as I say my numbers have happened over 15 years, YOU are NOT the one that put in the effort of of writing 465-sh start class articles on subjects that did not exist on wiki prior, so do not denegrate the effort of writing an article that meets wikipedia rules and standards in the first place, and is comprehensive of the subject before it even reaches this project.--Kevmin § 02:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I won't be shouting back. As you point out, the work has become risky, but that certainly isn't the fault of those doing it, so please don't shout at us when we ask others to do a what really amounts to a small bit more. Because unless someone does it, the project will screech to a halt and none of us will have access to it any more. Those who have been doing the work often end up burning out. And for the record, I am one who has put in the effort of writing nearly 300 articles -- many of them well beyond start class -- over nearly 18 years. Valereee (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"Risky" per whom in this project? The biggest voices that have always demanded the 3+ checks are found outside this project, and notably are voices that have in the past few years, been topic banned from mainpage workings due to constant problems. There needs to be a full discussion of why every single person that touches a nom is now being required to duplicate the QPQ process. Is it actually a failing here or is it a response to external voices that have also continually called for the full disbanding of this project, and when that has failed, have actively cultivated an excessive level of implied "need" to bog down the project.--Kevmin § 18:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kevmin, risky as in the buck stops here. When something gets through, it's generally me getting called on the carpet. And I'm fine with that. I'll take responsibility for not checking closely enough. But since it takes me on average hours to check a queue -- eight checks, plus dealing with any questions that arise, sometimes over days -- it would be nice if other people were pulling their weight instead of characterizing themselves as being punished because someone asks them to do three.

I guess you could guarantee that every nom and every hook and every review you ever do will never have anyone ever question anything about it...admins/promoters could then not check your own noms/any noms you've reviewed, count them as the check required of the promoter or admin, and point to your statement if it ever ends up at talk or errors. Bucks stops in that case with Kevmin? I mean, I wouldn't want to guarantee that for my own noms. I make mistakes here and there, and the extra checks are helpful, for me. But if that's how strongly you feel about the work you're doing here, I'll make a note. Valereee (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

There is value in having multiple people review the same thing. Different people have different skill levels, concentrate on different aspects, or just plain have bad days. For example, I'm hard-nosed about copyrights, but get less worked up over hooks being "interesting". Other people are more into the interestingness aspect. By having multiple people do reviews, you're more likely to have all the aspects examined carefully. RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Just trying to help those polymaths out there avoid two extra QPQs. Valereee (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we need people to be a bit more chilled about the Main Page. I do not agree that it is just DYK that receives this amount of scrutiny/abuse. A few years ago we had an article about the characters of a TV show that was sourced to 2010 standards (lots of interviews and forum posts by the creators) as TFA. It caused a riot at ERRORS, but other than that did zero harm.

Nevertheless we should not run wrong or misleading hooks or copyvios. We either need admins doing checks for this, or we need to increase the reviewing standard of the QPQ reviews. The project in general has experienced a rise in standards (new FAs and GAs these days also tend to be much better than ten years ago, and articles that would have been DYK-worthy 15 yeas ago would not pass New Page Patrol nowadays), so it is natural that expectations at DYK are also rising. Asking for one decent review before an article hits the Main Page should be acceptable, the question is how we can ensure that this happens other than by burning out admins. —Kusma (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Kusma I already do a full QPQ review when i nominate an article for DKY. However the problem is that Valereee is proposing here that for me to continue participating I will be requited to do triple that, with this proposal say that I will need to complete 3 QPQs/reviews simply to nominate an article. The requirement that every article be fully reviewed by every single person that touches it at every single step of DKY movement is what needs to be looked at.--Kevmin § 18:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kevmin, we are in a bit of a crisis at the moment (and have been for a while), mostly at the admin end of things, so many people including @Valereee are throwing out ideas how we can reduce admin stress and burnout. From what I see in practice, there is not currently a "full review by every single person" in a DYK hook lifecycle; instead, we have a first ("QPQ") review that should be thorough and look at everything, but often overlooks some important aspects. Then there is a second light-touch review by the prep builders, and I think most of them focus on interestingness and hook copyediting. The promoting admin then does a final sanity check (in my case, it goes something like this: does the hook seem to be correct? Is it fully sourced in the article? Is the article copyvio? Are there any BLP or other issues giving me pause?) Sometimes people also pick up problems via WP:ERRORS, ideally before the hook hits the Main Page.

The second crisis we are in is one of too many unreviewed nominations. The "5 free nominations without QPQ" (which is important not just to be nice to newbies, but also in order to avoid reviews by inexperienced people) is likely the main culprit here. Without a good supply of volunteers who do more reviews than they nominate, we need to find some way to deal with the resulting backlog, and "ask for more QPQs from experienced nominators" is one possible suggestion that has been thrown out a few times.

Can we make the whole system more light touch? Perhaps, but it seems hard without a radical overhaul, and it is difficult to get consensus for large-scale system change. Creative ideas are always welcome, though, and especially small or technical improvements do get picked up (like the wonderful scripts @theleekycauldron has written). —Kusma (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I do my part in trying to cut down the backlog (I do a lot more reviews than articles I nominate), but there seems to be an unwritten rule or guideline that encourages reviews only if the editor has an open nomination. Of course, no such rule exists, but in practice, most editors only review if they already have a nomination. Making it mandatory to review more than what is nominated is unnecessary of course, but I wonder if we should encourage that more, as in if you can review nominations even without an open nomination, as long as it's kept optional and it's kept as the user's choice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we should encourage separating the reviewing from nominating. I have kept a few spare reviews for a few years now, as it makes nominating a lot less stressful. And I just review when I feel like it, not when I make a nomination. —Kusma (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I will be honest, I have not read the entirety of the text above. But, if I try to breakdown the problem

1. Each of the nominations should be balanced by a QPQ review, 1:1 (let's keep exceptions like re-reviews, exemption for first 5 reviews, etc aside for simplicity). Let this be activity 1.
2. That leaves, promotions to queues / Set-building / Pre-building (whatever we call it). Let us call this activity 2. Now, I understand it is this activity that is finding it hard to sustain volunteers, further stressing the regulars who have been doing this job.

