Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 167
This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Did you know. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 160 | ← | Archive 165 | Archive 166 | Archive 167 | Archive 168 | Archive 169 | Archive 170 |
The nominator and reviewer cannot seem to agree on the suitability of the hook, particularly on the question of if it appeals to a broad audience. Kindly requesting a second opinion from an uninvolved user to give their input. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- We have the same different understanding if "interesting to a broad audience" really means the same as "appeals to a broad audience". For me, the two are not the same, but I may have a language problem. We talk here about me continue to contribute to DYK or not. I am not interested in writing about a great person, and then be told his major achievements don't "appeal". To be clear: I would still write about the person for ITN, just not bother the extra work of thinking about a hook and supplying a qpq. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- The subject matter and individuals aside, "interesting to a broad audience" is very subjective, and I've always thought it should be struck from the rules. What is a "broad audience"? Unless we have an electronic polling app on DYK, nobody knows the answer to that. We also don't know the backgrounds of our readers, much less the viewpoint of our DYK editors on any given subject. "interesting to a broad audience" is an abstract that cannot be proven either direction. — Maile (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
- It would be a great loss if Gerda were to stop participating at DYK. A much better rule would be that a hook should be "as interesting as possible to a broad audience". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- First of all, I do sincerely wish to apologize to Gerda for the tone of the comments I've said about her hooks. We may have differing interpretations of how DYK is to be run, but I respect her opinions and I believe it would be a great loss if she leaves the project. My intention had always been to help, and I'm sorry if the way I expressed those feelings came out the wrong way. Having said that, I do believe that the "interesting to a broad audience" criterion is a necessary one to make sure that DYK does have some standards, but it's clear that it's a flawed and subjective one. Some discussion may even be needed on how to interpret it or even if it should be done away altogether, as it has been the source of conflicts among reviewers and nominators through the years. Perhaps Maile's suggestion could be a good starting point for discussion? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) Apology taken, but I admit that the notion that I violated the spirit of DYK hit me hard. My idea of the spirit of DYK is a broad variety of facts and topics. - Back to Peskó: I thought that was a particularly good suggestion, giving something to the simple (someone with a blue beard having a castle) AND something for those with some knowledge in the particular field. La Scala was already mentioned in 21 DYKs, and has a link, - let readers explore, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Gerda's view. DYK is an anomaly on WP in that it seeks to be promotional, we have created a quest to get clicks and views, whereas nowhere else on WP is this the case. We let the articles and facts speak for themselves. Looking at today's DYK I see only one hook that actually seems interesting to me. Yet presumably all the others might be interesting to someone and I respect that. Sometimes a reviewer will pass a hook as interesting, only for a promoter to send it back as uninteresting. Who is to say who is correct in that instance? Concur with Maile that the sooner this arbitrary standard is struck the better. I've marked one of my own nominations for withdrawal for these reasons. Spokoyni (talk) 08:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- First of all, I do sincerely wish to apologize to Gerda for the tone of the comments I've said about her hooks. We may have differing interpretations of how DYK is to be run, but I respect her opinions and I believe it would be a great loss if she leaves the project. My intention had always been to help, and I'm sorry if the way I expressed those feelings came out the wrong way. Having said that, I do believe that the "interesting to a broad audience" criterion is a necessary one to make sure that DYK does have some standards, but it's clear that it's a flawed and subjective one. Some discussion may even be needed on how to interpret it or even if it should be done away altogether, as it has been the source of conflicts among reviewers and nominators through the years. Perhaps Maile's suggestion could be a good starting point for discussion? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- I dislike the standard, too, but I think we need something that tries to address hook quality -- however we define that -- or we end up with
- ... that the iPhone 11 is Apple's newest model?
- ... that Ulysses S. Grant is buried in Grant's Tomb?
- ... that voice actress Jojo learned to play piano as a child?
- ... that the Borsky grok is subfuddled by the corminsk diatribe during corbindging?
- I am completely open to the fact that just because a hook doesn't interest me doesn't mean it's not interesting enough, but there really are some articles that are perfectly fine to provide information but nothing about the subject is appropriate for a DYK hook. --valereee (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but not this one. We got a hook approved for the Estonian National Opera, where some won't even know what Estonia is, but this one got problems with La Scala which for some that's the No. opera house in the world, and for the others, there's a link. - I believe that the "broad interest" is rather achieved by a good mix withon a DYK set, than be limiting each individual hook to being interesting to the reviewer. First remedy: if you see a hook you find not interesting, review a different one. If nobody finds it interesting in a month, THEN there may be a problem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- As currently written, this hook just seems like "opera guy does opera". Ho hum. Gerda, you have explained in your defense of this hook that La Scala is highly traditional, so that doing modern opera there is interesting. I agree that that would be interesting. But that's not what the hook says. Why not say "... that the conductor Zoltán Peskó (pictured) promoted contemporary opera at the La Scala in Milan, an opera house known for hosting traditional Italian operas?" That is why it is interesting to you as an opera fan, that is why it would be interesting to someone who is not an opera fan. --Khajidha (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Because I like to say the general in the specific, - the character of the house has no place in the conductor's article (nor should it), we'd loose the (I think) catchy opera title with the blue beard, and also the (implied) fact that of course that meant opera also from his home country, and all this, and the whole debate, for what? 200 extra clicks? + boring all the readers who already know that La Scala is hosting mainly traditional Italian operas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- 1) The character of the house is the reason this point is interesting, so leaving it out of the hook seems wrong. 2) The mention of the specific opera seems rather tacked on to me, not really relevant to the point 3) I'm not sure what you saying about his home country 4) You would rather bore everybody else? --Khajidha (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Because I like to say the general in the specific, - the character of the house has no place in the conductor's article (nor should it), we'd loose the (I think) catchy opera title with the blue beard, and also the (implied) fact that of course that meant opera also from his home country, and all this, and the whole debate, for what? 200 extra clicks? + boring all the readers who already know that La Scala is hosting mainly traditional Italian operas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- As currently written, this hook just seems like "opera guy does opera". Ho hum. Gerda, you have explained in your defense of this hook that La Scala is highly traditional, so that doing modern opera there is interesting. I agree that that would be interesting. But that's not what the hook says. Why not say "... that the conductor Zoltán Peskó (pictured) promoted contemporary opera at the La Scala in Milan, an opera house known for hosting traditional Italian operas?" That is why it is interesting to you as an opera fan, that is why it would be interesting to someone who is not an opera fan. --Khajidha (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, but not this one. We got a hook approved for the Estonian National Opera, where some won't even know what Estonia is, but this one got problems with La Scala which for some that's the No. opera house in the world, and for the others, there's a link. - I believe that the "broad interest" is rather achieved by a good mix withon a DYK set, than be limiting each individual hook to being interesting to the reviewer. First remedy: if you see a hook you find not interesting, review a different one. If nobody finds it interesting in a month, THEN there may be a problem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- I dislike the standard, too, but I think we need something that tries to address hook quality -- however we define that -- or we end up with
Admin(s) needed: queues are empty and preps are full
It's only four hours until the bot will try to promote a queue to the main page, and all the queues are empty. Pinging our trusty DYK admins: Gatoclass, Amakuru, Wugapodes, Vanadmonde, Maile, valereee, and Cas Liber, in the hopes that a queue can be promoted now, and a couple more soon thereafter to get us ahead on this holiday weekend, which would also free up some preps so we can build some over the weekend as well. Many thanks to you all. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- You see the thread right above this about KXJZ in Prep 5? That's the next prep to be promoted. I don't have any objections to any other admin who would like to promote the prep as is. But because I raised the issue, and it never went anywhere, I think I should step aside on that particular prep promotion. — Maile (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- I have pulled the hook mentioned above, to give it time for further discussion, and replaced it with another. I've promoted prep set 5 and Maile has also done queue 6, so we're good to go now. — Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. — Maile (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, you could probably add Lee Vilenski and Kees08 to the list of admins to ping! --valereee (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Could make a template like for FAC Coordinators or ITN Admins to make the pinging and list easier. Kees08 (Talk) 17:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Kees08: how would that work, exactly? Something like Template:@FAC, which only has three people on it? — Maile (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly. Kees08 (Talk) 21:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Kees08, maybe start with these 2 lists of DYK willing admins, (though they prob need updating first) Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK participants? JennyOz (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Exactly. Kees08 (Talk) 21:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Kees08: how would that work, exactly? Something like Template:@FAC, which only has three people on it? — Maile (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- Could make a template like for FAC Coordinators or ITN Admins to make the pinging and list easier. Kees08 (Talk) 17:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/It's Decorative Gourd Season, Motherfuckers
- ... that the perennial essay "It's Decorative Gourd Season, Motherfuckers" has been described as an ode to autumn?
I'm not sure 'perennial essay' is right...it's an essay perennially-run since 2009 and has perennially gone viral, but 'perennial essay' had me going, "What's a perennial essay?" But fixing to 'the perennially-run essay' maybe seems too wordy? --valereee (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- It bothers me too. I think you could strike "perennial" altogether. Yoninah (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Don't know why I am tagged in this, I didn't approve that hook. If you want my opinion, then yes it could probably do without "perennial". I am disappointed for the creator as well as personally that this didn't run on April Fools Day with the hook I had specifically approved for it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- The amount of executive meddling and general censorship with running this article is incredible. I honestly don't give a fuck as as long as something runs. I still think ALT1 is the best hook. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- I did warn you that would happen. I probably should have said be prepared for a fight because there is always going to be a load of hand-wringing over a swear word on DYK. No rule against it but it is always made difficult by people focussing on irrelevant issues. I agree, I think ALT1 was best and was within policy. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- @The C of E: we have never had any problem running the word "fuck". The problem in this case was having two hooks with the word "fuck" in the April Fools set. As you can see, this hook is proudly running in a quirky slot. Let's stop quibbling over the bad grammar and just run it already. Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with that. I think it is a little unfair on @Guerillero: that his hook got shifted just because someone thought we can't have 2 "fuck" hooks in the same set. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- @The C of E: we have never had any problem running the word "fuck". The problem in this case was having two hooks with the word "fuck" in the April Fools set. As you can see, this hook is proudly running in a quirky slot. Let's stop quibbling over the bad grammar and just run it already. Yoninah (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- I did warn you that would happen. I probably should have said be prepared for a fight because there is always going to be a load of hand-wringing over a swear word on DYK. No rule against it but it is always made difficult by people focussing on irrelevant issues. I agree, I think ALT1 was best and was within policy. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- The amount of executive meddling and general censorship with running this article is incredible. I honestly don't give a fuck as as long as something runs. I still think ALT1 is the best hook. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Don't know why I am tagged in this, I didn't approve that hook. If you want my opinion, then yes it could probably do without "perennial". I am disappointed for the creator as well as personally that this didn't run on April Fools Day with the hook I had specifically approved for it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Old approved nominations awaiting promotion
With 191 nominations currently awaiting promotion and 388 total, it's easy for prep set builders to overlook the ones that have been waiting the longest since they were approved, since they aren't listed in any order. Our backlog is nearly 24 days and climbing.
The following are the 11 nominations that were approved at least four weeks ago. Since we're promoting 56 per week, these 11 have been sitting longer than average. Date given is date of approval. Prep set builders are encouraged to use these whenever possible so the hooks don't have to wait much longer than they already have.
I have not checked these to be sure they're fine, so you'll need to do the usual double checks before promoting any of these to prep.
March 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Littlefield FountainMarch 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Socony–Mobil Building- March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Cathedral of St. John the Divine
March 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Trimdon Labour Club- March 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Jakob Nacken
March 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Longview Museum of Fine ArtsMarch 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Bible translations into GeʽezMarch 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Karoly Grosz (illustrator)- March 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Hatherton, Cheshire
March 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Paige BueckersMarch 16: Template:Did you know nominations/The Mandalorian (Star Wars character)
Please remember to cross off an entry as you promote it, or discover that it isn't eligible for promotion at the present time. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Preps are full, queues aren't
Pinging @Casliber: @Maile66: @Amakuru: @Valereee: @Lee Vilenski: @Kees08: @Vanamonde93:. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Just yesterday finished the one that's on the main page now. I'm happy to do one per week, willing to do two per week, but after that I start feeling quite grumpy. :) --valereee (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm a bit slower than everyone else, I'm still making sure with every edit. Did prep/queue 3, quite happy to promote, let me know if I miss anything. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you to the Prep builders, the somewhat unsung DYK gnomes in the process. We currently have 387 hooks, 191 of which are verified. We admins just check their work and promote full sets to queue. But the prep-building gnomes review the nomination and carefully try to place each one in the appropriate slot in the appropriate Prep. We admins stand on their shoulders. — Maile (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- 100% agree. Building sets is an art, and it takes longer to build a set than to promote one to queue. --valereee (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Tamara Levitt
I've just sent Tamara Levitt to AfD. You might want to take it out of the approved list for now. SpinningSpark 00:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's not in the approved list. I think we can leave it in the nominations pending the outcome of he AFD. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- That's what we do at DYK—put the nomination on hold until the AfD concludes. I've taken care of it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
A problem with D2
This follows on from a disagreement at Template:Did you know nominations/Hale Nauā Society.
In the DYK supplemental guidelines, D2 says
“The article in general should use inline, cited sources. A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the lead, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content.”
This is claimed to mean that unreferenced material is acceptable in DYK articles, so long as at least part of each paragraph is cited. In the particular case, there are some large paragraphs like that.
D2 may or may not expect to see a citation to cover the whole of each paragraph, that it is not clear. But if not, a whole DYK article could be set out in one paragraph, with only the first sentence referenced, and that would comply with D2. Meanwhile, WP:Verifiability requires everything in mainspace to be verifiable, with certain exceptions, and tells editors to provide citations for what they add. It is weird if DYK’s standards for articles to get attention on the Main Page are lower than those for the whole encyclopaedia.
