Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Matar judíos means "killing Jews" – this is explained in the article – but can we really run it like this in the hook? Thoughts and suggestions welcome, preferably directly in the nomination template: Template:Did you know nominations/Matar judíos Cielquiparle (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I passed it over because it may be too provocative. Bruxton (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've marked it as requiring more work and/or discussion on the hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...to please read the latest version of Buchanan's Station. Perhaps @Hawkeye7 or @Hog Farm could take a fresh look (as the article has changed significantly since you first looked at it), or perhaps we have another military history or American history buff in the house who could please take a look and then review/approve the DYK nom? I promise it is worth a read. Thanks in advance. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look on my lunch break. Hog Farm _Talk 13:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a quick glance at the article, checking neutrality only. I am concerned at the repetition of "Indian(s)", outside the context of quotations or article titles. In many cases, that word could be replaced by "warrior" or tribal names, or something else which may be considered acceptable. There is also the phrase "Native American". As an outsider myself, I would not presume to use those terms, so could you please either change those terms in the article, or let me know your grounds for using those terms in a WP article? This is not a complaint or political activism on my part, it just looks to me as if the article gives a voice to the white pioneers only, and that the warrior tribes do not have enough of a balancing voice in this? What initially hit me in this article, was the phrase "successfully repelled" (instead of just "repelled") in the lead: That expression sounds like the voice of the white-hat pioneer hero in the old black and white films. In those films, we never heard the voice of those hundreds of incredibly skilled riders and stuntmen who rode bareback and barefoot. Those are the actors I remember. Are we re-writing history by leaving out their voices? If we at least name their nations considerately, that would be a start. Storye book (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Storye book: - I don't think there's any major concerns with "Native Americans" given that's what American schoolchildren are generally taught to use, although I'd advise against using "Indians" in articles, except for specific terms like "Indian Territory" or "Indian agent". And as to the names of the warriors, that frankly often isn't recorded in existing sources. Keep in mind the Cherokee syllabary didn't exist at the time of the battle. The sourcing is by nature going to be limited in some areas for these topics. Hog Farm _Talk 16:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Storye book Regarding how to refer to Native Americans: It's very complicated and I could fill up pages, but basically there is no simple answer to any of this, nor any single term that will make everyone happy. One of the best concise explanations I have seen was written by @Kevin1776 and is available here: Talk:Tecumseh#Rewrite in progress

Regarding the wording you suggested, we even argue about the appropriateness of the term "warrior" which conjures Western stereotypes of Native Americans. (Why not just call everyone "soldier"?) That said, I would just ask that you actually sit down and take the time to read the entire article very carefully. I spent a ton of time and took great pains to try to make this a balanced article explaining the complexity of relationships between all the different actors and interests, because I wasn't entirely convinced or comfortable with the previous version. I will also try to look at it "fresh" to see if there is more than I can fix.

(Your feedback about the hook is noted. Maybe it's a good argument for throwing out that hook.)