My view is that, any attempts to subsidize activity #2 by providing relief on activity #1, will throw the balance in activity #1 off. At the same time, given the recent scripting tools from theleekycauldron, activity #2 can really be broken down to a granularity of a hook. i.e. one can advance a single hook to a prep / queue / set. That gives us some levers to play with. Particularly, I would suggest combining activity #1 and #2. How? Tie them with the QPQ requirement. Today, QPQ requirement requires 1 nomination = 1 review. If you change that to 1 nomination = 1 review + 1 promotion. This would significantly ease any effort on prep-building. Now, the flip-side is that we might see some quality issues surfacing every-once-in-a-while. I think this has to be handled as a part of the exception process.

tl;dr -- My suggestion is to change the QPQ process. QPQ for 1 nomination = 1 review + 1 promotion (via PSHAW). Ktin (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

We really really do not want new-to-DYK editors pushed into doing promotions and doing a pro-forma job of it because it's required. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

A promotion review isn't really any different from a nom review, which kicks in at five noms. It's the puzzle-building that is new, and others can handle the swaps if they don't also have to do the reviews. Valereee (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

A promotion can be done with very few clicks in PSHAW, and there is currently no way to tell whether a review has been done or not while promoting. This is very different from a nom review, where we usually expect some evidence of reading the hook and the article. Anyway, the suggestion does nothing about our current main bottleneck, which is that not enough admins do the prep-to-queue click. —Kusma (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Or 1 review + 1 admin check of a hook after promotion/before moving to queue? Valereee (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I see many editors above want to include promotions in the QPQ in some fashion. However, the bottleneck at DYK is not with prep promotions, but with the backlog of reviews at WP:DYKN and a lack of admin promoting preps to queue. I think letting people use promotions in their QPQ, regardless of how it works, has the potential to cause harm while at the same time bringing little benefit to the project, as more preppers is not a need right now. I am in favour of any solutions that make prep-to-queue work more appealing to admin and getting nominations reviewed faster. Z1720 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, I know I've suggested this before and gotten shot down, but I'll try again. We could uncouple the reviewing from the promoting. Allow non-admins to perform the final review and mark the prep set to indicate that it's gotten its third review. Then all an admin has to do is click the promote button. We require admins for the final promotion to the main page to prevent vandalism, and that just takes a quick look. The time-intensive part of the promotion checks are verifying the sourcing and checking for copyright problems, neither of which need a mop. RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I would be in favour of this, and allowing anyone with a certain number of promotions to perform this task. WP:DYKPC already tracks how many promotions each editor does, so modifying that script to show whatever number we want to set to give editors is extra capability is (hopefully) very easy. Some admin are already using the small notes in prep sets to indicate articles that have received a third check, so this process is already set up. As a point of comparison, at OTD almost any editor can swap hooks and this area receives similar or fewer complaints than DYK at ERRORS. Z1720 (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Having recently done some OTD sets and been surprised at the relative simplicity of it compared with DYK, I fully agree. I'm not an admin, and I wandered in there, swapped some stuff around, and –well, the result is on the main page right now (along with the DYK set I also prepped). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I would support this. Valereee (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the whole prep/queue, then copy to the DYK template setup is rather old fashioned and should be changed. All other parts of the Main Page work with subpages for every date that are protected (usually automatically via cascading protection) when they are about to hit the Main Page. We should not have separate preps and queues, but just have subpages like Template:Did you know/14 May 2024 for direct Main Page transclusion, together with an easy thumbs-up approach to indicate approval, and a one-click tool to raise an issue at WT:DYK. It is not 2004 anymore, we shouldn't require everything to be manual, and we should not need to rely on an admin bot that fails a couple of times per year. —Kusma (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This makes total sense to me. Having to move hooks around is a lot of work; PSHAW automates some of it, but things like pulling hooks is still all manual work. Copying also messes up the edit history. If I want to see how a hook has evolved, I often need to go digging through the prep/queue edit histories. Creating a new page for each set would also solve the problem of people wanting to build sets but there's no room to do it. And it would greatly simplify the handling of special occasion hooks. If you want it to run on a specific date 6 weeks in the future, you just create that page today and put the hook there. RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It would also be simple enough to keep admin approval for the main page, if wanted. Build preps in draft Draft:Did you know/5 February 2024, and rely on an admin to move it to Template:Did you know/5 February 2024 (or Wikipedia:Did you know/5 February 2024 if that move finally succeeds). No copy pasting, a single edit history. CMD (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother with the draft space. Just have a bot that watches the queue and protects pages as they near the top of the queue. Just like happens for images. RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Why use a bot? Cascading protection could always protect the next three days without any intervention. The only bots needed would be Krinklebot for the Commons protection and another one for credits. (Archiving would also be automatic). —Kusma (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not up to speed on the details of how cascading protection works, but if it can handle this automatically, that's even better. RoySmith (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

uncouple the reviewing from the promoting – I'd be in favour of this. Schwede66 08:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Adding:

My suggestion above (i.e. 1 nomination QPQ = 1 review + 1 promotion (via PSHAW)) ties the nomination and prep-building process. So, this will ensure that the two will roughly be aligned in terms of rate of inflow / rate of outflow, once we achieve steady state. Some exceptions will exist as noted (e.g. need for re-reviews, no QPQ until 5th nom etc), but, for simplicity lets proceed with this.

Quality: Yes, this could be a potential problem, but, we will have to treat it on a case-by-case basis. If we trust reviewers with the reviews, we should trust them with the promotion to a prep piece.

Traceability: There is a comment above that the promotion to a prep-queue does not have traceability / evidence of quality checks. I am speaking for theleekycauldron, but, this can be solved by adding a notes field to the tool, or a checklist, prior to prep.