For the avoidance of doubt, do we need to mention verifiability in D2? BlueMoonset? Yoninah? Moonraker (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Nobody claimed this means "unreferenced material is acceptable in DYK articles". That's your personal interpretation. And, in fact, you were trying to interpret the BLP guidelines as applying to a non-BLP nomination. The guideline may, or may not, need to be updated. What happened on the Hale Nauā Society nomination, was that the paragraphs in question already contained multiple sourcing, according to guidelines, but that you were trying to insist on having more sourcing added. — Maile (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Moonraker, as best I can tell you're suspicious of some of the content in the article? If that's the problem, the answer would be to mark those as citation needed. It's not that DYK allows unreferenced material; it's that we AGF that what is included in each paragraph is referenced by the citation required at that paragraph. --valereee (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Maile66, not at all, the BLP guidelines clearly do not apply to a non-BLP nomination. I was referring to Wikipedia:Did you know/Citation, which BlueMoonset said was old and not maintained. What I said is on the record. I agree the long paragraphs in question “already contained multiple sourcing”, for parts of them, and that I was trying to insist on having more sourcing added, that is, sources for the parts which were completely unreferenced, contrary to WP:Verifiability. You were insisting, and it seems still are, that this complies with the DYK rule, and that underlines the problem. I say that if it does comply, then the rule should be changed. Valereee, as it happens, I was suspicious, but that isn’t the point. Here I am asking whether people feel the DYK rule D2 could be improved, see above. If there is a better place to ask the question, please point us there. Moonraker (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Moonraker, I think this is probably as good a place as any to discuss whether DYK rules need to be tweaked. Personally I think this rule is sufficient for DYK; we don't expect DYKs to be GA-quality. Our rules are intended to attract articles that still need attention. Most DYK articles are new creations; one of the reasons I bring a new creation to DYK is to attract attention from other editors who might be able to make improvements. --valereee (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Maile66, not at all, the BLP guidelines clearly do not apply to a non-BLP nomination. I was referring to Wikipedia:Did you know/Citation, which BlueMoonset said was old and not maintained. What I said is on the record. I agree the long paragraphs in question “already contained multiple sourcing”, for parts of them, and that I was trying to insist on having more sourcing added, that is, sources for the parts which were completely unreferenced, contrary to WP:Verifiability. You were insisting, and it seems still are, that this complies with the DYK rule, and that underlines the problem. I say that if it does comply, then the rule should be changed. Valereee, as it happens, I was suspicious, but that isn’t the point. Here I am asking whether people feel the DYK rule D2 could be improved, see above. If there is a better place to ask the question, please point us there. Moonraker (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Templates
Anyone else having problems with {{DYK?}} or the other templates? --evrik (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't seen any problems, evrik. What have you been seeing? Do you have a link? Was it with "subst:" before it or not? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- The template wouldn't "take." I manually placed this notification. I used subst and did things as I always do them. --evrik (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't had any problems lately with {{DYKproblem}}, which appears to be the notification you were trying to place, and the template itself hasn't been edited since 2016. Not sure what's going on, but I'll keep my eyes open. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- The template wouldn't "take." I manually placed this notification. I used subst and did things as I always do them. --evrik (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- ... that American journalist Bessie Van Vorst (pictured) worked undercover at a pickle factory and other worksites to expose labor conditions for women and children in the early 1900s?
I'm not sure about the caption Bessie Van Vorst dressed as a pickle factory worker, but I'm not sure how to fix it. It seems like this is not a picture of her dressed as a pickle factory worker but is instead an image of her rendered by an artist, using what appears to be a photo of her face then drawing in the pickle worker hat etc, to suggest her as being dressed as a pickle factor worker? Artist's rendering of Bessie Van Vorst as a pickle factory worker? Bessie Van Vorst rendered as a pickle factory worker? --valereee (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns. The picture was found with the caption and was cropped 9see here). It's hard to say whether it was a photograph which has lost its quality over time or an artistic interpretation. Therefore I believe both options are possible - it's just a matter of consensus. I have nothing against the new caption - you have much more experience and I will gladly take your advice. --Less Unless (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Whatever you do, would you mind not using "rendered as" because the word also means Rendering (animal products). — Maile (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think the caption is fine, and in the hook it could say (depicted). Yoninah (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yoninah, actually, I'd be happy with depicted in both hook and caption! Maile66 lol on rendered. :D --valereee (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Do you mean for the caption:
Bessie Van Vorst depicted as a pickle factory worker
? Yoninah (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)- Oh, I see that's what you did! Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Do you mean for the caption:
- Yoninah, actually, I'd be happy with depicted in both hook and caption! Maile66 lol on rendered. :D --valereee (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think the caption is fine, and in the hook it could say (depicted). Yoninah (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- Whatever you do, would you mind not using "rendered as" because the word also means Rendering (animal products). — Maile (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- ... that the second of Henry Purcell's two settings of Thou knowest, Lord, the secrets of our hearts was composed in an older style for the funeral of Queen Mary II of England?
Do I understand from the nom template discussion that the source says antiquated? I'd like to change from older to antiquated if that's true, I think it would be clearer what is meant. --valereee (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think "older" is simpler, and has not so many syllables, so better for our "broad" readership. Perhaps my English isn't good enough even to grasp "antiquated". It sounds a bit negative to me, while "older" seems more neutral. - Today, when people speak of Purcell's "Though knowest", they mean that old-simple-style-one, possibly not even knowing there were many versions of another in new-elaborate style. He is identified with something he wrote in the style of people before him. All interesting, but too much to word in a hook. - Btw, a ping works only when signed. I'm came here for a different question. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, whoops, lol...two strikes on pinging! Yes, antiquated can have a negative connotation. For me the issue is that I don't know what 'older' even means. Earlier style, maybe? --valereee (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Don't ask me. Ask people who speak English. The German would be old style vs. new style, - early vs. late would rather be used for within one composer's style. Stile antico means something specific, not too useful here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, can you suggest anyone who speaks both English and music? --valereee (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- I trust BlueMoonset who worded that hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- valereee, according to the source, that last setting would have been written to fill out the funeral sentences composed by Morley, who died in 1602, so in 1695 Purcell would have been writing in a sentences style that had been current about a century earlier: a late English Renaissance style, rather than the very different English Baroque of which Purcell was the true master. Since there is nothing in the article that nails down Morley's dates, much less the dates of composition for his funeral sentences, we have to deal in comparisons rather than even an approximation of years (i.e., "century"): with Purcell emulating Morley, "older", "earlier", or even "antiquated" are all accurate, and can all be interpreted in various ways. I do see that "antiquated" can seem like a pejorative; if you prefer "earlier" to "older", then I have no objections to its use. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, thank you! For me, earlier clarifies it! —valereee (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- valereee, according to the source, that last setting would have been written to fill out the funeral sentences composed by Morley, who died in 1602, so in 1695 Purcell would have been writing in a sentences style that had been current about a century earlier: a late English Renaissance style, rather than the very different English Baroque of which Purcell was the true master. Since there is nothing in the article that nails down Morley's dates, much less the dates of composition for his funeral sentences, we have to deal in comparisons rather than even an approximation of years (i.e., "century"): with Purcell emulating Morley, "older", "earlier", or even "antiquated" are all accurate, and can all be interpreted in various ways. I do see that "antiquated" can seem like a pejorative; if you prefer "earlier" to "older", then I have no objections to its use. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- I trust BlueMoonset who worded that hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, can you suggest anyone who speaks both English and music? --valereee (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Don't ask me. Ask people who speak English. The German would be old style vs. new style, - early vs. late would rather be used for within one composer's style. Stile antico means something specific, not too useful here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, whoops, lol...two strikes on pinging! Yes, antiquated can have a negative connotation. For me the issue is that I don't know what 'older' even means. Earlier style, maybe? --valereee (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Approved special holding - not transcluding
Did you know/Approved Beginning with May (Asian Pacific American Heritage Month). The first two nominations transclude as they should. Everything below that just shows as a link to the templates. — Maile (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- I noted that above; before last night's set was built, the non-transcluding nominations extended back into April 13. This is going to continue to happen until we get the number of approved hooks down. Since there's an upper limit on the size a page may be when transclusions are involved, promoting the larger nomination templates does help more than the short ones, oddly enough. (See WP:PEIS for more information about this problem.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Prep 2 - Charlie Watts
I recently promoted Charlie Watts (fascist) (Template:Did you know nominations/Charlie Watts (fascist)) to prep 2, without an image. The nomination had been approved on March 14 so it had waited an entire month to be promoted to a prep area. There was a note from Yoninah on the nomination stating she had returned the hook from a prep area in March so it could later be promoted with an image. I ended up not using the image because it is of very poor quality and thought the fact it had waited so long without being promoted might be a sign that other prep builders were not keen on the image. The article creator, Philafrenzy, came to my talk page today to ask that I move the hook to an image slot. Personally, I think it would be a shame to use an image slot on such a poor image when we have a huge backlog of unpromoted hooks accompanied by high-quality images. But here I am to pass the question off to a wider audience. 97198 (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- The image isn't of poor quality, it is just of low resolution. It is a graphically strong image with high contrast which juxtaposes the subject and the fascist flag. Yes, it could never be a featured image, but that is not its function here. IMHO it works well with the hook. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think the image is of good enough resolution to be used here, to be honest. Maybe if there was a different picture of Watts that could be used instead, maybe that would be an option. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- The image is on Commons and has public domain licensing in the UK, but there is no US notice, and shouldn't be run on the main page without it, assuming it is in the public domain in the US. (The DYK review doesn't seem to have covered the image.) BlueMoonset (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Question on this: the date of the image is listed as "1940 or earlier". How do we know this? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- The BUF was proscribed by the British government in 1940 along with its uniforms and emblems. It was not reformed post-war. From the context of the article in Comrade it is a pre-war (or not later than 1940) image, although it doesn't date it in the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Question on this: the date of the image is listed as "1940 or earlier". How do we know this? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- The image is on Commons and has public domain licensing in the UK, but there is no US notice, and shouldn't be run on the main page without it, assuming it is in the public domain in the US. (The DYK review doesn't seem to have covered the image.) BlueMoonset (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think the image is of good enough resolution to be used here, to be honest. Maybe if there was a different picture of Watts that could be used instead, maybe that would be an option. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived earlier today, with only four nominations remaining, so here is an updated list with the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through March 28. We currently have a total of 403 nominations, of which 234 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the one still unreviewed from February.
Over two months old:
February 16: Template:Did you know nominations/San Michele Arcangelo ai Corridori di Borgo (never reviewed)
Over one month old:
March 6: Template:Did you know nominations/HP Slate 21- March 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Michela Gallagher
- March 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Sikkim tea
March 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Afşin-Elbistan C power stationMarch 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Open Secrets: India's Intelligence UnveiledMarch 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Tamara Levitt (ALT1 needs checking)
Other old nominations:
- March 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Svedectvo
March 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Lil Uzi Vert vs. the World 2March 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Chuck Wilson (USAF U-2 pilot)March 19: Template:Did you know nominations/500 Queer ScientistsMarch 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Archie, Marry MeMarch 20: Template:Did you know nominations/KTLVMarch 21: Template:Did you know nominations/GirlsDoPornMarch 21: Template:Did you know nominations/V.M.M. NairMarch 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Ecem GüzelMarch 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Jamal FarhanMarch 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Violin Sonata No. 1 (Stanford)March 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Hellmut SternMarch 22: Template:Did you know nominations/PasquinadeMarch 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Up from the Ashes (song)- March 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Australian Journal of Herpetology
March 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Srećko AlbiniMarch 23: Template:Did you know nominations/LA MonsterMarch 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Laura Dean Keeps Breaking Up with Me- March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Tanitoluwa Adewumi
March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Anatoliy Mokrenko- March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Lou Vairo
March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/1876 Prohibition National ConventionMarch 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Ude Dil BefikreMarch 25: Template:Did you know nominations/CasualtyXHolbyMarch 26: Template:Did you know nominations/St Augustine's Church, WrangthornMarch 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Cheng Lai-kingMarch 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Col de la Loze(two articles)March 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Lucien SèveMarch 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Workplace hazard controls for COVID-19- March 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Kissa Tanto
- March 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Suzette Davenport
March 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Pierre-Adrien DalpayratMarch 28: Template:Did you know nominations/KKXL (AM)- March 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Tubby Schmalz
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) 15:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
CfD nomination of Category:DYK userboxes
Category:DYK userboxes has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. —andrybak (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note that the idea here seems to be the merging of Category:DYK user templates with Category:DYK userboxes, with the ultimate category name being the former rather than the latter. Part of the discussion seems to be the actual direction or method of the merge, though so far the final name seems to be the templates one rather than the userboxes one. None of the templates in either category should be categoryless when this is over, if I'm reading this correctly. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Prep 2: Trimdon Labour Club
- ... that when former US President Bill Clinton phoned Trimdon Labour Club to talk to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, a barmaid called out, "Is Tony Blair in? ... [it's] someone called Clinton"? (nom)
@PinkPanda272, Epicgenius, and Yoninah: This hook doesn't read very smoothly to me – it might be the unnaturally phrased quotation and the question mark after "someone called Clinton"
when the context in the article makes it clear that the barmaid uttered it as a statement. I propose the following:
- ALT1: ... that a barmaid at Trimdon Labour Club, answering US president Bill Clinton's call to UK prime minister Tony Blair, replied that "someone called Clinton" was on the phone
when asked who it was?
To keep it within the 200-character limit, I removed the "Is Tony Blair in?"
part of the quote, as I don't think it's quite as quirky as the other part of not recognising Bill Clinton. This also avoids placing the quoted statement right before the question mark and resolves some JOBTITLES slips. Does this alternative work? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 08:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- I wasn't crazy about the hook but promoted it because the reviewer preferred it. I like your suggestion, Ravenpuff, but would delete
when asked who it was
from the end to make it even snappier. Yoninah (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff and Yoninah: thanks for your comments, I like the alternative, but I feel it doesn't read as well as the current one, possibly because it is not as chronologically straightforward. However I do agree with the issue with the structure of the quotation, and this could be a good way of solving it. Maybe something combining the two, such as:
- ALT2: ... that when former US president Bill Clinton phoned Trimdon Labour Club to talk to UK prime minister Tony Blair, the barmaid said that "someone called Clinton" was on the phone (when asked who it was)?
I agree with Yoninah on the ending, but I don't mind either way if others have a strong opinion for it. Thanks again, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 10:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Well, we don't use parentheses in hooks, so let's go with:
- ALT3: ... that when former US president Bill Clinton phoned Trimdon Labour Club to talk to UK prime minister Tony Blair, the barmaid said "someone called Clinton" was on the phone? Yoninah (talk) 10:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry Yoninah, I had intended the brackets to indicate that the last section was optional, I should of made that clearer. I agree that Alt-3 should be used. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 11:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Done Substituted in prep. Yoninah (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- ALT3 works for me as well, but I've further tweaked it slightly to include the words "who answered the call" to clarify which barmaid we're talking about; I hope this isn't problematic. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ravenpuff. Yoninah (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- ALT3 works for me as well, but I've further tweaked it slightly to include the words "who answered the call" to clarify which barmaid we're talking about; I hope this isn't problematic. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Done Substituted in prep. Yoninah (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry Yoninah, I had intended the brackets to indicate that the last section was optional, I should of made that clearer. I agree that Alt-3 should be used. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 11:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Prep 4:Dogs
- ... that Sato Project founder Christina Beckles, who coordinates travel of stray dogs from Puerto Rico to the mainland United States for adoption, has a dog allergy requiring weekly injections?