I generally try very hard not to use the word "Indian" but in this case, there were a few instances where "Native American" was going to be an awkward substitute, and this was a complicated story involving three different tribal affiliations, and sometimes you did not know which one was where. As Kevin1776 points out, in those instances, there is a school that says to go ahead with "Natives" but I think that has plenty of potential to offend as well. Meanwhile there are also communities of Native Americans that claim "Indian" as an identity preferable to NA – e.g. Indian Country Today, etc. But I will have another look and see if there are places where I can remove it without confusing things. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict. I had written:} OK, though I'd better make clear that I wasn't asking for the names of the warriors - just the names of their nations. Presumably there was a limited number of nations involved in this bit of history? I accept that the sources are limited, but when paraphrasing we must interpret the wordage of those sources in a manner respectful to all. You say that you advise against using "Indians" as a single word, so could we please have examples of that usage removed and replaced? Thank you. (Update after edit conflict): Thank you, for your answers. You know best. Good luck. Storye book (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be down, as I cannot check this nomination. Bruxton (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was some routine maintenance earlier today which apparently had some unexpected consequences. Lots of tools are down. It's being discussed on IRC #wikimedia-cloud. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like it just got fixed a few minutes ago. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be back up, I got Violation Unlikely 8.3%. My question was more with the sourcing, specifically with the niche blogs given that it's a BLP (Jews in the City etc.) but am leaning toward it's probably ok...? Cielquiparle (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added several other references to the article before promotion. Bruxton (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BLPSPS standpoint but I guess Jew in the City for example isn't "self published" in the sense that there's a rather large nonprofit organization with staff behind it. (So yes, technically it's a blog, and it's not exactly a news organization, but it's also not self-published in the sense of a lone ranger publishing whatever with no oversight.) Cielquiparle (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I can't easily see how to correct a nomination after posting. Could someone kindly look at Template:Did you know nominations/Testimonies (novel) for me, please? There should be one hook, with the source text included. I think it needs to be edited above the words "Please do not edit above this line". Many thanks. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure what happened there, but I'll fix it up. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like some kind of copy-paste snafu. Not to worry, these things happen. Thanks for your submission. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prep area says: Last updated: 25 hours ago... Bruxton (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Shubinator, DYKUpdateBot appears to be down. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging the DYK admins for a manual update. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that twice already this year lol. I'll leave it to someone else... BorgQueen (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about that. I'm happy to manually do so, but if I'm going to be the one doing it (I've obviously never done it before) I'd need the "how to" broken down barney style for me. - Aoidh (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh It's the "Manually posting the new update (if the bot is down)" section at the bottom of every queue template. Every time I've looked at it, I've run away screaming in the other direction. Have fun! -- RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Please feel free to double-check what I did, but I followed the instructions exactly and everything should be handled now. - Aoidh (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're a better man than I -- RoySmith (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being Johnny on the spot. @Aoidh: Bruxton (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both bots are back online :) From the logs, both were unable to access Wikipedia's API (unclear if the issue was on the bot side, with Toolserver, or with Wikipedia), and after 22 minutes of retries, both bots gave up. Thanks BlueMoonset for the talk page ping, and Aoidh for the manual update. Overall the manual update looks solid! It was missing the article talk page credits though (when updating manually, it's the "tag" button on the credit template), I've gone ahead and issued the article talk page credits by script. Everything should be back to normal :) Shubinator (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way somebody else can see the status of the bot and restart it? It's really not good for an essential process like this to have a

bus number of 1. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Yep it's possible to see whether the bot processes are running, see the link at the Kubernetes migration update. Restarting it is currently only possible by me; it's possible to onboard another admin with technical know-how to be able to restart it, not sure if this is worth it though - the bot is designed to fail closed, and spamming restarts erodes this design choice. Also, in my opinion, rare manual updates aren't a bad thing, as they help admins understand how the updates work, and ensure the community is not 100% reliant on the bot. Shubinator (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that manual updates are a good thing. They lead to increased delays, increased workload and stress for admins, and a greater chance of something going wrong. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's chip away at reducing the difficulty of manual updates then :) For example, who can update the manual update instructions to make it clearer that credits should be distributed to both user talk pages and article talk pages? Shubinator (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shubinator: would modifying PSHAW to include a "to Main Page" option help, or do most of the breaks that kill the bot end up killing a user script as well? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is this would exacerbate the problem we're trying to avoid, of over-reliance on one or two people. Shubinator (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We now have a complete April Fool's Day set in Prep 7. (Famous last words.) Thanks to everyone who provided hooks. Quite frankly, I was surprised we didn't have more hooks "banked" for this year – but we did what we could and all the suggestions were very helpful. Hopefully if it looks ok, it can get promoted to Queue 7 after midnight? Cielquiparle (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it needs to go where Queue 7 currently sits, correct? That's what I'm seeing on Template:Did you know/Queue#Local update times. What's the best way to shuffle around those Queues, because the April Fool's Day set needs to replace what's currently in Queue 7. I could bump everything down by one queue so that what's currently at Queue 7 would go to Queue 1, and 1 to 2 and so on. Is that the best way to handle that? The only issue I see is that every set would have to be shifted down one, even the preps. There's got to be a better way to do that? - Aoidh (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh I was thinking you wait until midnight (1 am BST) until Queue 5 is free, then move the current Queue 7 to Queue 5, and slot in Prep 7 to Queue 7. Of course, I'm not an admin, but that's what I would do if I had a fox, a chicken, and a bag of grain. (Or, does it not actually work that way, and you can only shift things by one?) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle: I don't know, because if I just move 7 to 5, we'd have a Queue 5 and also a Prep 5, and I'm not sure if that would mess things up (like with PSHAW for example); up to this point every time I've moved a prep to queue it's been the prep number to the corresponding queue number. I'm sure I'm overthinking this and there's an easier way to do it though. Maybe I could just shift Queue 7 to 5, and then Prep 5 to 3 or something I'm not sure. - Aoidh (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh Or simply drop Queue 7 to Prep 3? Pinging @BorgQueen for input. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just swap the two sets: Queue 7 to Prep 7 and Prep 7 to Queue 7? An extra edit window can hold one of the sets if necessary during the swap. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are there another special date hooks interfering with the switch? Only one switch would be ok, though.