Lack of admins to promote from preps to queues: This is a whole different problem. We have a general scarcity of admins. We have the same problem on the WP:ITN side of the house too. I think the long term answer to this is some sort of an WP:AWOT, where Wikipedia as a whole needs to create a new class of admins with a limited scope of a project or two. The current admin process clearly is not attracting enough admins, and the admins from prior generations can not be expected to stay engaged forever. The medium to short term answer is that we should consider non-admins to promote to queues as well. Maybe we create a workaround to the AWOT system by nominating a handful of long term project members who can be trusted to move contents from preps to queues. Ktin (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm totally in favor of more unbundling of permissions. In the prehistoric days of software, permissions tended to be an all or nothing thing. Gradually, the world has moved to a more fine-grained permissions concept, but we're still mostly stuck in the "admin == superuser" mode. Which means we can't give somebody permission to update the DYK section of the main page without also giving them permission to block users, view deleted revisions, protect and unprotect pages, etc, etc. Which means it's a big deal to get a mop, which means RfA is a sewer, which means people don't want to be admins. RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Yep. Valereee (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think forcing people to do prep building is a good idea. It has its own rules and it can be tricky even for experienced users. Like the others said, one of the main difficulties with prep building is to make sure the original check is fine and nothing else was missed, which could be done by non-sysops. So just unbundling the steps, instead of forcing prep building, itself a very stressful activity, would only make the problem worse. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

My 2c. We need to move away from this mindset. One of the big wins of the PSHAW tool is that it decomposes prep-building / set-building to hook-promotion. I think that is truly a game changer. If we believe editors can be hook-reviewers, they can 100pc be hook-promoters. Ktin (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm with Narutolovehinata5 on the prep building issue. It's complex. Schwede66 08:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I, for one, am very likely to give up DYK if continuing to contribute to it (something I do maybe a couple times a month, max) can only be done by installing someone's half-baked script. If it's an editing task, as un-onerous as QPQ reviewing is now, fine. It it's turning me into a script-monkey, no. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

You don't have to use the script to promote a hook to prep or move a prep to queue, if that's your worry. It just makes the process easier. Valereee (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Can't get on board with the notion of forcing people to do promotions, sorry. That is just likely to result in random sets and less scrutiny (since there is no formal requirement for reviewing promoted hooks as there is for QPQ). If there is a problem with insufficient nom reviewing, then probably an extra QPQ per nom is a better option, although I'm not sure how viable that would be either. Gatoclass (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Some stuff on Wikipedia is just complicated and better handled by people who can pass the knowledge barrier to get there. Zanahary (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Auto-reviews for trusted editors

• I agree with Kevmin that we should rollback the creepy increase in the workload. If it is taking set-builders and promoters hours to process a set because reviews have to be done in triplicate then that burden has clearly gotten too great. And if it is causing them to burn out then something must be done.

As DYK has lots of regulars who know the ropes then I suggest that it introduce a system like autopatrol which was likewise introduced to help lighten the load for new page patrollers. Editors who have submitted numerous DYKs without major problems should be trusted to fill in a checklist themself for their own nominations. So, veteran DYK editors would do a QPQ for a newbie's article and the first stage review for their own nomination. The set-builders and admins can do spot checks if something doesn't smell right, but they shouldn't have to make an onerous review from scratch for trusted editors. If a trusted editor gets too sloppy then they can be taken off the list, of course, just like autopatrol.

Myself, I have not been submitting DYKs for some time as I found the triplicate regime too heavy-handed. A trusted editor system of self-certification would encourage me to return.

Andrew🐉(talk) 14:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the idea of "trusted nominator" is not a bad one. As an admin, I'd be willing to skip the admin check for someone who'd been given that permission under the condition that anything that showed up at errors was absolutely 100% their problem, and not in any way the fault of the admin, and that any hook that needed to be changed while on the main page was reason for stripping someone of the permission. Valereee (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the idea has potential. I would suggest that articles on WP:Contentious topics should be reviewed independently, even if they come from a "trusted nominator". TSventon (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not totally opposed to this, but I'd hate to see is get into a situation where it's possible for a nom to self-review, then the set builder skips their review because "I trust them", and then the queue promoter also skips their review for the same reason, and we end up with stuff on the main page that got no review at all. RoySmith (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

+1 to what @RoySmith has said. ─ Aafī (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith, but it would only happen once? Then we take them off the list. Valereee (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Also they wouldn't be doing the original review of their own hook, would they? Valereee (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not agree with this. The whole point of QPQ was to ensure that it was experienced editors, not necessarily newbies, who were doing reviews given that they are more likely to be familiar with the rules. In addition, having an "auto-review" status opens the door to articles just breezing through the process even if there are serious issues with the article and/or nomination. DYK has higher standards than new articles, so what can work for NPP may not necessarily work for DYK. I'm not comfortable with any proposal that would open the door to problematic articles going all the way to the main page even with their issues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Over the past couple of years GAN culture has shifted significantly as an informal trusted nominator culture was found to let significant errors through. Even at the best of times mistakes happen, and I doubt the "absolutely 100% their problem" guarantee Valereee mentions can be relied upon to happen. CMD (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and think better solutions are what Kusma and RoySmith outlined above: improving the prep/queue system either by overhauling the old-fashioned system or by allowing experienced non-admins to do the prep-queue promotions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

On top of that, there's a bunch of simple things we could do to eliminate a lot of the drudge work. For example, here's a bunch of things I find myself doing over and over:

• Going through multiple clicks to get to the nomination template.
• Opening each of the bolded links in a set in each own tab.
• Running earwig on each of those tabs.
• Starting a thread about a hook on WT:DYK, complete with links to the queue or prep, to the nomination in question, and crafting a ping template to bring their attention to the thread.
• Slogging through a nomination to find the nominator, the approver, and the promoter so I can build the above ping.

All of those seem like something that somebody who knows their way around JavaScript could automate. And that would probably cut the time to review a queue promotion in half, and I'd be a lot more likely to do more of them. RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it would be great to have a button I could push that would start a section with a link to the prep/queue, and then for any hook I'm questioning add to that section a subsection with a link to the nom, a copy of the hook, a ping to the nom/reviewer/promoter, and give me an edit box to ask my question in. Valereee (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

But CMD, if one of their hooks appears at ERRORS, they're no longer a "trusted nominator". They have to do 3 QPQs or do X promotions/moves just like everyone else. Some are saying they'd stop nominating if faced with that extra burden. Which is too bad, I'd be sorry to see some of these excellent new article not be able to appear, but that would in fact also help solve the problem of too many nominations and not enough worker bees to handle them. Valereee (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• As a sample, here's the current set:

1. Hill Women by Whispyhistory
2. Silang tanmu by Kingoflettuce
3. W. Seavey Joyce by Ergo Sum
4. Barley, GA by Chiswick Chap nominated by Bruxton
5. Bridger Zadina by Bruxton
6. Poecilia orri by Surtsicna
7. Michael Artiaga and Andrew Artiaga by Johnson524
8. Winchester College football, GA and nomination by Chiswick Chap

Most of these editors seem to be highly experienced veterans who can be trusted to get the details right. If I were handling this set, the only hook that I'd spot check in detail would be the Artiaga brothers as the editor is not so experienced and there are potential BLP issues.