- @The Eloquent Peasant:@MartinPoulter:
- I think the hook would be punchier if you shorten it and leave something for the reader to find out by clicking on the article:
- ALT1: ... that Sato Project founder Christina Beckles, who coordinates travel of stray dogs from Puerto Rico to the mainland United States for adoption, is allergic to dogs? Yoninah (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Good morning @Yoninah:@MartinPoulter: That's a good idea. That's funnier and a better hook. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Done Thanks. I'll edit it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Kateryna Skarzhynska in queue 1
The comment indicates that the Kateryna Skarzhynska hook should appear on April 19, but it's currently in queue 1, which is slated to appear on April 20. I believe that this should be rectified and the hook moved to queue 6 (tomorrow). — RAVENPVFF · talk · 04:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Queue 1 is scheduled for April 19, not April 20. Flibirigit (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- ... because tomorrow is planned to have 2 sets --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- Since Queue 6 was promoted to the main page at 00:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC), I'm not sure why the Queue table would have shown Queue 1 as scheduled for being posted to the main page at any other time than 00:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC), except for a couple of minutes around midnight, when the old queue is being promoted and the new queue is being moved up. There's a brief disconnect where the dates have been incremented but the queues have not, but it shouldn't still have been showing four hours later when Ravenpuff posted. At any rate, Queue 1 will move at midnight UTC on the 19th (in about five hours), and Queue 2 at noon on the 19th, 12 hours later. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think I've found out the source of the error: Queue 6 was only cleared more than six hours after the promotion due to a bot error, so I think that's why the dates on the queues page were erroneous when I originally posted. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 05:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- That would do it! Thanks for the update, Ravenpuff. (Only a couple of minutes before the hook comes off the main page...) BlueMoonset (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think I've found out the source of the error: Queue 6 was only cleared more than six hours after the promotion due to a bot error, so I think that's why the dates on the queues page were erroneous when I originally posted. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 05:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Since Queue 6 was promoted to the main page at 00:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC), I'm not sure why the Queue table would have shown Queue 1 as scheduled for being posted to the main page at any other time than 00:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC), except for a couple of minutes around midnight, when the old queue is being promoted and the new queue is being moved up. There's a brief disconnect where the dates have been incremented but the queues have not, but it shouldn't still have been showing four hours later when Ravenpuff posted. At any rate, Queue 1 will move at midnight UTC on the 19th (in about five hours), and Queue 2 at noon on the 19th, 12 hours later. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Prep 3: 2010 Twenty20 Cup Final
- ... that Somerset would have won the 2010 Twenty20 Cup Final if they had known the Laws of Cricket? (nom)
@Harrias, The C of E, and Cwmhiraeth: I'm not seeing any sources (in the article or elsewhere) to say that Somerset would have won the game if they had known the laws; in any case, it seems to be an over-assertive claim for us to be making. The Daily Telegraph article uses the word could instead, which is probably a more appropriate choice of wording. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 08:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- Good point, it should be "could", not "would". Harrias talk 09:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- "Could" is fine with me. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Why are new articles posted to the top of the day's section rather than the bottom?
When you add a new DYK, the instructions say "After you have created your nomination page, please add it ... to the TOP of this section (after this comment)." I'm just curious: why should it be added to the the top of the section rather than the bottom? Given that the page is otherwise is in ascending time order of the creation/expansion of the article, it seems an odd choice, but there must be a historical reason for it? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Consistency, maybe? Featured article candidates, Featured list candidates and Featured topic candidates say the same thing. — Maile (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Maile66: Perhaps, but those processes don't use date subsections that go the other way... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think it doesn't even matter. Reviewers seem to go by interest, not by order of posting within a day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Tweaking a hook
For a hook currently in Queue 3, "that Silke Bühler-Paschen was the first female to become a full professor of physics at TU Wien in 2005?", I think it would be more accurate here to say first "woman", given that "female" is typically used as an adjective and "woman" as a noun. Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's been addressed, thakns. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Did you know?
... that we have almost no biographical hooks on the Approved page? More reviews would be appreciated. Yoninah (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Proposal of interest
Watchers of this talk page may be interested in this proposal about creating a new usergroup for main page edits. This is the same proposal on which opinions were solicited here some months ago. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
DYK 2peat?!
Just decided to revive my little Potato production in x project and was randomly looking thru an article I'd written on Potato production in Cambodia -- apparently it appeared twice on DYK?! [1] Seems legit too, looking at the archives and past view counts. Not that it's very consequential, but just curious to know if this has ever happened before, and how? Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- For a little while, what we were doing was that if any hook got pulled then it would be replaced by one in the set that ran exactly the year prior. I have no idea why or how that notion came up. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is my default way to rebalance a set if a hook has to be removed, and a new one is needed to balance the main page. I'm not the first person to do it though, so I don't know who invented the one year rule. I did once simply put in a hook from a recently run set, but that drew several WTF posts at ERRORS, from people who thought something had gone wrong, so reusing an older one ends up less controversial! We could promote a hook from the queues instead, but that only works if it's still early in the hook set's run. Otherwise that hook would not get its full main page time slot. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 06:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Queue 4: World's oldest postcard
Just curious about this one - it was not obvious to me from the lead whether this postcard really is the oldest in the world, and if so whether that's verified. The lead describes it as a "practical joke on the postal service", so I assume it's not actually the world's oldest. I see from Template:Did you know nominations/World's oldest postcard that Yoninah already queried this, so I think it needs some more explanation. It was also raised that it should be in British English, per WP:TIES, but this wasn't changed before the nom went live. @Doug Coldwell: as nominator. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Amakuru: I have copy edited accordingly to explain that it has been verified as the world's oldest. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- I have cleaned up the lead to record the chain of events. I still think this needs to be in British English. Maybe Philafrenzy could help here. Yoninah (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, it was created in Fulham so it is a British postcard so British English would be appropriate. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- I have made a start. There's lots to do but it isn't mostly about the variety of English. My immediate thought is that it should be moved to Penny Penates postcard as it is impossible to prove it was the first or is indeed the oldest surviving. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Agree on moving the page to something more encyclopaedic; it's clearly not the oldest anything. The oldest possible, perhaps. The oldest known, perhaps. But not the oldest, period. ——SN54129 09:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- For all we know this was the second or third card that he sent. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- The "world's first card lost in the post" would be a thing :) ——SN54129 10:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with others that "World's oldest postcard" isn't the most encyclopedic name. Surely, there has to be a better one e.g. the article boldens the title Penny Penates, so maybe should be moved there? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- The "world's first card lost in the post" would be a thing :) ——SN54129 10:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- For all we know this was the second or third card that he sent. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, it was created in Fulham so it is a British postcard so British English would be appropriate. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- I have cleaned up the lead to record the chain of events. I still think this needs to be in British English. Maybe Philafrenzy could help here. Yoninah (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived about 25 minutes ago, so here is an updated list with the 36 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through April 8. We currently have a total of 430 nominations, of which 253 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones from early March.
Over two months old:
Over one month old:
- March 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Hack of Jeff Bezos' phone
- March 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Michela Gallagher
- March 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Sikkim tea
- March 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara H. Bowman
March 13: Template:Did you know nominations/It's a Crime (play-by-mail game)- March 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Svedectvo
March 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Mir Jumla III- March 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Electricar DV4 (second opinion requested)
March 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Australian Journal of HerpetologyMarch 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Tanitoluwa AdewumiMarch 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Lou Vairo
Other old nominations:
March 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Kissa TantoMarch 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Suzette DavenportMarch 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Tubby SchmalzMarch 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Angel Voices, Ever Singing- March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Snooker world rankings 1988/1989
March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Zygaena lotiMarch 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Blossom Expedition- March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Ad Fontes Media
March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/William Ault- March 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Ogden Gas scandal
April 1: Template:Did you know nominations/A Case of Spring Fever- April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Clap for our Carers
- April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Zoltán Peskó
- April 3: Template:Did you know nominations/KMEC-TV
- April 3: Template:Did you know nominations/12.38
- April 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Was mein Gott will, das g'scheh allzeit
April 6: Template:Did you know nominations/The Forgotten HolocaustApril 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Rip Rapson- April 7: Template:Did you know nominations/The Jews of Silence
April 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Franz Klarwein- April 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Network synthesis
- April 7: Template:Did you know nominations/The Blinding (song)
- April 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Talking to Strangers
- April 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Outremer
April 8: Template:Did you know nominations/SV Illeri, SS Ben Doran, MFV Elinor Viking & MV Coelleira (four articles)April 8: Template:Did you know nominations/NW Rota-1- April 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Na Lani ʻEhā
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) 02:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Queue 4: George Insole
- ... that George Insole was largely responsible for the introduction and early success of South Wales steam coal in the London and international markets?
This article seems to have some WP:WEASEL phrases in it, including the hook fact... it is not clear what "largely responsible" means in this context. The last paragraph of the lead also has two unattributed facts - "Insole is claimed..." and "Insole was said to have been..." I think these probably need fixing before the hook goes live. Pinging @SusunW: and @Jon698: as nom and reviewer. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry Amakuru, I've never seen this article, nor done any review on it. SusunW (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging nominator RLO1729 and reviewer KAVEBEAR. Yoninah (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. And apologies to SusunW and Jon698 for the mix-up. — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging nominator RLO1729 and reviewer KAVEBEAR. Yoninah (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry Amakuru, I've never seen this article, nor done any review on it. SusunW (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Amakuru. The wording of the lead has been revised and the information presented relies on the cited sources. I suggest revising the hook to
- ... that George Insole pioneered the introduction and early success of South Wales steam coal in the London and international markets?
- ~ RLO1729💬 01:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging Amakuru to look at the proposed hook rewording. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Please also note that WP:WEASEL allows some weasel words in the lead section. ~ RLO1729💬 02:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- @RLO1729: @BlueMoonset: yes, this looks fine now, thanks for the updates. I've updated the hook as suggested. — Amakuru (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Please also note that WP:WEASEL allows some weasel words in the lead section. ~ RLO1729💬 02:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging Amakuru to look at the proposed hook rewording. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Alphabetland
Would some please review Template:Did you know nominations/Alphabetland. I'd like to get it on the main page on April 26 to coincide with the bands 40th anniversary of the release of their first album. Thanks! --evrik (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- I've left some comments there. Yoninah (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Done The nomination is approved and needs to be slotted into Queue 4 for a special occasion appearance on April 26. Pinging @Casliber:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Amakuru:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:. Yoninah (talk) 12:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: would this be as a 9th hook, or should we move some other hook back to prep? A 9th hook would be the most simple move. Might not be a bad idea considering our backlog. Please make a suggestion. — Maile (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Have slotted in as 9th hook Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cas Liber. Maile, one thing you can always do is check to see how a set balances the planned page, and with that 9th hook on April 26, it balances quite nicely. (There are links on any queue or prep page that lets you check any of the queues or preps with the current day's planned page or the day after that.) May as well go with it, rather than to try to strip Queue 4 back to eight hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- I had forgotten about the preview feature in the queues, but I think I'm cautious enough anyway to run the idea around here first. Anyway, it all worked out smoothly. — Maile (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Well, not quite smoothly; I just had to close the nomination template, which had been edited but not also substituted at the time. My thought was before coming here to see how well it might fit; I'd want to run the idea here, too, but knowing it helps with better main page balance adds another argument for doing the simple thing in this case. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for pitching in here, Casliber, but this really doesn't belong in the quirky slot. We already have a quirky, so could you move it up some more? (The quirky is also a music-related hook, so it shouldn't be next to it.) Also, the page name for World's oldest postcard, discussed in a preceding post really should be changed before this hook runs. Pinging Doug Coldwell. Yoninah (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Changed name of World's oldest postcard to Penny Penates, hoping I didn't screw up anything in the process (i.e. DYK credit).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Doug Coldwell. An administrator is needed to change the credit line in Queue 4 to:
- Done* {{DYKmake|Penny Penates|Doug Coldwell|subpage=World's oldest postcard}}
- Should the hook also be changed? Something like:
- ... that a Penny Penates (pictured) mailed in 1840 and certified as the world's oldest postcard was designed as a practical joke to mock postal clerks? Yoninah (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good as far as I am concerned. Can you change accordingly? Thanks. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Well, not quite smoothly; I just had to close the nomination template, which had been edited but not also substituted at the time. My thought was before coming here to see how well it might fit; I'd want to run the idea here, too, but knowing it helps with better main page balance adds another argument for doing the simple thing in this case. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- I had forgotten about the preview feature in the queues, but I think I'm cautious enough anyway to run the idea around here first. Anyway, it all worked out smoothly. — Maile (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cas Liber. Maile, one thing you can always do is check to see how a set balances the planned page, and with that 9th hook on April 26, it balances quite nicely. (There are links on any queue or prep page that lets you check any of the queues or preps with the current day's planned page or the day after that.) May as well go with it, rather than to try to strip Queue 4 back to eight hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- Have slotted in as 9th hook Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: would this be as a 9th hook, or should we move some other hook back to prep? A 9th hook would be the most simple move. Might not be a bad idea considering our backlog. Please make a suggestion. — Maile (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you, everyone! --evrik (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Administrators needed to load 2 empty queues
Pinging @Casliber:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Amakuru:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
On it.Someone beat me to it :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)- Queue 2 still has the {{User:DYKUpdateBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}} line that's meant for empty queues at the bottom of the page. Can an admin please remove it? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- Removed. That was my fault. I thought I took it out when I loaded the hooks, but apparently I just pushed it to the bottom. Sorry. — Maile (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- We now have 3 empty queues and 6 full prep sets. Pinging @Casliber:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Amakuru:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- If there are still empty queues in a couple of hours I will try to do some promotions. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- We now have 3 empty queues and 6 full prep sets. Pinging @Casliber:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Amakuru:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Removed. That was my fault. I thought I took it out when I loaded the hooks, but apparently I just pushed it to the bottom. Sorry. — Maile (talk) 01:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
9 August 2020
Did you know that Bonaparte Crossing the Alps appeared (or is due to appear) on the main page in DYK on 9 August 2020? This surprising fact is mentioned on the article's talk page. It actually appeared on 9 August 2007, or at least that is what is stated on the edit version of the talk page, which I inspected in an attempt to remove the anomaly. So the displayed version is not the same as the edit page version. Does anybody know what has happened here? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Fixed? I tried removing the comma after "August", and it worked. --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. It looks OK now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- I have also reported the problem here: Template talk:Article history#Dates with a comma. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks. It looks OK now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Credit fixes: Queues 5 and 6
In Queue 6, the ninth credit should be:
* {{DYKmake|Notarial Archives|Xwejnusgozo|subpage=Notarial Archives (Malta)}}
The fifth credit of Queue 5 should be:
* {{DYKmake|Up from the Ashes (song)|Nice4What|subpage=Up from the Ashes (song)}}
MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
ALT2 hook needing review on Patsy Mink
Is there anyone available to review ALT2 on DYK Patsy Mink? The original reviewer does not seem to be online, and I've tried pinging others. I've provided info on the template where to find the hook in the article, and linked its source. Thanks to anyone who can do this. — Maile (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: this one has been taken care of, now. — Maile (talk) 10:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Back to Rule C6
We have this hook in prep:
- ... that actress Laia Manzanares played a cheerleader who is seduced by a gorilla mascot in a Tame Impala music video?
- And this hook on the noms page:
- ... that in The Beetle (1919), Leal Douglas played an Egyptian princess who can transform herself into a man or a beetle?