talk) 15:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

 Done I've switched Prep 7 and Queue 7 so that the April Fool's Day set is in Queue 7 and will run on April 1. I did check and didn't see anything in the set I moved out of queue that requested any sort of special date or anything so I think it should be good to go in that respect. - Aoidh (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So this is fun. The original hook

• ... that Dale Johnston was sentenced to death for murdering and dismembering his stepdaughter and her fiance in 1982, and 30 years after the murders declared innocent?

Was approved. Then @UndercoverClassicist and @DigitalIceAge decided to change it, not bothering to, oh, say, ping the nominator. Or apparently to read the article. Which resulted in the promotion of a factually incorrect hook. Which now has caused this lovely mess. Can someone please just change back to the originally approved hook? Valereee (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, I only changed the wording from UndercoverClassicist's hook to avoid using gerunds (murdering and dismembering → the murder and dismemberment). DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need to put my hands up for that one: I'd (wrongly) assumed that simply replying would ping the nominator, and I inadvertently introduced the factual error. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, both, I was unnecessarily snippy. :) I was rushing out of the house and didn't have time to rein myself in. Valereee (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I should've caught the error at the time, but as the case was particulary gruesome my eyes must've glazed over that detail. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being understanding about me being snippy. :) Next time just ping the nom. I'd seen that the hook was approved and hadn't realized there was discussion happening afterward. Valereee (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Insert {{group hug emoji}} here.

-- RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last ~15 months (per [1]), DYK has been on a 24-hour rotation about 58% of the time, and a 12-hour rotation the rest of the time. That implies that, on average, a 19-hour cycle (12 + 0.58*12) would very closely match the rate at which DYK hooks are approved. Over the same period, the DYK rotation period has been changed between 12 and 24 hours every 21 days on average, effectively maintaining this 19-hour average.

Now, 19 hours is awkward, but 18 hours could work well – it's four sets every three days, with four times of day that rotations can possibly occur (vs. one or two now). In the past, the rotation has been set to 6 or 8 hours, so this is not new ground, except that some sets will cross from one day to the next (which they already do for everyone not on UTC).

I see two advantages to this: 1) By using a rotation that closely matches the hook approval rate, it should be possible to go far longer between adjustments to the rotation rate – it may even be possible to never change the rotation rate, and just modulate the number of hooks per set ±1 to keep the number of approved hooks within bounds. 2) Hooks would be treated more equally, in terms of waiting time to get the main page, and display time once there.

Thoughts? —

This has been discussed before. I can't find it in the archives, but I'm pretty sure there was an extended thread about this within the past couple of months. The general consensus is that it makes things too complicated when the rotation interval doesn't divide a day into equal parts. It becomes harder to think about which queue a scheduled special event hook should go into, and also makes computing historical statistics messier. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much simpler to simply do 2-a-days with sets of six instead of eight. That would produce the same average number of hooks over time as an 18-hour rotation of sets of eight. Valereee (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