One issue might be the WikiCup though. It's my impression that events of this sort often drive a lot of activity here and so there might be competitive pressure to cut corners.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

This is already somewhat the case informally, in terms of my review process. I do full checks on every hook I promote, but in case there's an emergency and I need to grab a hook now, I'm not grabbing a new nominator's experimental article, I'm grabbing an Epicgenius or Sammi Brie hook right to the Main Page, and doing the checks post hoc. In my experience, though, a careful reviewing admin might find a not-insubstantial number of holes in even experienced nominators' hooks. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely I do bring hooks by very experienced regulars here for questions, regularly. My point is that if these highly experienced editors, who should know better, don't want to do extra reviews and don't think their hooks need the extra scrutiny, then fine, they can request the "trusted nominator" designation, avoid the extra work, stop causing extra work for others, and accept the burden of their shoddy hook getting on the main page onto their own shoulders. It's 100% them who gets raked over the coals at ERRORS. If that happens, and a hook by them needs to be pulled or fixed for factual errors or negative BLP content, they lose that trusted nominator designation and have to do the extra work, whatever we decide that needs to be. Valereee (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee regarding I do bring hooks by very experienced regulars here for questions, "very experienced" does not always imply "trustworthy" RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. But if you'd have to apply for this permission -- and get it revoked if it turned out you weren't trustworthy with it, and as a result be required to do more work -- maybe these highly experienced nominators, who should know better, would actually become more likely to police their own noms? Valereee (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: I got excited for a minute when I read "highly experienced veterans" until I read I was the one exception lol. I think if this could help solve the backlog problem, it's probably worth it to start issuing a "trusted nominator" designation for the reasons listed above. I hope something at least can be worked out, cheers! Johnson524 11:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Johnson524, just FTR, it's not in any way a comment on your work, the trusted nominator designation would probably be limited to something along the lines of people who've done at least 50 reviews and at least 10 in the past year, something like that. Valereee (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: Oh no I agree, I only have 12 DYKs and 15 reviews, so I'm definitely a still newbie here, it was just fun to read 😁 Johnson524 11:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Link to DYK nom page in talk page transclusions

Maybe I'm stupid and just not figuring it out, but when I see the DYK nom transclusions on article talk pages, I can never figure out where to click to get to the DYK nom page so that I can watchlist it. For example, right now at Talk:Chicago Community Bond Fund#Did you know nomination, I see these links:

• "Review or comment" which takes me to the page but in an editor
• "Article history"
• "will be logged" to GalliumBot's darn page
• redlink to the nom talk page
• "consider watching this nomination" links to Help:Watchlist but not to the nomination

None of these link to the nom page--I go in with the editor and then hit escape. But it'd be cool if there was a link somewhere there to the nom page to make it easy to watchlist. Levivich (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Levivich the same suggestion was made a week ago. TSventon (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I've implemented the changes in the sandbox, so that it generates something like:

(

• View or comment
• Article history

)

Anyone object to me pushing to prod? Also... why is this is in Lua? Something like User:Theleekycauldron/Templates/DYK nompage links is way simpler. Literally took me 20 seconds to get something that does (view | comment | article history) with special pages. Did the special pages not exist at the time? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate this. Sure you can just click on the "Review or comment" link then just click "Template", but that's too much effort especially now with the toolbox being moved to the main template page rather than it being an edit notice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Brilliant. Do it, Leeky. Schwede66 03:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

update: multihooks, uh-duh. {{trout}} for me :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, please. This is pretty close to #1 on my list of annoying things about DYK. RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron Where do we stand on this? RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Can "( Comment or view • Article history )" be changed to "( Comment • View • Article history )" please?--Launchballer 21:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Training Season

There is a time sensitive hook here that would need to go up before 15 February. I would appreciate any help with getting this up in a timely manner.--NØ 10:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the current feeling about hooks appearing in relation to a commercial event? In this case, the occasion on 15 February is the commerical release of the song "Training Season", hence the proposed hook ... that training season begins on 15 February? Placing a hook on the release date of a work has been a controversial thing to do, but I'm not sure how it applies with the proposed "creative click bait" hook in the nomination or the desire to have it run before said release date rather than on it. For that matter, "begins" in the hook could be changed to "began" for a post-15 February run if the original hook threads the click-bait needle. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I think WP:DYKSO is the most relevant thing that would apply here: The hook should not put emphasis on a commercial release date of the article subject, but simply listing a hook on a specific date does not, in and of itself, make a hook promotional. With that in mind I think it needs a new hook if it's going to run. - Aoidh (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Noting that although the hook has changed, it has been promoted to Prep 4, which is the set that will be running on the main page on the song's release date, 15 February. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

SOHA to queue

Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Baghdad (1258) is at WP:SOHA for 10th February but has not been added to a prep set. Could someone please promote it to either prep 7 or 1? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Can go into the hole in Prep 7. I don't want to do it myself because I still seem to be doing most p2q moves, so I'd rather not rule myself out. —Kusma (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

When the requested move discussion has closed I'll be more than happy to.--Launchballer 17:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

A move tag is not pretty, but I don't think it is disqualifying. —Kusma (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done – Schwede66 18:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I have just realised that as we have now gone back to 24-hour-cycles, the hook is in the wrong queue. @Kusma and Schwede66: could the hook please be moved from queue 7 to queue 6 so it can run on 10 February? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. —Kusma (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Time to go back to 24-hour cycle?