- It's obviously very easy to write a hook around an interesting plot point, but does it meet C6? Yoninah (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yoninah, agree, neither of those passes. It's an interesting question, though. We pass 'tenor sang role' hooks. But I think it's different. —valereee (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't they pass? Neither Laia Manzanares or Leal Douglas are fictional works or characters. The wording of C6 is "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." In this case the real world is that this is something a real person has portrayed in a real prodution. C6 is to weed out the sort of hooks that would fall foul of Template:In-universe - i.e. "describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style" - for example to prevent hooks like "DYK ... that Yuji has the possibility to live like an average human as long as he makes sure that his power of existence does not run out before midnight?" Valereee makes a good point, if we do pass "singer performs role in opera, etc", we need to have a good reason not to pass the equivalent for other media. Spokoyni (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think the concern is that they mainly deal with plot points, and from what I can tell, hooks that are primarily about plot points have previously been frowned upon. The "Opera performer performs Role X" hooks pass because they tend to focus more on the actual performance than the plot of the operas involved. As for the hooks being discussed here, I think the Manzanares hook could still pass the rule since it's referring to a music video, which isn't really considered a "work of fiction" as far as I'm aware. The Douglas hook though is probably more borderline. Slightly off-topic, but I love the Shakugan no Shana reference given above. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- The "actress Laia Manzanares" is real world and "The Beetle (1919) and Leal Douglas" are real world, so what's the problem? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Concur with Cwmhiraeth. If "... that in The Beetle (1919), Leal Douglas played an Egyptian princess" would pass, but the longer version which described an aspect of the plot wouldn't, then I think we're being overly pedantic. We're missing the chance to put in details that describe the range of what an actor/performer, etc is providing. Recently fwiw we had "... that Gregory Peck's screen roles included Captain Ahab (pictured), Abraham Lincoln, and Josef Mengele?" Which did not cause any trouble either before, during or (I hope) after. Spokoyni (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- The "actress Laia Manzanares" is real world and "The Beetle (1919) and Leal Douglas" are real world, so what's the problem? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think the concern is that they mainly deal with plot points, and from what I can tell, hooks that are primarily about plot points have previously been frowned upon. The "Opera performer performs Role X" hooks pass because they tend to focus more on the actual performance than the plot of the operas involved. As for the hooks being discussed here, I think the Manzanares hook could still pass the rule since it's referring to a music video, which isn't really considered a "work of fiction" as far as I'm aware. The Douglas hook though is probably more borderline. Slightly off-topic, but I love the Shakugan no Shana reference given above. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Why wouldn't they pass? Neither Laia Manzanares or Leal Douglas are fictional works or characters. The wording of C6 is "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." In this case the real world is that this is something a real person has portrayed in a real prodution. C6 is to weed out the sort of hooks that would fall foul of Template:In-universe - i.e. "describes a work or element of fiction in a primarily in-universe style" - for example to prevent hooks like "DYK ... that Yuji has the possibility to live like an average human as long as he makes sure that his power of existence does not run out before midnight?" Valereee makes a good point, if we do pass "singer performs role in opera, etc", we need to have a good reason not to pass the equivalent for other media. Spokoyni (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yoninah, agree, neither of those passes. It's an interesting question, though. We pass 'tenor sang role' hooks. But I think it's different. —valereee (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think both do meet C6, the prep hook says its in a music video and noms hook says its a film. I'm not really seeing an issue here? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the image showing Manzanares in the music video is non-free, and therefore (a) I've nominated it for speedy deletion as it's on Commons, and (b) would fail NFCC here anyway. Black Kite (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with David Eppstein and Yoninah at Template:Did you know nominations/Leal Douglas that it violates the spirit of the rule. Yes, the article subjects are real people, but the whole point of this rule is to not rely on a fictional hook that doesn't connect to the real world. Connecting it via the simple 'actor played (plot point)' or 'author wrote (plot point)' isn't enough. —valereee (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm with Valereee here. The point of C6 is that hookiness ought not to hinge on fictional elements. These hooks fail that criterion. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
- As I explained further at Template:Did you know nominations/Leal Douglas, I think that a hook that uses a really interesting plot point is a lazy option. This kind of hook could conceivably be used for every single film, play, book, poem, and every other creative work. The spirit of DYK is to find surprising or unusual facts or twists on the text in the article, not to rely on the work of creative writers and directors. Yoninah (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Yoninah, this all needs to be analysed.
- “a hook that uses a really interesting plot point is a lazy option.” A sweeping statement which is nothing to do with the rules. Even if it were true, there is no DYK rule against “lazy options”, that claim could be made about any hook someone didn’t like.
- ”This kind of hook could conceivably be used for every single film, play, book, poem, and every other creative work.” We are not talking here about “creative works”, but performers. Performers perform, mostly in works of fiction. Are you really saying that hooks about performers must not be about their work? Where is the sense in that?
- ”The spirit of DYK...” is obscure and a matter of opinion, we are talking here about the precise meaning of a rule and how to apply it.
- ”...is to find surprising or unusual facts or twists on the text in the article...” Facts, yes. I do not know where “twists on the text” comes from.
- ”...not to rely on the work of creative writers and directors.” But where are you getting that from? It isn’t in any DYK rule. If you want it to be in a rule, you need to ask for the creation of a new rule, although I can’t see any good purpose in it. Moonraker (talk) 03:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde, you say “The point of C6 is that hookiness ought not to hinge on fictional elements.” But that is just not so. C6 only applies “If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character...” Its point is then spelt out very clearly in the rest of the rule: “... the hook must involve the real world in some way.” That is its only point, it does not try to keep works of fiction out of hooks. C6 is defining how hooks can be based on them. If you want C6 to exclude “the work of creative writers and directors”, propose an alteration to it, but I would not support it. Moonraker (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Moonraker, I don't think anyone is suggesting that we exclude the work of creative writers and directors, just that a hook shouldn't be "... that writer X wrote a story about an Egyptian princess who could transform herself into a man or a beetle?" or "... that director X produced a movie about an Egyptian princess who could transform herself into a man or a beetle?" That doesn't exclude a hook like "... that writer X based character Y on real person Z, who could transform herself into a man or a beetle?" Sure! Great hook. —valereee (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Moonraker: with respect, you've completely misunderstood my comment, which is saying the same thing you are. I have gotten a number of works of fiction featured at DYK; I'm not in any way arguing to exclude them. The hooks we use for them cannot hinge on their fictional characteristics. That's all. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Moonraker, I don't think anyone is suggesting that we exclude the work of creative writers and directors, just that a hook shouldn't be "... that writer X wrote a story about an Egyptian princess who could transform herself into a man or a beetle?" or "... that director X produced a movie about an Egyptian princess who could transform herself into a man or a beetle?" That doesn't exclude a hook like "... that writer X based character Y on real person Z, who could transform herself into a man or a beetle?" Sure! Great hook. —valereee (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Vanamonde, also with respect, I am in complete disagreement with you. You have said:
- “The point of C6 is that hookiness ought not to hinge on fictional elements. These hooks fail that criterion.” But that is nowhere in any rule, so it is not a criterion. As I explained above, what C6 says is utterly different from your interpretation of it. It says nothing about “hookiness” and instead spells out that when the subject is fictional, hooks need to involve the real world. Nothing is said about “fictional elements” being excluded. Don’t you get that?
- ”I have gotten a number of works of fiction featured at DYK” – Then those will be subjects which C6 does apply to.
- ”The hooks we use for them cannot hinge on their fictional characteristics. That's all.“ Your word “them” is referring to works of fiction, and in fact they can do that if they also involve the real world. But the idea of applying that rule to real subjects, ignoring what it says, is only your personal invention, you have no rule to base it on. Moonraker (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- I am describing what many users understand the spirit of the rule to be; I do not claim to be reproducing policy word for word, because if the rule were laid out in such detail, there would be no disagreement over its interpretation. You continue to misunderstand my comment, because I have not spoken of excluding fictional elements at all. I don't especially want to pursue this argument any further, because it's already gotten more time than a disagreement this minor deserves. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- Whether such hooks fail C6 ( I agree with Vanamonde93) that they do. They certainly fail to be hooky. Both of these are simply saying "actor played role" Such simple "somebody did his damn job" hooks are never interesting and should never be used. --Khajidha (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Queue 1: Lou Vairo
- ... that American ice hockey coach Lou Vairo introduced European coaching concepts to the United States?
Neither the article nor the linked source makes the claim in quite as strong language; this either needs a better source, or needs to be rephrased. Queue 1 is currently furthest from the main page, but if this hasn't been resolved in 48 hours, I will pull it to allow further working. Pinging @Flibirigit and Sainsf: as nominator and reviewer respectively. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think the source ( introducing European concepts of training and playing rarely seen in this country) implies it in that sense but a rephrase would be better. Sainsf (knock knock · am I there?) 04:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- I am too busy with real life, and will be unable to address concerns for a few days. Please return to the nomination stage. Have a great day.Flibirigit (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, pulled and replaced. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- I am too busy with real life, and will be unable to address concerns for a few days. Please return to the nomination stage. Have a great day.Flibirigit (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Prep 1:Speed skating records
- ... that Zofia Nehringowa set the speed skating world records in all individual distances?
- @SportsOlympic:@MrClog:
- So why isn't she mentioned in the linked article, List of world records in speed skating? Is a word like "first" missing here? Yoninah (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: I interpreted the hook as meaning that she previously set the world record. I believe she has since been defeated. However, she did in fact set the first world records in all individual distances. --MrClog (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I'll add "first" to the hook. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah:, indeed, take a look at the sub-pages of List of world records in speed skating --> 500m, 1000m, 1500m, 3000m, 5000m. SportsOlympic (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- @SportsOlympic: Oh, so we shouldn't add "first"? Yoninah (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah:, “first” is not necassary because she “set” the records and not “broke” the records. SportsOlympic (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah:, “first” is not necassary because she “set” the records and not “broke” the records. SportsOlympic (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- @SportsOlympic: Oh, so we shouldn't add "first"? Yoninah (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah:, indeed, take a look at the sub-pages of List of world records in speed skating --> 500m, 1000m, 1500m, 3000m, 5000m. SportsOlympic (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- OK, I'll add "first" to the hook. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 16:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: I interpreted the hook as meaning that she previously set the world record. I believe she has since been defeated. However, she did in fact set the first world records in all individual distances. --MrClog (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Automatic transcluding
Is there some reason that there should not be a "created/expanded date" field in the review page creation template? The field could then be used by bots to automatically transclude the review to the correct place. It's a confusing extra step for new editors to get through. If this is a viable suggestion, who do I need to ask to get it done? Note that Legobot already does a similar task on the GA project. SpinningSpark 15:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Spinningspark, I don't know of any particular reason not to have that date; it could be added as part of the nomination template building module, but preferably in a way that causes a standard form of the date to be generated. The question is, would we want a bot to do that: the nominations that don't get transcluded are frequently ones where nothing is filled in. (I agree that this isn't an easy step: many people transclude under the date they added the nomination, not the UTC date they started the expansion.) We'd need someone to create a new bot to add the templates, presumably by looking out there for all the pending templates, see which ones are not already on the Nominations or Approved pages, and add it to the former. The bot would need to run a few times an hour, so the templates didn't take too long to appear automatically. Unless we can have a bot created, there isn't much point to adding the date. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- Legobot at GA transcludes within minutes, just take a look at the Wikipedia:Good article nominations history, it gets updated almost in real time. I don't see that a small delay is problematic, it often takes weeks before a reviewer comes along. If we go ahead with this idea, Legobot seems to already have all the features we need, so writing a new bot from scratch wouldn't be necessary. This should help stop transclusions into the wrong section; users will have to overwrite a hidden comment saying in all caps that the creation/expansion date is required, not current date. It will at least not make the situation any worse. I suggest that if nothing is filled in at all then the bot just discards the nom. If the date isn't filled in, the bot sends a warning to the user page that a date is required. SpinningSpark 23:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- I know how Legobot works (and doesn't)—I was around when it went from running every ten minutes to every twenty, and used to coordinate with GABot owner ChrisG when we added new subtopics before he left and Legoktm took over the code and started running it under Legobot—and it is useless for this purpose: the GA code that it runs is barely supported by Legoktm, who would love for someone else to take it on, has many known bugs, and a new, replacement bot has been wanted for years (and, unfortunately, every attempt to write a new one has sputtered). Believe me in this: I've been involved in trying to dig around in the code and recruiting potential new bot owners, and it's legacy code that everyone who has looked at has wanted to stay far away from, preferring to write something new than attempt to update the old. In addition, DYK needs to do very different things. It may be that Wugapodes, whose WugBot handles the moving of hooks from the Nominations and Approved page, would be willing to take on another DYK-related bot task. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Legobot at GA transcludes within minutes, just take a look at the Wikipedia:Good article nominations history, it gets updated almost in real time. I don't see that a small delay is problematic, it often takes weeks before a reviewer comes along. If we go ahead with this idea, Legobot seems to already have all the features we need, so writing a new bot from scratch wouldn't be necessary. This should help stop transclusions into the wrong section; users will have to overwrite a hidden comment saying in all caps that the creation/expansion date is required, not current date. It will at least not make the situation any worse. I suggest that if nothing is filled in at all then the bot just discards the nom. If the date isn't filled in, the bot sends a warning to the user page that a date is required. SpinningSpark 23:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
- WugBot is actually already approved for this. I paused that task a few months ago because it was running into conflicts with a semi-automated tool some editors were using. I can't remember the specifics and am about to have dinner, but I'll look into this and see about starting that task again in the next few days. — Wug·a·po·des 01:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Wugapodes, I'd forgotten about the semi-automated tool, since I've never used it. Spinningspark, it appears that DYK-helper, created last summer, already takes care of the transclusion if you use it to create nominations. Not many seem to, but this is an example of DYK-helper in action, transcluding the newly created nomination to the date specified by the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- I use DYK-Helper. It's a fantastic tool. Is there no way to edit the bot to not translude if already transcluded? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- There is, I just haven't had time to figure out exactly how. If anyone has examples of articles they've used it on, I would really appreciate it! The edit summary search tool is down so I'm having trouble finding test cases. — Wug·a·po·des 02:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Wugapodes, I've used it on all mine, recently, you can get to any of them from my talk —valereee (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- There is, I just haven't had time to figure out exactly how. If anyone has examples of articles they've used it on, I would really appreciate it! The edit summary search tool is down so I'm having trouble finding test cases. — Wug·a·po·des 02:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- Well I've never noticed that sidebox in the instructions before. Which may explain why not many use it. I doubt that new users struggling to follow the instructions would want the extra headache of installing some javascript. That sort of thing is really for regular users. SpinningSpark 13:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- I also forgot about the existence of DYK-helper. But I've now added it to my js script. Is there anything we can to do let nominators know it's out there? Just thinking out loud here, but I wonder if @Gerda Arendt: uses DYK-helper. Of all editors, she could almost be a poster girl for a time-saving DYK tool. — Maile (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- No, I didn't know that helper, will check out. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
- I use DYK-Helper. It's a fantastic tool. Is there no way to edit the bot to not translude if already transcluded? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- Wugapodes, I'd forgotten about the semi-automated tool, since I've never used it. Spinningspark, it appears that DYK-helper, created last summer, already takes care of the transclusion if you use it to create nominations. Not many seem to, but this is an example of DYK-helper in action, transcluding the newly created nomination to the date specified by the nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
- WugBot has started transcluding nominations on talk pages. This first run is taking a long time since it needs to get through all the nominations, but it should go faster in the future. Let me know if you come across any problems! — Wug·a·po·des 00:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Seen and not liked, sorry. The transclusions take a lot of space on the talk pages, and for whom? Reviewers will go by the nom page, and, once appeared, a link to the nomination discussion comes with the credit. Can I mark articles to not get the transclusion? ... saving me the effort of removing it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- The last discussion on this was in June 2019, about 8 months ago. Consensus can change, and in fact, I'd welcome a review of this after a few weeks to see whether it's helping or hurting. In the meantime, the bot is exclusion compliant, so Gerda Arendt, you can add
{{bots|deny=WugBot}}
