Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 179

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 175←Archive 177Archive 178Archive 179Archive 180Archive 181→Archive 185

Moving namespace to Wikipedia: (v2)

Following up on an old section I made here. The last time it was discussed thoroughly seems to have been 2012. The placement of DYK in the Template namespace seems to cause issues. For example, the WMF's reply tool, partially intended to make talk pages more accessible to newcomers, does not work in the template namespace. Various other scripts, bots and tools also don't operate in the Template namespace, since tools expect the Template namespace to only be used for templates, and not discussions.

Conventionally it seems the blocker has been that it would be a bit of work to move over. I'm wondering how difficult it would actually be to fix this. I came up with the following checklist so far:

  • Move all subpages, preserving redirects (this way any transclusions and links to the old name will continue to work and won't need updating)
  • Update any Modules directly accessing the title
  • Update User:DYKUpdateBot/Code & User:DYKHousekeepingBot/Code
  • Update any other bots. Eg those tidying up templates into {{Article history}}
  • Update any userscripts that interact with DYK

Are there any other major things that would need updating? Ping to Shubinator who might know more here too. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what else needs to be done, but would like to voice my general support for this proposal. Even without using tools, as long as the pages are in the Template namespace, you will get the suggestion to "Preview page with this template" when editing. I wouldn't be surprised if newbies can waste hours figuring out why this doesn't show them their hook on the Main Page. The alternative to the proposal would be to change the software to pretend that subpages of Template:Did you know are not templates. —Kusma (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Technical question: If we move DYK noms to Wikipedia space, will we still be able to transclude the noms onto e.g. WP:DYKN & WP:DYKNA? Because if not, then that could be a large problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
You can transclude pages in any namespace, even articles. —Kusma (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Basically the only difference will be that you'll have to write {{WP:Did you know nominations/My nomination}} instead of {{Did you know nominations/My nomination}}. —Kusma (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Transclusion should work fine, see: CMD (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
He he, it seems I got pinged by CMD's edit here, I guess because my name appears in the transcluded template below....!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Whoops, that's my mistake. CMD (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Transclusion

Kalabakan District

(
)
  • ... that the name of Malaysia's Kalabakan District comes from the words "can eat" in a local language? Source: [1]

Created by Cobblet (talk). Nominated by Chipmunkdavis (talk) at 15:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC).


General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I see no problems with this, both the article and hook are interesting. It's neutral, doesn't omit anything obvious, and properly cited. I'm approving ALT0, as I find that one the most interesting of the three suggestions. Good to go, well done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

User:ProcrastinatingReader you overlooked this 2018 RM, which found no consensus for a move.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Ah thanks. I suspected there's discussions dotted around but I only searched the archives of this page. At this stage I'm just trying to get an idea from the folks here the various changes that would be necessary to make it work. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Whoever made the original decision for DYK noms to go in template namespace should be shot, and all other things being equal it would be nice to fix that. However, no matter how hard you try to think of all the things that need to be adjusted to do that, you will overlook a lot and it will be a painful process. Bots, links, templates, scripts, all will need changing, and on and on and on. I'm not saying it definitely shouldn't be done (though I think it probably shouldn't) but I am saying you will look back and wonder if it was all worth it. (Just to be clear, this would be a change only for new nominations going forward. It would be impossible to move past stuff without breaking all kinds of things.)
    My advice would be to wait for the day that DYK processes are being substantially reformed or reworked for some other reason, and do it then. EEng 16:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    But is that day going to come? Levivich 17:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    Probably not. EEng 18:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    There are currently no proposals to change the subpage structure, so I don't see why this proposal should wait. Tacking it on to a different reform proposal just makes it less likely that either proposal passes. —Kusma (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    This proposal should wait because it will cause an enormous amount of gnashing of teeth and tearing our of hair to little benefit. I am not talking about tacking on another reform proposal. I talking about waiting until it's been decided to rework DYK for a really substantive reason and then you say, "Hey, ya know what? Let's do the rebuild outside Template: while we're at it!" And if that day never comes, just leave it. EEng 18:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    It has more benefits now than it had a few years ago, as editing and the Template namespace have changed. —Kusma (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    So now it's, like 3 out of 10 instead of 1 out of 10. EEng 18:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    • My idea was to simplify the problem. For example, if you have a template called {{apple}} and move this to {{big apple}} (preserving the redirect), then some page trying to 'transclude' {{apple}} will automatically transclude {{big apple}}, without having to be edited. Anything linking to the page in wikitext would also automatically redirect to the new page. It wouldn't take 5 minutes to write a script to mass-move in this manner. The only exception would be modules which access a page directly, even if a redirect, but there's only one or two of those. Userscripts can be edited onwiki and only a string would need to be changed. Bots is slightly trickier but so long as the operators are active should be easy to change too. I'd agree it's not worth it if it takes hours, but as far as I can see it would be pretty quick to fix. ProcSock (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
      Hmm... Actually, that would only make sure existing uses work. For new uses in the new format, everything would indeed need to be edited to call the new name (since a redirect wouldn't exist from the old one). ProcSock (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
      You are learning well, Grasshopper! EEng 23:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
      With the conversation below I think we can agree the magnitude of changes is in the hours+ range. Shubinator (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Ditto on most of what EEng has said above, except I find the template format handy. In addition to the obvious links/process tied in to the template, there is also User:SD0001/DYK-helper that appears as a drop-down tool from user tabs. It was created by SD0001 two years ago. I have no idea how many editors use this, but I think its probably very helpful to new users. So, this is something else we need to take into consideration. Speaking as a 10-year veteran of this project, I find the current template method very handy for individual tracking and historic record keeping by any user keeping a log of their nominations, their own or any others. What you propose might sound logical to you, and maybe it is for some. But if you are going to replace something with another method, you need to keep the functionalities of what you have replaced. It's kind of like the Matryoshka doll. Inside one is another, and another, and another. — Maile (talk)
    To be clear, there's no good reason template space was used in the first place; it makes no sense at all. (I suspect that whoever did it wanted to be able to transclude noms onto a big master page, as we still do, and didn't understand that pages in any space -- not just template space -- can be transcluded.) But now that it's done, it's a huge pain to change it. For the vast majority of users, their only edits to template space are DTK edits, so listing their Template: contributions is a quick way to get at their DYK contributions; I myself find this handy, but it would hardly be a reason to keep this strange structure, if there were no other stumbling blocks to changing it (which there are). EEng 23:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Some templates would need to be updated as well, eg {{UpdatedDYK}} and {{DYKmake}} hardcode Template:Did you know nominations/. Shubinator (talk) 00:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    "Update any other bots" might be understating the breadth here. At a glance, it looks like all bots active at DYK will need to be updated. As mentioned earlier, DYKUpdateBot and DYKHousekeepingBot would need to be tweaked. On top of that, we'd need MusikAnimal to update this line in MusikBot. And we'd need Wugapodes to update WugBot as well. (My apologies to any bots active at DYK I forgot about - chime in below!) Shubinator (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    I'm amazed at the stately pace at which people are realizing that there's a whole house of cards that will come down. EEng 03:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    On the bright side, MajavahBot (who I forgot about originally) wouldn't need to be modified. But yeah, coordinating this many changes across this many bots & scripts & templates is complex, and it'll be tough to pull this off without accidentally breaking dependencies. Shubinator (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, but I think the essential bots are just DYKUpdateBot and DYKHouseKeepingBot. The ones that don't do anything mission-critical can be updated by their devs at leisure. – SD0001 (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    WugBot keeps the noms pipeline flowing to the Approved page and would likely also be deemed essential. Shubinator (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    All those botops are active and would only need to change a couple strings in code. I think that part is doable. ProcSock (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    If nothing else, this conversation is useful in clarifying all the relevant bots and dependencies. We could almost make a flowchart. CMD (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    @ProcSock The magnitude of the bot changes will depend on precisely how this change is executed. For example, if all DYK nominations created after a certain day/time are under Wikipedia:, and all DYK nominations created before then aren't modified, then DYKUpdateBot & DYKHousekeepingBot & WugBot will need to support both the old and new prefixes during the transition. This is more complicated than a find/replace in the code. Shubinator (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    One way around that would be to move all active DYKs (ones in review/preps/queues) to the new naming scheme. – SD0001 (talk) 04:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    Yep, that would be easiest for the bot code updates. Feels like that could make the change itself tougher to coordinate logistically - moving hundreds of nominations & updating bots & userscripts & the rest of the adjustments within a small window of a few hours. Bots must be updated by their operators and userscripts should be edited their owners, who are likely scattered across different timezones. That said, it's doable. If we go ahead with the move, I'd love to see a more detailed list of things we're changing, enumerating the bots and userscripts and templates and modules. And also more precision on which pages are being moved - for example, it's unclear if we're talking about moving T:DYK itself (I'm assuming that's not on the table, but this is where the precision can help with getting people on the same page). Shubinator (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    AAlertBot also needs to be aware of any changes in order to notice and report DYK noms correctly. (It's not mission critical if it breaks for a day or two, but it is nicer if it doesn't). —Kusma (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    Tagging @Hellknowz as AAlertBot's coder, how would this proposed change affect AAlertBot? (I'd peek into the source code but it looks like it's not available.) Shubinator (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    If the only change is the namespace, then the code would "just" need a few changes to replace the namespace. If the pages "disappear" one day due to a move, the bot would spit out a bunch of warnings about missing pages, but probably not crash. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for the info! Shubinator (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    Oops forgot about EnterpriseyBot who also has a task at DYK, and would need to update this line and this line. Seems like the bot hasn't performed the task in over a year though, so not sure "active" is the best descriptor. @Enterprisey, is this a bug? Shubinator (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
    Ahh... that's embarrassing. Yes, it's a bug and I've fixed it. I will also keep up with this discussion and make any required updates. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    Awesome, thanks! No worries, I'm trying to win "most embarrassing bot mistake at DYK" with DYKUpdateBot getting (temporarily) desysopped earlier this year :P Shubinator (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    Of the 6 bots affected, the remaining bot operator that hasn't chimed in is @MusikAnimal; tagging them in case they'd like to :) Shubinator (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    No opinion from me, just let me know if/when I need to update my bot. — MusikAnimal talk 15:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes we need this -- the change to DYK-helper.js is literally just changing the page names in a few places. As would be the case with most other scripts/bots/templates. The challenge lies in identifying all the places where this needs to be done. – SD0001 (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a continual thorn in the side of anyone who maintains discussion-related code. I run into this every time I start another discussion-related project. I would strongly support a move, and would like to help out as much as I can, even though I have minimal experience with DYK's "backend" systems. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Back in 2018 I believe I opposed a similar proposal. Circumstances have changed and I now support the idea. Specifically, we now have improved discussion tools and scripts that make it easier for newbies to participate in project discussions, but our current namespace location prevents those from working which is a net loss for newbies, developers, and the DYK project. For that reason, I see sufficient benefits to offset the potential disruption in workflows while we make the change. Speaking as WugBotOp, modifying WugBot to accomodate the new namespace location should not be hard (famous last words). I'm willing to do so if there is consensus to move the namespace, so wugbot should not be considered a blocker. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    Voicing my thoughts here as well. I support any and all movement away from the template space. I can help with anything template related so feel free to ping me. Gonnym (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    I missed this discussion, but I strongly support such a move, for many gnoming-related reasons, primarily that DYK pages clutter up reports that are supposed to show templates with various kinds of errors. I am a veteran template editor and will be happy to help with whatever tricky editing is needed. Please ping me as required. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:53, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I've tried taking a more systematic look at finding things that could be affected. For bots I went through all BRFAs mentioning either "Did you know" or "DYK" before noticing Shubinator had done the exact same thing in more detail coming to the same conclusion. All impacted bots should be easily be fixable since they have active maintainers and only require one or two lines to be changed. For user scripts we have User:Enterprisey/reply-link.js which has an exception to the no reply links in template space for these pages which should be updated to have reply link in Wikipedia space which also usually doesn't have reply links by default. User:SD0001/DYK-helper.js would also need a small change, as would User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js. Ditto with User:DannyS712/DYK claim.js and perhaps User:DannyS712/short-tabs.js (I don't think so though). The spersly used User:CAPTAIN MEDUSA/DYK.js could use the link changed, but it should be dealt with through the redirect so it doesn't really matter. User:Enterprisey/section-watchlist.js has the page as a variable and User:Evad37/Xunlink.js is disabled on nomination pages. User:Wugapodes/DYK promoter.js also refers to the page. Finally MediaWiki:Gadget-XFDcloser-core.js doesn't unlink on nomination pages. That should be all the scripts and I have no doubts that all these could be fixed properly ensuring a smooth transition with regards to scripts. I will do the templates as well in the future but those should be even simpler to fix. I have no doubts this can be done well, especially given how many tallented technical editors have expressed interest in helping out with the project. --Trialpears (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Namespace transition master plan

  • All new nomination subpages to be prefixed with "Wikipedia:Did you know nominations/" instead of "Template:Did you know nominations/".
  • All active (under review/in preps/in queues) DYKs to be moved to WP space to simplify code changes in bots and templates that interact with active DYKs. The notes below are based on this assumption. Inactive nomination pages (ones that already appeared on main page, or closed as rejected) are not moved.
  • Moving Template:Did you know or Template talk:Did you know is not in plan.

Critical

The templates that need to support both old and new naming schemes can (and should be) updated before the transition.

Non-critical

Really really minor
.

