Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Theleekycauldron (talk | contribs) at 03:41, 29 April 2022 (→‎Check my work?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

Moving the SOHA

I just archived the discussion on special occasion hooks. It seemed like the takeaway with the most chance of success would be moving the Special Occasion Holding Area to the top, instead of leaving it at the bottom where it's often ignored by prep set builders who usually take older hooks for a set. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said on the previous discussion, if anything helps the reviewers to spot a special occasion hook faster, let it be done. Moving SOHA to the top of the page is fundamentally a good idea. But, in my opinion, it is useful if, and only if we have all the special occasions hooks in the holding area. Otherwise, it doesn't take anything more than pressing that page down key to see that same SOHA at the end of the page. Now, as it is being discuss, can someone help me figure out why do we have a SOHA on awaiting nominations page, when we are not allowed to nominate them in that section? Thanks for starting this discussion! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably a remnant from the time before the Approved hooks had their own page. CMD (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced, but in any event I do not support moving anything until Shubinator is contacted and we make sure the move will not break DYKHousekeepingBot's creation of the Count of DYK Hooks table—I also do not support any move until the bot can be updated accordingly. Frankly, that table is far more valuable to DYK as a whole than the placement of the Special occasions section. CMD is correct about it being a remnant, and Maile that I was the one who did it (I'm pretty sure I also set up the Approved page): the stub of the Special occasions section was left on the main nominations page as a pointer to its new location when the Approved page was created to split those nominations off from the main page when it became overloaded and incapable of transcluding all the nominations. The reason you can't nominate the hooks in that section is the same as why you can't nominate ones for April Fools' Day on its page: these are ordinary nominations until they are reviewed and passed, and need to be reviewed without special priority or sequestration along with contemporaneous nominations. The idea of putting nominations in a special section at the bottom either privileges or disadvantages them, and is something I would absolutely oppose. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: I wouldn't support nominating special occasion hooks in a separate area either—but I'm not sure why you don't want to move the the SOHA for only the approved hooks, as long as it doesn't break the bot? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset I agree, and I don't suggest to add SO nomination there, but if it serves no purpose than just pointing to the new location, is it really needed there? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's the benefit of it being at the top rather than the bottom? It's always been at the bottom, so prep builders should know where it is, the times when I've built preps, I've always been able to find the SOHO fine. Don't see how it being at the top would mean people check it more than at the bottom- if prep builders are missing it, then it is their error. This just seems like a pointless discussion over nothing, in my opinion. Which seems to be the OP's forte on this talkpage at the moment- trying to "fix" things that aren't broken, "fixing" hooks by cutting content on them for no reason.... Joseph2302 (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally its a good idea, but in its current form, it looks to me more like a solution looking for a problem. At the end, its as simple as pressing the page down key to see that same SOHA at the end of the page. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i really just thought that if it were me, it's easier to remember all the hooks there if i have to pass by them and be reminded by them every time i build a prep set. it sometimes slips my mind otherwise, so i thought it might help. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just mentioning that I am not a experienced prep builder. If regular prep builders find it a useful suggestion, then let it be done. Thanks! - Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The benefit is that prep builders, who should be starting at the top of the page and working down, will see those SO request first thing. —valereee (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vibes are happening on this page. Check the time stamp of my post below, with the same message. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, DYKHousekeepingBot will break if this change is made today. If there's consensus for the change, no worries, we can coordinate to avoid disruptions. Best to also check with the other bot operators for
bots touching the noms or approved pages: WugBot and MusikBot. Shubinator (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Advantage of moving the special hooks sub section to the top - it's a short list, and would make it less likely to accidentally overlook a SO request. The prep builder will know right away if they should include a SO in the set they're building. After a glance at that short SO list, the promoter can scroll through the oldest dates on the routine promotions. As is, maybe by the time they get enough hooks for a set, they didn't remember to also have a look at the SO hooks. We're human - we make mistakes. — Maile (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure if this is resolved. EEng 04:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not. I really wasn't expecting this to be as controversial as it is, but we need more input for a consensus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • I would support moving SOHA to the top of the approved nominations page. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving it to the top. —valereee (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support placing the special holding dates to the top of approved nominations, which seems logical to me. As for the Kavyansh.Singh question about SOHA notice also at the bottom of the nominations page: I think there was a reason for it, but it escapes my memory. BlueMoonset would likely have the answer to that, and might have been the editor who placed it there. — Maile (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support moving the SOHA to the top; there would appear to be benefits in doing so. Schwede66 10:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support it. Personally, I start at the top and work my way down when I work on balancing prep sets. SL93 (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  • To me it doesn't matter, either seems fine and the same. So happy to defer to what other people think is most helpful. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion on this and don't mind either way. As long as its still accessible to put hooks in. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider me neutral on this. No major issues with moving the special occasion holding area, if helps the prep builders. But in my opinion, both the ways appear more or less the same. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close?