damn, i never thought of that, that's clever! Removing two hooks from every prep and queue would be absolutely nuts without an interim place to store a large number of hooks, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that six hooks would be far too short a set to balance OTD and ITN on the other side of the page. The left side where we are is shorter today, even with eight hooks. (When I started, six or seven hooks per set was the norm, with two or three sets per day, but we get fewer hooks now, and OTD and ITN were both shorter back then.) As noted above, having a daily midnight switchover is preferable for a number of reasons. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's little hassle swapping between 12 and 24-hour rotations. You change a number on one page sometime after midnight UTC and that's it. Sometimes, a time-sensitive hook then needs to be go into a different prep or queue, and that's also easily done. Schwede66 06:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset, just a thought for length on the page...would increasing the size of the image and/or relaxing the single-sentence expectation/max length be helpful? (In general I think 200 is a good limit just for readability of a single sentence, but there are often hooks that could be longer, including by being more accepting of multiple sentences.) Valereee (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna be honest: does anyone actually even care about Main Page balance? Like if certain parts are too long or too short, does anyone even notice? Or is this one of those things that editors care more about than actual readers? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see the return of the 18 hour suggestion, as the way to actually fix things with much less effort than continually flipping between 12 and 24 hours. I support this same as all the other times it's been suggested. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to gather these discussions somewhere. The relative logistical issues for the people actually doing the work have been explained multiple times. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've said it before, "main page balance" is a problem that we force on ourselves for no good reason and then complain about how it means we can't do other things. JUST MAKE THE MAIN PAGE A SINGLE COLUMN. Issue immediately goes away, never to teturn, and sections on the Main Page can be whatever length is most appropriate for the material available. You know, just like virtually every other page.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee I suppose it's a matter of taste, but I much prefer shorter hooks. I think most of our hooks are too wordy, with people trying to cram everything in. Also, as somebody who learned layout back in the xacto-knife and glue-stick days, the extra white space we leave at the bottom of the box bothers me. Maybe we should be running a variable number of hooks per day. If people get verbose, we only have room for 8. But if we tend pithier on a given day, we could do 9 or 10 and fill the box. On the other hand, I could see that creating a whole new set of challenges for prep-set builders, so maybe not a great idea. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is like the Goldilocks principle. Most prep builders might agree that two sets a day is an onerous schedule. But one set a day is like watching paint dry. Maybe 18 hours would be just right; the only way to know would be to try it. Bruxton (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two sets of six every 12 hours vs. one set of 8 every 18 comes out to the same number of promotions required per day. The impact on promoters is the same. Valereee (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean 9 every 18 hours? That makes it the same as 6 every 12, but it also exceeds the current promotion rate. —

bad idea 20:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Each hook gets 18 hours, that is the difference for me. Bruxton (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but each hook also gets to be one of only six...? Valereee (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the same sets, 8 hooks, 18 hours. But I am ok with whatever is decided. Bruxton (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm just afraid it would be chaotic. Maybe a test run? Valereee (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A test run could be good, and we could clearly document everything we learn from it, so that we can put the question to rest if it doesn't work. I agree with Bruxton that the difference between 12 hours and 24 hours feels extreme. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it take any more work to set up a test run than the normal switch from 1 to 2 a day? Valereee (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to remove any hooks from the queues that are already finished, just put only six into prep sets from that day. (It doesn't matter if there are a few 12-hour 8-slot sets or a few 24-hour 6-slot sets). —Kusma (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

bad idea 20:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know exactly what is the process for getting the main page layout to change, but I suspect the level of bureaucracy it would involve would put to shame anything we could generate here at WT:DYK :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 20:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not something we can handle here. Likelihood of success: nil. Valereee (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose for a moment it were possible. Would it help? And then, where would one raise such a suggestion? —

mutual 20:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Redesigning the MP to make the space taken up by each project flexible would certainly reduce objections here to white space issues. It would best be broached at Talk:Main Page to start, I'd think. Valereee (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to do with Template:Did you know nominations/Desert of Maine. The participants have not returned to the nomination for more than one month despite pings. Other editor involvement included editing the article and proposing hooks. Can someone just adopt the approval process or should we mark for closure? Bruxton (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the nominator has a duty to remain engaged with the process. I would close it as rejected. It's not like we're struggling to find enough good nominations that we need to babysit things when a nominator walks away. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AverageEstoniaEnthusiast is currently editing. Valereee (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I am hoping they can approve a hook, because it is ready. Bruxton (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All is well that ends well I was worried that I was too demanding in the nomination. They approved on their talk page and I promoted. Bruxton (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenpuff: Regarding this, the longer caption was inspired by a conversation with Theleekycauldron where they mentioned that sounds don't typically get the engagement that pictures do. Since there are sources which acknowledge variation in the spelling (e.g. the number of As), I made the caption longer to maximize interest/attention. Content to defer to others regarding whether this creates a policy problem (it doesn't strike me that it takes more liberties with representing the sources than, say, the April Fools hooks). FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. However I think that this one might just be quirky enough that it might get substantial engagement anyway. Also, I'm not sure how much lengthening the audio caption might increase engagement by (I reckon that the main reason is that it won't as eye-catching as an image). But I'm happy to leave the decision to consensus. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 20:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am fond of the hook, article and sound file. I preferred the original exaggerated caption. I am sure readers will make the connection. Bruxton (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the longerrrrr caption. BorgQueen (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeeed. Schwede66 06:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

maaarbelous. dying (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

noice! theleeeeeekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not liking this hook much at all. I think the original ALT0 was better, but why not the even shorter