Hi! What are our policies on when it's appropriate to go back from 12 to 24-hour update cycles? I think 120 approved is the trigger going the other direction, correct? —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:DYKROTATE RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

In short, no, it's not time yet. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

But, @DYK admins: , if a prep or two is promoted to the queue in the next four hours, it very well might be... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The rule works on the sum of filled preps plus filled queues. Promoting a prep to a queue has no effect on the rule. RoySmith (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No, WP:DYKROTATE works on the number of approved nominations, and promoting a prep would allow more nominations to be promoted from WP:DYKNA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: , now down to 57 queues, so it will be time to go back to 24-hour cycles, unless the situation changes before midnight UTC. TSventon (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: sorry for the repeat ping, but WP:DYKROTATE is now satisfied; could one admin please update User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith (or any other admin), might you be able to move the Baghdad hook from Queue 7 to Queue 6, swapping it with another hook in Queue 6? This is a special occasion hook that is supposed to be on the main page on 10 February, and now that we're back to one set per day, it will need to move to appear on the requested date. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. —Kusma (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who helped out during the 2-a-day sets: the reviewers who decided to review extra articles (some of which will never be used for a QPQ), the prep setters who have been excellent in keeping preps full, and the admin who took extra time away from other parts of Wikipedia to promote preps to queues. DYK wouldn't be possible without your support and valuable time. Z1720 (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7 sanity checks

Walkelin (nom)

• ... that Walkelin, the bishop of Winchester, began the construction of the modern Winchester Cathedral in 1079?

The main source says "1079 or 1080", but most sources I see do indeed say "1079". But shouldn't it be "commissioned the construction" or something as he didn't personally build it? Ping @Godtres, @Gatoclass, @AirshipJungleman29. —Kusma (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• The beginning and ends of years were different back then. 1079 was the contemporary date; I think 1080 was added later to show the margin of error. I'm not 100% confident with this explanation, but I'm confident that enough sources say "1079" without "1080" that it is a safe thing to claim.
• I think it's ok to say "began the construction", because there's no implication that Walkelin himself actually did any building. I agree there would be a problem if it were simply "began to build". Do we need the definite article ("the") before "construction"? Worth considering.
• I'm unsure about the style rules on this, but should "bishop" be capitalised?

Godtres (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

We can probably leave as is then. Style rules for titles are MOS:JOBTITLES, which is fairly anti-capitalist stingy with capital letters. —Kusma (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The sources were offline for me, so I AGF verified those hooks, and therefore I think the folks who can actually read the sources will have to sort this one out. Gatoclass (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Cliff Davis (nom)

• ... that Cliff Davis, a former speaker of the Wyoming House of Representatives, had a $35,000 diamond ring and a pickup truck stolen from him?

In a BLP I would not want to point out such a misfortune on the Main Page. As Cliff Davis is dead, this argument doesn't apply, but I still don't like it much; it seems to be sourced to newspapers only and does not look like something he would want to be remembered for. Happy to hear opinions on whether this is appropriate to run on the Main Page. Ping @Jon698, @Kingoflettuce, @AirshipJungleman29. —Kusma (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I question why that is even in the article. Do we list every time one of our biographical subjects is a victim of a crime? User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I am inclined to pull this if we don't find a better hook soon. Maybe something involving "His campaign spent $53 in 1960 and $105 in 1970"? Ping again @Jon698, @Kingoflettuce, @AirshipJungleman29. —Kusma (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No opinion on if the claim should stay in the article or not nor about the hook, but isn't "it seems to be sourced to newspapers only" normally a good thing? At least sourcing wise. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The theft is sourced to newspaper reports about the prosecution of the perpetrators. That does not mean it is WP:DUE for inclusion in a biography of the victim, especially if other sources focussing on the victim do not mention it. It is verifiable, but verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. —Kusma (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kusma: ... that Cliff Davis spent $53 during his 1960 campaign for a seat in the Wyoming House of Representatives? Jon698 (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jon698: I think that is much better and have used it. It is not currently clear in the article that it was his money, but it is how I understand the source. —Kusma (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Newspapers, especially local ones, are pretty low on the source quality scale. JoelleJay (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the very reason that information about the theft is on the page is specifically in order to be a hook, out of an abundance of caution that a hook describing something Davis would want to be remembered for—something about his career, perhaps—would be deemed insufficiently interesting for DYK. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Judi Singh

Is the term "Indian" (see Native American name controversy) as ambiguous in Canada as it is in the states, or is the hook OK as is? Mach61 (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Her ancestry was literally Indian, not native American, so I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. Gatoclass (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

No, I mean will people not realize she's descended from the country of India and not Native American. Mach61 (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's their problem isn't it? I mean, people from India are called Indians. What else are you going to call them? Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I just thought it may be prudent to disambiguate, like with "South Asian Indian" or something (well, that's a bit akward, but you get what I mean). Of course, if the term "Indian" only has one connotation in Canada this would be unnecessary. Mach61 (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

That just sounds patronizing to me. And who refers to native Americans as "Indians" in this day and age anyway? It's hard to imagine anybody in 2024 getting confused or upset about referring to Indians as such. Gatoclass (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, LOTS of people do still use such nomenclature. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

People might, but media organizations don't, as the vast majority of people must surely realize by now. I can't even remember the last time I saw a media outlet referring to native Americans as Indians. It just isn't done anymore. Regardless, we don't need to be referring to Indians as "South Asians", that's a term confined mostly to the British Isles I believe, and doesn't compute in other parts of the English-speaking world. Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

From living in the States, "South Asian" is a familiar term, but generally used in a regional sense to mean not only India but perhaps also Pakistan, e. g. "South Asian history". In any case, when I've seen "Indian" used to refer to being indigenous to the North American continent, outside of colloquial speech I always see it as "American Indian" rather than "Indian" alone, so I agree that describing Judi Singh as Indian is sufficiently descriptive. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

1) Not sure that it really matters here, as the point being made is that her family was not "white"/European. That would be true for either sense of "Indian", provided that any Native American ancestry originated outside Alberta (the families were described as "settling"), 2) the national origin of the name "Singh" is fairly well known. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Question about QPQ

I'm just about reaching the point where I'll have to start doing QPQs, but I'm a little bit confused - WP:QPQ says that QPQ is required after nominating five articles, while I've seen other places say it's just DYK credits that count (like the QPQ checker). Which is true? And if it's the former, do rejected DYKs count as a nomination? Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 12:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The rules were updated semi-recently – yeah, it's five nominations, not five credits. Rejected nominations do count, but drive-by nominations don't. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, looks like I have to go do a QPQ then :P Thanks very much! (My one current outstanding nomination is my 6th including one rejected so I thought I was fine, oops) Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 12:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Campus of the College of William & Mary