anywhere on the talk page and WugBot should ignore the page. — Wug·a·po·des 20:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)- Thank you for the "ignore" tip, but actually removing seems easier. I'll remove after it appeared then. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- The last discussion on this was in June 2019, about 8 months ago. Consensus can change, and in fact, I'd welcome a review of this after a few weeks to see whether it's helping or hurting. In the meantime, the bot is exclusion compliant, so Gerda Arendt, you can add
- Seen and not liked, sorry. The transclusions take a lot of space on the talk pages, and for whom? Reviewers will go by the nom page, and, once appeared, a link to the nomination discussion comes with the credit. Can I mark articles to not get the transclusion? ... saving me the effort of removing it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I think there is some confusion about what was being requested here. The original request was that the nomination be automatically transcluded on the DYK nominations page WP:DYKN, not on the article talk page. Of course, that can't be done unless the article creation date/move to mainspace date/start of expansion date/GA passage date is known. I've never been a big fan of DYK transclusions on the article talk page because they're only potentially useful until the article has appeared on the main page, after which there's a link to the review up top anyway. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- I agree with Gerda about this cluttering up the article talk page. Is there any way the bot can remove the DYK template discussion after the article is promoted? Then there would be just a small box saying it appeared on DYK. Yoninah (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not understand why this is seen as cluttering the talk page. It's a useful way to make sure anyone interested in an article sees that it's been nominated for DYK. I also find it a useful shortcut to DYK noms. —valereee (talk) 13:19, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Trying once more: It's transcluding the nomination, - for whom, at what time? Nominations are on the nom page, where anybody interested in DYK will see it. The transclusion stays on the talk even through the discussion of the nomination which can get loooong, and is good for whom on the talk? The transclusion stays on the talk even after the hook appeared, when the credit will have a simple link for those still interested. For me, it's all clutter, but certainly after something appeared. If the bot will manage to let it disappear after the hook appeared, fine with me. Until then, I'll remove it after appearing. - To say something positive: at least the present version, creating a header, is MUCH better than the transclusion so far without a header, which made the actual DYK credit get below it, so often not even visible when you open the talk page. I haven't counted how many times I almost thought there was no credit, for that reason. I collect hooks for portals Germany and Opera, not only "my own", so face the problem often. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee I personally think it's a good idea to transclude it on the talkpage, so others can see it. However, once the DYK has been on mainpage, there's no value to having an old DYK nomination still transcluded on the talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Joseph2302, but why is that any more clutter than any other talk page entry? I'm sort of bemused that there's this much objection to it. Talk pages don't need to be pretty. —valereee (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, for anyone interested in the article but not a regular at DYK review. I've seen at least one disgruntled editor who had done significant work on an article come to errors while it was on the main page saying it would have been nice to at least get a notification. And I use the talk transclusion (if there is one) when I'm doing a review because it's easy to toggle back and forth. When there isn't a talk transclusion I'm a bit put out because it's an extra step. —valereee (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Please let me understand how the transclusion on the talk helps you better than a search on the noms page, or looking up "What links here". For "my" articles: the link to the nom is on my user page - until it appears and is no longer needed. - When I nominate for someone else, I normally ping editors in the nomination, hoping to leave no "disgruntled" one behind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- The transclusion on the talk page means I don't have to go to the noms page and search to find the nom I'm reviewing. I just go to the article -- which I'm at anyway, since I'm reviewing it -- and then toggle to the talk. I find this easier than having to search the noms page. To each her own; I'm not asking you to agree with me. All I'm saying is that I find the transclusion to the talk to be useful in two ways and that I think the idea the transclusion represents undesirable clutter is purely personal preference. —valereee (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- I asked "for whom", and you replied, thank you. I didn't use the word "clutter" in this discussion, but - yes - in edit summaries when I still find it on a talk AFTER the hook appeared. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- The transclusion on the talk page means I don't have to go to the noms page and search to find the nom I'm reviewing. I just go to the article -- which I'm at anyway, since I'm reviewing it -- and then toggle to the talk. I find this easier than having to search the noms page. To each her own; I'm not asking you to agree with me. All I'm saying is that I find the transclusion to the talk to be useful in two ways and that I think the idea the transclusion represents undesirable clutter is purely personal preference. —valereee (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Please let me understand how the transclusion on the talk helps you better than a search on the noms page, or looking up "What links here". For "my" articles: the link to the nom is on my user page - until it appears and is no longer needed. - When I nominate for someone else, I normally ping editors in the nomination, hoping to leave no "disgruntled" one behind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee I personally think it's a good idea to transclude it on the talkpage, so others can see it. However, once the DYK has been on mainpage, there's no value to having an old DYK nomination still transcluded on the talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- Trying once more: It's transcluding the nomination, - for whom, at what time? Nominations are on the nom page, where anybody interested in DYK will see it. The transclusion stays on the talk even through the discussion of the nomination which can get loooong, and is good for whom on the talk? The transclusion stays on the talk even after the hook appeared, when the credit will have a simple link for those still interested. For me, it's all clutter, but certainly after something appeared. If the bot will manage to let it disappear after the hook appeared, fine with me. Until then, I'll remove it after appearing. - To say something positive: at least the present version, creating a header, is MUCH better than the transclusion so far without a header, which made the actual DYK credit get below it, so often not even visible when you open the talk page. I haven't counted how many times I almost thought there was no credit, for that reason. I collect hooks for portals Germany and Opera, not only "my own", so face the problem often. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Tom Moore
Moore has now raised over £30 million; please update the figure (from [2]) before posting to the main page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- He is also now a colonel after being promoted by The Queen. This also need to be updated on the hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging @Casliber:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Amakuru:@Gatoclass:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08: for immediate action here. Yoninah (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Should this be 'turned 100 today' instead of 'turns 100 today'? He's turned 100, hasn't he? Or is that a BrEng thing? —valereee (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Nick of time! Thanks, Maile. @Pigsonthewing:, maybe you'd like to update and add a cite to the lead about him being promoted to colonel by the Queen. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. It's already mentioned in the lede, and cited in the body, as it should be. And it should be "turns", both as British English and because he might have been born at 11:59pm for all we know. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- This is also being discussed at ERRORS, which is the more appropriate venue.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. It's already mentioned in the lede, and cited in the body, as it should be. And it should be "turns", both as British English and because he might have been born at 11:59pm for all we know. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Nick of time! Thanks, Maile. @Pigsonthewing:, maybe you'd like to update and add a cite to the lead about him being promoted to colonel by the Queen. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- ... that the first saint to whom the church of San Filippo Neri in Via Giulia in Rome was dedicated was the patron of people with gout?
The location section has no citation, can you add that? Also, the Trophimus of Arles article doesn't mention that he's the patron saint of people with gout, I'm wondering if maybe that + ref can be added to that article, as we've had reports at ERRORS for this kind of thing. —valereee (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, both done, thanks for your attention! Alex2006 (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Alessandro57, well that was quick, thank you! :) —valereee (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, first come first serve :-), Cheers! Alex2006 (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Alessandro57, well that was quick, thank you! :) —valereee (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- ... that according to legend, the 6th-century Irish monk Brendan spent days fasting on Mount Brandon before voyaging across the Atlantic to discover Saint Brendan's Island?
The article sentence that supports voyaging to the island doesn't have a citation, could you add that? And I'm not sure the article supports 'to discover', am I missing something? —valereee (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Valereee. Here is one (from the article), on page 25 of Nancy Scheper-Hughes book that has "discover" and "sail" (instead of voyage): [3]. Does that work? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Britishfinance, works for me, thanks so much! —valereee (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- ... that Tetraponera penzigi is one of several species of ant that protect whistling thorn trees in East Africa from grazing giraffes and rhinoceroses?
Totally not an error and this is likely isolation-induced AnRet obsessive nitpicking, but rhinoceros is also pluralized rhinoceros, and in my head rhinoceroses sounds funny. If you have any objection I'm fine with leaving it. —valereee (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Valereee: The Rhinoceros article states "The plural in English is rhinoceros or rhinoceroses"; the latter sounds right to me, but we could solve the problem by saying "rhinos". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, nah, I'm being ridiculous. :) —valereee (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a few minutes ago, so here is an updated list with the 38 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through April 13. We currently have a total of 417 nominations, of which 233 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones unreviewed from February and March.
Over two months old:
February 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Partisan Congress riots- March 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Hack of Jeff Bezos' phone
Over one month old:
- March 7: Template:Did you know nominations/George Pechell Mends
March 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Michela Gallagher- March 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Svedectvo
- March 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Electricar DV4 (second review requested)
March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Snooker world rankings 1988/1989- March 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Ad Fontes Media
- March 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Princess María Teresa of Bourbon-Parma
- April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Zoltán Peskó
- April 3: Template:Did you know nominations/KMEC-TV (second opinion requested)
- April 3: Template:Did you know nominations/12.38
Other old nominations:
- April 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Was mein Gott will, das g'scheh allzeit
- April 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Network synthesis
April 7: Template:Did you know nominations/The Blinding (song)- April 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Talking to Strangers
- April 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Na Lani ʻEhā
- April 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Heinrich Schütz House (Bad Köstritz)
- April 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Eight Hungarian Folksongs
- April 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Serious Sam: Kamikaze Attack!
- April 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Jesu Leiden, Pein und Tod
- April 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Leeds Civic Trust
- April 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Tenkasi Pandyas
- April 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on domestic violence
- April 11: Template:Did you know nominations/KARA (New Mexico)
- April 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Benedikt Kristjánsson
April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Spoonbridge and Cherry- April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/O sacrum convivium!
- April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/O Licht der wunderbaren Nacht
- April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on crime
- April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Geneviève Poitrine
- April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House
April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Chand Bujh Gaya- April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Forest Reserve Act of 1891
- April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Hotel Milan
- April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-defection law in India
April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Hammersley- April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Gay fascism
- April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/The Unplugged Collection, Volume One
- April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Vardøger (band), Whitefrozen, Ghost Notes (Vardøger album) (three articles)
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) 02:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Bot sometimes not moving approved nominations to the Approved page
I've noticed that for a while, sometimes there's a delay in the bot moving an approved nomination to the Approved page, to the point that sometimes nominations have remained on the regular nominations page for days or even weeks despite being given an approval tick (an example would be Template:Did you know nominations/Qibla, which I just manually moved despite it being given a tick back on April 19). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, this is typically caused by reviewers not substituting the tick template as instructed—the "subst:" preceding {{DYKtick}} in the icon code examples on the edit page are there for a reason. In this case, Onceinawhile simply placed the DYKtick template rather than substituting it, so the bot didn't see the actual icon file name it checks for (Symbol confirmed.svg) and didn't know to move it. (The same applies for all icon templates.) The bot also sometimes has trouble with the {{DYK checklist}} template when it encounters one that isn't filled out as expected. The best thing to do is to do the template substitution yourself, and the bot will move the nomination as it is designed to do at the next run, which occurs every other hour on the odd hour. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the issue. I've added it to my list of maintenance checks. I subst-ed two more. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- The bot removed it after Narutolovehinata5's manual action. Suggestions how to proceed? HaEr48 (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
- HaEr48, thanks for pointing out the problem. This was effectively a collision between Narutolovehinata5's edit on the Approved page and WugBot's edit: every two hours, WugBot gets the list of approved noms, and if there are any changes, adds new moved noms and/or removes closed ones, and then writes the new, updated list of approved noms. Since the Narutolovehinata5's edit occurred between getting the list (without Qibla) and writing the full list back out (again without Qibla), the edit was overwritten. To avoid this happening in future, make sure no edits are made to the Approved page in and around the odd-numbered hours.
- What I've done is to restore Qibla to the Nominations page and substituted the DYKtick template. The bot should pick it up at 23:00 UTC and move it to the Approved page, at which point everything should finally be set. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Mother's Day and Father's Day special occasion sets?
I realize it's a bit late for something like this, but would it be a good idea for us to create special occasion sets for Mother's Day and Father's Day, in which we only have articles on parents? The US-derived version of both holidays (May 10 for Mother's Day, so we need to create sets soon) has been adopted by the most countries, so we should go with that; if necessary we can limit the sets to people from countries where the date is observed. I see this has previously been done in 2012.
One decision we need to make is: should we include any notable person who had been a parent, or limit the sets to people who are notable for being a parent? The former is likely the only workable solution. feminist #WearAMask😷 11:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- According to the article, your date only applies to around half the world's countries so it hasn't been adopted by "most". Bazza (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I said "the most" (i.e. "the highest number of"), not "most" (i.e. "the majority of"). feminist|wear a mask, go outdoors, avoid crowds 12:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is a bit late for this Sunday (indeed, preps for that day are already assembled), but might be better for Father's Day (which has the advantage that a bigger percentage of the world celebrate it on that day). Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a bit late. But what are the criteria for inclusion? So many people are parents. Yoninah (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Mother's Day date doesn't apply to some countries (UK), and looks like Father's Day doesn't in Spain, Italy, Germany. If we could work up a proper scope (which countries it applies to, what's the "parent" inclusion), then sounds a decent idea, maybe for next year. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- As I suggested, we can exclude people from countries where the date is not observed. For example, we can exclude UK mothers from a May 10 set. feminist|wear a mask, go outdoors, avoid crowds 12:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- If we limit the scope to articles which mention the subject's children, that would be workable. Obviously, many people are parents, but for Wikipedia to mention a person's children in their article, sources must cover that fact. When considering that DYK mostly involves newly created articles, and often contain relatively few sources compared to more developed articles, having "parent" as a scope should be adequate in practice. feminist|wear a mask, go outdoors, avoid crowds 12:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Mother's Day date doesn't apply to some countries (UK), and looks like Father's Day doesn't in Spain, Italy, Germany. If we could work up a proper scope (which countries it applies to, what's the "parent" inclusion), then sounds a decent idea, maybe for next year. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a bit late. But what are the criteria for inclusion? So many people are parents. Yoninah (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
What is the point of this? Almost every adult is a parent, and who is likely to notice that we are featuring "parents"? This just doesn't make any sense to me. Gatoclass (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I find this proposal very confusing, despite its good intentions. Flibirigit (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Gender equality, basically. With Mother's Day, to dispel the preconception that strong women don't make for good parents; with Father's Day, to promote fatherhood and equal parenting. Ideally we would want people who have publicly discussed or emphasized their role as a parent. On second thoughts, you guys have a point, and perhaps I am overthinking this. feminist|wear a mask, go outdoors, avoid crowds 14:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I don't see the point in this to start, and it gets conceptually worse if you think that editors will be trying to make seven hooks reducing people to a relationship with their children. Then there's the fact that the UK and Australia probably deliver the next most readers after the US, and don't share dates, which will make this confusing at least and insultingly regional at worst. Kingsif (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
On another point, @Feminist: can you change your signature? There's still plenty countries with lockdowns and quarantines in force, so it's also regional to be saying 'go outdoors' in it. Kingsif (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Fair, and thanks for the input. There are probably good reasons why such an idea has rarely been entertained in the past, and in the future if anyone asks, we can point to this discussion. Of course this shouldn't preclude editors from nominating special occasion hooks, but a full set is probably excessive. feminist|wear a mask 14:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Prep 2: Andagua volcanic field
- ... that the Valley of the Volcanoes in Peru is full of lava flows and scoria cones, and offers landscape and scientific value?