ALT2: ... that the origin of BRAAAM (featured) is disputed?

with the audio player right there, it'll be obvious we're talking about a sound and it's a lot easier to read. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's two periods of scheduled toolforge downtime next week. This means most tools and bots will be down. Details were sent to the cloud-announce mailing list (see message archive for details). The expected downtime windows include most of the day on Monday, and about an hour on Thursday.

This will impact lots of DYK things. I'm guessing the April 3 0000Z main page update will fail, depending on exactly when they start taking things out of service. We'll certainly want to keep an eye on things. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Shubinator, since it's his bots that will be affected. Not sure whether it will also affect WugBot (Wugapodes), but also pinging just in case. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WugBot might be fine but either way it should restart gracefully whenever things come back online. It doesn't do much writing to disk so it depends on the specifics of the shutdown. — Wug·a·po·des 22:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know, will try to be online around then. I can run either bot from another computer temporarily. Shubinator (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: this is starting in a few minutes. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been awhile since I had a special occasions request, and the DYK reviewer for Template:Did you know nominations/William Y. Slack recommended a special occasions date of April 17. Am I allowed to move it over to that holding area myself, or does that need an independent party? Hog Farm _Talk 13:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can do it, except I'm not sure if the nominator is allowed to do so. In any case, there has to be agreement from the reviewer first. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is agreement from the reviewer actually a rule? I don't see it anywhere in

WP:DYKSG. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I moved it to April 17 Special Holding for you. Looked through the rules and don't see anything about this. I think it's OK as long as the date of special holding was agreed on the review or here at the talk page. I don't know of any discussion about such a rule one way or the other. — Maile (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, this is from Wikipedia:Did you know#Date requests: The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I was looking at the fine print. I should have been looking at the big type on the front of the box :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm, FFR, you can just ask your reviewer if they'd please move it so it doesn't get overlooked. Valereee (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely: Promoting articles you have nominated, perhaps? No one actually owns the article per

WP:OWN. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

no, that'd be a reasonable reflection of standard practice. I'd say go ahead and change it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of a case when it would be needed or appropriate, hence "prohibited" is better than "discouraged". Schwede66 18:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like Roy and Schwede I can't think of a case where it would be needed or appropriate. Valereee (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could see it as being reasonable if there are no other admins who are active to move from P to Q. Granted,

nothing is prohibited if there is a good reason to ignore the prohibition, but I do think that hedging a bit is better for handling edge cases. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

That's a different issue, though. I think it's okay for an admin to move to queue a set that contains an article they nominated or reviewed, particularly if the queues are nearly empty. An admin who is a frequent nominator could theoretically have a hard time avoiding that occasionally. But there's no real need for anyone to be promoting to prep an article they nominated or reviewed. Any editor can do that, and there's no time urgency to it. Valereee (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is: Does this mean we're no longer saying it's a "no-no"? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

alt1q: to not promote / a hook you wrote, / it's no no-no!

dying (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've updated the rules. When I looked at it again, it turned out that J1 already said what I wanted it to say, so I just deleted the extra text from the intro. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few questions regarding Queue 6, which is almost a bit too good for my taste:

• the lead image is an allegory of marriage, only the third day after we enjoy an allegory of peace.
• hook 3 is about a ballet, and 4 about a ballet dancer - hook 3 doesn't say ballet but I believe that should be changed, and perhaps a link to suite might prevent misunderstandings, - The Firebird is not a hotel ;)
• hook 4 doesn't need a link to Paris Opera, after one to Paris Opera Ballet saying it's "an integral part" of the other
• hook 6 mentions another opera with an opera singer and an opera conductor (after we enjoy an opera also in the previous set)