It's been seven days. Is there anything we need to do other than move the code to the top of the page? —valereee (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: If the closer finds that there's consensus to do this, then we have to talk to shubinator first—the DYKHousekeepingBot will break. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron, do you think we need a formal close? There's no formal opposition, just support/neutral. —valereee (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, but we're the proposers here so that's probably a decision for someone else. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Shubinator could do the honour of closing (and then tweak the bot). :-) Schwede66 09:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shubinator: I think that's a fine idea, how about you? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyone else who can tweak the bot? It looks like @Shubinator might be taking a break. —valereee (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: the bot isn't open-source, so no, we'll have to wait. In the meantime, we should ping @Wugapodes and MusikAnimal to let them know this change is happening sometime soon. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite honest, I probably won't get this done until mid-December. This is a non-trivial change that I'd want to test out before letting it loose, and my schedule's filled with meatspace deadlines, grant review, and arb elections. I'll know more next week after I review the code and come up with a game plan. I'll keep you all posted. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe after this is closed, it should be archived to a separate page for adopted, but unfulfilled, proposals? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd want to make sure it didn't get overlooked and forgotten. I'd rather just collapse it and pin it here as a reminder that there are still steps to be taken. —valereee (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could I get a high-level overview of what exactly is changing? MusikBot only adds new date headings to Template talk:Did you know. Are we simply doing that in a different place now, or just the structure of the page is changing? — MusikAnimal talk 18:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MusikAnimal: Currently, the "Special occasion holding area" is at the bottom section on Template talk:Did you know/Approved. The approving reviewer moves them there, not the bot. The above discussion was to permanently move the "Special occasion holding area" to the top of that page. What I see, are four editors who support the move, zero editors opposing the move, and three editors who are neutral. — Maile (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. So we're not moving the "Special occasion holding area" section on Template talk:Did you know? If not, no changes are needed to MusikBot. It would be a simple fix anyway, if needed. — MusikAnimal talk 20:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:DYKNA from bottom to top, if there's consensus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah sorry, I generally check my user talk and I'm not as great with checking notifications. Let me know when the other bot operators are planning to make it happen and I can help with DYKHousekeepingBot. Shubinator (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know! I actually wondered if that might be the case, as I saw BlueMoonset had posted there multiple times, but I didn't like to nag if you were just busy IRL. :) —valereee (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes, did you see this from Shub? —valereee (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, my attention was elsewhere so I missed this. I'll work on the changes next week and should have something deployed before the 22nd. I'll keep you all updated if it turns out to be sooner than that. I'll post on Shub's talk page as well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
DYKHousekeepingBot now supports either top or bottom placement of the Special Occasion Holding Area :) Special:Diff/1059709544 Shubinator (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Wugapodes, how we lookin'? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's an active arb case right now, Wug's first, and four open amendment requests, which seems like a lot. Maybe people were waiting for the new committee? At any rate, maybe we wait to reping Wug until things slow down over there? There's no particular urgency for making this change, and I don't know how much work Wug has to put in to adjust the bot. —valereee (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough—this can keep, to be sure theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes, how're things with you? It looks like ArbCom has slowed down a bit? valereee (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee and Theleekycauldron: Things have been better. In addition to my regular job and joining the arbitration committee, I'm recovering from covid which has limited my throughput. The required change to wugbot isn't massive but it's also not trivial. A lot of requests on my time are getting triaged ahead of it, and with covid fatigue it's hard to get deep into backlogged requests, so progress on an otherwise normal-sized change gets slowed. I'll have it running as soon as I can, but my backlog has generally been growing, not shrinking, since December. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wug, no worries, and I'm sorry to hear you had COVID! That sucks. IMO this is something that can be treated as completely not-urgent -- welcome when it happens, but nothing more than that. valereee (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting nominations with un-discussed hook changes?

This has been mentioned before, but the problem is now becoming more widespread. Some promoters choose to promote nominations with their own un-discussed hook changes, when the creator, nominator and reviewer have not been alerted.

Not everybody can consult their watchlist daily (some of us have to earn our living too). I consult mine daily, but this situation means that I now also have to check every promoted nomination that I've been involved in, on the day of promotion, then I have to check it on the preps and queues page daily until it appears on the main page. Not everyone has time for this, and not everyone realises that it is necessary. The creator is usually the best witness for accuracy of hook facts, but I doubt whether they are always automatically pinged when un-discussed changes are made to the hook.

This has happened to me as creator and as reviewer a number of times now. So far the changes have been mostly acceptable, but on one occasion I had to intervene because the hook-change made the facts incorrect, and therefore left the hook unsupported by citations. So please could we now have some kind of protocol in which creator, nominator and reviewer are always notified as soon as an un-discussed hook change has been made at the moment of promotion?

I'm not just talking about obvious fact-changes. Sometimes a re-phrasing for better syntax might seem OK, but in fact the wording has changed the meaning, and the promoter does not realise that. In my opinion, this should not happen at all at the moment of promotion, other than clear wikifying changes, such as inserting "pictured". So perhaps it should be made clear to promoters when it is better to hold up a promotion for approval of a changed hook, and when it is better to promote it e.g. when the promoter has only made a typo correction. Your opinions, please? Storye book (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Storye book (talk • contribs) 19:44, April 15, 2022 (UTC)

You are talking about only the promotion to prep process, to the point that a promoter changes the wording at that time? I do know that we admins sometimes correct hooks while they are in queue. But just to change something around because the promoting editor feels they can make it a better, or more accurate hook, I don't think I've done that part. I don't normally promote to prep. — Maile (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To my experience, theleekycauldron changes a lot, but notifies in the edit summary, - I like that solution. Most changes are fine, a few get discussions. Did you see the problem above, that the hook stayed, but the article was modified, removing the hook fact (which I only happened to see on my watchlist)? That seemed worse to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did a lot of promoting today, including rewording the hook for
Prep 3. I left a message in the DYK promotion template, describing which Prep it has been moved to, that changes had been made and why I made those changes. I did not post my rewording in the DYK template because it is my understanding that when someone proposes an ALT, they are highly discouraged from promoting that hook. Since there are limited prep builders, this delays the hook's promotion and reduces my options for building sets. This is coupled with waiting for replies from the two editors about the new ALT, further delaying the process and making it difficult to build preps. If I think I am changing the meaning of the hook in any way, I will propose an ALT and not promote. In the future, I will ping all editors involved in the process if I make any changes to a hook as I promote it. Z1720 (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I think one of the problems is that hook changes at the point of promotion are frequently notified only in edit summaries, and what we need is direct notification - it is too easy to miss an edit summary if one has a lot of items on the watchlist. I appreciate that there are lots of innocent and well-meaning promoters out there - you don't need to defend your actions, I am not looking to witch-hunt - I am just looking for ideas for general guidelines which will prevent creators, nominators and reviewers from missing those changes which inadvertently change hook facts and/or diverge from citation content. Storye book (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear: in edit summary with a ping which will call your attention --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Storye book: I have a bot that can detect changes in hooks and record them on the nomination talk page—I haven't started an RfC to get it online, but is that something you'd be interested in? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea, leek. I look forward to seeing that, because at the moment, even when I spot a promotion-hook-change in an edit summary, it is a tedious matter to find the prep or queue that it's now in. Storye book (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Post-promotion hook change recording bot

Should DYK employ an automated system that records changes made to hooks in the prep sets and on the main page? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Executive summary: It's my understanding that the consensus needed to go to