Discussion

Creating this as there's an agreement above that we should switch to WP space for nomination subpages, and all the bot/script devs are available. Please make changes above if I've missed anything, though I like to kid I've covered everything! Cc Wugapodes, Shubinator, Gonnym and anyone else familiar with DYK templates. – SD0001 (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Amazing, I support this and was just today musing over the fact that it was in template space. (to be honest, even moving old nominations with a bot is very painless and will make things much more tidy. I'm writing this in small font to hide from the pitchforks) Gonnym (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. The one and only problem I had with nominations being in template space was that IPs couldn't create noms for themselves. The above proposal is for a major overhaul while preserving the exclusionary nature of the current system. If this is to happen, nom pages should be in Wikipedia talk space. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    IPs can use WT:DYK or create an account. They can also create the nomination in the wrong namespace (draft, talk, whatever) and transclude it to Template talk:Did you know from there. Might annoy WugBot, but should work if someone really, really wants to do this. —Kusma (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, we can continue to treat IPs as second-class users and continue to require them to beg someone to create a nom page for them. Yes, they can create noms in the wrong namespace, but, no, it doesn't work. I know because they've done it before, and I've gone in and fixed it. (Well, I guess in that sense, it did eventually work.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Re page names: This may be deckchairs on the Titanic, but since you're adjusting things anyway, instead of Wikipedia:Did you know nominations/ I suggest Wikipedia:Did You Know nominations/ (note the caps). As always, should you or any of your DYK Force be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions. Good luck. Pffffft! EEng 20:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    The way I'm coding WugBot, it's mildly easier to keep the capitalization the same. I don't have strong opinions, but from a practical standpoint the fewer changes we have, the less likely we are to run into bugs after a switch. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    I'm disavowing any knowledge of your actions. EEng 01:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    Seems like a good call — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I double-checked that there are no problems for the FACBot or MilHistBot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose No need for this and no good reason provided. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • First, this is not true as the discussion about moving namespaces above has pointed out. Second, this isn't a vote or even a proposal to move namespaces. These changes can occur regardless of what namespace DYK nominations happen in, but making them is a net positive as it prevents additional work down the line when developers may not be around to make changes should consensus develop. If you don't want to help with coding, then don't, but don't tell people not to add non-breaking functionality just to stonewall changes you don't want. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
      • I can think of at least one good reason, The C of E. A group of us gnomes have cleared the template space of obsolete HTML tag Linter errors. These tags include <font>...</font>, which you use in your signature, despite multiple polite requests on your talk page (since 2019) to update it. The vast majority of template-space cleanup of all sorts of Linter errors was cleanup of DYK pages, which formed a giant cloud of Lint-error-mosquitoes that obscured actual syntax errors in actual transcluded templates. Every time someone with obsolete tags in their signature signs a new reply on a DYK page, it re-adds obsolete tags to template space, and a gnome gets to clean it up. Moving these pages to project space ensures that errors in real templates are easier to see. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Could people please stop implementing this in WP space until the namespace is settled?!? I have provided a very good reason to use WT instead of WP. Can anyone provide any reason that would favor WP over WT? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    Shorter wikitext: {{WP:Did you know nominations/My nomination}} instead of {{Wikipedia talk:Did you know nominations/My nomination. (WT: is not a namespace alias, other than WP: = Project: = Wikipedia:) Talk pages without corresponding main pages may look weird. Some people add Wikiproject tags to DYK nom talk pages (don't ask me what that is good for, I don't know). —Kusma (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    That's incorrect. WT is a valid namespace alias. (And if you're concerned about shorter wikitext, you could use "DYK" instead of "Did you know".) I don't know or care who would be concerned about WT pages without corresponding WP pages looking "weird". I've never seen a Wikiproject tag added for a nom page. If there are any, it's useless and not of our concern. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    If you gain consensus for "Wikipedia talk" instead of "Wikipedia", then just add " talk" in the appropriate places. Meanwhile, the changes currently being made require substantial reworks of legacy code that would have to happen regardless of what namespace gets chosen in the end. For example, the change to Module:NewDYKnomination required an additional conditional logic branch regardless of the namespace. If it winds up being a different namespace, change line 325 later. Similarly the change to Template:DYK item required nesting an additional parser function and rearranging which conditional branches display what text. If it winds up being in a different namespace, just add " talk" or whatever namespace is there. Even for WugBot, I needed to add a new configuration variable and various logic branches that will allow it to easily switch over to any namespace. If it winds up not being "Wikipedia" then just change those strings. Starting coordination early is important because there are many pieces of infrastructure we don't even know about. I've served as a maintainer for many of the above templates, and despite that SD0001 has still turned up DYK templates I never even knew about. I'm not going to twiddle my thumbs while everyone debates 5 characters. Unless something has broken, you've given no reason why we should stop developing the infrastructure needed to easily implement whatever consensus develops. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    I was afraid someone would start moving nom pages, or that coding in a namespace would make them feel locked into the decision to use that namespace. As long as people are open to changing it again, then of course preparations should proceed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:15, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Wugapodes, Mandarax, Kusma, DannyS712, SD0001, and EEng: Need clarification from somebody about what happened since I commented above about where the list of bots should reside. I understand the issue to be that one or more persons believe we should be moved from WT to WP. I get that part. But so much looks like it's been happening since I last looked at this page, that I'm a little confused. Can someone explain if a clear consensus was reached on anything; and if so, what. And then please explain what has already been done. This seems to have energized in the last few hours. Thanks to whoever can clarify. — Maile (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Maile66: Honestly, I don't think anything much has happened yet. This is still the pre-planning discussion how one would implement a namespace change as not to break anything. For some reason, suddenly voting has started in a section about how to do things instead of in the one about whether it is a good idea. —Kusma (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
OK, got it. — Maile (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
It looks like some code changes have already been made as well. Bit messy, yeah, but reversible, and no breaking changes have been made yet. Shubinator (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Also I'd prefer we list out AAlertBot and EnterpriseyBot on their own lines - in my opinion, coordinating the bot + userscript operators will be the toughest part. (Almost) all the other changes can be knocked off by one motivated editor, bots and userscripts can only be modified by certain people. Shubinator (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Opinion Two (or Three, or whatever it is)

This should not be set in motion without a clear consensus from those who work it on a daily basis - the Prep and Queue builders, the Admins who come to take care of the mop-and-bucket requests. There's a lot of necessary input above by admn/technical people who are putting a plan in place, or discussing the needs and possibilities. But when Push comes to Shove on implementing a change, or keeping the system as status quo, we need definitive feedback from the users who work the preps and the queues, and the ones who are regular (or semi-regular) reviewers. They are the ones who will initially be dealing with any changes, and we need to hear from them. Discuss all you want, but we need a formal RFC to implement a change - one we can archive and reference back to, if need be. — Maile (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Maile66: I agree that this needs a formal RfC --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
As a regular-ish prep builder and nominator/reviewer, my main thought here (and why I haven't chimed in before) is that I have absolutely no clue what this will change except my namespace percentages. I've heard before from the tech side that there wouldn't be any change, but it's a tech side that isn't really composed of DYK regulars. Vaticidalprophet 01:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes,and that's a point that confuses me also. I'm not a technical person, but I believe the above is an elongated discussion of technical people who don't think we should use "Template:Did you know nominations/(name of nomination)". They envision a better way. But just that change in and of itself will surely change the structure (or process) we regular people use. So when they get it down how they want to do it, maybe the technical people can present us with a formal RFC before they put their plan into action. — Maile (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
If anything, I'm surprised this discussion is already going through and doing all these steps, acting as if there's already consensus to do so, when there hasn't even been a proper discussion about it yet. Didn't we just have an RFC a few years ago on this very topic and back then there was no consensus on changing the status quo? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the changes so far have been future-proofing, and have no impact on the current processing or functioning of DYK. I think that's a commendable effort from the bot coders. I don't think there's an issue with such work going forward, especially as it has already brought up some obscure odds and ends in the existing backend. To trigger an actual change in DYK processes would require a stronger discussion and consensus, but before that point it is productive to figure out the process that could be put forward in that discussion. CMD (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with the technical changes being executed before consensus is reached. One of the large impacts to DYK regulars, in the short term, will be dealing with the inevitable bugs that were inadvertently introduced by the change. I'd prefer people hold off on making these changes, and possibly introducing bugs for DYK regulars to grapple with, until we have a consensus. All that said, I encourage planning, dependency discussions, and enumerating what we'd need to change. Shubinator (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, I already linked to it in an above section but there was a well-attended RFC in 2018 on the exact same proposal that found no consensus for a move; so there will have to another one before anything happens. I don't see a lot of point in making technical changes ahead of that.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Pawnkingthree @Narutolovehinata5 See the closure of that RM: structuring this as an RM rather than as a general discussion of how to process DYK may have made getting at a consensus more difficult – this indicates that a formal RFC/RM may be less suitable than a general discussion (which is what we are having now). On the oppose size, it was raised that for such a major process, there should likely be a clearer plan on how to move forward – this is again exactly what we are doing now. Also, most of the opposes there are only based on the supposed technical difficulties of the proposal.
Consensus can change. We can certainly have a new RFC if people think that's needed, but I think what we really need is a consensus between people involved in the process – which includes the technical folks (who're already all in favour) and the folks who do the promotions and build prep sets and queues. That can be already be gathered on this talk page. Making it an RFC/RM would only invite more comments from people not involved with DYK. – SD0001 (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't necessarily have to be a formal RM but you wrote earlier there's an agreement above that we should switch to WP space for nomination subpages and I don't think we're there yet.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, as far as I can tell the ones who are in favor so far are mostly technical users rather than the usual DYK regulars, many of whom have yet to actually chime in. I think it would be a good idea to have an actual (centralized) RfC first so that the DYK regulars as well as interested outsiders can chime in as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Maile66@Vaticidalprophet if done correctly (and by looking at the plan above as presented, it seems it would be) nothing for you should really change except from the namespace been a project rather than a template. Behind the scenes this has advantages as presented above, including, better support for discussion tools and not polluting the template namesapce with non-templates. Also to repeat was was said above, any page, from any namespace, can be transcluded. Gonnym (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Gonnym: perhaps you can clarify something, in a way we will all understand. Currently:
(1) We open a nomination in template space
(2) The new template is listed on the Nominations page
(3) After approved by a Reviewer, a bot moves the template to the Approved page, from which the Prep builders make their selections
(4) The Prep builder closes out the nomination template when their choice is made
(5) The Prep builder copies the individual hook to selected Prep template
(6) Each selection in Prep lists the appropriate DYKmake (template?) completed at the bottom.
(7) Admins move complete sets from Prep template to Queue template
(8) At the designated time, Shubinator's DYKUpdateBot moves the entire set to Template:Did you know for its Main Page appearance, and from which admins can make needed corrections or adjustments.
(9) Both the nominator's talk page, and the article's talk page, get a notice from DYKUpdateBot that it's on the Main Page.
(10) When a new set is rotated to the Main Page, DYKUpdateBot moves the old set to Wikipedia:Recent additions.
Are you saying that the above process steps, in what we now see as template, will continue to take place as they have been? Pardon us non-technical people for being confused. This seems like a lot of steps that involve more than one type of template, for it to be as easy as you predict. Please advise. — Maile (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
From reading the above (2) discussions, the plan is to keep the same DYK system and just change the namespace. So to answer your question, for you the process should be exactly the same experience, with the exception that one or more pages will be in a "Wikipedia:" prefix instead of a "Template:" prefix. Also note, that none of the changes will go live until tested (why we have /sandbox pages for). Gonnym (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think anyone was thinking about doing anything based on the discussions above. I started a discussion which asked for a list of all the dependencies. Then SD0001 and Shub created a more detailed list with a discussion section. If there's a plan developed then I'm sure it'd be put to RfC first before anyone changes anything. Starting an RfC without any plan is, however, unlikely to succeed, hence the discussion. If a bot/tool dev wants to make generic commits that add support for both eventualities, then there's not really a problem with that; it's effective just a conditional check. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Technically speaking, it's hard to visualise an argument against the change, other than arguably it not being a good use of time (although, those who would have to make the changes seem to be in support). So the only real blocker seems to be explaining what the change means to those unsure. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
My impression from the previous discussions was that most objections were of the "it's too difficult" or "it will break" or "we are too far down the road and too old to change our spots" variety, which I found quite understandable, given the rather terrifying infrastructure built around DYK that is listed above. I think the best way to counter those objections is to be able to say "we know it's a long list of changes, and we have that list, and we have most of the code modifications ready to go." This process is exploring whether it is possible to state those things with confidence, and as such, is worth doing as long as we do not break the current system. Once we are confident that a namespace move is possible and not a superhuman task, we can hold a well-informed RFC. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I have some suggestions from my experience performing major and complex technical changes that needs approval from non-technical editors. I would recommend a proper RfC that's well structured, doesn't use jargon and read over by both technical and non-technical editors before hand to make sure it's understandable. In this case I also feel like much good work for guaranteeing a smooth transition has been done which I feel is essential in this case. I still think we should get a list of affected documentation pages as well. --Trialpears (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Everett report

Hi all, I'm going off wiki from 26 June to 17 July. My last open DYK is Template:Did you know nominations/Everett report, which I thought would be closed by now. Would it be possible for anyone to take some time and review the nom (or even one article) before I go away? I'd really appreciate it. If there's a problem with something like the hook that is stopping people from reviewing it, it would be nice to know. I'm not in the business of asking for favors regularly but would prefer to not have this topic's nom closed because of my inactivity. All the best, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I will have a look. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Canada Day special occasion Preparation area 6

Prep 6 was marked as the special occasion set for Canada Day on July 1. I've not done a special occasion set before so it needs a look over/swopping etc. Desertarun (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Desertarun:, It is a tough one because there are a lot of special day hooks in the holding area. Plus the current P6, is mixed with Canadian and other hooks so you need to look closely. Non-canadian ones move over, Canadian ones leave in there (especially Canadian Idiot). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'll move the non Canadian ones to prep 7. Thanks. Desertarun (talk) 09:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I thought the agreement was to run a couple of Canadian hooks on both sets, rather than a whole set of Canadian hooks? Discussion: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 178#Canada Day July 1. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I was under the impression it was all in one set? I don't know? There are 8 Canadian hooks. Desertarun (talk) 11:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the conversation you've linked. I'll have a read through later. Desertarun (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
If it's going to be split, split to the day after, as DYK updates on UTC, so the new hooks will somewhat overlap with Canada Day in Canada as well. CMD (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree with CMD: the day after will give four hours of Canada Day hooks on Canada Day for Central Canada and seven hours for British Columbia/Yukon. Z1720 (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Moving four Canadian hooks over to prep 7 looks like the thing to do. Are we going with another Canadian picture hook on prep 7? If so it would be Parliament Hill. Desertarun (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd also like Parliament Hill to be a pic hook. Z1720 (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Desertarun: In that case, I'd like my flag of Nova Scotia hook to be moved to be the Prep 1 picture hook (July 3). —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bloom6132: July 3 is running a special hook set to honour Yoninah. Can the flag of Nova Scotia be moved to July 5? Z1720 (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC) There's some pic hooks already requested for July 5, so July 6? Or maybe June 30? Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Z1720: July 5 won't work – already has my Flag of the Cayman Islands and coat of arms of the British Virgin Islands in line for picture hooks. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720: I'll take June 30 then. Not even my second choice for dates, but it'll do. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bloom6132: There aren't currently any picture hooks free. So if it's moved it wouldn't have a picture hook either. I could un-promote it and put it back into the special occasion area with a date of your choice if you wanted? Desertarun (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Desertarun: It's possible to bump the current June 30 picture hook to the next Prep 2 (when the current one gets promoted to queue), because it's not being held for a special occasion. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bloom6132: That would mean running 3 consecutive Canadian picture hooks which wouldn't work. Desertarun (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Why not move John Mercer Johnson out of the pic slot for Flag of Nova Scotia? That way Flag of Nova Scotia can run on Canada Day. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment. I've made a mess out of this. So I'll just have to leave prep 6 and 7 for someone else to sort out. I don't have a preference for what happens or understand the history. Desertarun (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
No, the messup is from us Canadians who want to run hooks for Canada Day, and me for suggesting it in the first place. Who knew Canadians were so patriotic? Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
I think it should be noted that there was never a consensus towards full or even half-sets in the first place; indeed, the previous discussion about this suggested a maximum of two Canada hooks for the set (if we're still one-set-a-day then) or two (for two-sets-a-day). Perhaps we should just follow that instead? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to visit Canada, looks a nice place. Desertarun (talk) 15:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Hopefully after this is all over. I have relatives there and I've long wanted to try the food there. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Can someone please make the switch? —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Per the above discussion, I moved Laura McKinlay Robinson, Murray Dowey, and Walter Bean Grand River Trail from Prep 6 to Prep 7. Since there are no other empty preps, I can't move the hooks anywhere else at the moment. Regardless, I would like four Canada hooks to run in Prep 6 and 7 each, as it is a special day for Canadians, there are multiple editors who want their Canada hooks to run on Canada Day, and the hooks are varied in topic (flags, historical politicians, TV/board games, music, geography, hockey and architecture.) Z1720 (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about this. In the last discussion there wasn't really a lot of input from Canadian editors (I think only about three or so, please correct me if I'm wrong) and the non-Canadians weren't too keen on having too many Canadian hooks for the sets. At the very least, I'm not sure if there's truly consensus to do so. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not going to dispute running half the hooks in the set as Canadian hooks- if it were up to me, it'd be 2 or 3, but not going to argue over having 4 in each set. Especially as we sometimes run 4 US hooks. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding links to preps/queues in edit summary (and maybe the body of the nom discussion itself) when promoting hooks

I've received a suggestion that promoters put a link to the queue into the edit summary when promoting a prep to queue to make it easier for noms to follow their hooks through the system. I think it's a good idea. —valereee (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

* To avoid doubt you mean link to the prep like this Template:Did you know/Preparation area 5 not Template:Did you know/Queue/5 ? Desertarun (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Admin(s) needed to promote Special Occasion hooks for Stanley Cup final and Pride month to queues

All of the June sets have been promoted to Queues, so an admin (or more than one) will be needed to promote special occasion nominations directly to queues. The one requested for the Stanley Cup final had said "July TBD" because the start date was unknown and could have been as late as July 15, but the Stanley Cup final is going to begin at 00:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC) (8pm ET 28 June), which puts it in Queue 4. The Pride month hook needs to run any time before the end of this month, so no later than Queue 5. Note that Template:Did you know nominations/Wynne Neilly is an as yet unreviewed nomination requesting Pride month placement; if it passes, it too will need to run no later than Queue 5. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Amakuru, valereee, and Cwmhiraeth, though as the reviewer of the Pride month nomination, Cwmhiraeth will not be able to promote that one to queue. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I have promoted the Stanley Cup hook to Queue 4. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Promoted Template:Did you know nominations/William E. Woods to T:DYK/Q5 —valereee (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Yoninah set

For your information, the "in memoriam" set of hooks for Yoninah is in Queue 1 and is due to go live on the main page on 3rd July. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The list below includes 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 9. We currently have a total of 230 nominations, of which 78 have been approved, a gap of 152. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Updating the hook version that needs review for the April 17 Lovelady DYK Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 04:13, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Olympics holding area?