4 hooks in one set about European high culture - almost too good. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just 4? What, ABBA doesn't count as European high culture? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to contain pretty much all US/European hooks. I think some swapping is in order for balance. Valereee (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee I've swapped two. BorgQueen (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was just thinking I should circle back to this! Valereee (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sad. Point taken but there was a logic to how the hook themes and words tied together. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle, you're thinking maybe we should do theme-based sets? I could see doing it for a special occasion. I think if you've built a set intentionally around a theme, you probably want to open a discussion. Valereee (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fewer hooks we have to work with, the fewer choices we have. Sometimes it "feels" like after an extended run of 12-hour cycles, we've burned through all the "best" hooks super quickly and are left with...what's left. So we make the best of what we have. This, to me, is the strongest argument for why we seriously need to consider 18-hour cycles. It's not just a "fairness" argument. It's because it affects the quality of the sets. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue the opposite. I'd prefer to be more selective about what we publish. 8 hooks every 19 hours is about 10 hooks every 24 hours. If we published the best 8, we'd still have an acceptance rate of 80%, which is astoundingly high for any publication that cares about quality. Looking at my own submissions, I can easily identify 20% (if not more) which technically met the rules but were still pretty marginal in terms of article quality. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith I have tried very hard to hit a higher quota in terms of rejections and withdrawals. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the ones I have rejected, or questioned with serious reservations, and close them. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you suggest a few specific ones that I should look at? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hooks that need a second look either way:

• Antananarivo–Toamasina toll highway
• The Crew Motorfest
• Life Is but a Dream...
• Barış Youth Symphony Orchestra