- Andagua volcanic field – Jo-Jo Eumerus (give) (tag) – View nom subpage
Can somebody please explain to me what "landscape value" means? Gatoclass (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Looks like a monetary evaluation of land dependent upon the value it holds to the public.US Dept of Agriculture — Maile (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's a somewhat clumsy way to summarize
Most of the volcanic sites are located in the Valley of the Volcanoes, which complement the scattered sites connected with stratovolcanoes located on both sides of the Colca Canyon(Fig.1). The volcanic sites are distinguished in terms of quantitative, scientific and didactic qualities. Asignificant amount of them -31 is concentrated in the Valley of the Volcanoes. The remaining ones -19 are located along the Colca Canyon and the Colca Valley. A large number of objects means increased opportunity to observe intermediate forms, partly transformed by geological processes. It creates excellent conditions for preparation of educational pathways related to volcanology which enable tourists to access the sites and scientists to carry out research studies.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)- Okay, thanks for the clarification, based on that quote I should be able to give it a tweak to make the meaning clearer, thank you Jo-Jo. Gatoclass (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's a somewhat clumsy way to summarize
what just happened?
The picture was on Ramnami Samaj was deleted, while it was in the prep area, despite the fact that I tried to make sure it was okay to use to prevent exactly this from happening. It was removed by admin and not the delinker bot so there may be a discussion somewhere but I can't find it. What do I do now? TryKid (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Coffeeandcrumbs (talk · contribs) removed the image from the article and preps saying it was a clear copyright violation, while 1989 (talk · contribs) deleted the image from commons on the same grounds. I would reach out to them for guidance on why they felt it constituted a violation first of all, and what they would advise. Spokoyni (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry to have to do this so late but there was clear evidence, at least to me, that we did not have permission to use the image. https://majorityworld.com/photo/27549/photo-details.html --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- ... that Nepali director Nischal Basnet wrote Loot's lead character while mirroring his own personality?
I don't know what this hook means. Are we saying he based the lead character on himself? —valereee (talk) 18:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Valereee, Yes. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- CAPTAIN MEDUSA, thanks! —valereee (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Really? I read it as Basnet mirroring the personality of the character in order to write it. valereee, since that isn't the case, I think "while mirroring" should be changed to "to mirror", or a different wording or hook be found. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- NM, changed the hook and article sentence. —valereee (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Really? I read it as Basnet mirroring the personality of the character in order to write it. valereee, since that isn't the case, I think "while mirroring" should be changed to "to mirror", or a different wording or hook be found. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- CAPTAIN MEDUSA, thanks! —valereee (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- ... that the Holden Block is the best-preserved 1870s commercial block in Chicago's Near West Side?
Hey, John M Wolfson, not an error but I'm wondering if a tweak to 'the best-preserved example of Italianate architecture' might be more interesting? The source and article both support it, and it's supported by the same sourced sentence so wouldn't need work at the article. —valereee (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Sure. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! —valereee (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
4 empty queues
@Casliber:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Amakuru:@Gatoclass:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:@Coffeeandcrumbs:: we are ready for you. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- On it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do a bit later. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've promoted one also. We don't seem to be making any progress on digging out from the backlog. Anyone up for continuing the discussions above for finding some solution other than going to 3-a-days? —valereee (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- No we don't, and it's a worry. I for one don't want to return to a regime where we are permanently back to two or perhaps even three sets a day.
- If you want a simple solution, probably the easiest method would be just to have a bot that runs whenever the total number of nominations reaches 400, which measures the length of each nominated article and then just deletes the 100 shortest nominations. Problem solved. Gatoclass (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Good luck with that one. :) —valereee (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why don't we just block new nominations for a week or two so we can catch up? Yoninah (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yoninah I wonder if part of the current phenomenon has to do with a lot of people around the world quarantined due to the pandemic, trying to find something useful to do. This pandemic doesn't seem to be winding down in the near future. — Maile (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's also our regulars who keep churning out one nomination after another. I think they'd understand a moratorium. Yoninah (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- The numbers are coming down, albeit slowly. We only have 12 approved nominations failing to transclude at the moment, which is the lowest number in a while. If we filled two more preps, all but a few special occasion hooks would be visible. (We had 430 total on April 25, 417 on May 3, and 410 as I type this.) The rate of addition seems to have slowed since mid-to-late April, fortunately. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have deliberately not nominated anything since April 1. I agree that we are making progress with the numbers decreasing. It will take a long time, but we can all help a bit here and there. Flibirigit (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, improvement by 20 over that period represents an improvement of 1.5 per day. Last couple of times we did 2-a-days we didn't stop until we had under 40 approved noms. We have 198 now. That means we could be at this for 105 days. And then the minute we stop, we start building up by 6.5 a day, so we get back in this pickle in less than a month. So that's 4.5 months on, 3.5 weeks off. We have to fix this. —valereee (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- valereee, and today we are at 393 nominations, with nine queues and preps filled, the number we had filled when we started at two a day (we've been running in the seven to eight filled range lately), so it isn't as dire as your calculations make it. I do think we're in a period of higher than normal nominations, between people having more time on their hands, the GAN backlog drive, and the WikiCup starting a new two-month phase, but there's a decent chance that the rate will ease somewhat once June comes. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- The numbers are coming down, albeit slowly. We only have 12 approved nominations failing to transclude at the moment, which is the lowest number in a while. If we filled two more preps, all but a few special occasion hooks would be visible. (We had 430 total on April 25, 417 on May 3, and 410 as I type this.) The rate of addition seems to have slowed since mid-to-late April, fortunately. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's also our regulars who keep churning out one nomination after another. I think they'd understand a moratorium. Yoninah (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yoninah, I'd support that, but would it just push them into the next week? People just work in their sandboxes and wait for nominations to open back up, and then we end up with a day where we get 50 noms? —valereee (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- You know, the more I think about it, the more I like this idea. It would call attention to the issue, which I think many nominators are not aware of. It might open a discussion with prolific nominators on the subject of maybe considering whether you have to nominate every article or whether you might voluntarily limit yourself to nominating only those that really have a great natural hook. —valereee (talk) 14:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- One of the problems I see with it is that it will end up being a fastest-to-the-draw competition rather than a best-quality one. So that those who are most alert to the time nominations are reopened will be those who are able to nominate a bunch of their own before others have a chance to do so and nominations are stopped again. In fact, you could end up with most of the nominations just being made by the most active people, which would decrease variety. So I still think it would be better to just give the 100 shortest nominations the flick, because the longer articles are generally speaking the better ones. Personally, I've grown rather tired of having to promote crummily written articles of barely more than 1500 characters, you can write an article that long in about fifteen minutes, why should we be rewarding people for so little work? Gatoclass (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: rather than get your shorty article approved one day and have it disappear from DYK the next, perhaps we should up the minimum character count to 2000 characters. That will get people to put some more effort into their contributions.
- BTW could someone promote another prep to queue? I need to slot in a special occasion image hook. @Casliber:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Valereee:@Amakuru:@Lee Vilenski:@Kees08:@Coffeeandcrumbs: Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- On it. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: done 1; I'll try to do another later, but no promises....Vanamonde (Talk) 17:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Because Yoninah, increasing the minimum character count won't solve the problem, as we will still be getting just as many nominations, they will just be slightly longer. Now we could do something drastic and say, increase the minimum size to 5k, and that might reduce the number of nominations a bit, but then you would lose those shorter articles that are of decent quality, and you might also find yourself short of nominations in quieter times (not to mention encouraging article bloat). But if you just dropped the 100 or so shortest articles from time to time, you would actually be reducing the total number of nominations substantially, with a mechanic that kept people guessing as to how long their articles might need to be (thus discouraging bloat), as well as retaining the eligibility of shorter articles in quieter times. I'm not saying it's an ideal solution, but there are no ideal solutions for this issue. Gatoclass (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: Also, the shorter articles are often more interesting and just as well written as some of the longer ones --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- As I said, there are no ideal solutions. Well, I guess you could start a directorate and give a few users the power to strike nominations that they think just don't cut it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: Also, the shorter articles are often more interesting and just as well written as some of the longer ones --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- On it. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- One of the problems I see with it is that it will end up being a fastest-to-the-draw competition rather than a best-quality one. So that those who are most alert to the time nominations are reopened will be those who are able to nominate a bunch of their own before others have a chance to do so and nominations are stopped again. In fact, you could end up with most of the nominations just being made by the most active people, which would decrease variety. So I still think it would be better to just give the 100 shortest nominations the flick, because the longer articles are generally speaking the better ones. Personally, I've grown rather tired of having to promote crummily written articles of barely more than 1500 characters, you can write an article that long in about fifteen minutes, why should we be rewarding people for so little work? Gatoclass (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yoninah I wonder if part of the current phenomenon has to do with a lot of people around the world quarantined due to the pandemic, trying to find something useful to do. This pandemic doesn't seem to be winding down in the near future. — Maile (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why don't we just block new nominations for a week or two so we can catch up? Yoninah (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Good luck with that one. :) —valereee (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- I've promoted one also. We don't seem to be making any progress on digging out from the backlog. Anyone up for continuing the discussions above for finding some solution other than going to 3-a-days? —valereee (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do a bit later. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- Gatoclass, there've been concerns about padding and about actually solid articles that are naturally short because of a lack of reliable coverage. I'd rather see us add a quality requirement. Moot point; I don't think an RfC would gain support for either. Too many oxen being gored. —valereee (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Quality requirement won't work because, how does one set an objective standard for that? That's why we need a simple, push-button solution. As for RFC's, the award collectors won't be fond of any solution that threatens to reduce the number, regardless of what it might be. Gatoclass (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Gatoclass, there've been concerns about padding and about actually solid articles that are naturally short because of a lack of reliable coverage. I'd rather see us add a quality requirement. Moot point; I don't think an RfC would gain support for either. Too many oxen being gored. —valereee (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
DYK is almost overdue
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
- Check the prep areas; if there are between 6 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
- Once completed edit queue #6 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
- Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Why is this bot going off? There are multiple sets in queue? —valereee (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- NM, my screwup! —valereee (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Requiring promotions of experienced editors
Separating this so the idea doesn't get lost in the depths of the thread above. What do people think of requiring experienced DYK contributors (for the sake of argument, those with over 50 nominations) to either promote hooks to a prep, or a prep to a queue, once every so often (for the sake of argument; once every 5 nominations). Obviously, admin nominators would have the option of doing either preps or queues; non-admins would have to do preps. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- In and of itself, the practice should have been happening anyway. But in real time, how do you track it, how do you enforce it? The QPQ is easier to enforce, because we have a tool that gives us that info, and it's on the toolbox of the nomination. — Maile (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I suspect a bot could do this without difficulty (I say, having no knowledge of how to write bots; but it's the sort of individually easy but remarkably repetitive task that bots are good at). The simplest way to do it would be to have a page tracking 1) nominations, and 2) edits to queues/preps, by folks with more than X nominations. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- A bot could compile the stats, but it would probably require some human review. If the requirement is just promote a hook to prep, it shouldn't be hard, but if the requirement is create an entire prep set, that would be slightly more difficult since there's a lot of variability in what "building a prep" looks like. For promoting to queue, that should be pretty easy: just keep track of when and who signs the {{DYKbotdo}} template. — Wug·a·po·des 19:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Wugapodes: to answer that question. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: while I agree with you that anyone with a large count of nominations should help haul the load at prep, they already are required to do a QPQ. So, that doubles what is required of them. List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs is only as accurate as the individual input. I quit updating my stats there years ago. I don't know who that top name is, and the second name retired a few years back. Just thinking. — Maile (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Dr Blofeld has renamed himself. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: while I agree with you that anyone with a large count of nominations should help haul the load at prep, they already are required to do a QPQ. So, that doubles what is required of them. List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs is only as accurate as the individual input. I quit updating my stats there years ago. I don't know who that top name is, and the second name retired a few years back. Just thinking. — Maile (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I suspect a bot could do this without difficulty (I say, having no knowledge of how to write bots; but it's the sort of individually easy but remarkably repetitive task that bots are good at). The simplest way to do it would be to have a page tracking 1) nominations, and 2) edits to queues/preps, by folks with more than X nominations. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- I would be against this being mandatory. Not all DYK regulars have the time or know-how to promote to preps. Speaking as someone who previously did so many times in the past, it can be a lot of work and in my case I wasn't always confident I was doing the right thing since I always fear that I may have done something wrong or promoted something that wasn't ready for promotion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, people can only gain know-how by doing the work. The more you do, the better and faster you get, and DYK promoters are very generous with advice. (I probably had a message on my talk every time I built a prep for six weeks after I started doing it.) Promoting to prep and moving to queue are not difficult. And frankly if a person doesn't have time to do a promotion, how do they have time to do 50 noms? :D —valereee (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
- My personal experience with promoting nominations into prep sets was met with hostility and persistent criticism by others. I found the community was not welcoming to my input or doing things a bit differently. So I stopped. Flibirigit (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Flibirigit, I'm so sorry you found it hostile. When I first started promoting, I got a lot of...well, I didn't perceive it as criticism so much as instruction. Online, I could see how a correction could feel like a criticism; it's so hard to read tone when we don't have any of our normal clues. There's a lot to learn about building a prep set, and the people who are adept at it are the ones most likely to instruct. It probably took me ten of them before I didn't have at least one comment at my talk for every prep I put together. :) I kind of felt like once it stopped I'd graduated to 'basic competence.' :) I'd be more than happy to work with you on some, if you're still interested. —valereee (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Me too. Last time I tried to help, I was threatened with a block. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- The C of E, I'd like to see that, if you can find the diff without too much trouble. —valereee (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Here. In context it was because the AFD hook sets had not been built so I tried to be helpful. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well, since one of the rules is that you never, ever promote your own hooks (for a multitude of very good reasons), it was a major error of judgment. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Technically the rule says "discouraged" but it is not explictly banned under DYK rules. If we want to add that to these, proposals then I'd be happy to support it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- The C of E, you're going to get pushback if you promote your own hooks or ones you've reviewed, or do more than very minor tweaks in prep. I can't think of any prep setter or admin who is going to shrug off more than the most minor change. Once the hook is in prep, changes need to be brought up at DYK talk. —valereee (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, valereee, we do not allow any