The 2020 Summer Olympics run from 23 July to 8 August- should we setup a holding area for Olympic-related hooks to be run between these two dates? In 2016, we ran about 1-2 Olympic hooks in most sets, which seems acceptable to me. There's at least a couple of Olympic-related DYK noms already, plus WP:Women in Red are doing an Olympics & Paralympics event starting on 1 July, so I expect an increase in Olympic-related hooks soon. And later on, we should probably also setup a holding area for the 2020 Summer Paralympics, which in 2016 had fewer hooks than the Olympics one. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Desertarun (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Works for me. —valereee (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I've been away from wiki, thanks to whoever set up the Olympic holding area. There's already a few noms in there. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination backlog drive?

Proposal

Has DYK ever done a nomination backlog drive? It might be worth trialing a competition? The rules could change but as a starting point i've added some below.

Rules:

  • 48 hours long.
  • 1 point for a first full review.
  • 2 points for a second review.
  • Prize = picture hook Barnstars
  • Reviews aren't eligible for QPQ usage if taking part.

Desertarun (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Congratulations! Your DYK has been approved!
@Desertarun: our backlog is usually small, and is listed like this: Older nominations needing DYK reviewers. The GA method is admirable, but we don't usually accumulate enough to do it that way. Good idea, tho. Thanks for mentioning. — Maile (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I think there is a problem and that a backlog elimination drive would be an excellent idea. At the moment there are 226 unreviewed nominations as against 72 approved. That's an enormous backlog of 154 nominations that are not going to be reviewed under the QPQ system. We could adopt Desertarun's suggestion, or if we were to require regular submitters of hooks to review two nominations instead of one, that would help bring the number down. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    What does 226-72=154 have to do with anything? EEng 10:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    It means we have a backlog of 154 reviews! Many of which will languish for weeks...Desertarun (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    No, it doesn't mean that. The backlog of noms needing review is 226, period. Subtracting the 72 approved noms has nothing to do with anything and is completely nonsensical.EEng 13:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    @EEng: I think you are mistaken. The historic figures 226-72=154 means that at that time, there were 226 current nominations. Of these, 72 had been fully reviewed and had been moved to the "approved nominations page", and 154 were either completely unreviewed or had been partially reviewed with some issues remaining outstanding. The 226 and the 72 figures will both decrease by one each time a hook is promoted to a prep set. Each day, an average of 10 hooks is nominated, so 154 hooks represents a built-in delay of around 15 days (at one set a day) or 7.5 days (at two sets a day). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    Look, you said there are 226 unreviewed nominations as against 72 approved. If that's correct, then 226 unreviewed nominations is 226 unreviewed nominations is a backlog of 226 nominations needing review, period, and subtracting 72 makes no sense. However, having now looked at the stats table for myself I'm quite sure that what you meant to say is that there were 226 total nominations, of which 72 were reviewed. In that case 226 less 72 gives 154 as the number of unreviewed nominations, and that's the backlog: 154. But I was going on what you said. EEng 17:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    Yup, I made a mistake and you are right. There's still a rather large backlog however. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    Actually, EEng#s, I think Cwmhiraeth was correct to subtract the number. The first column shows all nominations – approved and unapproved. The second shows approved noms. Subtracting the total of the latter column from the former gives you the number of unapproved noms still awaiting finalization. Note that this is not the same as unreviewed noms; many in the "unapproved" column have had at least one reviewer look at them. However, we don't appear to total those up "reviewed but not yet approved" noms anywhere. MeegsC (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
    I think this has been done to death now. EEng 01:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
    A lot of those 226 do have reviews however. I'm not sure exactly how BlueMoonset's list of the oldest unreviewed DYKs is generated, but in the most recent report all but three of them are from within the past month. At about this time last year hooks more than a month old made up half of the list, which suggests to me that currently normal DYK processes are working quite well. The nom/approved gap was 228 back then too, so I don't see a current problem. There are of course other benefits to such a competition, which if nothing else might officially capture some of the great effort clearly being put in by editors to keep DYK running so well, similar to how monthly reviewing statistics are captured at WT:FAC. CMD (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    It sounds like re-reviewed articles should offer double points? This would encourage editors to tackle stalled nominations. Desertarun (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    ... and further worsen the backlog since you've reduced by one the number of reviews someone is required to do. EEng 10:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I think this is a terrible idea as presented. (Picture hooks as prizes?) I agree that this is a solution in search of a problem, and possibly one that would make problems. Unlike at GAN, the mandatory QPQ at DYK means that if the number of open DYKs went below a certain number, it would cripple the ability of new DYKs to be nominated and only result in a worse, compounding backlog as people scramble to fill their slots. Vaticidalprophet 08:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    if the number of open DYKs went below a certain number, it would cripple the ability of new DYKs to be nominated – Sorry, that makes no sense. Look, suppose the entire system was empty -- no approved nominations, no unapproved nominations, nothing. Now I make a nomination and you make a nomination. I review yours to get my QPQ, and you review mine to get my QPQ. Now everything's reviewed, everyone has a QPQ, the two nominations get promoted (or closed as unusable) in due course, and then the system is back to zero again. You seem to be saying a backlog is somehow necessary. It's not. EEng 10:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that because new nominees don't have to do reviews we have a built in backlog. This means many have to wait 3 or 4 weeks. Managed properly we can speed things up and we won't get comments saying DYK is broken. I think people don't like waiting. Desertarun (talk) 10:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
    Well, duh. Managed properly, how? We've got two classes of nominators: those who have to do one review for each nomination they make, and those who can make a nomination without doing a review. From that it's perfectly obvious that, absent some other force at work, the backlog can only grow. Luckily, there is another force at work, to wit the occasional good Samaritan who does a review for free; but we really shouldn't be thus relying on the kindness of strangers. EEng 13:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Since the whole point is to reduce the number of unreviewed/unapproved nominations, the only way a drive like this will accomplish a reduction in outstanding reviews is if the rules state that reviews submitted for this drive are not also eligible to be QPQ: the barnstar rewards are for reviews external to the QPQ process. QPQ by itself cannot cover submitted nominations on a 1 for 1 basis, since new submitters get five freebies, and not every review that qualifies as a QPQ results in an approval or rejection.
About a year ago, when we were getting overwhelmed by unreviewed nominations, I started preparing a drive (see here for a draft proposal; I consulted with Cwmhiraeth and Yoninah at the time, and used GAN backlog drives and GOCE blitzes for inspiration). The drive was originally going to be ten days, then eight as the unreviewed numbered dropped, and then volunteer reviewers stepped in and took care of a significant part of the backlog, leaving a drive no longer necessary, so I never proposed it on this page. Although the number of nominations awaiting review or approval is 150 (we have an additional 77 nominations approved and awaiting promotion), we could certainly do a two- or three-day trial run, offering barnstars for new reviews and completing stalled/abandoned reviews, and see how much progress is made on the backlog. The number of barnstars and the levels needed to earn them would need to be adjusted for the shorter length of the drive. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I would support such a backlog elimination drive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. That is very well thought out. It could replace my proposal with adjustments at your discretion. Maybe you could post some or all of the draft here. Desertarun (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've adjusted the proposals to add that reviews aren't eligible for QPQ if you are taking part and it will last 2 days. I will leave this open for a couple more days, then ask someone uninvolved to read consensus, say yes or no, and close. Desertarun (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Where to find a closer?

Congratulations! Someone made a formal closure of the discussion of a DYK backlog elimination drive!

Where should I post to find a closer for the Nomination Backlog Drive thread? Desertarun (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Nowhere. A close isn't what you need. What you need is to drum up more support. Right now you've got two people (one of them you) saying Let's do it, two saying that an occasional drive is a good idea but not clearly behind this specific proposal, someone suggesting a trial run, two opposes, and two people making various side comments. Restate exactly how it's to work and how long it will run, then get clear !votes on that. Then you won't need a close. EEng 16:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I will write a formal proposal and ask people to vote, it'll probably take a week or so to put it together. Desertarun (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Annie Kanahele

Ezlev, the article's nominator, has indicated that he will be off-Wiki until at least the end of July. The article currently has a "when" tag which is preventing me from approving the nomination. Would anyone be able to resolve the issue so that the nomination can be passed? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The tagging is strange, in the fact that creator/nominator @Ezlev: put that tag on there himself with the first edit. Maybe they meant to remove it before publication??? — Maile (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I get the tagging. You know something is true -- maybe from something you've read before but can't find again -- so you include it, with a cn tag or whatever, to remind yourself to circle back. —valereee (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, I just went through every Hawaii resource I have that might give a hint to that info. About all I find is a mention here and there when she gets an award, and her obits that are already in the article. Nothing brings up the specifics of the tagged item. — Maile (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
She was president in 1971, but not sure when her term started or ended. DanCherek (talk) 02:21, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
[4] this may be a lead to offline sources. MB 02:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Queue 4: Charlie Wheatley

I'm not really sure what the purpose of this hook is. The guy was a baseball player and then became a businessman. Is the implication that being only schooled up to seventh-grade but then later getting degrees in engineering is a big leap? I feel like if we're going to highlight this aspect of his life, then the article should give more detail about it and it should be clear why this is remarkable. Further details on how he got awarded the degrees for example. Being a top baseball player and then inventing valves is a fairly interesting leap of career in its own right, so highlighting those two things would be another option. Anyway, perhaps I'm just missing something, so I'm putting this out here for further feedback before it goes live or before I decide to reopen the nomination. Pinging @Muboshgu, Epicgenius, and Vaticidalprophet: as nom/reviewer/promoter. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru, I thought this was fairly straightforward. Wheatley had a seventh grade education, and then made it big in business and received three honorary degrees in engineering. The article mentions his businesses, patents, etc. What more needs to be said? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: yeah I guess so. Probably the issue is that as a non-American, the term "seventh-grade" doesn't mean that much to me. If the intention is to highlight the difference between his early education and the later degrees, maybe something like "but achieved three hononary degrees..." could describe it?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I presume this hook means he dropped out of school at age 13 (as seventh-grade = Year 8 in UK terminology, which is age 12-13)? If so, could the hook say he left school aged 13, rather than assuming people know what American grade systems are? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
As a non-American I completely understand what "seventh-grade education" is, but I keep being surprised by what things some other non-American editors don't recognize (generation gap?). "Left school at 12/13 [if the article makes the exact age clear, which it may not, and so might force us to stick with this] but attained three honorary degrees" works fine. Vaticidalprophet 16:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
I had added the link to seventh grade for the benefit of the non-US readers, and am totally okay with any additional clarifications that make it comprehensible for the worldwide audience. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Since honorary degrees are just that (i.e. not gained through academic achievement), I think I'd find it more interesting if the hook said "left school at 13 but founded a multi-million dollar business" or "left school at 13 but became an inventor with 21 patents to his name" or something similar. Black Kite (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Prep3

The mathmatics thesis that’s just been promoted to this set has been at AfD for a few days. Schwede66 19:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The Equidistribution of Lattice Shapes of Rings of Integers of Cubic, Quartic, and Quintic Number Fields is the link to the article itself. — Maile (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I promoted it and have pulled it. It looks like it will survive AFD so it can be promoted again at a later time. Desertarun (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Did you return the nomination template back under the nominations to be approved? What date was it originally listed as? That way, you keep it within the time frame of eligibility. — Maile (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah right, I didn't think of that. I will try to do it, but please check later in case I've made a mistake. Desertarun (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Its gone back in the nominations to be approved under June 19. Desertarun (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Mislabeled sections?

It looks to me like the subsections at Wikipedia:Recent additions are off by a day. The subsection Wikipedia:Recent additions#30 June 2021 has the blurbs that were on the main page on 29 June 2021, not 30 June 2021. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the bot got something wrong while switching from 24-hour sets to 12-hour sets. @Shubinator, something for you to look at? —Kusma (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
This is expected. The timestamps at Wikipedia:Recent additions are when the hook leaves the Main Page, not when it's placed on the Main Page. This behavior predates DYKUpdateBot and reflects community consensus; up to the DYK community if any changes need to be made. Shubinator (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. To me it's very unintuitive – just my two cents. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the DYK hall of mirrors. EEng 04:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Student incomplete DYK nomination; does anyone want to adopt?

The Template:Did you know nominations/Coral Reef Restoration DYK nomination form was created (but not transcluded) back on March 27, while the article was still in userspace; the nominator's final edit on Wikipedia was on April 7, but another editor from the class moved the article into mainspace on May 10. Which is where we find ourselves today: an untranscluded nomination on an extant article.

The entire final "Efforts" section consists solely of three bold external links, so if this is to run as a DYK, it would need to be deleted entirely; similarly, there's at least one subsection elsewhere that is a header without any text, something also not allowed under DYK rules. However, the article looks reasonably solid and otherwise eligible, though the hooks could be a problem: the first is not mentioned in the text, the second is a stronger statement than I find supported in the text, and the third just doesn't work: "methods are being done" is too vague (and thus problematic on the "interesting" front as well).

This needs someone willing to do some article clean-up, create a workable hook, and shepherd the nomination through the DYK process, including transcluding the nomination under May 10 and being willing/able to deal with any issues that might arise during the review. (Wiki Ed hasn't responded with any assistance.) If no one steps up in by July 8, I will have the DYK nomination page deleted as abandoned. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I cleaned the article up and referenced it, so its in better condition if anyone wants to take it on board. Desertarun (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
The topic interests me so I will adopt the nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Desertarun has made significant improvements to the article and I have proposed a new hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I reworked the lead to standardise it. I'm not doing any more editing or offering any hooks but I think the topic deserves a feature on DYK. Desertarun (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, thank you for adopting it, and when you think the nomination is ready for a reviewer, please be sure to transclude it on the Nominations page (under May 10). Thanks also to Desertarun, for their work as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
OK, that's done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Moving to special occasion holding area

Once a nomination is approved, what is the etiquette for moving a nom with a requested post date to the special occasion holding area? In some cases, I see the nominator moving it. I don't see any explicit instructions on that, but I could also see some COI concerns. I ask because I nominated one and it has been approved and I'm wondering:

  1. Do I just move it to the holding area myself, and eliminate any risk of it getting lost in the shuffle (never put off until tomorrow what you can do today)
  2. Wait for an independent party to do it, and periodically check that it gets done in time (patience is a virtue)
  3. Just post a note here and get it out of the way (the squeaky wheel gets the grease)