WP:BRFA requires an RfC; if I'm wrong, feel free to remove the RfC tag. This bot would detect changes to any hook in the prep sets, queues, or on the Main Page. When the bot detects a change, it'll leave a note on the talk page of a nomination; for example, for C. J. Cregg (nom), changes will be recorded at Template talk:Did you know nominations/C. J. Cregg. The bot will not (as of now) detect changes made during promotion. Detecting interested parties is a bit too computationally expensive and unreliable, so if you want to know when your hook's being modified, you would have to keep the nomination page on your watchlist until after the hook is taken off the air. Thoughts on implementation? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Support - I think this is an excellent idea. Those of us who work the preps and queues have a tendency to assume it's our job to tweak the hooks we promote, or even just peruse. But that leaves both the nominator and the reviewer with no consultation on whether or not the change was justified. — Maile (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Maile Rlink2 (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Z1720 (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Can't think of any significant downsides. DanCherek (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC) Addendum: I specifically like the fact that this proposal will not be bothersome to nominators who do not want excessive pings or talk page messages. DanCherek (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support This has been an issue for me many times. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but I don't think being reliant on the Template talk thing is the best way to inform editors about hook changes. Many editors don't bother putting the nom page on their watchlist or otherwise don't check it, so it can be easy to miss changes. At the very least, if such changes are to be done, I think they should also either ping the relevant editor(s) or leave them a talk page message. As for relevant editor(s), given the "Detecting interested parties is a bit too computationally expensive and unreliable" part, at the very least I think the nominator should be informed by the bot about any hook changes; if other editors (like co-noms) should be contacted, that should be left to the discretion of this RfC. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems like a no-brainer. NLH5's proposal immediately above of pinging the nom also seems like a good idea, and I assume it's feasible on the technical end, but my support isn't contingent on its implementation. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm unclear why placing comments on the nomination's talk page would bring nominators coming; if they don't currently come to check on their nomination when promoted to prep, and monitor thereafter, it seems unlikely that they'll track the nomination (talk) page post-promotion. Wouldn't it be more effective to post a note to the nominator's talk page? The nominator can easily be parsed from the nomination page. (For that matter, the other people on the nomination line could also be parsed.) I can see that other participants on the nominations page could be problematic. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BlueMoonset: I mean, say you're a nominator, and compare the two scenarios. Currently, you get a watchlist notice that your hook was promoted; depending on the promoter, there won't be a link to the prep set, so you've gotta find the prep set, check on your hook, and (since it's probably been like three weeks since you made the nomination) cross-reference with the original only to find about half the time that no changes were made right then. Then there's the possibility that someone actually modifies it afterward, but by then you're already not paying any more attention until the hook goes live.
    By contrast, by leaving a record of the changes made on the nomination talk page says unambiguously that a change has been made, and lists what it is. I think that encourages nominators to pay attention by leaving it in a clearly accessible place without the pretense of whether it's even been modified. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    theleekycauldron, you've lost me. The one thing I always see is a notification on my own talk page. (My Watchlist is quite long, and it's easy to miss things.) Why wouldn't it be preferable/more useful to have the bot post a note to the nominator's personal talk page informing them that their hook has been changed in Prep X (or Queue Y or the main page) from "... that ABC?" to "... that not ABD?", rather than put that information on the nomination template's talk page where I'm much less likely to notice on my watchlist that an edit has occurred? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    nbsp}}? I think that's going to get excessive... I can have an opt-in list for both pings and talk page messages, but I'm hesitant to make it the default. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
If anything, I'd probably prefer it to be opt-out since I've seen multiple editors in the past complaining about hooks being edited beyond their wishes, and in these cases the editors have even tended to be editors who aren't DYK core regulars. In such cases, if they were opt-in rather than opt-out, it could be easy for them to miss any pings especially if they didn't put the nomination on their watchlist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's that form of Ravenpuff edit, theleekycauldron, then I didn't format my hook properly to begin with, so yes, I'd want to know. Even though I'm the sort to monitor nominations until they hit the main page. I also think that an opt-out is preferable to an opt-in; if people don't want to know about changes, an opt-out in the message would let them stop it after that message (or, of course, they could block the bot from posting to their talk page), but at least then they'll have themselves to blame if a hook change is made that they don't want. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Thanks for this work Theleekycauldron Qn -- how easy is it to modify your bot to post the comment at the nomination page and then also post a message at the nominator's talk page telling them that their attention might be required on the nomination. Support this one, btw. Ktin (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In my view, the nom talk page is exactly the right location for the bot to leave a note. Anybody who is involved has the chance to (at least temporarily) put that onto their watchlist. This is by no means foolproof (e.g. when a watchlist is not being monitored regularly) but it strikes the right balance between the current situation (which is hit and miss) and bothering involved parties unnecessarily (e.g. through pings) as it gives editors the chance to determine whether they want to be notified (through watchlisting). Schwede66 06:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We've had a number of complaints over time about undiscussed/stealthy hook changes. I think perhaps the talk page of the article(s) bolded in the hook would be better than just the nom, though? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only see article changes, if I have it watched and manually check my watchlist. Is there a different way? But with a talk page notification, since Preferences gives us no choice in this, in that as soon as something shows up on our talk page, we get that glaring notice at the top of our page. — Maile (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Detecting interested parties is a bit too computationally expensive and unreliable, sounds like a talkpage notification might be too difficult. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One possibility could be to merely ping nominators rather than "detecting interested parties". The ping being limited to the nominator probably shouldn't be too difficult to code. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, the work required to find the nomination page in the first place brings you most of the way to finding the nominator anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seems pretty intuitive to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're below 60!

Readout shows 56; too tired to check for spec occs right now, and in any case, nothing can be done for another 12 hours until the new day UTC. I'm goin to sleep. Thanks to all the admins and prep set builders who kept DYK running! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only special occasion hook in queues and preps that I saw is in the next set to be promoted (at midnight), so it will run on April 18 as planned, just for 24 hours rather than 12. There is an unpromoted April 24 special occasion hook that will need to be promoted into an already filled Prep 1, displacing one of the hooks there. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset I took care of it. SL93 (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SL93! Looks great. As it's now after midnight, pinging @DYK admins: to adjust User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400 right away (and definitely before noon!) so the set currently on the main pages gets its full 24 hours now that we're officially at one set per day. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are currently at 59 approved nominations but also just two queues filled, so I've changed it to one set per day. Schwede66 00:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that switching to one set per day was the right call. The current problem seems more that we have more nominations coming in than noms being reviewed. Can people help with that? (I already have six QPQs saved up for a rainy day, or for the day when we'll require two reviews). —Kusma (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have a gap of 153 unapproved/unreviewed nominations. That is pretty big. SL93 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to see the numbers graphed over time; has anyone ever done that? —Kusma (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DYK's unapproved hook backlog, from 2022 January 1 to 2022 April 18
@Kusma: "can someone please give me a graph"? that's practically pinging me, just so you know. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: that was quick, given the indirect ping :) As the reward for good work is always more work: can you go further back in time? We had 160+ unapproved hooks before, for example in July 2020 but I have no idea how often it gets like that. —Kusma (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DYK's unapproved hook backlog, from 2020 January 1 to 2022 April 18
@Kusma: Done! seems like that 160 was actually coming down from a much bigger high... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woah – it's like the heartbeat of DYK! Yes, I know that's not what an EKG should look like. Does this mean the current backlog isn't a big deal, or just that it's a less big deal than past problems we've had? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, theleekycauldron. It was the early summer 2021 high watermark that brought about the two QPQs per one nomination RfC proposal that passed for when unapproved levels got too high—presumably the thought was that it might be invoked with levels of around 200 or more, though no number was set in stone. I was interested to note that summer seems to bring about extra reviews, given the steep drops in the July through September periods of 2020 and 2021. If we don't get that drop this year, or the unapproved level rises too much before then, we may need to invoke the two for one regimen. Some of the 2020 spikes were caused partly by the additional DYKs generated by the GA backlog review drives, which sent increased numbers of new GAs over to DYK in April/May and October 2020, and March and July 2021. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This year's GA backlog drive doesn't seem to have had such a huge effect. As most GA-related DYK noms are by people doing QPQs and the articles are usually in pretty good shape, I don't expect them to cause issues for us. I'm more curious what causes the numbers to go down. From the graph, it looks like Northern hemisphere summer?? —Kusma (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally offwiki in the summer, so not creating noms or doing QPQs, but I doubt there are enough people who disappear like me to account for the backlog reduction... ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
my activity also generally decreases when school's out; structure helps me make time for this by procrastinating on other stuff. but like ezlev said, I can't see that being a systemic reason for backlog reduction. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron, could you produce a graph of nomination approvals from from 2020 January 1, averaged over the past 7 days (after your DYK break if you prefer)? My guess is that a reduction in unapproved nominations over the Northern hemisphere summer is likely to be due to a reduction in nominations, rather than an increase in reviews. TSventon (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: here's a Google Sheet with the data; I put the relevant graph (no smoothing, sorry) in the "approved+total" tab. The "uploading SVGs" strategy gets clutter-y, fast. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One queue filled