CC: RoySmith. Added one more. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I closed one, and left an ALT suggestion for another. I'll try to take a look at the others tomorrow. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For me it's a strong argument for rejecting hooks that no promoter thinks are worth promoting, per @EEng's (sorry, didn't like to mention without pinging) proposal. Valereee (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee I would argue that the promoters and others have actually been very thorough recently in encouraging withdrawals and rejecting hooks that are not suitable or weak. But I don't think this information is tracked anywhere. (The other thing of course is that we actually do spend quite a bit of energy trying to improve hooks, so that other promoters can promote them.) Cielquiparle (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The argument about "bottom of the barrel" is not to imply that what is left after the 12-hour cycles are done are the weakest hooks. What it does mean, though, is that the variety of what is left can be lopsided: Of course it's easier to space out picture hooks about paintings, if there are more picture hooks to choose from. But not if you just used them all up in a frenzy of 12-hour cycles. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will also say that I would encourage some kind of reform to prioritize quality control over scheduling perfection – the latter lends itself to hard rules much more easily than the former, but that does sometimes lead to us putting too much attention on the wrong thing. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have a request from @Gerda Arendt to run a Good Friday hook on April 7, which maps to Queue 7. As soon as the citation needed tags are resolved in the article, we could either promote it to the existing Queue 7, or build a new set around it in Prep 7, and swap the sets. Thoughts? Cielquiparle (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which nom is being referred to, but as long as it doesn't unbalance the Queue in terms of bios or locations I think it would be simpler to just swap out one of the hooks and replace it with the date-sensitive one, once any issues with the article are resolved. That same set has already been pushed out of the Queue once to accommodate for April 1, so ideally I think we should avoid pulling the entire set back out a second time. - Aoidh (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh Thanks, makes sense. No wonder it sounded so familiar. The hook in question is currently at the top of the "Requested dates" section: Template:Did you know nominations/Passions (Homilius) Once the cn-tags are resolved, we'll ask for help from an admin to get it promoted into one of the Queue 7 slots, as long as there are no further objections. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cielquiparle, Aoidh, the hook should go into Queue 6, not Queue 7; Queue 6 is the one scheduled to run on April 7. The hook should be inserted into Queue 6 and the displaced hook put into a free slot in a prep set. (Replacing set for set made sense for a whole-day set like April Fools' Day, but it doesn't for one or even a couple of hooks.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @BlueMoonset for clarifying. I've restored the tick on Template:Did you know nominations/Passions (Homilius), so it is ready to be swapped into Queue 6 by an admin. (I would ping the admins but have not figured out how do do it in Visual Editor.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: thanks for catching that, but now that I'm looking at Template:Did you know/Queue#Local update times, it looks like it would be Queue 5 that runs on April 7, rather than Queues 6 or 7. Unless I'm missing something, Queue 6 looks to start at 00:00, 8 April (UTC). - Aoidh (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...when I checked Template:Did you know/Queue#Local update times yesterday it clearly said that Queue 5 would start at 00:00, 7 April (UTC), but now that I'm looking at it again it now says Queue 6 is indeed what runs at that time. I'll take a look at Queue 6 now. - Aoidh (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Aoidh (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoidh, thanks. If you're looking at the Local update times section right as a queue is being promoted to the main page, the table can be a day off for a few minutes while things are being updated and moving around, but it's correct the rest of the time. That might have happened to you. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to cause more problems. The Homilius is now in Queue 6 which is fine, thank you Aoidh, but the nomination wasn't closed, and I now have two musical hooks in that set. Can the opera (with Johanna Geisler) please be swapped instead of whatever was? - Completely different request, just seeing a few admins active: I have a nomination open for Recent deaths which needs a third support, and then someone to move it to the template. James Bowman was the second countertenor to revived the voice part. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - I've restored the Eurovision hook and switched out Johanna Geisler for Passions (Homilius). I won't close the nom yet since there's an ongoing discussion; I'll let the details discussed below get resolved and either myself or another editor can then close it whenever is appropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry to be a party pooper, but the promoted hook is currently not good, and possibly even misleading if read as I would propose a rather natural reading is (the 2023 performance is not a "first" one, but the context makes it appear as if it is, especially since the relevance of said performance is totally unclear if it isn't a first one). See the nomination page for more. SnowFire (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gerda Arendt and SnowFire: I do want to acknowledge that I've seen these comments and I agree that any issues should certainly be ironed out before the queue runs, but I will be indisposed for a little while so I might not be able to immediately address this. @Cielquiparle, Bruxton, and C messier: I know the three of you were involved with reviewing the nomination and the hooks, would you mind taking another look at this? - Aoidh (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have access to all the sources, but if I understand correctly, it could very well be a first-ever live performance of the full work, but as we all know, "firsts" can be hard to prove, especially if ~300 years have gone by (during which time territorial boundaries weren't even the same). (Sounds like small excerpts have been performed before, and to Gerda's point, the full work was even recorded in 1992, which counts as a "performance" depending on how you look at it.) So it is not intended to mislead but is rather trying not to assert or overstate something, based on the sources. But if the feedback from @SnowFire is that the hook is bad, that's different. I have also had a nagging feeling that the hook is fixable in a different way and burned quite some time on this yesterday, but will take a look again. Hope you feel better soon @Aoidh Cielquiparle (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just found the FAZ article republished on Yahoo! and it does refer to other "performances" around the time of the recording, as well as "reduced" performances (with fewer parts in the cast), so for sure not a "first" performance but clearly very rarely performed, since it seems like the handwritten dots on paper were barely kept together. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My suggestion is just to cut the fact entirely regardless of the research (although that is appreciated!). We should just avoid a hook that says something like "Did you know about this obscure piece that is just SO obscure." The quasi-interesting part is the long gap in time with the "resurrection" of the piece being the cool part. So something like ALT1c might be better. (The other option is to highlight some other interesting-and-verifiable fact about the 2023 performance - but not just its existence, because mere existence isn't interesting.) SnowFire (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @SnowFire: I proposed a new ALT hook in the nomination template. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just wanted to report that Prep 5 (starting with TVBoy) is still missing one hook at the very bottom: I think it just went unnoticed by accident, but still...

Oltrepier (talk) 18:17, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier thanks for noticing, but that's actually normal. The prep areas are often in a state of flux, as people build them up and shuffle hooks around until they're happy. If you ever see a queue that's missing a hook, please report that, however; the queues should pretty much never be incomplete. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith Thank you for clarifying! Oltrepier (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of all 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 25. We have a total of 202 nominations, of which 70 have been approved, a gap of 132 nominations that has decreased by 1 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than two months old

• January 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Northeastern Army
• January 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Untitled Goose Game
• January 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Lovely's Purchase
• January 31: Template:Did you know nominations/North Carolina Council of State
• January 31: Template:Did you know nominations/The Crew Motorfest

More than one month old

• February 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Gadallah Gubara
• February 18: Template:Did you know nominations/The Day of Books and Roses (Catalonia)
• February 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Antananarivo–Toamasina toll highway
• February 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Matt Hicks (basketball)
• February 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Bishopcroft