The procedure is not entirely clear to me based on the current text at Template talk:Did you know/Approved § Special occasion holding area. Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I see it as fine to move your own hooks to a date request holding area. I do it all the time (most recently an hour ago, I moved one of my own hooks to the Olympics holding area), and it saves the effort of someone else doing it, or someone accidentally promoting it on the wrong date. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
In this scenario, a prep queue builder can screen inappropriate requests, as can anyone else beforehand.—Bagumba (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I've moved a hook as a reviewer before, but I believe a nominator could move it themselves after awhile if no one else does so. I do think it is good to periodically check in as per your number 2 in any DYK situation. Anyway, the request seems reasonable, and there are no other noms on that date that might conflict, so I have moved it. CMD (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Bagumba, the answer is 2 (wait), and if it doesn't happen within a few days or the requested date is nearing, then 3 (post a note here), which has done the trick. Please do not move it yourself. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Once Upon a Time - In 2019, when we updated the criteria/instruction on moving to Special Holding area, I recall having an ongoing discussion about who can move a hook to a special holding date. Mostly, I remember it because a nominator had requested the date, nobody moved if after it was approved, I moved it for the nominator and was reverted by someone else who didn't think the date was special enough. And later I recall moving a couple of my own hooks to Special Holding, and nobody even noticed, I guess. I find nothing clear in writing about who should move these special occasion hooks. And if it's not in writing - say, in one simple sentence - and right above the Special Holding section, I think you use your own judgement as to who moves it. But once somebody moves it to special holding, I don't think it's appropriate for someone else to yank it out of special holding. — Maile (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • When I have special holding area hooks, I almost always move them myself because it is not fair on the reviewer to have to take on an extra burden. I agree with Maile66 above, once its in there it shouldn't be just removed on a whim because the nominator has already consented to it being there. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
  • A special occasion request is just that: a request. It is not appropriate for the nominator to move it themselves, because the request may not be appropriate: we've had ones for the birth date of an anime character played by a voice actress, for example, that have been rejected. Unlike Maile, I have no qualms about removing any nomination from special occasions that was moved in by the nominator rather than by a reviewer or other independent editor: we should have an independent judge of whether the request is appropriate/reasonable, and if the reviewer who approved it doesn't do the move, then the nominator can request that someone take a look on this talk page. Moving hooks is no real burden—I'm surprised to see that claim—and given The C of E's past problems with their special occasion hooks, they should certainly not be moving any of their own to that area. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
  • We had a concern with Canada Day (July 1): consensus on this talk page was to limit the amount of Canada Day hooks, but many nominators still moved their hooks into the Special Occasions Holding Area (SOHA) for Canada Day. We ended up having 7 or 8 Canada hooks (depending how you count them) scheduled to run on July 1. They were split into two groups of 4, even though it was unclear if there was consensus to run four Canadian hooks in a hook set. I agree with BlueMoonset's comments above in theory, but in practice I don't think many reviewers know that they should move the hook they approved into SOHA, so nominators move it to ensure their hook runs on the date they requested. I would support either a few SOHA Coordiantors, who would be responsible for monitoring SOHA and flagging concerns here, or assign a coordiantor for a specific date (like International Museum Day) who will coordinate the prep area for that hook set. Z1720 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not a fan of most special occasion hooks in general; they're often relatively tenuous and just serve to force the hands of prep-builders. They also make it more difficult to handle problematic hooks (as if something needs to be bounced back to DYKN it'll probably miss the date) and are easy to miss at the very end of the DYKNA list. I suspect the solution to our problem might be rejecting most date requests. Vaticidalprophet 16:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
      • @Vaticidalprophet: who should be rejecting date requests, and what criteria should they use to make that determination? Right now it seems like very few requests are rejected. I would like to hear other's thoughts on this question, too. In response to your comment that date requests "are easy to miss at the very end of the DYKNA list", I've thought for a while that maybe it should be moved to the top of the approved page, so that prep builders have to scroll past these requests first and are thus more likely to notice them. Z1720 (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
        • My own preference -- likely on the more conservative end -- is that special occasion hooks should be something with very clear, obvious ties, such that the hook would suffer visibly if it ran out of order. Ideally these should be relatively major events (I don't much like the "hold stuff for every Hallmark holiday" practice), although I recognize that, say, telling GLAMs not to hold an "International Museum Day" set is a tall order. In the case of dates where the special occasion itself impacts the hook set, most notably April Fool's, the matter changes a bit but still shouldn't be a "if you say you want a hook to run on this date you've guaranteed it" situation -- often the best hooks for April Fool's aren't the hooks placed in that section. But, broadly speaking -- I want date hooks to be something where it's really non-negotiable, because I don't think it justifies the disruption to prep-building to spontaneously decide "oh, and can we run this on the 137th anniversary of this guy's wedding?". Special occasion hooks are hard to navigate -- DYK changes from 12 to 24 hour sets often enough that you honestly have no clue what you're building for a lot of the time. In terms of a regimented group of people permitted to reject them, I'm unconvinced that won't primarily serve to add bureaucracy, rather than just people with a decent grasp on prep-building looking at the matter. Vaticidalprophet 05:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Archive bot gone wild

Has anyone else noticed that on June 9, the lowercase sigmabot III went rogue on us, and struck most of the "Formal proposal for a DYK Backlog Drive: Vote in section below". But not all of it. Looks like the bot removed a portion of it, and struck through much of the rest. Weird. Diff — Maile (talk) 02:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It was struck by the proposing editor here, not by the bot. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Look more closely. Everything's fine. EEng 02:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Q7 9July

Template:Did you know nominations/Planet Her

Cybertrip

Am I missing something, or is this image not in the bolded article and the hook fact not mentioned in the bolded article? And are we sourcing this assertion to a tweet? —valereee (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, the image and fact were removed from the article as it was inadequately sourced. Please resort to the alt hooks instead. —cybertrip👽 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
We'll have to remove this from the image slot. —valereee (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I've returned to approved nominations page. —valereee (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The prior list having been archived about half an hour ago, this list includes 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 17. We currently have a total of 297 nominations, of which 102 have been approved, a gap of 195 that has increased by 43 in the past ten days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over four months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The Yoninah set is now live on the Main Page

@Valereee: thank you for putting together the Yoninah set. It's on the main page right now, and it's just so special for us to see that set there. — Maile (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm so happy to have it there. I hope it does her honor, and well. —valereee (talk) 00:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm aware that Yoninah has died. What does "the Yoninah set" refer to, if I may ask? Schwede66 00:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
What is on the main page right now, is a set of hooks selected from various hooks that originally appeared on the DYK main page site when Yoninah nominated them. After she died in January, we had a lengthy DYK discussion about the best way to honor her memory, and it was decided the best way was to compile a set of her own hooks. There is also a Yoninah Service Medal in the works, that can be awarded to (I think) prep builders. — Maile (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
What a kind and appropriate thing to do. Thanks, everyone. Schwede66 04:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Its a brilliant commemoration. Thank you to all those who made it happen. Victuallers (talk) 06:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Israel/Jewish-themed?

I'm just interested why this current batch of DYKs all seem to be Israel/Jewish themed. I don't think it's a particularly special day in the Jewish calendar today. Am I missing something? --Coin945 (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Today is the memorial set for Yoninah, a major force in DYK who passed away in January. Her editing focus was Israeli/Jewish topics, so a DYK set built from her hooks will reflect it. Vaticidalprophet 07:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Wondered this as well - a fitting tribute. GiantSnowman 08:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
They are not recent nominations and have all been in DYK before. They are not the set on this page either. Secretlondon (talk) 16:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I missed something, but I remember back when we had this discussion about this DYK set, the plan was to have a varied set of her hooks, not just specifically Israel/Judaism-related ones. Was there consensus to go with just those topics for the set rather than the mix that was originally proposed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
A bit late to be worrying about that. EEng 04:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I actually finalized the set. Because Yoninah was very interested in Jewish/Israel subjects, there were a lot of those hooks. As I poked around in the history of her hooks, it just felt kind of cool to have it be a whole set of them rather than looking unintentionally unbalanced with six Jewish/Israel hooks and two outliers or whatever. And I believed she'd think it was cool, too. So I went with all Jewish/Israel. —valereee (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Need to go to two sets a day

The total number of approved nominations is 126 as I write this, so it is time to increase the number of daily sets to two per day. As we are already past midnight UTC, I’m suggesting that we make the changeover when midnight comes again (00:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)).

Part of the reason for waiting is that we’re badly behind in prep to queue promotion: we have only two queues filled, and two preps are ready for promotion. The third prep, Prep 2, had been ready (along with the fourth and fifth), but it had two special occasion hooks in it, which have been moved to Prep 6 to run on July 11. Two special occasion hooks that were in Prep 5 have had to be returned to the special occasion section; they can be promoted again in a day or two. I’m happy to report that nothing in a queue needs to be moved.

For now, we need admins to promote queues: pinging Amakuru, Maile, Cas Liber, valereee, Cwmhiraeth, ONUnicorn, Wugapodes, Gatoclass, and Lee Vilenski, in the hopes that we can get a few promoted shortly, and get at least two promotions a day over the next little while.

We have 24 hours before we should change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200; if an admin could do that when the time comes, that would be great. Thank you all very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMoonset (talk • contribs) 00:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I see you are the one that formatted the heading on the Approved page. We need something added at top. Per DYK after 120 approved and THIS, can you please insert a sentence or two at the top of the Approved page that explains when we automatically go to 2 sets a day? I'm not even sure what "automatic" means, unless someone has pre-programmed something, or maybe we need to manually make the change. And what is the trigger for when we go back one set a day? In any event, it's confusing to have to remember this every time, so an explanation at the top of that page would be appreciated. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I was away for what was a long weekend in the US. I've updated the approved page's header. To my knowledge the frequency change is not automatic in the robot sense but rather any admin can change the frequency without having to ask once it passes 120 or falls below 60. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset and EEng: still waiting for a response from Wugapodes. On the outside chance that there may not be a response from him on this, I have added a line at the top of the Current number of hooks on the nominations page. It is beyond comprehension to me that this policy only be relocated to someone's memory, rather than being clearly stated in an obvious place. And if either or both of you suddenly aren't active anymore? Please do not remove it from where I placed it. — Maile (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
We go back to 1-a-days when we get down to 60 approved noms. That is in the discussion above the vote you've linked to, but I think someone (probably me) shorthanded Go to 2-a-days any time we hit 120 approved nominations and stay at 2-a-days until we're under 60 approved nominations into 2-a-day after 120 approved when creating the discussion header. —valereee (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The last time we were at 2 sets per day I found it difficult to balance sets when we were below 80 approved. There are several factors at play; first the special occasion hooks can't be used, second there are more bio's than non bio's and third the picture hooks are recommended not to be used up wholesale. Desertarun (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Desertarun, one of the reason that bios build up to such numbers is that some promoters only put one or two in a set. We get far more bios than anything else, and most sets should have at least three if not four! Otherwise, as you say, we end up with only bios left. MeegsC (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Desertarun, if you (and other prep builders) think 60 is too low, let's discuss and propose raising it. That number was chosen completely arbitrarily, and we discussed whether we'd need to tweak it after a few back-and-forths. The people who need to have the most input on this are you and other frequent prep builders. —valereee (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Taking out the 14 noms that are in the date holding area, we do have fewer than 120 approved hooks. Although it does still probably make sense to go to 2 per day. Maybe the back to 1 per day criteria should be 60 approved nominations, excluding nominations waiting on date requests? Joseph2302 (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I hate to make people have to keep track of how many spec occ hooks are in the approved noms. Using the number at the bottom of the approved noms column is just so nice and simple. Maybe we just increase the trigger point by some number equal to some high-average number of special occasion hooks? Is 14 a pretty common number? Maybe increase from 60/120 to 80/140? —valereee (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I've just remembered there are probably half a dozen approved noms that I've reviewed or nominated myself and I can't do anything with them either. So yeah a bigger number would be better, I don't mind what exactly. 75-80? Desertarun (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Valereee I think 14 is quite high for date requests- half of them are Olympics hooks, which is why. Normally, I think there's about 5 date requests at any time, unless we're holding lots for special events (like the Olympics or when we did Canada Day). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The numbers may have changed since I made the call, but there were 126 approved nominations in the regular area of the approved page; the number did not count the special occasion section. Joseph2302, we've always changed using numbers that ignore approved special occasion hooks, since they aren't immediately available for promotion. I think leaving the switch points at 60/120 rather than increasing the numbers makes more sense. Can anyone explain to me in what ways the current changes have not been working aside from the bio imbalance (as noted above, this is typically caused by putting two or three bios in sets rather than the full four allowed), preferably with concrete examples of problems? It has been 14 months, and to my eye, gone reasonably smoothly at the current values. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: ... and the decision on this happened 14 months ago. Thank goodness EEng linked it, because I have absolutely no memory that this decision ever happened. Just think of everything a person's attention gets sidetracked on, in 14 months. Political upheaval, Covid pandemic, world and local events, family issues, other web site involvement besides Wikipedia. Unless it's stated/linked in an obvious place, stuff happens, stuff slips through the cracks of our memories. — Maile (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I can't remember what I had for dinner last night. —valereee (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Still need to do the switchover

Unfortunately, I forgot to sign my original post, and none of the pings went through. We didn't do the switchover last night. (We weren't supposed to do the switch last night, but tonight; time is stretching out here. Sorry about that.) Can I ask one of these admins to commit to making the switch after midnight tonight: Amakuru, Maile, valereee, or Cwmhiraeth. Please chime in here if you can change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200 after midnight UTC, six hours from now (not before!) after the next promotion to the main page, or act as backup. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I am 99% sure I can do it. Setting a timer to remind myself. :D —valereee (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I will be backup when I log in on Wednesday morning, 05.00 UTC or thereabouts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Should be done! —valereee (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Formal proposal for a DYK Backlog Drive: Vote in section below

===Background===

What is the purpose of the backlog drive?

The purpose of this drive is to reduce the number of nominations we currently have, and as a consequence reduce the average waiting time before a hook is featured on the main page. In order to manage their workload other wiki-projects use backlog drives, see; Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives and Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July 2021. This drive is a trial, if it is successful there would be further drives in the future.

How big is our backlog?

DYK works with a large built in backlog - right now the total backlog is 300 hooks. To understand the backlog please imagine DYK is shutting down! Further imagine we stop taking new nominations immediately, green light everything in the queue and then run 8 hooks per day until everything has been featured. The question now is; how long will it be until the last hook exits the main page? The answer is 37 days. Why do we have 37 days of hooks sat there waiting? Who does this suit?

The hoped for purpose of this drive is to get an extra 120 hooks approved and run down the total backlog to 180 hooks. This would reduce the backlog by 15 days, meaning on average everyone gets on the main page after 22 days.

Why do we have a backlog?

We have a backlog because there are two classes of nominator; regular DYK editors who have to do one review for each nomination they make; and new DYK editors who can make 5 nominations without doing a review. Absent some other force at work, the backlog can only grow. There is another force at work, the occasional good Samaritan who does a review for free; but we shouldn't be relying on the kindness of strangers.

The process

The backlog drive will begin on Wednesday 14 July at 00:00 UTC and finish on Thursday 15 July 23:59 - lasting 48 hours. Please check the start in your time zone on the prep building queue HERE. Reviews completed by participants are not eligible for later use as QPQ. Instead, you will receive a barnstar as recognition of your contribution. I will be producing a results table with a first place but do not rubber stamp or copy-paste reviews in an attempt to win. For a new review on an unreviewed hook you will receive 1 point; for a second or subsequent review on an already reviewed hook you will receive 2 points, second reviews must be full and include all criteria, not merely addressing one or two missing criteria. Nomination reviews started before the drive or completed after the drive don't count.

Rules summary

1) Each review of a new nomination is worth 1 point
2) Each second or subsequent review of a nomination is worth 2 points
3) 48 hours long
4) Reviews aren't eligible for QPQ usage
5) No rubber stamped or copy pasted reviews
6) Participants are awarded barnstars

Co-ordinator

Desertarun will be the co-ordinator. Questions should be logged on Wikipedia talk:Did you know for community discussion and will be transcluded there if placed on my talk page.

Results

An unofficial results table will be produced within 2 days of the end of the drive. It will list username, position on the table, number of first reviews completed, number of second reviews completed and the number of points scored. Users will be ranked from most points scored to least. To be eligible for amendments to the results, you must log issues within 48 hours of me producing the unofficial table. Statistics will also be produced giving the number of first reviews, the number of second reviews and the total number of approved nominations. Official results will be published within 7 days of the backlog drive completion.

Awards

Barnstars are awarded for participation. The first, second and third place barnstars are awarded for first, second and third most points accumulated. Barnstars are also awarded for completing 1, 3, 5, 10 and 15 full reviews. Participants are eligible for 1 barnstar only. If you complete 10 reviews and are second place in points you can choose either the second place barnstar or the 10 reviews barnstar, but not both.

1 full review
The Minor Barnstar


15 full reviews
The Barnstar of Diligence


3 full reviews
The Modest Barnstar


Third place (points scored)
The Reviewer Barnstar


5 full reviews
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar


Second place (points scored)
The Order of the Superior Scribe of Wikipedia
10 full reviews
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar


First place (points scored)
The DYK Barnstar

To participate in the drive

Enter your username in the participants list below, familiarise yourself with the rules and carry out reviews between Wednesday 14 July at 00:00 UTC and finish on Thursday 15 July 23:59. Please check the start in your time zone on the prep building queue HERE. Log your reviews after completion under your username and indicate the outcome of the review with the symbol you used to complete the review. Only add a review here once you have completed the review. If you review a multi-article nomination, please note how many articles you reviewed for that nomination e.g. write "(two articles)", to be sure you are given the proper credit.