@DYK admins: Thanks to any admins who promote more preps to queues. SL93 (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

on it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DYK admins: more queues need to be filled. --evrik (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2 phrasing

The commas in ... that most of the Chinese in Phoenix, Arizona's Chinatown, had emigrated from the same village in China's Hoping County? make it sound like Phoenix is the Chinatown of Arizona. It is the hook subject, too, so any improvement in phrasing would be helpful. Kingsif (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MB, what say you? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... that most of the Chinese in Phoenix, Arizona's Chinatown, had emigrated from the same village in China's Hoping County? The way I had it before avoids that problem. MB 21:40, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, but that has a problem with
WP:EGG; we could write the same hook, with that link pattern, if the bolded article linked to Chinatown. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The hook says Phoenix's Chinatown. I don't think readers would be surprised that they went to an article on Phoenix's Chinatown and not
WP:EGG. How do other people feel? MB 21:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Sure, but the wording still feels awkward. How about something like this:
... that most residents of Chinatown in Phoenix, Arizona previously lived in the same village in Hoping County, China?
Unless the fact that those residents were Chinese isn't sufficiently implied... ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Chinatown in Phoenix, Arizona" just sounds clunky and unnatural to me. MB 22:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about, ... that most of the immigrants in
same village in China?--evrik (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
"emigrant" is used twice; maybe swap the second to "came from"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
plus, it contains the problem Kingsif raised initially (that it sounds like Phoenix is the Chinatown of Arizona). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I adjusted the text. I don't think Kingif is right here, but Phoenix is the largest city on AZ. --evrik (talk) 23:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MB, Ezlev, Theleekycauldron, and Evrik: The question really is if we need "Arizona" in there. "Phoenix" may have multiple meanings, but this is clearly talking about a place and Phoenix isn't unknown internationally (and even if it was, you know, hook clearly refers to a place - people aren't going to confuse [random city] with a mythological bird). Kingsif (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per
MOS:GEOCOMMA, do we need a comma after Arizona? Personally, I sometimes use "the" to help avoid an egg in these cases, e.g. ... that most of the Chinese in the Chinatown in Phoenix, Arizona, had emigrated from the same village in China's Hoping County? I'd expect a link for just "Chinatown" to go to Chinatown but a link for "the Chinatown" to go to the specific one being discussed. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
i see we've come full circle... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've never lived in the US and for me Phoenix, Arizona's Chinatown, no matter how wikilinked, is completely opaque and confusing. The Chinatown in Phoenix, Arizona (possibly with "Arizona" dropped) is much clearer. Sdkb's wikilink works alright, but won't it be clearer if the entire phrase is linked instead? – Uanfala (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ezlev's "Chinatown in Phoenix, Arizona", and disagree with "clunky"; why is it clunky? Mathglot (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's clunkly because it reads as if "Chinatown in Phoenix" is some kind of name, instead of "the Chinatown" that is in Phoenix. Building on the above, how about ... that most of the Chinese in the Chinatown of Phoenix, Arizona, had emigrated from the same village in China's Hoping County? MB 22:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66, several people have expressed concern with the current hook. Per the above discussion, using "the Chinatown" is probably best. MB 16:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you pinged me, except that I promoted the set to Queue. But perhaps lay out the entire hook wording as currently approved. This has been a long rambling thread. — Maile (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66, yes that is why I pinged you. The current hook, can be read as Phoenix, Arizona's Chinatown:

This hook prevents that:

Prep 7: Two Pieces of Nuts (nom)

Conversation moved to Template:Did you know nominations/Two Pieces of Nuts

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.

Okay, at this point it's possible I've just gone entirely crazy, because quite a few of the objections I've made over the past couple days have been wordlessly overruled. So, I'll just bring this up, and if everyone disagrees, fine.

  • ... that in the Hungarian folktale Two Pieces of Nuts, to woo the king a woman promises to bear children with a moon on the chest and a star on the forehead?

I raised the issue, in the nomination, that this hook falls afoul of

WP:DYKSG#C6 because it's mainly plot summary with no substantial connection to the real world. evrik responded that this wasn't the case, because the hook says it was a hungarian folktale. I didn't respond to that; I didn't want to push it, because Venkat TL (the reviewer) said he agreed and didn't think the hook was valid. Since it was promoted by Kingsif
, I thought I should note that simply mentioning that the work is fictional is not enough to pass C6, as I understand it; the hook needs to demonstrate some kind of real-world connection or impact as its hook, and use plot as a supplement if necessary. For example, this hook has no substantial real-world connection:

At the very least, that seems to break the spirit of the rule. I don't know. Like I said, I feel a little twilight zone-y at the moment, so I could be totally wrong. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif left a comment while I was writing this; they note that because it's a hungarian folktale, the pseudo historical nature means that it's not entirely a fictional work. I don't agree with this either (we wouldn't do that for, say, the Odyssey or the Bible), but I'm happy to bow to consensus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Kingif's comment. I also believe you may be making too much of this. --evrik (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @evrik: did you revert my moving this after comments that came before it on purpose? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with Kingsif. The folktale is still fiction. SL93 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, with the windows open, I promote, then comment. I'm also happy to let consensus take it. Maybe I'm going soft, because I'm usually the one with the firmest stance on plot-ty hooks. Kingsif (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leekycauldron, yes. Ping me separately if you want to discuss. --evrik (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
eh, i'll just leave it. it is what it is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Late reply, but at the very least a new hook is needed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 and evrik: We could make a hook about the number of translations, but I think the larger problem is that the article is basically a plot summary of the tale and the several plot summaries of its variants; that makes it difficult to find a hook about real-world impact. I can articulate my reasoning here if needed, but I think that represents an issue that needs correction before the article can proceed. Part of my objection to two of Venkat TL's nominations was that the non-fiction books were too focused on argument synopsis, and not real-world impact. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
C6 says, "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." The words Hungarian folktale meet that requirement. I think this is being overthought. I would be open to other hooks. --evrik (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@evrik: Past interpretations of the rule don't bear that idea out. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 170#Prep 3:Music video plot; the hook there was:
  • ... that Harry Styles befriends a gold-dappled fish and takes care of it in the music video for "Adore You"?
The words "music video", despite showing that the hook details a work of fiction, is not shown to tie the hook to the real world. The hook needs to substantially hinge its interestingness on some kind of real-world fact, and use plot only when and where necessary. The same for Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 147#Prep 6 and the nomination for Wayward Son (novel) (nom). Maybe BlueMoonset could lay this out better than I am at the moment. Anyways, another hook is difficult when the article is mostly plot summary. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The words technically meet the requirement,
that's not really what matters
. I've run across this same issue. How about going super obscure, like one of these?
The only other thing that comes to mind would be a hook about the ATU classification, but that feels like a reach. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:33, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ezlev: clever as always :) I think that works as a hook (although we've had some objections to misleading hooks like this recently; pinging SL93 for his opinion). The title'll need to be italicized; the first has an interesting play on the awkwardness of title pluralization that I like, but the second is a more standard-issue quirky. If the issue with the article can be resolved, I'd be happy to sign off on either hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ezlev: I find the term you embedded in the link above to be fairly insulting. It somehow says that I am acting in bad faith. More than one person said that the hook was fine, but somehow we've spent much more time than we had to developing a hook for an obscure topic. I'm fine with either of the alternates you offered above, but not with the insinuation that I am acting in bad faith. --evrik (talk) 13:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think wikilawyering is necessarily something done in bad faith, evrik. For me, at least, it’s something I often catch myself doing when I’m really invested in making something work. That’s what I believe happened in this discussion too, and as far as I’m concerned that’s the very best of good faith – but it’s also something I’d want someone to point out to me, which is why I wanted to point it out to you. In hindsight, though, it’s totally reasonable that you interpreted my comment as an insult, because that page includes some pretty serious negative stuff in addition to the mild meaning I meant to refer to. I’m sorry about that. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 15:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with either of the two hooks if the title is italicized. SL93 (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Article creator wants me to withdraw nomination - says its distressing, but won't say why

ownership issue at this point. If it is an ownership issue, I refuse to withdraw the nomination because that would mean that they find the core concept of Wikipedia distressing. I don't have any sympathy for such things. SL93 (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Maybe they're not done, and would be embarrassed to see their handiwork on the main page in its current state? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but that should be easy to say instead of trying to paint me as a bad person for nominating their work for DYK. They gave two reasons which were later redacted. SL93 (talk) 04:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: Can you provide links to said redactions? Can't find any removal of text... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron The conversation in question was on my talk page. -- asilvering (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get a bit of perspective. This is a volunteer activity where people choose to create and improve articles to help people learn about subjects they otherwise would never know. There are emotional dimensions to volunteering your time and energy, and if you are distressed -- for a reason that you can name, or for one you can't -- then there's not much reason for you to continue. That alone should dispose of this issue; if the article creator feels distressed, that should be all we care about in the name of goodwill in editor retention. The
WP:NONENG issue: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance". Who can tell if that's the case here? I know what can't determine that: A drive-by nomination that repeatedly demands detailed reasoning. I wouldn't blame someone for leaving Wikipedia over this. Urve (talk) 04:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
A "drive-by nomination" makes it sound like a negative connotation such as drive-by tagging or deleting. SL93 (talk) 04:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative project and an important part of DYK's purpose is to encourage editors to develop great content. The creator being unhappy is sufficient reason for a decent person to withdraw the nomination. SL93 should not complain about OWNership while OWNing a DYK nomination for an article where they have a single and insignicant contribution. Find something else to increase your DYK count. Johnuniq (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that DYK is designed to be a positive and stress-reduced environment—that's why we give out credits and celebrate stats page appearances and run silly hooks. I'm seeing an uptick in editor dissatisfaction/disputes here lately, and I don't think that's good for anyone. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that they said they redacted them. Wow, drive-by nomination and a claim that I'm trying to increase my DYK count. Fine, I'm an asshole and I withdraw the nomination. SL93 (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93 I retracted the two reasons I gave without debate because I did not want an argument. Unfortunately, we had one anyway. Thank you for withdrawing the nomination. And good luck (I mean it!) with finding other articles to feature at DYK. -- asilvering (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A claim that I'm trying to up my nomination count is just great. And that I'm doing something as a drive-by. Why would I aim for such a thing when I already rarely receive recognition for my work on Wikipedia? It's actually no different from my real life. SL93 (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one thinks you're a bad person in or because of this, SL93. It looks to me like asilvering was frightened of a conflict, creating a miscommunication where neither of you could understand where the other was coming from. That's okay; miscommunications happen, we live and we learn. I think we'll all be able to handle this a little better next time. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Theleekycauldron and @Urve! It's very encouraging to see these kinds of responses, and so quickly. I was very worried, as someone who has never been involved with DYK before, that it was the norm for articles to be nominated by uninvolved editors, and that a request to retract the nomination would be ignored if the article met DYK criteria. I thought I would have to start editing "defensively" to avoid this in the future, starting new articles at under 1.5k characters and spooling them out slowly so that I could avoid things being posted to the main page for whatever reason - which would be a real drag. (The reasons given here are all good ones, and of course there are more!) -- asilvering (talk) 05:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @SL93 for your generosity in spending your time nominating another editor's article for DYK, and for all the work you do at DYK. You are a most valued contributor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6

Conversation moved to Template:Did you know nominations/Death to Arabs

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.