Other nominations

• March 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Isaac Musa
• March 8: Template:Did you know nominations/N. Porsenna
• March 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Censorship under the military dictatorship in Brazil
• March 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Drew Van Horn (two articles)
• March 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Linguistic Atlas of the Iberian Peninsula
• March 14: Template:Did you know nominations/The Longevity Diet
• March 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Maria Griffin
• March 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Stanley Browne
• March 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Life Is but a Dream...
• March 15: Template:Did you know nominations/I'm Casting My Lasso Towards the Sky
• March 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Order of Excellence for Women (two articles)
• March 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Wihtburh
• March 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Neminath Jain Temple, Girnar
• March 20: Template:Did you know nominations/The Doll's Hospital
• March 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Trial & Error (company)
• March 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Qnat
• March 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Margery Jackson
• March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Max Bielfeldt
• March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Flight Deck (California's Great America)
• March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Tyrrhenika

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. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a couple that need hook reviewers. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3 is scheduled to post at 4 April 00:00 (UTC).

As the nominator, I would like to request the hook be slightly changed with more timely information, if possible:

... that UCLA basketball player Jaylen Clark was named the Pac-12 Conference Defensive Player of the Year Naismith Defensive Player of the Year in 2023, after also significantly improving on offense?

Clark won the Naismith award today (Sunday), and it's a more recognized national award, compared to the regional Pac-12 honor. The Los Angeles Times said it's "widely considered the nation’s top defensive award among college players" [2]

It's already stated and sourced in the body: "One of the top defensive players in the country, he won the Naismith Defensive Player of the Year Award, and the National Association of Basketball Coaches named him their defensive player of the year.[27]" (Source text: "The UCLA junior guard on Sunday was honored as the school’s first Naismith defensive player of the year..." (Los Angeles Times))

Thanks in advance. —Bagumba (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Onegreatjoke: Courtesy ping as you were the original reviewer.—Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case OGJ doesn't get to this in time, I'm happy to endorse the change. I reviewed the new hook and checked the sources. Looks good. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the new hook. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging admins working on the queue: @Aoidh and BorgQueen. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:16, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Aoidh (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could I receive a credit for the DYK for Buchanan's Station please? I normally wouldn't ask, but I ended up going deep on that one – as borne out by the page statistics. It is currently sitting in Prep 1. (I am receiving a credit for Sally Buchanan, but that was a minor work in comparison.) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @Cielquiparlez: I thought you were trying to credit yourself for the sally hook so I swapped that credit in for the double hook. Bruxton (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetual pinging problems. @Cielquiparle: Bruxton (talk) 14:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. BorgQueen (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passions (Homilius) Nom@Aoidh: Can we make room in the queue for this Good Friday request? It was nominated March 16, but finally wrapped up today. If it is too late for that set we can promote it to a later set. Bruxton (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, see above at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Queue 7 Prep 7 swap for April 7? - Aoidh (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a manual update, again. @Aoidh could you please take care of the credits? BorgQueen (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BorgQueen: On it. - Aoidh (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Credits on user and article talk pages are both  Done - Aoidh (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both bots are back online. In the future, the best way to reach me is to drop a message on my talk page, which ideally would have happened ~a day ago when Queue 2 was manually cleared as the bot failed to do so. If I was notified then, I might've seen this in time to restart the bots for today's update. Help me help you. Shubinator (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a lot of reviewers using WP:EARWIG to claim that an article has no copyright violations or plagiarism. Remember that, as a general rule, Earwig does not catch copyright violations or plagiarism. It checks a handful of websites to see if the article is an exact copy or nearly an exact copy. Virtually all forms of copyright violation and plagiarism beyond a simple copy-paste will get past Earwig. It's not designed to do a full copyright check, it's designed to check if an article is a duplicate of another website. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Earwig is a good tool, but it's only a tool. One must examine more than just the big percent number at the top. False positives could be somebody else copying from us. Or they could be direct quotes which are appropriately cited to the original source. More troubling is that, as @Thebiguglyalien says, Earwig misses places where somebody has basically copied the original sentence-for-sentence but changed enough words so Earwig doesn't catch the problem. That takes using your human brain to compare the two texts.

It can also completely fail to report anything simply because the plagiarised source isn't within its field of view. Sometimes I read an article and there's something that just screams out "This wasn't written by the same person who wrote the rest of this", so you need to go digging on your own. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]