The usercode, icons and an example are noted below. If you are unfamiliar with the code it may be easier to copy someone else's details and swop in your name and templates, alternatively you can ask on Wikipedia talk:Did you know.

User code

====[[User:Username|Username]]====
{{Div col}} 
#{{subst:DYKtick}} [[Template:Did you know nominations/Articlename1|Articlename1]]
#{{subst:DYKtickAGF}} [[Template:Did you know nominations/Articlename2|Articlename2]]
{{Div col end}}
Symbol Code DYK Ready? Description
{{subst:DYKtick}} Yes No problems, ready for DYK
{{subst:DYKtickAGF}} Yes Article is ready for DYK, with a hook reference accepted in good faith
{{subst:DYK?}} Query DYK eligibility requires that an issue be addressed.
{{subst:DYK?no}} Maybe DYK eligibility requires additional work.
{{subst:DYKno}} No Article is either completely ineligible, or else requires considerable work before becoming eligible.

Example showing a user and their completed reviews

This example user has listed their username and completed 5 reviews. Each review had a different outcome as indicated by the icon in front of the template they have reviewed.

Desertarun

  1. Template:Did you know nominations/William Gregson (slave trader)
  2. Template:Did you know nominations/William Davenport (slave trader)
  3. Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Leyland
  4. Template:Did you know nominations/Ralph Fisher
  5. Template:Did you know nominations/George Case (slave trader)

List of participants

Username

  1. Template:Did you know nominations/Articlename1
  2. Template:Did you know nominations/Articlename2
  3. Template:Did you know nominations/Articlename3

Username

  1. Template:Did you know nominations/Articlename1
  2. Template:Did you know nominations/Articlename2
  3. Template:Did you know nominations/Articlename3

Username

  1. Template:Did you know nominations/Articlename1
  2. Template:Did you know nominations/Articlename2
  3. Template:Did you know nominations/Articlename3

Vote on formal proposal for a DYK backlog drive

  • Support as proposer. Desertarun (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm sorry to throw cold water, but this seems like a lot of machinery for something that should be simple. And 48 hours is far too little time. Reviews take time, and often require assistance from experienced editors; you're proposing compressing everything into an exhausting marathon for no apparent reason. EEng 14:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I believe that the current backlog is 200, not 300. (100+ have already been approved, right?) Simply getting more nominations approved will not reduce the overall backlog (that is, how long it takes for hooks to hit the front page), unless we also up the number of sets per day. MeegsC (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, I appreciate what Desertarun's trying to do, but there's just too much deadweight in all this and even basic arithmetical facts are getting confused.
    Look, if we want to eliminate the backlog, here's what to do: [Superceded by new section below] Until further notice, everyone who's made at least 10 nominations needs to do two reviews (instead of the usual one review) when making a new nomination. (Honor system -- people who come under this provision know who they are.) The threshold is set at 10 (not 5) so we don't get flooded with reviews by novices. Easy, steady, no elaborate apparatus needed. When there are no unreviewed noms left, back to the usual rules. EEng 20:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    Strongest possible oppose to EEng's proposal of demanding 2 reviews. One review already takes significant time, 2 reviews would be a ridiculous burden. Let people choose to do more reviews, but don't force it onto people. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    ridiculous burden – No hyperbole there. That's exactly the can-do, let's-all-pull-together, I'll-do-it-if-you-will spirit that makes DYK what it is today! Anyway, you don't have to do any extra reviews if you don't want, just while others are doing all the work to eliminate the backlog, you hold off making any new nominations until the backlog's gone and rules go back to normal.
    [Superceded by new section below] Or, here's an idea. We'll say that anyone who doesn't want to do the extra review can get out of it by saying, when making a nomination, I don't feel like doing an extra review like everyone else, and you can't make me. And then you can do just one review like usual. OK? EEng 21:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    I would be happy to do additional QPQs when I have time. I and others would not be happy to be forced to do 2 every time we nominate. Also a proposal like this for a DYK rules change would need a proper RFC with clear consensus. Rather than being latched onto a proposal to make it voluntary. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    I just said you can opt out if you want; I'm sure no one would accuse you of shirking or anything. And thanks for the lesson about consensus and stuff. I'm new around here and don't know how things work. EEng 00:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for derailing this thread with your unworkable proposal. Your "opt-out" method wouldn't work as if you did get a consenus to change the rules, then people couldn't just ignore them. But thanks for trying to be "helpful". Maybe if people were made to feel valued for going above and beyond on DYK, then people would actually want to do more. After all, DYK is the only place that demands QPQs anyway, rather than relying on good will. If GOCE and GA reviews can manage to work on good will, I'm sure a backlog drive based on good will should be able to work too. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    Derailing? What rails was it running on? So far you're the only person supporting it. As for your serious concern about the "opt-out" idea, your irony detector needs recalibration.
    My proposal is, in fact, eminently practical. [Superceded by new section below] In fact, I'll state it more clearly... Proposed rule change:
    • Nominators with fewer than 5 prior noms: no QPQ needed
    • With 5 to 9 prior noms, one QPQ needed
    • With 10 or more prior noms, two QPQs needed (unless there's no backlog).
    It's elegant and equitable -- DYK frequent flyers should do more, kind of a progressive tax scheme for DYK reviewing. EEng 01:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Joseph2302, GOCE and GA don't have deadlines. We've got 8-16 deadlines every day here at DYK. —valereee (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support original proposal in principle, so long as people aren't forced into doing extra reviews. Those that have the time and willingness to help should be encouraged and rewarded (with e.g. barnstars) for doing so, but forcing additional mandatory requirements on an already cumbersome process is not beneficial to DYK. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    Gosh, with all those tempting barnstars as motivation the backlog will be gone in no time! EEng
    Well people put in time to promote DYK noms to preps and queues, so it's not unreasonable to think that people can dedicate some time on an ad hoc basis to the odd extra QPQ or two. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    What people can do, and what they will do, are two different things. To clear the backlog of 200, a hundred people would need to do two extra reviews each over the course of two days. Monkeys might fly out of my butt, too. EEng 00:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    I'd rather get a barnstar because someone actually decided I was worth a barnstar, rather than an automated one just because I did a few extra reviews. Now if you amend it to say I get a Ferrari or a spa weekend for two with fancy Michelin starred meals thrown in then I might be tempted...  — Amakuru (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    Amakuru, both the GOCE drives/blitzes and the GAN backlog drives operate in this manner: those who do the reviews get barnstars as a reward. This is an old and venerable practice. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    EEng, the GAN backlog drive began at midnight July 1, and 93 new reviews were opened in the first 24 hours. The GOCE drives are not quite as quick, but 90 copyedits have been undertaken in the first four days. It seems likely, given that experience, that a drive or blitz would indeed result in a number of reviews done in a friendly competition that would not otherwise have been done, and as they would not be eligible for QPQ credit, would reduce the number of unreviewed and unapproved noms outstanding. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    I'm sure it will make a dent, though whether it will be much much of a dent remains to be seen. In any event, we'll be back in exactly the same place a year from now, then have a long and confused discussion about what to do about it, etc. A simple rule change would fix this for all time. EEng 01:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    What you need is an editor who reviews lots of nominations but hardly ever submits one and doesn't leave in a huff and then forget her password for five years. I don't believe she exists though. Belle (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support the idea, oppose in this current form The idea is great and I think this is a great draft for a format, but I have some concerns: 48 hours is too short and I think it should be a week. Also, I don't think this should run in July: it will take some time to get this set up and advertised (especially because it's the first) and GAN's drive is happening right now, limiting the number of reviewers that will participate in DYK's drive. I suggest delaying this until August or September to give more time for this to be set up. I also suggest that Desertarun seek out additional coordinators to help with managing the drive, especially someone who is very experienced in DYK: GOCE has 4 coordinators to set up their weeklong blitzes and drives, while GAN's drive has 3. Having more coordinators to help with problems that arise will help this drive become a success. Z1720 (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
While I appreciate Desertarun's enthusiasm, I agree with Z1720 in that I don't think it's a good idea to have someone with only six weeks of DYK experience running a drive like this, whether solo or as head of a team. Helping in one, sure, but the missteps already in trying to design it and describe it highlight their inexperience here. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I could bring on board another 1 or 2 editors with all of us, me included, noted as "joint coordinators", but I wouldn't bring on board anyone else to become a formal "lead coordinator". Desertarun (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose As MeegsC pointed out, this proposed "backlog drive" won't do anything about the backlog. This would simply get nominations approved faster, and then they'll all wait on WP:DYKN/A. The only way to decrease the backlog would be to increase the number of hooks run on the main page per day. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    Well, now things are really getting all mixed up. The backlog we're talking about is the set of nominations not yet reviewed. The set of nominations approved but not yet run isn't a backlog, but in fact a healthy thing to have in case there's some interruption in the supply, and anyway they're easily disposed of by running more hooks per day for a while. EEng 01:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    Then I really fail to see the point of a backlog drive if it's just going to result in another pile up. It's like working to get people through security at the airport faster, so they can wait at the gate. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Muboshgu, although it's a bit buried, the idea is that these reviews are outside the QPQ process, so the number of unapproved nominations should go down (and the number of approved nominations would increase). Further, we're at one set a day now, but as soon as the number of approved nominations hits 120, we're automatically at two sets per day, addressing MeegsC's concern, and stay there until the number of approved nominations falls to 60. The wait times at the gate will start falling soon and continue to fall. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I'm sure "as soon as the number of approved nominations hits 120, we're automatically at two sets per day" must be written somewhere, but I'm not sure where it is. Can you point me to that? I'm not doubting you, but I can't remember where it's located. Hopefully, you're not the only one who remembers that. — Maile (talk) 00:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Maile, we had an RfC on it on this very page sometime in the last couple/few years, and that was the decision at the time: we officially set the switchover numbers. You're welcome to search for it in the page archives, which is what I'd have to do. Interestingly, we've just exceeded 120 approved, so I'm about to post about the changeover at the bottom of the page. As an admin, you'll be getting a ping then, too. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I remember the RFC, sort of. Maybe it might be a good idea to put a sentence to that effect at the very top of the Approved page, one of those places prep builders can't miss. What do you think? We have so many guidelines/rules now that I think sometimes my brain has turned into a sieve. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
The discussion seems to be Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_169#2-a-day_after_120_approved, and in all modestly I'll say that I floated this idea years and years ago and got nowhere. One comment: to work stably, the count-of-available-noms needs to include not just the approved noms waiting to be promoted to prep, but all those in prep and in queue as well. That sum -- not just the number in the APPROVED column of the table -- is what should be compared against the various trigger points to determine when we step on the gas or put on the brakes. EEng 00:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@EEng: thanks for the link. Yep - my mind has become a sieve - right at the top on what you linked is a comment from me. I wanted to add it to the Approved page, but I think BlueMoonset needs to do that. They set up the Approved page, and I can't figure out where the lead instructions are transcluded from. — Maile (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@EEng, what did you have in mind for including what's in preps/queues? The trigger point of 60 to go to 1-a-days was to ensure we prevented dropping below ~40 approved noms, as at that point it becomes difficult to build a set. However we count, we need to protect that lower limit. —valereee (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, while fundamentally a simple concept, it takes a little explaining to get there, so I'd like to put this discussion on hold while we (hopefully) get a new QPQ requirement (two QPQs required after a given editor has made some number of nominations). That's the big win, and will begin to break the logjam of unreviewed noms. That, in turn will affect our decisions about how to modulate the "burn rate" (number of hooks run per day), so we can return to the issue at that time. EEng 17:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would extend the length of the drive to 7 days if that is what the community wants. Desertarun (talk) 08:36, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    Personally, I'd suggest at least double that. Give people a chance to really get stuck in. If someone's got a busy week, they're not likely to participate. However, they'll be less likely to be too busy for two weeks. MeegsC (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    MeegsC, too long a drive runs the risk of eating up all the available nominations for review, leaving nothing available for people who need to do QPQs. We have actually been in that situation before at DYK, when a very active volunteer reviewer left no unreviewed nominations in their wake. I'd be very leery of a two-week drive. There's nothing wrong with running a trial drive for a not very long period, and with what we learn then, come back with another drive in a few months that can be better tailored to the reviewing frequency during a drive based on the first one. Reviews started during a one-week version, for example, will still be able to completed after the end of it. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
    eating up all the available nominations for review, leaving nothing available for people who need to do QPQs – I'm sorry, but this makes no sense at all. Let's say there are zero noms waiting for review. I open a nomination, and momentarily have nothing to review. An hour later someone else opens a nomination. So I review his, and he reviews mine. Done. Getting unreviewed noms down to zero is a laudable goal, though one I believe there's no danger we'll achieve this way. EEng 00:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    It makes perfect sense. Take, for example, your "An hour later someone else opens a nomination." But in the intervening hour, a non-QPQ reviewer out there had already grabbed your nomination for review, so this new someone has nothing available, and unless you're pressing refresh to snag the next available nomination, the non-QPQ reviewer manages to get in there and review his first as well. So you're both waiting for a nomination to review. Like I said, we were in a position where people were complaining about the dearth of available nominations to review—I had to ask that volunteer reviewer to lay low for a while. You can believe me or not, but it did happen once, so I remember the circumstances. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    So tell volunteer reviewers (those volunteering to do a review "for free", without being required to) never to take the last unreviewed nom. One is all you need to avoid your scenario. Problem solved. EEng 03:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    If there are no noms available to review, can't the person just note that in their 'qpq' section, say 'yippee', and we all move on? —valereee (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    We can't afford to give anyone a free pass. Just one post up I show how easy it is to make sure that situation never happens. EEng 03:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think it's that easy to tell if this is the last review, or only the second-to-last. Maybe reviews for the drive that the reviewer doesn't think they'll use can go into the little 'leave a penny, take a penny' cup next to the register. —valereee (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    If you do get in a situation where all the reviews are done and nominators are queueing up to review each others' nominations then that would mean there were no nominations coming in from new nominators (with less than five nominations) which would be sad. But when was the last time there were zero unreviewed nominations on the DYK page? (Let's have a competition: 100 dollars a guess, winner takes the pot; I choose 'Never'. Roll up, roll up). Belle (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    Look, this kind of worrying is just WP:BIKESHEDDING. The final edge case can be handled in some way that the pump is always primed. Here we are trying to find a way to eliminate the backlog, because a backlog is a bad thing, and suddenly everyone's saying how the sky will fall if there's no backlog. We'll handled that, it's not rocket science. Now, can people opine on the proposal in the next section, please? EEng 23:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    I was saying that it is never going to happen (while trying to make some money; thanks for shutting that down, you are supposed to cool the mark after the sting) Belle (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's too complicated, and ultimately may not be effective. I think there is a simpler and guaranteed effective approach that I have suggested below on the talk page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Prep builders: use the image hooks in non-image slots

Right now by my rought count we've got 60+ images on the approved noms page for ~104 non-spec-occ hooks. Somewhere above a prolific prep-builder said they'd been discouraged from using up image hooks wholesale.

Let's get clear: It's fine to use an hook with an image in a non-image slot. In fact it looks like right now someone needs to build a few sets with ONLY image hooks in them, as right now we're way out of balance.