This probably shouldn't be stated in wiki-voice. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 @Sammi Brie @Pbritti Any thoughts on rewording the hook? RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I frankly don't have any thoughts on how to handle this. "should" to "are recommended to"? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: is "might wish to" acceptable? ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, perhaps "are encouraged to" is how I would prefer to rephrase that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with anything that makes it clear that it's not being presented as fact. @Pbritti's "are encouraged to" wording sounds fine. RoySmith (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Mike "Hitman" Wilson

@Rjjiii, Launchballer, and Silver seren: Maybe it's there, but I'm not seeing where in the article the hook fact is stated. RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

"He produced "Another Sleepless Night",[14] which was initially released in September 1990 as "Mike "Hitman" Wilson featuring Shawn Christopher",[15] and appeared on an Arista Records compilation album;[14] with this credit, the song charted at No. 74 on the UK Singles Chart.[15] After the song topped the Dance Club Songs chart, Clive Davis summoned Christopher into his office, and convinced her to rerelease the song under the name "Shawn Christopher", on the grounds that she was the artist;[14] with this credit, the song charted at No. 50 on the UK Singles Chart.[15]" Simple calculations are permissible per WP:CALC.--Launchballer 17:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that works, thanks. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Special occasion request loophole

It's happened a few times where a special occasion request should have not been permitted for being outside the six-week requirement, but the review ended up taking so long that the review ended up being within six weeks or close enough to the requested date that the request ended up being granted anyway. I know WP:CREEP and all, but isn't this going against the spirit of the rule? For example, a nomination being nominated for a special occasion request (for example, Campus of the College of William & Mary), then hanging around unreviewed long enough for the nom to be reviewed close enough to the requested date where it running "wouldn't hurt". This could leave open the possibility of noms being unreviewed on purpose just to make IAR easier.

Come to think about it, if the six-weeks rule is almost always ignored anyway and IARs are liberally given, it makes me wonder if the rule is even worth implementing anymore if it being broken is, in practice, more common than it being implemented. Given how, in practice, the six-week rule is more commonly IAR broken than requests being declined per it, it opens the question if the rule should be just done away with or modified.

Courtesy ping to Z1720. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

How can noms be left "unreviewed on purpose"? Reviewers are completely independent of nominators. You can't control who reviews your nom.

As for changing the rule, I can't see any benefit to that. Even if the rule is honoured more in the breach than the observance, it is still providing at least a ball-park proximity to the special occasion date. Gatoclass (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I prefer hooks to run on days of special occasions if appropriate, as I think it makes DYK more special and prevents the reader from wondering things like, "Why is this running today and not on their birthday in 4 weeks?" I understand the six-week rule is there to prevent nominations from sitting at DYK, it is not the nominee's fault if no one has reviewed their article.

I do not see the harm in running a hook outside of the six-week window. I do see the harm in being strict about that rule, as it can disappoint new editors who worked hard to improve an article, understand our DYK rules, waited a long time to get their article reviewed, and then be told they can't have their article appear on a certain date because it is "against the rules". If someone tries to game the system by delaying a nom's approval, it can be discussed at WT:DYK. I think the "case-by-case" system we have in place now for articles nominated outside the six-week window works and should not be changed. Z1720 (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I vaguely remember a discussion to loosen the timeframe, giving a bit more space to get the article up for the nominator, and more lead time to have it reviewed. CMD (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I’ve created a new list of the first 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 15. We have a total of 238 nominations, of which 70 have been approved, a gap of 168 nominations that has increased by 13 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than one month old

• December 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Music of Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance
• December 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Maternal Care Deserts in America
• December 15: Template:Did you know nominations/John A. Hilger (second nomination)
• December 18: Template:Did you know nominations/D-Date
• December 22: Template:Did you know nominations/James Townsend (abolitionist)
• December 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Zoé Clauzure (two articles)
• December 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Euan Duthie, Lord Duthie
• December 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Panos Katseris
• December 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Lucy Tun
• December 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Lobster-eye optics
• December 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Turno (musician)
• December 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Sunehri Bagh Masjid
• January 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Robbery Bob
• January 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Lewis Pragasam
• January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Catodontherium
• January 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Asakusa Culture Tourist Information Center
• January 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Sumner Z. Kaplan
• January 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Clutter
• January 6: Template:Did you know nominations/South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention)
• January 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Gebhard Schädler
• January 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Franz Jakob Späth
• January 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Mullae Park
• January 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Joseph Pierce (soldier)

Other nominations

• January 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Stefano Černetić
• January 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Ethics (Abelard)
• January 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Anthony W. Case
• January 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Myanmar Photo Archive
• January 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Vuillemin
• January 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Lewes Friends Meeting House (two articles)
• January 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Nippy (Better Call Saul)
• January 12: Template:Did you know nominations/2024 College Football Playoff National Championship
• January 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Bernard Descôteaux
• January 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Jade Armor
• January 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Jewish cemetery, Hoorn
• January 13: Template:Did you know nominations/M-Beat
• January 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Perihan Çınar
• January 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Armstrong (political theorist)
• January 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Matt Stoller
• January 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Hermann Collitz

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Nominating twice

Hi! I had a quick question, just to make sure: I gather it isn't possible to nominate an article for DYK if it already has in the past, is that correct? (for example, if it is expanded after its creation or upgraded as a good article). Best wishes, NoonIcarus (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It is possible - there must have been at least 5 years since the article last appeared on the mainpage with a bold link. See WP:DYKNEW. ResonantDis_tortion 15:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@ResonantDistortion: I understand, many thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

QPQ tool is down?

Betacommand's tool is giving a 503 error at the moment. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 I'm poking around a bit and don't see anything about it. How recently was it working? RoySmith (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T319587

Oh, I see. It looks like it was running on the old GridEngine infrastructure which is in the process of being turned off. Reading the phab ticket, I'm not optimistic it's going to get fixed. RoySmith (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 Could you give a description of what the QPQ tool did/should do. Sohom (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It should simply give list how many credits a user has had.