minor tweaks in prep
by involved nominators or reviewers. If this is not clear enough in Rule H2 (which it isn't), then it needs to be added to the rules. There is too much "minor tweaking" going on in prep by many of our regulars, and it really should stop. Today The C of E made some pretty egregious "tweaks" by undoing my promotion of his hook and then undoing my image choice. Combined with his antics on the April Fools set, which he started building with his own hooks before we even got to it, I'm surprised he hasn't been blocked yet. Any involved nominator/reviewer should post complaints at WT:DYK while the hook is in prep, and at WP:ERRORS while the hook is in queue. Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)- Yoninah, totally, let's clarify. By "very minor tweaks" in prep I'd meant things like clearly incorrect grammar that had gotten accidentally introduced, but maybe we can't even allow that on the part of noms/reviewers. Sad, a bit. We ought to be able to trust editors to understand where the line is, but I guess not. —valereee (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- To make things eminently clear, The C of E, you crossed a line today. As you've been warned about this before (and more than once), your edits to prep today were disruptive. The next time you make any edit in prep to a nomination of yours, it will be pulled from prep, and, assuming consensus here agrees in the ensuing discussion, scrapped. If you believe an edit is needed, the place to request it is on this page, and someone else will decide whether it's appropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yoninah, totally, let's clarify. By "very minor tweaks" in prep I'd meant things like clearly incorrect grammar that had gotten accidentally introduced, but maybe we can't even allow that on the part of noms/reviewers. Sad, a bit. We ought to be able to trust editors to understand where the line is, but I guess not. —valereee (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- No, valereee, we do not allow any
- The C of E, you're going to get pushback if you promote your own hooks or ones you've reviewed, or do more than very minor tweaks in prep. I can't think of any prep setter or admin who is going to shrug off more than the most minor change. Once the hook is in prep, changes need to be brought up at DYK talk. —valereee (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Technically the rule says "discouraged" but it is not explictly banned under DYK rules. If we want to add that to these, proposals then I'd be happy to support it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well, since one of the rules is that you never, ever promote your own hooks (for a multitude of very good reasons), it was a major error of judgment. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Here. In context it was because the AFD hook sets had not been built so I tried to be helpful. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- The C of E, I'd like to see that, if you can find the diff without too much trouble. —valereee (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Me too. Last time I tried to help, I was threatened with a block. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Flibirigit, I'm so sorry you found it hostile. When I first started promoting, I got a lot of...well, I didn't perceive it as criticism so much as instruction. Online, I could see how a correction could feel like a criticism; it's so hard to read tone when we don't have any of our normal clues. There's a lot to learn about building a prep set, and the people who are adept at it are the ones most likely to instruct. It probably took me ten of them before I didn't have at least one comment at my talk for every prep I put together. :) I kind of felt like once it stopped I'd graduated to 'basic competence.' :) I'd be more than happy to work with you on some, if you're still interested. —valereee (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
First time prep creator
Hi. I saw some of the discussions above, and thought I'd try my hand at creating a prep. I've made Prep 5 (Special:Permalink/955816026) - is anyone willing to review my work? I'd prefer to be sure that I did it right before trying another prep. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, 5 3/4 American hooks seems a lot. The Rough sex murder defense article badly needs clarifying where it is talking about at several points (normally the US, presumably) . Johnbod (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Can I tag a question on - are there prep-building instructions, if I ever have the time and energy I might try it to help out. Kingsif (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Kingsif, there's a basic set of instructions at Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas, feel free to ping me or come to my talk. I'd love to help folks learn to set preps. —valereee (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Kingsif, there's also WP:DYKSG#Rules of thumb for preparing updates, which is similar in content but perhaps better maintained, plus there's other useful DYK information on the rest of the page. I'm also happy to help with prep-building questions or advice. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Valereee and BlueMoonset: I've promoted 4 hooks to prep 6, checked each article, kept them varied but not wildly different in tone. I've looked at the suggestions and instructions, though, and there doesn't seem to be much guidance on images? Or I might be missing it. And I assume that after closing the nom discussion it will just disappear from the approved page? Kingsif (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Kingsif, great! Yes, when you close the nom discussion, the nomination disappears from the Approved page. One thing I noticed with your set is that the only two bios are placed next to each other; bios should always be separated, and if the set is only going to have two bios (we're a bit short right now), then by more than one intervening hook. Noms from the same country also need to be separated, though I think of the pre-U.S. territory of Hawaii as not being U.S. (don't know how Cwmhiraeth or Yoninah treat this), so having it and the Gambino hook adjacent doesn't bother me as much, though others may prefer to separate them. For image hooks, I look for particularly interesting or striking ones, preferably with an also interesting hook and as solid an article as possible behind it, but the image will sometimes trump all. It does need to be clear and not too dark at the actual size, so some images just aren't appropriate for the main page. They do need to be unambiguously free images to be eligible for the main page, of course. If you have any doubts, pick a different image. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Kingsif, congratulations on finishing your first set. I forgot to mention something about images: we like to rotate between different types: person, building, nature (plant, animal), other, and so on. (We don't always succeed; people tend to show up a bit more than their share sometimes.) There may end up being some shifting around of lead hooks once a prep opens up. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset Thanks! It only took... just over an hour? Kingsif (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Kingsif yes, it takes me more than an hour to build a prep set too. Yoninah (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Kingsif, I'll note that the instructions are light on the fact that part of the job of building a set is to catch errors missed by the reviewer. As you build more, you'll get to know which reviewers are likely to have done thorough reviews (as well as which nominators are likely to need thorough reviews.) The most common reasons an article will get pulled into DYK talk or reported at ERRORS is
- Kingsif yes, it takes me more than an hour to build a prep set too. Yoninah (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset Thanks! It only took... just over an hour? Kingsif (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Kingsif, congratulations on finishing your first set. I forgot to mention something about images: we like to rotate between different types: person, building, nature (plant, animal), other, and so on. (We don't always succeed; people tend to show up a bit more than their share sometimes.) There may end up being some shifting around of lead hooks once a prep opens up. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Kingsif, great! Yes, when you close the nom discussion, the nomination disappears from the Approved page. One thing I noticed with your set is that the only two bios are placed next to each other; bios should always be separated, and if the set is only going to have two bios (we're a bit short right now), then by more than one intervening hook. Noms from the same country also need to be separated, though I think of the pre-U.S. territory of Hawaii as not being U.S. (don't know how Cwmhiraeth or Yoninah treat this), so having it and the Gambino hook adjacent doesn't bother me as much, though others may prefer to separate them. For image hooks, I look for particularly interesting or striking ones, preferably with an also interesting hook and as solid an article as possible behind it, but the image will sometimes trump all. It does need to be clear and not too dark at the actual size, so some images just aren't appropriate for the main page. They do need to be unambiguously free images to be eligible for the main page, of course. If you have any doubts, pick a different image. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Valereee and BlueMoonset: I've promoted 4 hooks to prep 6, checked each article, kept them varied but not wildly different in tone. I've looked at the suggestions and instructions, though, and there doesn't seem to be much guidance on images? Or I might be missing it. And I assume that after closing the nom discussion it will just disappear from the approved page? Kingsif (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Kingsif, there's also WP:DYKSG#Rules of thumb for preparing updates, which is similar in content but perhaps better maintained, plus there's other useful DYK information on the rest of the page. I'm also happy to help with prep-building questions or advice. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Kingsif, there's a basic set of instructions at Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas, feel free to ping me or come to my talk. I'd love to help folks learn to set preps. —valereee (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Can I tag a question on - are there prep-building instructions, if I ever have the time and energy I might try it to help out. Kingsif (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- the article sentence(s) supporting the hook assertion(s) don't have a citation at the sentence
- the article doesn't meet DYK rules (if you have DYK check installed, it helps find uncited paras, tags, etc.)
- At minimum you want to check these. When you have a newish nom and a newish reviewer, you may need to give the article a full re-review. Oh, and try to pull one a hook Cwmhiraeth nommed or reviewed into most sets, she can't promote those. —valereee (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hey, DannyS712! Thanks so much for being interested in learning this. Part of the puzzle of building a prep is to balance it for bio/non-bio, geographical area, subject matter. We try to alternate bio/non-bio when possible (we have fewer bios right now, so we're doing some sets with fewer bios, but if there are enough bios we'd ideally use 4 bio hooks, 4 non-bio.) We try to not do all men or all women bios. We try to choose only 2-4 US hooks, and we try make sure to incorporate hooks from places other than North America, Europe, Australia. We try to avoid more than one music/military/art/history/whatever subject. So this prep doesn't have any bios, it'll ideally get 3 if not 4. There are 5+ US hooks (depending on how you count the rough sex murder defense.) It feels kind of history-heavy to me -- the Admiral's House, the Chicago thing, the telegraph one, the battle of newtonia -- but they're different subject, you could maybe argue for that. Also feels a little legal heavy with the murder defense and the US supreme court. —valereee (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yoninah left some feedback on my talk page, and said they were going to clean it up a bit DannyS712 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I did some shuffling and moved in some bios. We also had a special occasion hook (Germany) for May 15, so I slotted that in too. Keep it up, DannyS712, you'll get the hang of it! Yoninah (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- DannyS712, Yoninah's the mayor. Whatever instructions she gives you, just say aye-aye. :) When she stops leaving feedback on your talk, you've passed your O-levels. —valereee (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Valereee: Copy that / 10-4 / roger that / some joke here. DannyS712 (talk) 02:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yoninah left some feedback on my talk page, and said they were going to clean it up a bit DannyS712 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the last thing: we try to end the prep set with a light-hearted hook. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's good to have some new prep builders. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Thanks for building Prep 6, Kingsif. Note to new prep builders: we have a lot of U.S.-based hooks and it may be tempting to fill the sets to the 50% limit with them. But try to space them out. You can always use one of Cwmhiraeth's nature hooks for this purpose. Yoninah (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, we have a lot of nature hooks right now. Template:Did you know nominations/Apystomyiidae looks like a good image hook. Yoninah (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. Thanks for building Prep 6, Kingsif. Note to new prep builders: we have a lot of U.S.-based hooks and it may be tempting to fill the sets to the 50% limit with them. But try to space them out. You can always use one of Cwmhiraeth's nature hooks for this purpose. Yoninah (talk) 11:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- It's good to have some new prep builders. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the last thing: we try to end the prep set with a light-hearted hook. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Prep 4 - picture change
On Prep 4 with Church of St Thomas à Becket, Box, I am not happy with that tomb picture. It's hideous and the church is the focus of the hook not the tomb. So I would prefer we use the much more aesthetically pleasing church image here. Furthermore as the nominator, I will put on record did not approve of the current hook but was prepared to tolerate the hijacking of the hook (though ALT3 from @Serial Number 54129: was marginally better) providing we use the church image as a trade-off at least. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Convenience links: Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4, Template:Did you know nominations/Church of St Thomas à Becket, Box —valereee (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- As an uninvolved editor, I think your original hook was in the spirit of an April Fools run, which seems to have been your original intent. The original image, however, is somewhat obscured by the trees. And there don't seem to be more clearer ones of the church itself. The current hook, which you went on record not preferring, is one bang-up attention getter. On the positive side, that hook is one of those things that might cause more clicks. — Maile (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- The church image is not dark, it's black. As Maile pointed out, it was also an April Fools hook that wasn't so April Foolsy. Why are you so opposed to the new hook? Our goal in promoting hooks is to get readers to click on the articles, not to post just anything to satisfy WP:OWN. Frankly, you can protest this all the way to WP:DYKSTATS. Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is the hijacking of the hook based on non-policy based personal opinion I object to when the hook had already been approved according to policy. You know what, I wash my hands of this whole endevour. I will take the creators credit and I will take the WikiCup points but now I don't care what you do with it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Accusing other editors here of "hijacking" hooks is acting in bad faith, considering in most cases, editors modifying hooks are intended to help and not to "steal" credit. Remember that no one, not even nominators, "own" any hooks and that these are subject to modifications if necessary. And in the case of promoted hooks, even if a nominator objects to one that has been proposed, if consensus determines that it is the best option, then that's what's going to happen. The C of E, I would highly suggest in the future that you don't treat your hooks as something that you have complete control over, because Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort and no one has ownership over any content. Finally, you need to understand that even when an image is included in a nomination, it is not always the case that they may actually end up being used for certain reasons (whether it be due to image quality, content balance, and so on). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- @The C of E: I object to my actions being accused of falling foul of
according to policy
. I spend my entire day making sure policy is being adhered to as I build prep sets. I check every paragraph of every article, every page history, and every QPQ to make sure it meets DYK policy. You seem to think that once someone approves your hook—even if it is a new reviewer who may not be familiar with all of DYK's policies—it must be promoted and left alone. In this case, four other experienced editors besides myself apprised you that your attitude is incorrect. Yoninah (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- @The C of E: I object to my actions being accused of falling foul of
- Accusing other editors here of "hijacking" hooks is acting in bad faith, considering in most cases, editors modifying hooks are intended to help and not to "steal" credit. Remember that no one, not even nominators, "own" any hooks and that these are subject to modifications if necessary. And in the case of promoted hooks, even if a nominator objects to one that has been proposed, if consensus determines that it is the best option, then that's what's going to happen. The C of E, I would highly suggest in the future that you don't treat your hooks as something that you have complete control over, because Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort and no one has ownership over any content. Finally, you need to understand that even when an image is included in a nomination, it is not always the case that they may actually end up being used for certain reasons (whether it be due to image quality, content balance, and so on). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- It is the hijacking of the hook based on non-policy based personal opinion I object to when the hook had already been approved according to policy. You know what, I wash my hands of this whole endevour. I will take the creators credit and I will take the WikiCup points but now I don't care what you do with it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- The church image is not dark, it's black. As Maile pointed out, it was also an April Fools hook that wasn't so April Foolsy. Why are you so opposed to the new hook? Our goal in promoting hooks is to get readers to click on the articles, not to post just anything to satisfy WP:OWN. Frankly, you can protest this all the way to WP:DYKSTATS. Yoninah (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
Prep 6:Tusk
Original hook:
- ... that a pūloʻuloʻu, a traditional symbol of authority for the aliʻi of Hawaii made from a narwhal tusk, was presented to King Kalākaua during his coronation?
Edited hook:
- ... that a pūloʻuloʻu, a traditional symbol of authority for the aliʻi of Hawaii, presented to King Kalākaua during his coronation was made from a narwhal tusk?