Just try really hard to be sure you aren't allowing your own biases to be reflected in which images you decide not to use. Also some images are easier to get than others; that doesn't mean we need to have a building hook (or whatever) in the image slot once every couple days. —valereee (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

When I started building preps (something I hope to return to once I'm eliminated from the Wikicup) I tried to select image hooks that were directly related to the hook. For example, the image was the person who wrote the song, (not one of the songwriter's influencers) or the hook mentioned an architectural aspect of the building, which was mentioned in the hook. If the image didn't directly relate to the main point of the hook, I put it in a non-image slot. I don't recall this being mentioned in the instructions I read to learn about prep building, but I would be in favour of this being more widely adopted. Z1720 (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree, we have about 3x as many picture requests as slots (as in about 3/8ths of nominations have a picture request, when only 1/8 of the hooks will be the picture on). The problem is people complain if their picture doesn't get featured, but that's just life, and tough luck. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I have learned in a decade of DYK that not every image hope will come true, but I don't see why we have lots of flags while a unique piece of art gets no image, - not my nom: Template:Did you know nominations/Shrine of Miosach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt, thank you for that, happily your comment allowed me to find a place to swap out the image slot from Q2 as discussed below. —valereee (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Queue 2 image

The image in Queue 2 appears to have invalid licensing – it addresses only the status of the photograph, but not the object depicted. Note that there is no US freedom of panorama for this 2009 sculpture. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 16:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The source says "no known restrictions on publication". If the Library of Congress is right, we don't need to do anything. If they are wrong, we should tell them. —Kusma (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
It seems that they use a blanket statement for all of the thousands of photos in the Carol M. Highsmith Archive, which she donated as public domain. "If collectively the images meet the criteria for the "no known restrictions" designation, we say "no known restrictions" in the rights and restrictions statement". They say her collection "features photographs of landmark buildings and architectural renovation projects"; buildings are covered by FoP, but apparently nobody bothered to sort out the licensing for photos of copyrighted objects. They say "It is the patron's obligation to determine and satisfy copyright or other use restrictions when publishing or otherwise distributing materials found in the Library's collections." MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I like seeing art images in the picture slot, but not when there are copyright issues. This image is nominated for deletion, and the person who uploaded it agrees that there are copyright concerns. @DYK admins: Since it will most likely be deleted as a copyright violation, another image hook will have to be found. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Swapped with P3 per Gerda's comment in the above section. —valereee (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Prep 3

Hi, I saw @Desertarun: promoted Lion and Tusk. Can I ask if that can be moved to a later set so it can be in an image slot please? I ask as I did politely ask in the nom. (transcluded from his TP as per his request). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

We have an embarrassment of riches in images right now. We're going to have to slot probably 2/3 of the images currently on the approved noms page into non-image slots. I just built a prep set completely from hooks with images. I do understand that a hook/article that is about an image wants that image, but we've got like 8 coats of arms/flags on the approved noms page right now. We can't slot them all into the image slot. —valereee (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign

I have nominated the article "Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign" for DYK here and requested it to appear on July 14/15 (i.e. - DYK running from 14 July 20:00 at NY to 15 July 20:00 at NY). Although it is not yet reviewed, in my opinion it meets the DYK criteria and the nomination is made at least one week prior to requested date. The reason is mentioned on the nomination page. Per WP:DYK#Date requests, I have informed the same on talk page. Please let me know of any issues. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh, I would recommend in the future that you think about submitting noms for "special date requests" a lot farther out. We've already set most of the hooks for that date, and have 100+ already-approved nominations in the queue before yours! We'll do what we can, but... MeegsC (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that DYKRULES says "The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance." We should probably change the 1 week minimum to 2 weeks, as hook promotions are done up to 2 weeks in advance. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I can understand increasing the length of time more because it takes longer these days to get nominations reviewed than it did way back when special occasion hooks were introduced (over a decade ago). However, we do currently set a week as the lower end (and even more last-minute noms sometimes get allowed in. It is not such a big deal to move hooks around in Prep even if a set has already been built for the date in question, and admins can certainly insert special occasion hooks in Queues if needed—both kinds of moves have occurred a fair amount in recent weeks. I don't see any issue with the timing, provided the nomination is reviewed in the next week. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I've mentioned in the past my support for pushing back the six week outside limit to perhaps eight weeks due to the very different DYK timings when that guideline was created, and I'd support pushing back the recommend one week to two weeks as Joseph suggests in a similar manner. (Not a comment on this individual nomination.) CMD (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why you can't nominate up to, say, a year in advance of the date. Otherwise we end up with another of the perverse DYK counter-incentives, in this case motivating editors to hide an article, perhaps ready6 months in advance, in some secret place until one of the project's stupid date restrictions allows it to be brought to the light of day. In that time no other editors can contribute to, copyedit, or otherwise improve the article. Who benefits from that? EEng 04:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Why limit it to six weeks? That just encourages gaming the system. —valereee (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@MeegsC: Well, I nominated the article for DYK within an hour of its creation. It is a long article (35k+ characters), so it did take time but I definitely understand your concern. As @BlueMoonset pointed out, it can be done if the nomination is reviewed. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I have reviewed it @Kavyansh.Singh: but I have to say, I don't appreciate being told about it on my talk page when I haven't even been involved in this discussion. I think that sort of thing could be viewed as WP:CANVASS and I do not think its appropriate to do that in here. I'll let the community decide if they want to apply the special occasion rules for this. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
@The C of E: Hi. I requested you to review just to be sure whether the nomination meets criteria or not. I didn't mean to influence this discussion by your review as the nomination was already made 7 days prior. I'll definitely let community decide, but I see that the discussion here is deflected from my individual nomination to overall DYK rules. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I moved it to "July 14-15 (probably Prep 6)" special holding. Fingers crossed for you. — Maile (talk) 13:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with EEng that we should let people nominate things months in advance if they want. It's certainly less hassle than people nominating 1-2 weeks beforehand (which is what the current guidelines encourage people to do, and so blame on nominators for following the guidelines). And if people are fine to wait months for theit hooks to run, I don't see a downside to it. My 2 week was a suggested minimum, but we could make it higher if needed. But 1-6 weeks beforehand seems arbitrary and not great when we often have preps done 2 weeks in advance. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I have an idea! Anyone wanting their hook to run on a special occasion has to do two QPQs! (Just kidding.) More seriously: in a moment someone will say that DYK is for "new content" (as that was anything other than arbitrary) and so holding something for a year violates that. EEng 23:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
So, is April Fools day holding still status quo? Hard to image it's only been 3 months since then. Was there some kind of discussion along the lines of, " ...oh, this is a chore, not every suggestion is AFD worthy. Let's not try it again." — Maile (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm probably one of the more conservative regulars about date hooks (see a couple sections up), and I think AFD hooks are fine. Our primary problem is we don't reject date hooks; I'd estimate around 80-90% of date proposals should be turned down. AFD proposals are no exception -- not everything suggested for the date is actually any good for it. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be running them, or that we shouldn't allow things that are good for it early on. Broadly speaking, inasmuch as special occasion hooks are acceptable at all, people should be able to nominate them whenever they want -- and if the request gets turned down, it goes in the normal place to run at a normal time, not the six months ahead it was proposed for. Vaticidalprophet 11:50, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: I somewhat agree with your proposal of rejecting date hooks, but what would be the grounds on which the request may be rejected? Most of the date hooks are either anniversaries or commemoration days. Also, a single reviewer would be rejecting the request or there needs to be a consensus? Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

4meter4's alternative for the backlog drive

I just saw the above conversations, and I have a slightly modified idea of Eeng's solution the backlog when it happens. How about we simply increase the QPQ requirement for two reviews per one nomination during a backlog. Only noms that have reviewed two nominations will get promoted during a backlog, and you can only use those reviews that one time. In this way, the backlog gets solved and the work is evenly distributed among editors, and we are not having to monitor DYK review history as in EEng's alternative (what a headache!). We only have to implement this periodically when a backlog occurs, much in the same way we change the amount of times we update the queue when we have an unusually large volume of articles. We could simply have some sort of notification process in place for when we go to backlog mode of reviewing with the increased QPQ requirement. This seems like the easiest and least complicated and most effective solution to me. Pinging Desertarun, EEng, Maile66, Cwmhiraeth, MeegsC, 3family6, BlueMoonset, Joseph2302, Muboshgu, Belle please comment. Appologies if I missed someone in the pinging of interested editors. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Competent reviewing takes experience, and we don't want novice reviewers (making their 6th nom, and doing their first review(s)) having to suddenly do two reviews -- we'll be flooded with poor reviews. My plan is kind of like a progressive income tax: poor people pay nothing; middle-income people pay something; rich people pay extra.
    Also, under your plan I really do think there'll be some gaming -- whenever the double-review requirement is in force, there will be some people who just hold off nominating until the backlog's gone and the double-review requirement is lifted. But people who have 20+ DYKs are obviously so addicted they'll never do that -- they'd crawl over broken glass to make a nomination. EEng 17:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think you are overstating the magnitude of both issues. Backlogs don't happen too often, the majority of noms are by experienced editors, and we always have the minor systemic problem of new reviewers anyway where experienced editors have to step in and help. Ultimately, simplicity is best. It's too big of a burden to check the number of DYK noms an editor has done on reviewers. (where do we find that info? Not everyone keeps an easy to find or updated DYK log). It's too big of a headache on the regular reviewers. I'd much rather step in on a bad review than have to dig through the editing history of a nominator and try and hunt down how many nominations they have done. As for gaming, it can't happen because of our date requirement in the DYK tick process. Unless they simply wait to create an article or expand it, than they are stuck with having to help out. To my mind it's not a big deal. The regulars won't be phased by it, and a lot of new people won't know any difference because they are new.4meter4 (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Backlogs don't happen too often – The unreviewed backlog has been chronic and omnipresent for as long as I can remember, and that's about 10 years. And left to itself it just keeps growing.
  • we always have the minor systemic problem of new reviewers anyway where experienced editors have to step in and help – Yes, but we don't want to suddenly double that problem, especially when the "helpers" (experienced reviewers) are themselves doing double reviews.
  • It's too big of a burden to check the number of DYK noms an editor has done on reviewers. where do we find that info? – We have automated tools for that, just like we do for checking the "free 5".
  • As for gaming ... Unless they simply wait to create an article or expand it – that's exactly what they'll do; I've done it myself because of the stupid six-week limit on advance noms for special-occasion appearances.
EEng 18:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC) By phased you mean fazed. ;P
@4meter4: You will find a simple tool for checking how many DYK credits an editor has in the DYK toolbox on the DYK review page, under "QPQ check". You will also find it here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Cwmhiraeth, I wasn't aware it was that easy. I guess I am more ok with EEng's original proposal with that knowledge in hand, but I still prefer this simpler approach. @EEng Yes I am aware the problem is chronic, which is why I support making some sort of policy. Let's not make this a back and forth argument please. We both have been clear in what we think and mostly agree with each other. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I definitely don't want newer reviewers doing two reviews. For some reason they always seem to pick the nominations by inexperienced editors. :D I go to check a hook, see that both the nominator and the reviewer are inexperienced, and know I'm doing a full review rather than a basic check to make sure nothing was missed. I don't know what the exact marginal tax bracket should be, but I agree with the concept. —valereee (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I am the poster child for why the 2 QPQ requirement hits a snag. Under our current system, there is no date requirement of how far you can go back in your reviews to use one as a QPQ. I have over 300 reviews for others that I've never used as QPQ. And I'm sure I'm not the only one, so the older veterans of DYK can most likely slide right by hauling out something they reviewed years ago. — Maile (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
That's fine. You've built up all that good karma over the years and you're entitled to cash it in. EEng 01:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Someone supplied a QPQ for another person's nomination about a week back that was from 2018. And people wonder why we have a backlog... BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I can beat you on that one @BlueMoonset:! I had one very recently where someone put forward a QPQ from 7 years ago! Needless to say, I politely requested he do a more recent one. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer occasional backlog drives over either of these proposals.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:33, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Q2 July9a

Template:Did you know nominations/Bullshit (G-Dragon song)

Nkon21, I feel like this is overly negative about a BLP for the main page. Do you have any objection to shortening it to:

—valereee (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine. Thank you, ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! —valereee (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion re supplemental rule D2, article sourcing

I posted a question about supplemental rule D2 at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Sourcing requirements (D2) for worked examples. But I think this talk page gets a lot more attention than that one. So if anyone here is interested, please participate in the discussion there. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Since that infrequently used talk page has 55 page watchers versus 818 here, perhaps it would be a good idea to archive those discussions to a convenient location (once the current discussion has been resolved), and then redirect the talk page to here (WT:DYK) with {{R from remote talk page}}. DanCherek (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Big Time Wrestling nomination

On the advice of Vaticidalprophet, I'm asking here whether there is anything left to do for {{Did you know nominations/Big Time Wrestling (Boston)}}. The timeline is this: the reviewer had some concerns, I addressed them, the nomination was approved, the promoter had concerns about hook length, the reviewer and I gave alts, the nomination was approved, the approved alt was discovered to be factually imprecise, and the promotion was reversed. This really isn't my area of expertise (it wasn't even my nomination), so would appreciate some opinions from the "regulars". Sdrqaz (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Q2 July 12b

Template:Did you know nominations/Sanin Husain

  • ... that the head of military leader and "holy man" Sanin Husain was used to decorate a market?

Applodion

I can't get to the source -- I'm a little uncomfortable using the word "decorate" here. Is there something less grisly we could replace that with? Was displayed at a market, maybe? Also would 'military and religious leader' work to get rid of the scare quotes around holy man? —valereee (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: As a matter of fact, I was quasi-quoting the source here. Daly says that "he [Sanin] and his lieutnants were killed and their heads sent to decorate the market at El Fasher". From my understanding, using body parts (especially of defeated enemies) as actual decoration was not uncommon in the region. The usage of severed body parts as decoration is actually quite common worldwide - see for example the Sedlec Ossuary in Czech Republic or the Mokomokai of New Zealand. Accordingly, I would prefer "decorate", as it not just stays close to the source text, but also correctly reflects the heads' usage.
In regards to "holy man", I felt that it would make the DYK more interesting than the mundane "military and religious leader". After all, it is a quote and the term "holy man" is used by at least two sources. I also think that using "holy man" in quotation marks is justified for a Muslim scholar-warrior if we also use "Saint" as a title for Christian religious figures. Applodion (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@Applodion, okay on decorate, but I'd actually prefer to see that in scare quotes instead of holy man. I don't think we put "Saint" in scare quotes anywhere? Scare quotes are generally read as expressions of doubt, per MOS:SCAREQUOTES. They're basically read as "so-called Holy Man" or whatever. —valereee (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Hold it. I checked the source, and in context it's impossible to tell to what extent decorate is being used facetiously; it's like if a source says that Emperor X sent troops to persuade villagers to pay their taxes. I think it indeed needs to go in quotes if it's used in the hook, and it certainly shouldn't appear in the article as "as decoration", which removes even the possibility of figurative or facetious meaning. Putting dismembered bits of enemies or traitors on display as a warning goes back, I'm sure, to cave men, but I'm not sure how to tell when it qualifies as decorating and when it's just terrorizing the populace. Honestly I think the whole thing should be avoided. How about a hook highlighting the idea that he "remains the most famous Tama leader up to today"?
    As for "holy man", I'm not seeing it in Atiya (one of the two sources cited for that) and I'm having trouble getting at Hill. What exactly does Hill say? EEng 14:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: Hill starts the article on Sanin thus: "Sanin Husain (c. 1847-1909), holy man and Mahdist; tracing his descent [...]". Atiya says that he was a "fiki" - according to A Military History of Modern Egypt, a "fiki" was a Sudanese "holy man". A book which I could not cite, as I was only able to access snippets of it, Alī Dīnār, Last Sultan of Darfur, 1898-1916, also describes Sanin as "holy man": "His reputation as a holy man and as a Mahdist spread , and after the defeat of the Khalīfa , fugitives began to filter into Kabkabiya , swelling the number of his followers". I will change the article from "decoration" to "decorate".
Anyways, if you prefer it, we can change the hook to "...that the head of military religious and leader Sanin Husain was used to "decorate" a market?"
The suggestion with him being the most famous Tama is not very DYK-worthy, as it is 1) the opinion of one scholar (and very disputable, as for example the powerful anti-Mahdist rebel leader Abu Jimeiza was a Tama), and 2) most people don't know who the Tama are. Applodion (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/Guide