  • ... that "death to Arabs" is shouted by Israeli football fans and nationalist marchers, and is commonly seen in graffiti (pictured)?

@Buidhe, Paradise Chronicle, and Bruxton: Maybe it's just my usual reservations over any hooks that vaguely involve Israel-Palestine (or really any nationalist conflict), but is this particular hook really a good idea? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you define "good idea". IMO it meets all the DYK requirements and is true. People were shouting this just yesterday. (t · c) buidhe 09:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more of "is it really a good idea to highlight Israelis saying stuff like that about Arabs on the main page?" I mean, I know NOTCENSORED at all, but still. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the relevant guideline is
WP:DYK#gen4: Articles and hooks that ... promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided. It'd be difficult to argue that this article doesn't leave you with a pretty negative impression of Zionism; is that coverage and criticism undue? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
we could pare it down...
take away the image, tone down the language; maybe it keeps a bit of the controversy at bay and still keeps the core encyclopedic part of the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should add "the slogan" to clarify that it is not death that is commonly used. —Kusma (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to bring this up, but remembered how there were no considerations for the hook saying that what Israel is doing to Palestine is illegal, only a few weeks ago, and assumed that the DYK consensus was to just take Palestine's side. Especially after getting nowhere with asking caution for Russia/Ukraine hooks, which we have instead seen a massive increase of, I thought it would be pointless. Happy to see some clear minds prevail and, no matter what the hook says, it absolutely should not have a picture - it adds nothing and I am sure seeing the slogan in context would be more upsetting to its targets than a reasonably neutral hook is. Kingsif (talk) 10:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that the context of death to Arabs includes death to America, is that mentioned by any sources? Do Israeli right wingers say anything like "the slogan in its historical context has been provoked by U.S. government's hostile policies towards Iran and expresses outrage at those policies, and does not wish for literal death for American people themselves" (quote from death to America)? TSventon (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find any such thing in reliable sources. In fact I was unable to find a single source that supported or justified the use of such phrases. This may be one of those issues where there's no "other side". (t · c) buidhe 17:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean exactly that hooks which promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided? Does it mean we should never run a hook about, say, a Palestinian terror attack, or some crime against humanity committed by one nation or people against another? Surely not - these are legitimate topics. So to my mind, the guideline means that hooks should be avoided that are not neutrally worded - i.e. they should not be one-sided or biased.

With regard to this particular hook, it's arguably a little blunt in expression, which is not helpful. The article is also a little brief. I think if you want to write on a sensitive topic like this, you are going to need to write with sensitivity, and the article does seem a tad attack-pageish as it is. More expansive treatment than a handful of brief quotes might help. Gatoclass (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The key word is probably "promote" and, honestly, depending on what one thinks, they might take such a blunt hook as this as promotional to either side... Kingsif (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I promote hook sets to queue with any regularity but I would not touch it with the picture included. Toning down the hook and omitting the photo are good ideas. Schwede66 17:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I write what I can based on the sources available... I don't think there's an "other side" to this issue and have yet to find any reliable source that supports the use of such phrases. I'm not opposed to leeky's suggestion if others think that's preferable. The image does not need to be included. (t · c) buidhe 17:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with buidhe – I think this hook should run, whether in its original form or with a rewrite. It's a fact. A really ugly fact, sure, but an accurate and reliably sourced one. I see no valid reason not to run it. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe, Gatoclass, Schwede66, Narutolovehinata5, Kingsif, TSventon, and Theleekycauldron: This sends shivers down my spine, no matter how it's phrased, or how it is meant by those who say it. In the world we live in, regardless of how this is meant, it makes me really nervous. A similar situation might be a sports event held in San Antonio, Texas - Texas vs. Mexico teams - having a chant, "Death to Mexicans", or "Death to Texans". Or perhaps an American city with a predominately mixed-ethnic sports team in Boston with a chant, "Death to the Irish". On the main page, this could really backfire on us. Please consider a less offensive hook. I think we should really step back and consider what the proposed hook could inadvertently trigger.— Maile (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "backfire on us". That Israeli football fans chant "Death to Arabs" is highly offensive; mentioning this on the Main Page isn't any more offensive than newspapers reporting on racist incidents. —Kusma (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions an interesting incident whereby (presumably Jewish) graffiti artists painted the slogan paired with swastikas at a university where Arab students were unpopular, as well as a scholarly statement about the slogan being influenced by Nazism and the German side of the Holocaust; phrased correctly, the irony of either fact could make a more interesting hook, IMO, and perhaps a safer one, especially going the scholarly route. Kingsif (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - this is what bothers me, the hook wording. I'm fine with the article and believe it should be on the main page, even the lead hook. When it comes to any ethnicity or religion, some are easily offended. — Maile (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think having a more "scholarly" hook about the topic would be a reasonable compromise between still covering the topic at DYK and making sure not to cause unnecessary offense, especially when it comes to a topic as heated as Israel-Palestine. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a pretty graphic photo of American soldiers torturing someone on DYK recently. I don’t understand how we can run that but not the photo of graffiti. Thriley (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was taken down after complaints though. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone oppose the hook being pulled for now until a compromise hook is agreed upon? It's clear at this point that running the current hook working could cause issues even through no fault of the article itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the issues of bluntness raised above, I don't find the hook that hooky. Nationalist marchers, football fans, graffiti, slogans, nothing unique in those intersections. CMD (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of discussion it's already generated, I have doubts that it will bore our readership. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much like a football game where this chant might be used, excitement can be generated from an uninteresting situation. There's so much that could be pulled from this article, the combination with swastikas, the link to a Sheik, the association with the Mizrahi working class, there's no need to run something so generic. CMD (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pull the hook. There has to be a better hook. --evrik (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found the defaced headstone interesting, I actually wrote an article called Desecration of graves and so it was of interest to me. The photos I usually see are of desecrated Jewish graves like the one I used in the article. Regarding this hook: I wanted to say that Narutolovehinata5's actions appear to be out of process. They started this thread which asked the question: "Is this particular hook really a good idea?" Then they counted a "rough consensus" from a discussion which followed. Then Narutolovehinata5 took action on their own request: they removed the hook and stated, "It's clear at this point that running the current hook working could cause issues..." FYI: The article is called "Death to Arabs". It is a provocative subject and title to be sure. But apparently it is accurate or someone would tag or edit the article. If we are uncomfortable with it, maybe that is because we should be. From what I have seen at DYK we do not hide the article title when we are uncomfortable like the suggestion for this one on the now reopened nomination page: "an anti-arab hate slogan". Bruxton (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, multiple editors were opposed to the hook as currently written so it was clear a different hook was needed. I debated at first whether or not to pull the hook but given that it wouldn't be long before it hit the Queues (and thus would need sysop attention) along with how there was at least one comment above that supported pulling the hook, it appeared to be the best option given the circumstances. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Quid pro quo