One of the issues is that it doesn't distinguish between nominations and credits, meaning people who were credited as an expander or co-nominator can be given a credit even if they didn't actually nominate the article. The rules were changed not too long ago to change the QPQ requirement to kick in after five nominations, instead of credits like it was before (since it would mean users who had never had a single nomination but had over five credits would have needed to do a QPQ). The tool was never updated to reflect the change, however.

Still, it was the best tool we had and otherwise we will have to rely on manually checking nominations to ensure QPQ compliance, which can be a bit of a pain unless a new tool is made. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I never ever use that tool because I find it too unreliable; it regularly said I had under five when I have more than 200. I usually just go through the nominator's contributions in the template namespace.--Launchballer 23:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I remember that a while back, Theleekycauldron wrote up a replacement tool that took into account nominations instead of credits. Maybe that tool can be revived as a replacement? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I wrote a small tool right now, you can use https://qpqtool.toolforge.org/qpq/<username> to check for previous nominations here. Sohom (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Is the source for this available? RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The source code should be availiable at https://github.com/sohomdatta1/qpqtool under the MIT License :) Sohom (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Could you update the entry at https://toolsadmin.wikimedia.org/tools/id/qpqtool to make it easier for people to find? RoySmith (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, done :) Sohom (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the tool! However, I'm testing it right now and it's rather slow at the moment, taking minutes to work or give results. Is there a way for the tool to become more efficient so it can give results faster? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 It should get faster the more people use it :) (It stores previous results in a cache so it has lesser edits to check the second time you use it on somebody). Sohom (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, looking at the logs, there were some timeout issues going on, I pushed a fix for some of them :) Sohom (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@Sohom, I'd love to hear about the timeout problems you've had (but maybe hijacking this thread isn't the right place). I see you use redis. I've also seen problems with connections to the toolforge redis service timing out. I've love to compare notes to see if we're hitting the same problem. RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe it's the same/similar issue. At times the redis connection times out with redis.exceptions.TimeoutError: Timeout reading from socket

That being said, yes, lets take it to a different thread :) Sohom (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you fill in your details on T318479 RoySmith (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Environmental effects of bitcoin

Sometimes articles languish in the approved section if issues come up after they were ticked. This hook has sitting around for two months. In an attempt to clear the backlog, I just put in an opinion at this discussion that is counter to the objecting opinion, and argued for the approval of the hook as nominated. In order to build WP:CONSENUS we need others to comment. All opinions welcome. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Per the comments and input I have closed the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Amrita Sher-Gil strikes again

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

---

Here. Is there any other single individual that has been mentioned more often over a shorter period of time in DYKs? I recently raised the issue and I see everyone was outraged by the suggestion that DYK shouldn't be a megaphone for Wikipedians to persistently broadcast to the world information about the same narrow subject over and over again, just because they happen to be currently obsessed with it. Of course anyone is free to write series of articles about the same subject, but why make more than one of them into DYKs? No, I neither knew nor wanted to know that 'Amrita Sher-Gil's painting Hill Women appeared on a 1978 Indian postage stamp', and I see nothing intriguing whatsoever about that piece of information. The standards for 'hooks' seem to have got impossibly low, but even if there were anything remotely interesting about this, it still would have been annoying just because of the repeated subject. DYK is supposed to be at least somewhat random and unpredictable, most of it still is, but this is the exact opposite. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Who was outraged? Valereee (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

P.S. The fish series is at least humorous. It can be tolerated at small doses.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Have you tried asking at User talk:Whispyhistory for something different to be offered, instead of complaining here? On that note, have you checked out the sheer variety of the 471 DYKs listed at User:Whispyhistory/Userboxes DYK? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m not a fan of this particular hook, and I think it could have been worded differently for interest, but that opinion will get me less than a cup of coffee. Recommend closing this discussion per WP:DENY. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Consider me fascinated; I've learned something about the history of stamps and about 1970s India, and all while getting to see a very beautiful painting. IP, if you're not interested in paintings by Amrita Sher-Gil, there were ~7 other hooks on the main page. IP may personally think the topic is a "narrow subject", but Amrita Sher-Gil, as was brought up in the last thread, is a level-5 vital article and there is plenty of interest in her oeuvre as part of the history of art. Suppose we started to refuse hooks about North American subjects, on the grounds that they're over-represented at DYK and are a "narrow subject"? I agree with closing this discussion. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

"I see everyone was outraged by the suggestion that DYK shouldn't be a megaphone for Wikipedians to persistently broadcast to the world information about the same narrow subject over and over again, just because they happen to be currently obsessed with it" And yet you're still here, complaining. Perhaps the outrage should be over your inability to grasp what WP:CONSENSUS means? Yes, someone please close this WP:TIMESINK of a discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

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

WP:SOHA Feb 22

With apologies, a few days ago I promoted a hook from WP:SOHA which was meant for February 22. But I think it will be run on another day since we changed speed. I have since forgot which hook. Anyone remember which hook needed Feb 22? Lightburst (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Carol Mutch I just found it! @@DYK admins: it is in Queue 6 but now needs to be in (I think) Prep 4 Lightburst (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It is, and has been, in Prep 4 Lightburst; I dont't know where you got Queue 6 from. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Might be a case of a late-night oops. Thanks. Lightburst (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Lightburst, it looks like you originally promoted the hook to Prep 3 on 12 February, but minutes later moved it to Prep 4, where it needed to be. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:DYKN is busted again

At least on my end, all nominations from January 13 onwards (except for one on the 13th) are not being transcluded properly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

For me, it's reaching the transclusion limit on 24 January noms. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Sammie Brie, I assume breaking the DYK nominations page in this edit was an error? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Sammi Brie, fix ping. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The page should be fixed now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Yes, my bad. I was trying to insert the message for Twinkle to handle new DYKs on 2/12 (it had been removed). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI Queue 5

FYI there are two American sports hooks in the next queue FYI Queue 5. Lightburst (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Further to queue 5, there are also two American sports hooks the day after in Queue 6. ResonantDis_tortion 16:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I promoted that, but to be honest, that's not something I look for when doing queue promotions. In any case, it seems to meet the "No topic should comprise more than two of the hooks in a given update" constraint of WP:DYKVAR so I think we're good. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks RoySmith. I know we had discussions about it in the past so it is an FYI. Lightburst (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. I remember there being complaints in the past if two of the same topic were promoted on the same day, and if two hooks about similar subjects ran on consecutive days, so I'm not sure why it's okay now when there were concerns about doing the same in the past. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