This page hasn't been thoroughly updated for years, I don't even know what half of it is talking about, it gets an average of a view a day, probably because there's a link to it on the main DYK page, which is how I got to it. Is this even worth updating? In its current shape I definitely don't think we need to be linking to it from a section of the main project page, as it's just going to confuse people. —valereee (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I've considered writing a userspace guide to prep building, though as the tone the draft in my head takes leans irreverent, probably best it be a userspace guide and not a formally endorsed one. I do think there's a use to such guides. Prep building is a messy thing with a million moving parts which can stoke strong emotions, and it's useful to have a resource to hand, but this isn't an amazing one. (I note with interest it says "where possible" you should avoid promoting your own reviews -- I'd always read that as a hard law.) Vaticidalprophet 14:15, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
It's definitely frowned on, but if there were no one else available -- say you needed to switch a hook out of queue at the last minute and nothing else was an appropriate swap -- you could promote your own hook. Obviously that's not going to happen very often. —valereee (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I can't imagine it ever being necessary that someone needs to promote their own hook in that situation—there are always going to be dozens of other hooks approved and available. It's effectively a hard law—we've been treating it that way for many years. The Guide is behind the times, and has been for a while. Every year or so, someone talks about updating the many guides and instruction pages so they're mutually consistent and consolidated down to the necessary, but no one has yet actually done it. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset, do you think we could just unlink to this and mark it as historical? —valereee (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
valereee, yes. This is describing how things worked before the current DYK templated nominations and DYKUpdateBot system was introduced in 2011, and it will only confuse people. The few updates to this page since then haven't addressed the underlying no-longer-valid explanations. Other pages are more current and accurate describing how things work now. Let me know if you need any help. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset, my feeling was just mark it as historical and delink from it, which I've done from anything in Wikipedia space. Is there anything else I'd need to do?
It says it's linked to from Wikipedia:Did you know/Onepage and Wikipedia:Did you know/Printable but there must be something transclusiony going on because I can't find it, I don't understand the source code, and there are changes reflected at both those pages that I made on Wikipedia:Did you know/Learning DYK.
Along the way I found Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page which I clicked to because it was unarchived in WP space...what the heck is it? It appears to be a bunch of ten-year-old conversations that never got archived?
Along the way I also found Wikipedia:Did you know/Adminbot which also looks to be outdated and confusing instruction that needs to be marked as historical and delinked? —valereee (talk) 12:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
That ANI subpage is a huge pile of archived ANI threads. It's not uncommon, especially historically speaking, for particularly sprawling conversations to be shunted off into their own subpages and archived there (extreme circumstances see entirely new noticeboards like WP:AN/B), lest all of AN or ANI be consumed by a single topic. There was, so far as I can tell working backwards from a relatively new vantage point, quite a lot of discourse surrounding DYK quality at the time. Vaticidalprophet 12:30, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
valereee, I believe that DYKAdminBot was a predecessor to DYKUpdateBot; it certainly isn't used any more. There was an update to the page in 2016 that tried to reflect this change years after it occurred but didn't do so in a helpful fashion, so by all means mark it as historical and delink it. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done. I found some iffy pages linked to that one, too, stuff that's out of date, that I'm not actually sure is useful, and which may just add to the clutter here. Vaticidalprophet I'd be willing to work on something like that, but I'm wondering if it would be better to simply do a major update to what we've got? I believe there are at two or three different sets of instructions already, and I was thinking to combine them into one page that maybe has three main sections:
  1. The shorthand version, simply for those who haven't done it in a while and need to be reminded of the main points.
  2. The version for newbies.
  3. The version for DYK geeks who want the explanations, links to discussions, reasoning, further reading, links to historical pages. —valereee (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Prep 4, second hook error

Hi and thanks for promoting my nomination, currently the second hook in the set at template:Did_you_know/Queue#Prep_area_4. I noticed that my hook about Mariano Fiallos Oyanguren was revised from “refused to rig the 1990 Nicaraguan presidential election” to “refused to participate in the rigging of the 1990 Nicaraguan presidential election”. The latter gives a misleading impression that there was a rigging by others, which is not true. The election was a historic successful democratic election and peaceful transfer of power for Nicaragua, so it’s important not to (baselessly) suggest someone else did rig it. Could the hook please be changed back, or to something else that makes clear the election was not rigged? Thanks for the help. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I changed that, as the original hook gave the impression that he had the sole choice whether it was to be rigged or not when in reality he was asked to misrepresent early results as part of an attempt to rig the election. I've changed it again to "refused to participate in an attempt to rig the 1990 Nicaraguan presidential election". You could make it "failed attempt" or "unsuccessful attempt" if you don't think that is clear enough. Belle (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Belle, thanks much, that clears up the ambiguity that it was an attempt but not in fact rigged, which is the main thing. FWIW I proposed the hook as such because the source cited presents him as the pivotal person who stopped the attempt: “If the Sandinista Front's plans were unsuccessful, it was because the integrity of Mariano Fiallos Oyanguren was stronger.” Would “refused an attempt to rig...” work for you? Innisfree987 (talk) 00:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that still suggests that he was the decision maker in "to rig or not to rig". Others wanted to rig the election (or dishonestly sway it at least), he just refused to play a part. His actions may have been pivotal in the collapse of the attempt, but it doesn't seem that he was in any way the decision maker as to whether that attempt should be made or not. Belle (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Belle, right others made an attempt, but I was hoping to convey with the hook that sources don’t depict him as just declining to participate, but with stopping it—perhaps “stopped an attempt to rig”? “Diverted an attempt to rig”? Sorry to belabor; just trying to make sure it’s faithful to sources, but let me know, maybe issue is I haven’t made this clear enough in the entry? As the organizer of the 1990 elections but also a member of the Sandinista party, he’s being credited with choosing to keep the election results honest. So the sources do present him as the decision maker. I could tune up the entry if that’s not coming through. Apologies if I’m just not understanding the concern tho. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Prep 4 has now moved to Queue 4. I think the present wording of the hook is satisfactory. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Help nominating DYK article

I want to nominate the Fallout: Equestria page for DYK but apparently I did it wrong. The page had a rejected nomination in 2013 and I don't know how to start a new one properly. After checking the rules, it meets every requirement. The problem is that I messed up the coding (apparently the Linter?) Any help nominating it would be so appreciated.BuySomeApples (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@BuySomeApples: Not a DYK regular, but you could create the nomination as Template:Did you know nominations/Fallout: Equestria 2 instead, with "Fallout: Equestria" in the |Article= parameter. DYK regulars, feel free to correct me, but I'm guessing it doesn't matter too much what the template is called as long as it's transcluded properly. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Creating it under a slightly different name seems sensible, it could always be moved later. Note this article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fallout: Equestria, and at some point afterwards I guess (perhaps an admin could check), although based on that AfD this newest version seems to have better sourcing. CMD (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
That's a great idea! I'm gonna make a new nom under a slightly different title. Thanks! Also I definitely think the sources are better this time. A lot of them didn't even exist back when the article was deleted. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
No, NEVER move a current nomination page, CMD; that causes all sorts of trouble. What I can offer is to move the historic nom page and "make room" for this nomination to be put under the correct title. How's that, BuySomeApples? Schwede66 03:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
That would be great! Whatever approach is the one that works best. Thank you for helping me figure this out. I already tried to make it here "Did you know nominations/Fallout: Equestria 2" like Sdrqaz suggested before I knew that was wrong, can we delete that one?BuySomeApples (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Go forth, BuySomeApples. I've cleared the way. Schwede66 03:40, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
But I can keep sinning, right? EEng 03:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Awesome! I've re-nominated it. Thanks again everyone who helped.BuySomeApples (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
There is no current nomination page, although I see how that reading is made. My later did not mean during the evaluation, it meant later as in what you suggest doing to the previous page. CMD (talk) 03:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Backlog

Pinging Cwmhiraeth, Casliber, Amakuru, valereee, Maile66, Lee Vilenski, ONUnicorn. We're down to two sets in the queue, so could use some preps sets promoted, please! MeegsC (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I have done two of them. I usually forget how thick and fast they need to be promoted when we're at two-sets-a-day!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I've done another —valereee (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

P5: Jimmy Carter

  • ... that initially given little chance of winning, Jimmy Carter (pictured) overcame 16 Democrats to be his party's nominee and defeated the Republican incumbent for president in 1976? (nom)

@Kavyansh.Singh, BusterD, and SL93: The bolded link in this hook is unintuitive – it appears to target the Jimmy Carter article, but instead links to the article on his presidential campaign. As per MOS:EASTEREGG, could we perhaps rephrase this hook slightly so that the link text reflects the article in question (maybe along the lines of the original hook or ALT1 in the nom, which used the words "his 1976 presidential campaign")? Thanks. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Ravenpuff – I tried rephrasing the hook, and included the words "his 1976 presidential campaign". It is still under 200 character limit. Would definitely like to know what @BusterD thinks. If you have a better way to rephrase, please suggest. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the above is 199 characters and has all the appropriate wikilinks. BusterD (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I think it's too long - we don't need the second part about him beating Ford, everyone knows he became President. The more interesting part of the hook is the crowded primary field, per ALT4. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Respectfully, "we don't need the second part about Prince Charming finding Cinderella with the glass slipper, everyone knows she's princess. The more interesting part of the hook is that she attended the ball in a pumpkin with 4 mice drawing it." I was asked and I answered. I might be wrong; I often am. I trust all the volunteers here to make good choices, even if they're ones I might not always agree with. What does the nominator say? BusterD (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
As someone who lived through that 1976 JC campaign, the Cinderella story of Carter was that he beat an incumbent Republican, not that he he survived the primaries. BusterD (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@BusterD: Well I removed the phrase about he defeating Ford just to make the hook shorter. It is difficult to frame a shorter hook with all the details. I don't have any issues with ALT 4 or ALT 5, as both meet the criteria, but ALT 5 is slightly longer. It's up-to the community to decide which hook to select. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
This is totally your call. I'm merely a supportive reviewer, and it is a pleasure to help you get your hook to the mainpage. BusterD (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
BusterD – From the discussion above, I guess the hook in Queue 5 should be replaced by ALT4 (given above) by you or an another administrator. Also, this reminded me of another nomination (this), which too had an unintuitive link, but it wasn't noticed. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Only one Queue and two Preps filled; admins and set-builders needed

We're currently down to a single filled queue after the promotion just made at midnight, and only two preps are filled. So we're in the far-from-ideal situation of needing both queues promoted and preps filled, and only one day's worth of reserve in the latter.

Pinging Amakuru, Maile, Cwmhiraeth, and valereee, to get the two completed preps promoted (and, if you can do any prep building as well that would great!), and calling on set builders Desertarun, MeegsC, Kingsif, SL93, Vaticidalprophet, and Z1720, in the hopes that some of you can pitch in and keep us from running out of filled preps. Thank you all very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I just did one after you posted this request. I've noticed for a few days that it's come down to Cwmhiraeth and me doing all the prep to queue promotions, for several days now. In fact, I think Cwmhiraeth has done a lot more than I have, and is to be thanked for diligence on their part. I'm really happy we made Cwmhiraeth an admin. I don't know why the lag with the other usual queue builders, but let's hope they are able to resume soon. Thanks for the reminder here. — Maile (talk) 00:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, I just promoted the oldest approved hook to Prep. — Maile (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I finished prep 1. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to be indisposed until September. Not offline, just not having enough time to prep. Desertarun (talk) 13:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm up to my eyeballs at the moment, but should have some time later today to build a few. Will try to keep a closer eye on things going forward. MeegsC (talk) 13:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm honoured to have been listed above, and I promoted some hooks when this was posted. July is a busy month for me but I'll try to promote hooks as I have time. Z1720 (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll try to do a few hooks here and there. Desertarun (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Do we have an up-to-date guideline on how to promote hooks e.g. how to close the nominations properly? I can try and promote a few hooks in the next day or 2, though I can't commit to a whole set. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
valereee, Wherever that guideline is, does it incorporate the new advice to paste a link to the prep into the nom page as it's closed, and (ideally) at the same time incorporate the link into the edit summary when saving. When promoting from prep to Q, I think all that can be done is to paste the link to the Q in the edit summary as you empty the prep. EEng 17:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
I have found Template:Did you know/Queue#Instructions on how to promote a hook, but it doesn't have any advice about links. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@EEng, it doesn't, and I'm scratching my head on where I need to go to add it in. Something transclusiony is going on there, and I'm really bad at that. In source it says {{DYK Prep Set Instructions}}. I'm 99% sure I'm just being a complete idiot...I had a long drive! I came home to 26 notifications, which is enough to make all sphincters tighten! I need a glass of wine and my jammies! —valereee (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
nm, found it. —valereee (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Where are the instructions for promoting prep to Q? EEng 01:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
There are at least two places. One is at Template:DYK Prep Set Instructions, which you found and which is transcluded various places. Another is here. Plus there's also this. There may be more. I'd love to try to consolidate some of these but it's just all so over the place. —valereee (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh, wait, prep to queue is at Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions. May be elsewhere also, but that's what I use and update. —valereee (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I suddenly have a lot less availability, but prep-building is fun and relatively easy, so I'll continue picking it up when I can. Vaticidalprophet 21:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
All but one prep is filled, and only two queues are. Can an admin step in? Pinging Cas Liber, Wugapodes, and Vanamonde, in the hopes that they and the four previously pinged can get more queues filled. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Feedback wanted

It looks fine to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@Joseph2302, the links talked about above by EEng would include using in your edit summary "promoted to T:DYK/P2." The reasoning behind that is to make it (slightly more) convenient for nominators to follow their noms through the process. They can put that template on their watchlist temporarily. The reasoning behind that is that for anyone but DYK regulars, the various templates (and in the case of Q templates, only DYK admin regulars) aren't generally on people's watchlists. Because of the way the DYK process works, it can be very difficult to follow a nom so you notice when someone has come in and made a change to the hook. Which of course is a common reason for noms coming in here red hot: their hook was changed, no one opened a section here and pinged them, and they're upset they weren't notified. :D I've been trying to do it regularly when I don't forget. —valereee (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I've done a couple more and made sure to put edit summary "promoted to prep X" with a link. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Several incomplete DYK nominations by students; does anyone want to adopt?

It appears that a number of nominations were made in late May by students at the University of Sydney, just as their classes ended. These nominations were not transcluded, and none of the students have edited since, but most of these are substantial 5x expansions, and the nomination pages were mostly created within seven days. A number of the hooks need work or are effectively null.