I have so far nominated (all have been approved) five articles for Do You know. I hope to nominate a sixth. I am aware of the quid pro quo rule and that is means I should review before I nominate. Does it mean to nominate a 6th, I need to review 6 to get me leveled up, or is it like the first 5 are for free and here it's one for one? CT55555 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first five were free. To nominate a sixth, you need the QPQ. --evrik (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should also be noted that technically do not need to provide the QPQ at the moment the nomination is created, it's only needed for the nomination to be approved. You just need to provide one within seven days of the nomination, whether it's before the nomination or after. It's permitted to nominate an article then do the QPQ later as long as it's done within seven days and is mentioned on the nomination page. With that said, if a QPQ is not provided within seven days plus a reminder, the nomination may be failed by a reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand I'll need to do the QPQ. I'm asking if I need to do 1 or 6? i.e. is it QPQ from hereon it, or am I considered to have a backlog of 5? CT55555 (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hereon. There is no need to go back and do five additional ones. (Although, don't let a lack of a need stop you if you're interested!) CMD (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, thanks. I thought I'd do one, see how easy it was and then maybe do more. I've just looked at the instructions and I found it so bafflingly complicated so I decided not to bother nominating any more. I wish wikipedia had an easier graphical user interface and tools. I'm willing to do the work, but I lack the skills to help more. CT55555 (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a checklist. A bit daunting at first, but as you get more familiar it becomes quite easy. I hope it doesn't put you off nominating interesting DYK hooks, feel free to ping me or post here if you have questions. CMD (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i need a week

Lately, DYK seems like it's been more exhausting than usual. Disputes and discussions are getting longer and sometimes more acrimonious, unfinished/unsatisfactory hooks i don't want to promote keep piling up, and before you know it, it starts eating up more and more of your time. I'm taking a break for a week; hopefully that allows for a refresh and an ability to jump back in. Z1720, Bruxton, and SL93- I hope you can handle for a while. Thanks in advance :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just hit the Snooze Alarm on DYK, and disappear to parts unknown until you're ready to come back. — Maile (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New review needed for Template:Did you know nominations/Zionism as settler colonialism

Basically the header; I can't continue reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Zionism as settler colonialism, and would support someone else do so. Kingsif (talk) 10:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody else having this issue? - preps and queues visuals

This project is the only place I'm experiencing this, and it started yesterday. Doesn't matter what browser I'm using. This started when I tried to move Preps to Queue 4. It would let me do the move, but when I saved and looked at the page, the Queue looked blank. If I opened it, the hooks were there, but would not let me see them unless I opened the edit window. It's the same thing with the Preps. And here's what seems to be happening. I can see Queue 4 right now, because Cwmhiraeth finally did the update. But if I open the Queue, the URL at the top says this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Queue/4&action=edit

Queue 3, on the other hand, which I did not edit, says what it's supposed to say when I click on it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Queue/3

I just did a similar thing on Prep 4, in that I did a null edit (no changes) except to add a blank space on one of the lines. Now if I click on the Prep 4 section, without even opening it, the url says this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Prep_area_4_[edit]

I did some tests on both an old article I had written, and over at Village Pump. This does not happen anywhere else. So, what's going on with the coding at the Preps and Queues. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had exactly the same problem when I promoted Prep 4 to Queue 4. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I promoted a few nominations to prep, but I can still see them on the approved page. I wonder if its related. SL93 (talk) 04:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6 biographies

Prep 6 has three biographies in a row and five biographies in all which should really be fixed. I'm not in the mood for it. SL93 (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: So there are five biographies in the set which means there is one too many? I thought we try to get 4 and 4. I will move one biography and the whole thing will be fixed. Bruxton (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Bruxton as the promoter; Bruxton, in general, two biographical hooks shouldn't be placed to each other. Two hooks from the same country also shouldn't be placed next to each other, and there probably shouldn't be more than one or two hooks from a non-U.S. country in a set (mostly because we almost always have more U.S. hooks than any other country). In general, you'll want to keep track of your U.S. bios, non-U.S. bios, U.S. non-bios, and non-U.S. non-bios as you build a set. At least, that's what I do. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: thanks for the insight. Bruxton (talk) 05:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image for Template:Did you know nominations/Duke of Alcantara Stradivarius

Hello. When I created the DYK nomination for my article Duke of Alcantara Stradivarius, I did not include an image, but now that I have added one, I am requesting that the image and the hook would go together for its DYK appearence. I know I am unable to edit a DYK template page after its discussion has been closed, so I am requesting here to see if this is possible. I am the owner of the image and it was taken a few hours ago. Thanks. Yinglong999 (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've attached the relevant code for the image here, if a prep builder wants to take it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been promoted sans image Bruxton (talk) 05:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: I'm aware, I'm just saying that if a promoter wants to move the hook into an empty prep and use the image, it's available here. It's worth considering; a nice image indeed, and a good shape for the text. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It certainly would make a very nice lead hook. FYI, it will take an admin swap, since it's currently in Queue 6. — Maile (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it would make a good lead hook and image. I recommend that its promotion be reverted so that it can be placed in an image slot in a later prep. Z1720 (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I swapped this out from Queue 6 to Prep 5. However, I think we need to do more swapping from Queue 6 to elsewhere. There are three music hooks one after another in Queue 6, and were already like that when the violin hook was up there. — Maile (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maile66 I would personally count the James Blunt hook as a non-music hook. The British rapper Geko hook could be moved to prep 4. SL93 (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hook for Met Gala on May 2

I recently made this nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/American Accountability Foundation. It would be nice to run it on the day of the Met Gala if possible, assuming it gets approved in time. Thriley (talk) 04:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting to prep 6

I have been promoting some hooks recently and so I thought I would try my hand at promoting a whole set (Prep 6). Here is how it went so far. I picked articles that were of interest to me and even tried to have a pseudo-theme. Like youngest hockey player...youngest rapper...Old violin......old photos...old tomb. Regarding the desecrated grave marker photo I chose for the lead initially...I wrote an article about the desecration of graves and the photo was a representation of that.