If somebody wants to change it, I have no objection. RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It is a best practice to avoid two of the same in a set, and maybe two queue's in a row with two each (which is 25% of the hooks) is too much. Bruxton (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not the same topic, by any meaning of the word. Just because they are American sports does not mean much; I have promoted preps with up to four American biographies without objection. And no, I am not American. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes AirshipJungleman29 four bios is good - one in every other slot. That is different than two song articles, two opera singers, two radio stations, two architecture articles, two American sports articles. Lightburst (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to disagree with the two per set wording, which was a "bold" update by A.D.Hope last summer to the supplemental guidelines shortly before the comprehensive rewrite of DYK rules by theleekycauldron. The previous wording for this section was as follows: Because of the disproportionate number of US-related hooks and biography hooks, it is usually appropriate to have roughly 50% of hooks in a given update on both US and biography topics, but no more than half. That is to say, in an eight-hook update you should have roughly four hooks per update on US topics, and four on biography. These are not mutually exclusive, for example if you have two US bio hooks that would count as both two US hooks and two bio hooks. Note that "roughly 50%" means just that – this is not an absolute; you can have less of either if there are not many currently available such hooks to choose from on the Suggestions page. Note however that as a general rule you should almost never have more than 50% of hooks on US, biography or any other topic. The new wording allowing two per topic was not accepted practice at the time, and I think we should remove that. The idea that, as DYKVAR currently says, you can have two hooks on cooking and two on fish would make for a very unbalanced set; it is not that hard to find a better balance. If we are going to allow any twofers, which I'm not sure is a good idea, I'd set a limit of one per set, and to avoid repetitions of subjects from set to set. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I remember a few years ago that there was a concern raised here when Konomi Suzuki and Minori Suzuki were scheduled to run close together and if we were becoming an "anime fanzine", so Minori was moved. Not sure why such close runnings are not considered an issue anymore. In any case to be on the safe side it might be a better idea to spread out the hooks at least. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The old wording technically allowed four hooks (and in exceptional circumstances more) per topic – Note however that as a general rule you should almost never have more than 50% of hooks on US, biography or any other topic. I can't find or exactly remember the discussion which led to the change, but I think it was agreed that an explicit limit of two was an improvement.

If the consensus is now to restrict sets further, why not simplify the guideline and just have it say something like 'Do not run similar hooks within the same set or on consecutive days'? I'm sure we could rely on editorial judgement to work out the rest. A.D.Hope (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

QPQ for you

If anyone is in need of a qpq or two, I can provide. Just message me on my talk. Tomorrow is Friday so have a great weekend! i will be traveling for a few days so if I do not respond you can take a QPQ from here User:Lightburst. Lightburst (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Lewis Pragasam

@AirshipJungleman29, Ktin, and Launchballer: the article says "heart attack", the hook says "heart failure". It's not clear those are the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Happy to change. Thanks for the catch. I am tagging @InedibleHulk who at some point had noted a similar interchange on a different article. IH - please feel free to chime-in. Ktin (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith @AirshipJungleman29 @Launchballer @InedibleHulk -- I gave this some thought. My request is to substitute the phrase "heart failure" with "fatal heart attack". Hope this helps. Ktin (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Anthony W. Case

I'm a little concerned about WP:CLOP from the New Yorker article. Somebody else should take a look and give a second opinion. RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Cloaca (art installation)

Template:Did you know nominations/Cloaca (art installation)

Pinging nominator @Vladimir.copic:.

This nomination is currently held up as I have an objection to an edit to the article made by the nominator who claims that his edit "better reflect[s] the source". On the contrary, it is a plain misstatement of the source in my view.

The argument arose as a result of the nominator wanting to refer to the end product of this machine in his proposed hooks as "shit", without qualification - an understandable desire given that qualifications generally weaken a hook's impact. Any such concern, however, cannot be allowed to justify error.

My initial objection to the nominator's argument was on the grounds that one of his sources includes a discussion citing three art critics who conclude that the end product of the machine is not shit, but, in the words of one, "shit's representation". The critics come to this conclusion based on the fact that the end product of the machine is not a byproduct of digestion - a process whose purpose is "nourishing and providing energy" to a body - and therefore, not real faeces. The very fact that several critics have repudiated the notion that the machine's product is real faeces is sufficient by itself to invalidate any hook describing it as such in my view.

In response to my argument, however, the nominator decided that he had misstated his sources, and made this edit to correct the alleged error. The edit reverted the following sentence: Critics Christian Denker and Isabelle Loring Wallace have discussed whether the material produced by the installations can be called faeces and changed it to Critics Christian Denker and Isabelle Loring Wallace have discussed whether the installations' work can be identified as digestion. That does not correct an error in my view, but introduces one, because the critics discuss no such thing. They do discuss the relation of the machine process to that of "human digestion", but that is not the same thing as discussing whether or not it can be considered human digestion, which clearly it is not. More importantly though, the edit buries the central question pertaining to this machine, which the source puts as is the resulting material "feces", a term that is normally used for the excrement of living beings? and can we say ... that this machine really shits? (both of which they answer in the negative - source here, requires registration).

In short, I believe this edit needs to be reverted before the article is featured (as well as a hook selected that does not describe the end product of the machine as unqualified "shit"). The nominator has refused to revert, so I have brought the discussion here for wider input. Gatoclass (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been a bit of an issue with DYK hooks for a while now. Hook accuracy, or even article inaccuracy, are sometimes being sacrificed in the name of hookiness. In any case, no one, not even the article creator or main expander, owns an article, and you are always free to revert the edits yourself. Pining AirshipJungleman29 for his input as well as he was the reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I’ve really lost interest in the dyk nom at this point. My edit improved the accuracy of the article in relation to the source - I laid this out in the original dyk discussion for those interested. I’m not willing to play this game where I am forced to make a revert I believe to be detrimental to the article for the sake of a silly dyk. I don’t own the article, as mentioned above, so anyone is free to improve it. @AirshipJungleman29 seemed to agree with me that the edit was fine. I urge people to read the actual source paragraph and my edit. Probably the last I’ll say on the matter. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)