If these are to proceed, they will need editors to adopt them and be responsible for any article clean-up needed during the review process, any necessary ALT hooks, and so on. I’ve listed them below with the start dates of their respective expansions:

Thank you for your consideration. If you wish to adopt a nomination, please note that you're doing so on its nomination page and then transclude the nomination on the DYK Nominations page under the listed date. If any have not been claimed in the next seven days, I will mark them for closure as abandoned. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Given we have over 200 unreviewed nominations, should we really be encouraging people to pick up old nominations that don't appear to meet the DYK criteria? Being more brutal with failing DYKs where they don't meet the criteria, instead of letting them sit around for months til people fix it (in violation of the 7 day newness/date from expansion rule), would help us to diminish the backlog. Not just a complaint about this, but also other noms where they don't meet 5x expansion criteria and we leave them open for people to expand, even if it takes way longer than 7 days. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm inclined to be lenient about slightly late nominations, but the ones that really annoy me are when the nominator knows that a QPQ is needed, but waits to do it until prompted by the reviewer rather than doing it at nomination time. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
There's already a guideline in place where if a QPQ isn't provided after a week and a notification, a nomination may be marked for closure per the reviewer's discretion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Evrik, I see that you have transcluded all of these (and not under the correct date) and started reviewing or commenting on some of them. The whole idea here was that they should not be transcluded unless you are prepared to adopt them, that is, to act as a substitute nominator while someone else reviews them. If your only purpose was to review them, I will be removing those ones that you've posted to from the Nominations page. Please let us know whether you are adopting these or not. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Featherdale Wildlife Park and Escapist fiction have not been adopted. Do whatever you feel is necessary. --evrik (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I've also unstruck Beddomeia Waterhousae above, and am removing all three transclusions from the Nominations page. If someone wants to adopt these nominations, they are welcome to do so within the next three days, . BlueMoonset (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Featherdale is now long enough. CMD (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for extension

Hi, I recently created Dieter Pohl, but spaced out on adding it to the queue. Could I still submit it? --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't have a problem with that. You only overshot it by 3-4 days,depending on how we count "no more than seven days old". — Maile (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman: Edit conflict. We're usually quite relaxed about modestly late nominations. I suggest you nominate it now, and I daresay the reviewer will accept it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree. Go for it. Schwede66 20:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll submit the article shortly. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Queue 1 nom at AFD

Ghib Ojisan is in queue 1 (due to give live at midnight UTC), but is at AFD. This should be pulled and replaced- if it survives AFD, then it can run later. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Done by Amakuru. —valereee (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Q6 - Bank of England urine deflector - urgent

The urine deflector hook currently in Q6 was approved for April Fools Day. What is it doing in the main queues? Likewise I have noticed a lot of holding area hooks have been removed at put back in the main sections, what's going on? Please can we replace this at put it back in the AFD holding area? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

It has just one hour before it goes live and I could remove it, but it is a very catchy hook and will garner many page views if it runs now, rather than drowning in a lot of mediocre jokes on AFD. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm quite concerned as to why we also had a number of other hooks yanked from their holding areas without any explanations. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • A section above indicates that DYK's pipeline of approved hooks has been drained by the move to two sets per day and so now the set builders are struggling to maintain the rate of flow. If this is causing trouble then perhaps we should revert to one set per day to let the reservoir recharge. If other hooks have been affected, please could The C of E provide some details.
In the meantime, I've been making ready in case there's a run on the bank today. As April is some way off, perhaps the hook might be considered for a rerun if it only gets 12 hours today. We usually run two sets on April 1st and so that would be another 12 hours making the standard 24 in total.
Andrew🐉(talk) 12:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Run on the bank? Reservoir recharge? Possibly you're flush with money? Pissing on ice? EEng 14:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Ooooh, how very American. All we can currently manage in the UK is this. But I'm sure, as a TV opportunity, it has got legs. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The C of E, I don't know why you're wondering that your own self-promotions of your nominations to the special occasion were reverted (I'm assuming that's why you're mentioning that "a number" have been "yanked"); indeed, one of your moves was made less than an hour after I noted to you in a recent discussion that you shouldn't be promoting your own. I have just undone those moves again for the two I reverted previously and a new one as well. Given how many times there have been issues with your special occasion hooks—indeed, you are currently topic banned in some areas in part because of these—you of all people should understand why others should make the decision on whether your special occasion requests should be approved and do the moves themselves. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The C of E, why would you "think we agreed" when I had just specifically told you this was not the case? You keep arguing the letter of the rules, when you've been around long enough to know that DYK practice goes beyond them, and not everything gets written down. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: I don't want to get into an argument but the fact is that there is no such rule written down and as G4 of WP:DYKSG says, rules written in the rules and SGs describe what the consensus is. Plus we do indeed have admins like @Cwmhiraeth: who disagree with your opinion on this. Personally I think this is a mountain out of a molehill. We're being pinickity by asking nominators to jump through the hoops of "reviewer forgets to move it, nominator has to ask for it to be move, reviewer moves it on their behalf or forgets again, which results in repeated requests at different venues and frustrations". It's so much easier for the nominator to just move it down unless the reviewer says no to the holding area request or if consensus here is against it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
The hook was approved for "any time, potentially including April Fools Day". Most hooks that may potentially run on April Fools Day will not. In many cases, this is a good thing, because the hooks will be able to run as the strongest hook in a complex set rather than as one possibility in a very similar set. AFD sets are good, but this one works best outside of one. (In particular, it works best as an image hook, which it probably wouldn't be on AFD.) Vaticidalprophet 12:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
After reading the discussion above, I think we need to add in the reviewing guide that reviewers should also comment on if the hook is appropriate for its Special Occasion request, if applicable. Z1720 (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720: I think that's a good idea, I think we should take a common sense approach to it. We should include the requirement to comment on it in the rules. However, if no such comment is made (which I think is likely because many people are "dyed in the wool" when it comes to reviewing), then we should presume no objection to it being placed in the holding area by anyone. But that consensus may arise from the wider community for a certain hook not to run on a certain day. I think that covers adding it to the rules, but it also affords protection to the request just in case it gets overlooked and avoids the need to jump through hoops for what is usually a minor request. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@The C of E: Instead of a "common sense approach" (because it's a very general term) I think it should say that a hook is appropriate for a special occasion if it directly relates to the occasion. For example, for Canada Day this year (I know, I talk about Canada Day a lot) there were some hooks in the special occasions area that were bios on Canadians, but did not directly relate to the holiday. I think those hooks should have been rejected for a special occasion slot, especially since we had too many hooks for Canada Day, and instead run as a regular hook.
I also disagree with the notion that silence is consent for moving a hook to the special occasion area. Instead, if the reviewer doesn't comment on the special occasion feasibility, the nominator or another person should ping them as they did not complete the review. This is similar to a sitution where a reviewer does not comment on the image's feasibility for a hook; that reviewer would be pinged to finish the review. It will be a lot of work in the beginning but eventually, people will remember to add a comment about special occasions. Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Z1720 doesn't seem to understand what happened here. In this case, it was the reviewer who suggested running the hook on AFD. As the nominator, I was ok with the idea. The person who did not pay attention or consult was the set-builder. This is an endemic issue with DYK now – that set-builders and promoters often pay no attention to the original contributors and reviewers but act unilaterally, without consensus, leaving it too late to do much about it. The rule change we need is that no change should be made to an approved hook without consultation and consensus. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
No, I did pay attention. I saw the discussion that there was some consideration of running it on AFD, and that this would have pros and cons compared to running it in a normal set. I determined the cons outweighed the pros, most significantly that there was little possibility the hook would run with an image on AFD. If it had run on AFD without an image, that would not have been an improvement -- nor would it have caused fewer complaints. Vaticidalprophet 17:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Reviewers can move the hook to a spec occ holding area. It's really only noms who shouldn't, and I think noms ought to feel free to ask reviewers, if they think it's appropriate, to do so. Doesn't guarantee that's where the hook will be slotted, but it lets prep builders know the reviewer supports the request. —valereee (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I would prefer reviewers move hooks to the Special Occasion Holding Area too, but most reviewers don't know that they can/should do this, and most reviewers don't look at this talk page to see this discussion, so nominators often move it themselves. I think reviewing for a hook's placement in SOHA should be added to the reviewing guide and mandatory as part of the review, so that when nominators move the hooks they have the approval of at least one non-involved editor to do so. Z1720 (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The old list having been archived a day ago, this new list below includes 32 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 24. We currently have a total of 320 nominations, of which 124 have been approved, a gap of 196. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four from May.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The current John Rolph DYK.... kind of misleading "click-bait"

Currently the DYK "... that John Rolph (pictured) was arrested for trying to solve Euclid's geometry problems?" appears on the main page. I think this is misleading clickbait. He was arrested under suspecion of having maps of forts that turned out to be Euclid geometry problems. He wasn't arrested for doing math problems. It was a misunderstanding. Totally different. It's a nice hook. But we aren't in the newspaper business trying to hook people. We intended to educate. And many people will read this without reading the article. I think we should be above clickbait. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I have replaced "for" with "while". Schwede66 17:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's misleading. It was because of the geometry work that he was arrested. No geometry work, no arrest. "While" is also misleading, as it implies his arrest had nothing to do with his drawings. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure there could be a better hook where nobody could say "but that's misleading". Schwede66 18:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
We often use amibugity for "hookiness". As long as it's factually correct and not a BLP or other policy issue, I'd leave it.—Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Rolph is well and truly dead (i.e. it's not a BLP). If others feel it ought to be changed back, I won't be offended. Schwede66 19:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
The word for was ok. The plural problems was more erroneous as he was only trying to solve one problem. Anyway, the article got 17,700 views which is a good result for Z1720 – well done! Andrew🐉(talk) 07:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The word "for" wasn't okay. It was the source of the problem. Perhaps a better wording that keeps the intrigue-factor would have been "...was arrested over papers with Euclid's geometry problems?" or something like that. The specifics are kind of moot now. But the general idea that we should be wary of clickbait remains. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Well I certainly wouldn't say someone was arrested "over" something. But the hook's been rotated out so it's moot. EEng 15:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Olympic special occasion

Can someone move Template talk:Did you know/Approved#2020 United States men's Olympic basketball team to the special occasion section or promote directly to a prep area (I nominated it). The approver already signed off on the dates. Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 04:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I noticed #Olympic hooks thread above now. I'll leave it to others if this needs to physically be moved into the holding area or not. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

EEng's wording of the admin instructions

@EEng: thank you for trying to clarify the admin instructions. I also realize that you not being an admin yourself may not get an instruction on how to react to the DYKUpdateBot/Errors. But, believe me, it is programmed specifically to catch errors that prevent a set from being moved from Queue to the Main page. And it will tell you exactly what it is, so an Admin can fix the error in a matter of seconds. It catches format/coding errors, not the kind of stuff that shows up at WP:ERRORS. Kind of a genius little bot at work. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The best instructions are rarely the most detailed ones. When you ask someone to watchlist something, they know without being told that when the page pops up as changed, you want them to look and take appropriate action. Belaboring these obvious points merely increases the length of the instructions and, consequently, the probability that they'll be ignored. Further explanation in the edit summary here [5]. EEng 19:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
You're the one who doesn't get it. What the bot does, is look at the information in a given Queue. Everything in that queue is instructions for the bot, hook by hook, DYK make by DYK make, every bracket and squiggle, etc. If anything is missing that the bot reads, it does not update. Instead, it throws up an error message and specifically says what it needs to do its job. Sometimes things accidentally get taken off, a little brarcket, or something. The error message tells the admin that the update will not happen until the correction is made.
Here's some recent error messages.
— Maile (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea what you think we're arguing about. Your post reinforces what I've been saying all along: admins with the Errors file watchlisted will readily see for themselves, from the error messages, that something needs to be done; we don't have to tell them that in the instructions. EEng 22:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Instructions for having an argument:
  1. Agree what it is you're arguing about.
  2. Argue.
  3. Kick back and have a beer.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Huh. I start with #3 and work backward. EEng 23:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

My invaluable contribution recognized...

I think there was a mistake with the credits for eastern shovelnose ray. While I'm a world-famous expert on rays and all their fishy attributes, I shouldn't have been in the DYKMake template for it. I can't work out if I was mixed up with somebody or if I was just added in error, so if anybody can see who (if anybody) is missing the credit please redistribute it or send the editor to my talk page where I will hand over the credit and rend my garments in a proper show of contrition (obviously not the garments I'm wearing at the moment; probably some old ones that I was going to throw out; it wasn't really my fault so you can't expect me to rend my new pants; to be fair, I probably couldn't rend them anyway, I'm not She-Hulk) Belle (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

SL93? Special:Diff/1033329065 ... Sdrqaz (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
@Belle: All that I did was copy and paste the DYKmake templates from Template:Did you know nominations/eastern shovelnose ray which included you in a DYKmake template. It was probably never fixed because your username was listed there. SL93 (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
It appears to have been added by Victuallers. SL93 (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for blaming you – Sdrqaz (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
It's fine. Though I guess I will look at the article history more closely before adding DYKmakes to the prep. I didn't think I had to after promoting so many without any wrong editors being in them. In this case, the nominator did receive the proper DYKmake. SL93 (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
It's all good; Victuallers was just crediting me for fixing some booboos, which was nice but confusing as it has never happened before, so it made me think something had gone wrong and I didn't want somebody denied their credit. Belle (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
You do have the second most edits to the article! I'd be inclined to take credit for a good looking article. ;) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
It's not uncommon for someone to add a credit in when someone has done a lot of work on an article. —valereee (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Hook needs work

The hook " ... that the Kenyan volleyball women's team the Malkia Strikers first Olympic match in over 16 years is today in Tokyo against Japan?" in Prep 6 needs some tweaking. Right now, it doesn't parse well at all. It's missing commas and at least one apostrophe, etc., but could probably be reworded to avoid the current confusion. Courtesy pinging Victuallers, Chipmunkdavis and Schwede66 as nominator, reviewer and promoter. MeegsC (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm off to bed soon; no doubt you'll figure something out. I considered putting the team name within emdashes; maybe that could work. Schwede66 09:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, I was just coming here to post the same thing. Also, shouldn't the link be on the Kenyan volleyball team, rather than their nickname? Maybe something like "... that the Kenyan women's volleyball team – nicknamed the Malkia Strikers – are playing their first Olympic match in over 16 years today in Tokyo against Japan? Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
thats ok with me but I think the nickname is part of the hook and we possibly don't need to say "women" or "team", so I suggest (belatedly below) - please feel free to comma/finesse - @Joseph2302, Schwede66, and MeegsC: - Victuallers (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Or even (to get rid of the possessive all together): MeegsC (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Taking the latest hook, why not write this is present tense and include the word "today", given that the game will be happening while the hook is live? Schwede66 19:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the prep area here. Feel free to continue iterating.—Bagumba (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I saw that you changed the wording in Q6 for this blurb to restore today. Just wanted to make sure that you were aware of the discussed issues here due to timezone differences and the blurb's "today" being "tomorrow" for some readers.—Bagumba (talk) 08:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I was aware of this thread. In the past we have frequently run hooks mentioning "today", even though time zones differ around the world; as long as it is correct for the location to which the hook applies, that seems acceptable. BlueMoonset suggested using "today" and that is good enough for me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Good to know.—Bagumba (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The Love Songs of W.E.B. Du Bois nom

The Love Songs of W.E.B. Du Bois, nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/The Love Songs of W.E.B. Du Bois, was placed in the Special Occasion Holding Area (SOHA) for July 27, the day the book is to be published. However, I do not think it should run on that day because DYK is not to be used as a means of promotion and should not run on the date it to be released, per DYK DR2. Should it be removed from SOHA and returned to the general holding area? Pinging the nominator Drmies. Z1720 (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Unpinged reviewer: the hook doesn't mention the day as anything special, just says a neutral "new". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Gerda Arendt. Z1720, this is the second important objection raised in the last 24 hours: can't you all get it together and let people know on time? An objection to the hook came earlier today, and the actual nomination was approved over a month ago. I have never heard of this rule, and to tell you to the truth, I really don't care--I'm not getting paid for this, and I thought it would be appropriate--if a release date still actually means something. So go ahead, move it to the day after, or the day before, I don't care. Sheesh, this is getting silly. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to the DYK hall of mirrors. EEng 00:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@Drmies: I'm sorry that editors have had concerns with your hook, but we are all volunteers and I am raising concerns as I notice them. In May there was a discussion about an album's hook running on the same day that the album is set to be released. I'd rather have a clear consensus a couple days before its run rather than being pulled last minute. Also, the two July 27 preps are full, so a hook would need to be moved if its date request is to be honoured. Z1720 (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm a volunteer too, and I've racked up hundreds of thousands of page views with my over 400 DYKs. As far as I'm concerned, this is last minute. But if the preps are full (though this was asked for a long time ago), then well, yeah, whatever. I learned recently that there are new procedures for special requests, and undoubtedly these were not followed in this case, because we're all volunteers, and many of the DYK writers write the articles, not the rules for the process. (What DYK needs is better oversight, not more things that writers and nominators need to do themselves.) So yeah, I thought this would be a fun thing to do for a good cause (poetry is a good cause), but if it's too difficult or runs counter to some rule that in ten years of writing DYKs I never heard of, then by all means, move it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • If we're worried about promotionalism, then we shouldn't run hooks on any book, film, album, postsecondary school, travel destination, or anything else people can choose to buy or patronize. If running a hook on the release date is promotional, then running it the day before or after is just as promotional. The whole concern is stupid and the rule is stupid. EEng 02:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    Agree. The hook is not promotional, so no danger on the day of publication. Seriously, how many extra people of the 1.3k going to click this will go and buy the book? And how many the next week? - Sadly, it would take the extra effort of a prep builder to replace some hook in the prep or queue for 27 Jul, so just miss the nice cute coincidence. Or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    As I run my watchlist backwards I noticed only after I wrote this that BlueMoonset made room on 27 Jul. There's hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Do we have new rules on special occasion requests now? If so where is it? It is hard to navigate around DYK. Desertarun (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    There's an old rule, linked by Z1720. It says: "The hook should not put emphasis on a commercial release date of the article subject." - This hook doesn't. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    I see the issue now, I'd be ok with it being on release day anyhow. Desertarun (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I think my view is against the consensus above, so I'll drop my objection for this hook's promotion to July 27. I encourage another editor to evaluate the hook for promotion to prep 4. Z1720 (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I promoted the hook. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_179&oldid=1153980085"