- @Kingsif: your edit of this hook leaves it with too many clauses and is difficult to parse. Also pinging nominator KAVEBEAR. Yoninah (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: What you have as the 'original' here wasn't the original hook. The difference is that it seems a pūloʻuloʻu is not normally made from narwhal, which is the hook-y part. I originally added a version of the hook from the nom but with fewer clauses, which then got edited to be what you have as the 'original' here. This is inaccurate (says they are always made from narwhal) and dull (a king getting a traditional symbol of authority at his coronation is par for the course), so I made an edit that would hopefully clarify. If there's too much information, I would suggest removing "a traditional symbol of authority for the aliʻi of Hawaii". Let readers click to find out. Kingsif (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think that's a much better idea, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- Great. I'll update if you don't, perhaps wait for an opinion from KAVEBEAR – I think the original had Kalakaua leading the hook. Kingsif (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think that's a much better idea, thanks. Yoninah (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: What you have as the 'original' here wasn't the original hook. The difference is that it seems a pūloʻuloʻu is not normally made from narwhal, which is the hook-y part. I originally added a version of the hook from the nom but with fewer clauses, which then got edited to be what you have as the 'original' here. This is inaccurate (says they are always made from narwhal) and dull (a king getting a traditional symbol of authority at his coronation is par for the course), so I made an edit that would hopefully clarify. If there's too much information, I would suggest removing "a traditional symbol of authority for the aliʻi of Hawaii". Let readers click to find out. Kingsif (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Prep 5: Rough sex defense
- ... that the rough sex murder defense asserts that the victim died accidentally during consensual sex?
- @Buidhe:@The C of E:@DannyS712:
- The article seems like a list of examples without any definition. It seems it should be tagged as WP:SYNTH. Yoninah (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- There's a few issues as well. The sentence " At least sixty defendants in the UK have used the defence as of 2020, and forty-five percent were able to avoid conviction for murder." is said in Wikipedia's voice, but the source says the figures come from the advocacy group mentioned later. It also says "In 45% of those killings, the claim that a woman's injuries were sustained during a sex game gone wrong resulted in a lesser charge, a lighter sentence, an acquittal, or the death not being investigated, the group said." If the death wasn't investigated, how could it be "used by a defendant" as there obviously wasn't a trial? Also, there isn't any exploration of why the defence is being used more recently - the Independent source already in the article is good here, mentioning increased availability of violent porn images, and the BBC source, mentioning an increase in (consensual) rough sex. R v Brown mentioned in the last sentence could do with expanding as well. There's no reason this can't be a DYK, but I think it needs a bit of work. Black Kite (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
- As I said above "The Rough sex murder defense article badly needs clarifying where it is talking about at several points (normally the US, presumably) ." Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Black Kite:@Johnbod: the nominator has attempted to improve the article, although he says on the template:
I would like to give an international perspective but all sources are dealing with US, UK, and New Zealand. It may be that the defense is not used in other countries.
Do you think the article is ready for the main page? Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)- I think it's better now. I've rewritten the sentence I highlighted above to remove the confusion - it's clear from looking at other sources that the facts are straightforward but it was the reporting that used poor wording. Black Kite (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- (ec) Not at present, there have been no recent edits improving this. The great bulk of the article presumately relates to the US, but never says so. Only the little bits relating to other countries are located. It wouldn't take long. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging Buidhe. Yoninah (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: I cannot do that. It would require original research when the sources do not make connection to US. Besides, I doubt that it is really as US centric as you think because many of the sources relate to UK/NZ. buidhe 12:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Well looking at the sources more do seem UK/NZ than one would ever guess from reading the article (especially as it is in US English). You need to do a lot more locating, to wherever. How a source on courtroom defences can be usable if no jurisdiction is specified rather puzzles me. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- One thing I would do is put it in chronological order. It starts in 1988, then goes back to a first case in 1972, then to 2020, then back to 2011. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: I cannot do that. It would require original research when the sources do not make connection to US. Besides, I doubt that it is really as US centric as you think because many of the sources relate to UK/NZ. buidhe 12:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Pinging Buidhe. Yoninah (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Black Kite:@Johnbod: the nominator has attempted to improve the article, although he says on the template:
- As I said above "The Rough sex murder defense article badly needs clarifying where it is talking about at several points (normally the US, presumably) ." Johnbod (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- There's a few issues as well. The sentence " At least sixty defendants in the UK have used the defence as of 2020, and forty-five percent were able to avoid conviction for murder." is said in Wikipedia's voice, but the source says the figures come from the advocacy group mentioned later. It also says "In 45% of those killings, the claim that a woman's injuries were sustained during a sex game gone wrong resulted in a lesser charge, a lighter sentence, an acquittal, or the death not being investigated, the group said." If the death wasn't investigated, how could it be "used by a defendant" as there obviously wasn't a trial? Also, there isn't any exploration of why the defence is being used more recently - the Independent source already in the article is good here, mentioning increased availability of violent porn images, and the BBC source, mentioning an increase in (consensual) rough sex. R v Brown mentioned in the last sentence could do with expanding as well. There's no reason this can't be a DYK, but I think it needs a bit of work. Black Kite (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
400 nominations!
Go to two sets a day?
Extended content
|
---|
April has seen a sudden glut of nominations, with less than 200 approved. Should we go over to a two-sets-a-day schedule yet? Yoninah (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Add a seventh queue and seventh prep?FWIW, if we make 7 queues and 7 prep areas, then that matches a (7-day) week exactly.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Querying set builders on 7 Preps and 7 QueuesCwmhiraeth, Yoninah, since you are our primary prep set builders at the moment, I was wondering what you thought about having an extra prep and an extra queue. Will it make your life easier? Harder? Would the longer page be an issue? As I type this, the queues are full for the second day running, but this is not as frequent occurence as when the preps are filled and the queues empty or only a couple populated. I guess the question is whether an increase would be a net plus, a minus, or neither. Thanks for all your prep set building, and let us know what you think will work best. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Temporarily limit nominations in some way?I think we should at minimum consider limiting nominations in some way WHILE we're doing two-a-days. The last time we went to two-a-days it lasted FOREVER because we were still getting way too many nominations. It felt like we were just treading water. Maybe limiting nominations temporarily will bring in help from people who never read this page and don't realize we need more help and, frankly, fewer nominations in general from prolific writers who might go, "Oh! I didn't realize nominating EVERY article I write isn't actually helpful." I no longer nominate every article I write; not every article is actually a great DYK candidate. I only nom the ones I think have an actual interesting hook. —valereee (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
List some articles just by article titleWhere I come from: In the news, we have a section (Recent deaths) where we only list article titles, in that case the names of people who died. I could imagine to do the same for some - not all - DYK, for example a set of six hooks, one of them pictured, and six only mentioned by article name. I'd be the first to volunteer for many of the articles I nominate to have just the title mentioned, without a hook (so without a debate if the hook is interesting to the "broad audience". Just same qualifications: interesting, new, well sources, neutral, free of copyvio. It would save time on two ends, time that could be used more efficiently. Examples: I Will Mention the Loving-kindnesses could have worked without a hook, also (nominated): Thou knowest, Lord, the secrets of our hearts (Purcell) (discussion right here, after already in the nom), and Michael Boddenberg. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
24-hours set, 6 articles with a hook, 6 just by title and perhaps a short descriptionThis is a summary of the above, for those not inclined to read so much. My proposal: make it look like In the news: some articles with a blurb (here:hook), some just by mentioning the article title (here perhaps also a short description), but make it stable for 24 hours as a set well-balanced by prep-builders. I think of 6 articles of each kind, which would show 12 instead of the present 8, and would reduce work in proposing and reviewing because articles without hook don't have to be checked for a ref behind the fact, for the wording of the hook as the article says, - all these things. I suggest we say in the nomination if a hook is wanted, or not, or may-be. I'd be the first to volunteer for no hook for many of the articles I nominate. Le Concert Spirituel, for example, it's in prep but with a hook that says nothing about the character of the ensemble, only something sensational, which I mentioned also for hookiness's sake, but hate to see alone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Run DYK as a ticker like RDWhat if we figured out how to run DYK like RD, as a ticker? Instead of a qpq, we have the same kind of review/voting as at RD. When a new hook gets sufficient support, an admin adds it to the bottom of the section and removes the oldest from the top. When a new image hook gets approved same way, it replaces the old one. —valereee (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
10 hooks per setWhat happened to the idea of running 10 hooks per set? OTD can adjust to rebalance the Main Page. Howcheng, can OTD run 6 events instead of 4 or 5. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 10:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Strongly opposed to ten hooks per set, it makes it much harder to create balanced sets, it looks like a "wall of text", and set reviewing becomes too difficult. Gatoclass (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Immediate proposal: start two sets per day on SundayWhile the various suggestions are thick on the ground, the situation has worsened alarmingly: there are 47 approved nominations that aren't transcluding (excluding the 12 in special occasions), and we have averaged 15.4 new nominations per day for the first 14 days of April. Promoting 8 per day won't cut it any more; indeed, going to 16 per day will barely keep us ahead of the rate of new noms. We have five queues and four preps filled, which is just enough to get us started promoting two sets daily; the Queue 1 set for Sunday has two special occasion hooks, so it's simpler to start with it, though it could be Monday if people prefer. And while we do so, we can consider, in a less rushed fashion, what to do going forward. I hope you'll agree that we urgently need to take action. (As of last check, we have 403 nominations, 251 of which are approved. These numbers include the 47 that don't transclude and thus aren't counted in the table on the Queues, Nominations, and Approved pages.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Okay, the April 19 set is now on the main page. Pinging any admin to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200 so that the changeover from one set every 24 hours (86400 seconds) to one every 12 hours (43200 seconds) is made. Thank you very much, whoever gets there first: Gatoclass, Amakuru, Cas Liber, Maile, valereee, Wugapodes, Vanamonde, Kees08, and Lee Vilenski. And thanks to those who have been keeping the queues filled for the past few days; we're getting a good start to doing two sets a day. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC) |
Extended content
|
---|
Longer-term solutionsOkay, now that we've dealt with the pressing issue, here are the various things that have been suggested. Suggestions that wouldn't change the basic way DYK is currently run
Discussion
Suggestions that would change DYK in some way
—valereee (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC) Discussion
What if we made DYK hooks exclusive to recently promoted GAs, and new or expanded articles are posted as a ticker or some other kind of list, with no hook? The new or newly expanded articles would still be reviewed, just the hook portion would be dropped?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Higher obligations for participation?I've only a minimal amount of DYK activity, so please feel free to tell me I'm nuts, but what about going to a higher requirement for nominators to do more reviews when the backlog gets longer (e.g. 2 reviews per nom)? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
|
Extended content
|
---|
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Opposition to anything that relegates GA to less than full partner@Valereee: I've tried to more or less stay out of all the suggestions, etc. Any idea that relegates GA to less than a full partner at DYK can so easily, and justifiably, be seen as an act of bad faith on DYK's part. The RFC that made them a partner was approved by 126 editors, and opposed by 32. Most of the names you see on that RFC were not DYK regulars, but GA supporters who saw it as a reasonable compromise. We cannot now treat GA as anything less than an equal, and the small handful of regulars on this talk page should not be trying to ditch the consensus of that RFC. I realize that's not your intention, but your suggestions indicate that GA be swept into the background somewhere. This is from memory, and any DYK regular who has been around as long as I have (ca. 2011) should feel free to correct anything here. There was, at the time of the RFC, multiple attempts to take main page space away from DYK. Some of those voices came from GAC fans who believed, correctly at the time, that GA articles were better quality than the first-time-editor submissions that were some of DYK product. They had a valid point, in that GA in some ways has a more thorough review process. You can't (or shouldn't) sign off on a GAC with just a casual sentence or two. Who was DYK to have space on the main page, when it was denied to GA? GA is either a full partner here, or it's not. And if we have the audacity to say the opinions of 126 editors are no longer valid, then we are not solving anything. — Maile (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
Extended content
|
---|
Move entire discussion to its own subpage - it dwarfs any other threads@Valereee, BlueMoonset, Yoninah, and Gatoclass: and everybody else. Not meaning to leave anybody out. But this discussion needs to be moved to its own subpage, with a link from this talk page to it. It's getting way too big, and dwarfing any other posts on other topics. — Maile (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
|
Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived yesterday, so here is an updated list with the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through April 18. We currently have a total of 381 nominations, of which 179 have been approved, a gap of over 200. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the ones unreviewed from March and early April.
Over two months old:
March 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Hack of Jeff Bezos' phone (full review needed)
Over one month old:
March 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Archie, Marry Me (ALT7 hook needs checking)- March 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Electricar DV4 (second review requested)
- April 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Zoltán Peskó
April 3: Template:Did you know nominations/KMEC-TV (second opinion requested)- April 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Was mein Gott will, das g'scheh allzeit
April 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Talking to StrangersApril 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Eight Hungarian FolksongsApril 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Jesu Leiden, Pein und TodApril 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Tenkasi PandyasApril 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on domestic violenceApril 11: Template:Did you know nominations/KARA (New Mexico)April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/O sacrum convivium!April 12: Template:Did you know nominations/O Licht der wunderbaren NachtApril 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on crimeApril 12: Template:Did you know nominations/First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power HouseApril 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Forest Reserve Act of 1891
Other old nominations:
April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Hotel Milan- April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Anti-defection law in India
- April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Gay fascism
- April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/The Unplugged Collection, Volume One
April 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Vardøger (band), Whitefrozen, Ghost Notes (Vardøger album) (three articles)- April 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Plácido Zuloaga
April 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Rouen faienceApril 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Rouen porcelain- April 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Hermann Reutter
- April 15: Template:Did you know nominations/2020 coronavirus pandemic in Delhi
April 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Schaliach, Sonrise (two articles)April 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Francis Augustus Silva- April 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Carceri Nuove (Rome)
April 16: Template:Did you know nominations/The Lincoln ProjectApril 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert De Niro filmography- April 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Ping Yuen
April 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Gravina (clipper)April 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Cyprus in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020April 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Kosala (novel)April 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Venezuela at the 1952 Summer Olympics- April 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Monstrilloida
April 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Cool Girl- April 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Q38 (New York City bus)
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) 03:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Prep 2: Aristotle
- ... that Aristotle was the first philosopher who studied ad homimen arguments in his work Sophistical Refutations?
@Cinadon36 and Alessandro57: I feel this hook, which I promoted, is badly expressed. I would like to propose it is changed to something like
- ALT2 ... that the fallacy of using ad homimen arguments was first discussed by Aristotle in his work Sophistical Refutations? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- I think that's better. "Studied" is a bit excessive for something that was only a small discussion in that work. Black Kite (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have made the substitution. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd like someone experienced to check prep 5
Hi all. I just filled prep 5. It was my first time filling a prep since 2016, so I'd appreciate it if someone with more experience could give it a look over. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks! I commented on your talk page. Yoninah (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)