First the provocative lead hook I chose along with the photograph of a tombstone were pulled by an editor after wt:dyk discussion.
I moved a hockey player hook and accompanying image up to the lead.
I also promoted an article related to an archive of old photographs. Without the accompanying old image of a pyramid.
Next there was an objection that I chose a "generic hockey player image" in the lead spot instead of the pyramid in that spot.
So I consulted leeky, and then accommodated the editor by de-promoting the pyramid hook so that someone else might choose to promote it with the pyramid image
But apparently my de-promotion effort was not up to par. Another editor had to clean up after me. Thanks and Sorry.
Next an objection was raised on wt:dyk that there were 5 bios in the set, and 3 of them were in a row. Note: I was trying to have 4 + 4 as is suggested - obviously I confused myself with the hooks going in and out of the set.
To accommodated that concern I moved one of the biographies to a different set, and I moved a violin hook in its place in prep 6. (violin article had no image)
Next an editor uploaded a photograph of a violin for the violin article and wanted the image promoted with the hook.
Another complaint appeared on Wt:dyk: apparently there were three music related hooks in a row in set 6. Stolen violin/a rapper biography/Elvis Costello album -
The violin hook was pulled from prep 6 and another article was inserted.
Next a suggestion was then made to move the young rapper's bio from the set as well - apparently we can't have the Rapper bio and Elvis Costello album next to each other.
And I was thinking
WP:5P5. Maybe I will do better on the next set. At least you know what I was thinking. Bruxton (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I've only been prepping a little longer than you (I did some prepping in the summer, then restarted again in March) but this is the process and some tips on how I conduct my prepping:
  • As I build the preps, I open a Google doc and record the country, theme, and if it's a bio article for every article in the set. For example, Prep 7 has Germaine Bailac in the image slot, so I would note that as "French opera bio".
  • As I build the prep, I keep in mind some unwritten rules: 4 bios max in a prep set (none next to each other) and 4 max American hooks (none next to each other). Two max per country (not next to each other) and one max per topic. I'll also keep in mind how many media/popular culture topics there are (songs, film, television, actors, etc.) and try to space them out within the set. I also try to have at least one hook that is from a non-English speaking country and one hook that is not from North America or Europe, although these are sometimes secondary concerns. As I promote a hook, I keep track of the theme, location and bio hooks in that Google doc I opened in bullet one.
  • Since the above is so difficult to accomplish, I don't try to build themes in the DYK (although maybe I should?) unless there are hooks in the SOHA that are for a theme. Instead, I start at the top of the approved list, and add the oldest hooks to the prep first (keeping in mind bullet point two's stipulations.)
  • I also try to space out where in the hook the bolded word is placed. For example, I avoid a hook set where 5 hooks in a row have their bolded hook after the word "that". I also try to have a variety of lengths for the hooks, to keep reader interest.
Prep building is an art form, not a science. Don't worry about making a mistake, as it is the queue promoters will double-check everything. If you want, post when you complete your next prep and experienced prep builders can give feedback. Z1720 (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Thanks much for the valuable insight and a good lesson about your prep set rationale. Often an editor will not get to do a whole set from what I have seen, and perhaps that is good. Bruxton (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Often when I start a prep someone has already promoted the image slot. When I am starting a prep that already has hooks in it, I will put their theme, country and bio in the Google doc and continue building the set. There's also been times when I have not completed a prep, either because I ran out of time or I can't find a quirky hook. It's not necessary to build a whole prep, as others can take over and complete the set as needed. Sometimes I like completing a prep as it's like a puzzle to find a hook that fills the remaining slots. Z1720 (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Please have a look at a set I am working on Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6 1. algae, 2. Military/American 3. British band/song 4. Catholic Priest from Germany 5. Scholarship for an American University 6. Double -woman write from US, and woman writer from Canada. Any editor who is interested in critique. Thanks Bruxton (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: It looks good. Some might quibble that Jefferson Scholarship is American, and one of the Carrie Jenkins Harris is also American, but I think it's fine. Just don't let the 7th hook be American, too. Z1720 (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon Bruxton (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived early this morning, so I've created a new list of 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 10. We currently have a total of 242 nominations, of which only 81 have been approved, a gap of 161, up 7 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ranchlander National Bank (nom)

History has shown that my engaging in quote-on-quote "quick clarifications on the QPQ requirement" tends to result in disaster. But I'm pretty sure we can all agree that, as is relevant to the linked nom, reviewers should get one QPQ credit per article reviewed, not per nomination (i.e. two QPQ credits for two nominations)? That's basically been the precedent for a while, I've done it myself and ticked QPQ submissions from people who have done the same. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. You need a reviewer for each article nominated. Each nominated article gets you one credit. Schwede66 08:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, despite the change in the QPQ requirements from counting credits to nominations, the old "you must review one article for every article that is nominated" guideline. That means, if you have a nomination with two bolded links, you need to review two articles. You can either review another double article nomination (this would count as two articles) or two separate one-article nominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 and Schwede66: To clarify, I mean in granting QPQ credits, not the number required—as in, if I review a double nomination, I should get two QPQ credits to use for later, right? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although for the sake of getting the unapproved backlog down, it is perhaps better to ignore the extra credit :) —Kusma (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Leeky. That's right. Schwede66 08:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
all right, sounds like this was just an oversight. Without further objection, i'll update
WP:DYK. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Request for Franziska Seidl to appear on 1 July

I started writing and nominated said article (see Template:Did you know nominations/Franziska Seidl) unaware of the 6-week limit for special occasion hooks. Would it be possible to wait till her 130th birthday on 1 July to put this hook on the main page? (Provided it will be approved of course.) Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be OK with that, especially because the nom's ALT1 specifically mentions that it is their birthday (so makes sense to run on the person's birthday). I'll note that I would consider this a one-time exception for this editor. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon Bruxton (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon I think we can IAR as a one-off here. FYI and unrelated, the KZ-Jasenovac-Denkmal-Seitenansicht image that ἀνυπόδητος currently has on their user page, is one of the most interesting sculpture designs I've ever seen. — Maile (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone! Also, I fully agree with Maile on the Jasenovac monument 😊 --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are nominations in the Template namespace?

While investigating why the [reply] links on Template talk:Did you know do not work (@Piotrus), I was surprised to notice that the discussion pages (e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Celmisia major) are all in the "Template" namespace. May I ask how that came to be? Matma Rex talk 23:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because nominations are transcluded. Originally, the Mediawiki software did not have this functionality; it was provided with the template namespace in 2004. Since then the functionality has been expanded, and any page can now be transcluded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but I don't think that explains it. Even in 2007 (I didn't look further), the nominations were not transcluded. And when templates were introduced, it seems like they supported transcluding from any namespaces from the start (r2769), except for a bug with the main namespace that was fixed in r5507. (Before that, you could only transclude from the "MediaWiki" namespace, using syntax like {{msg:foo}} – maybe this is what you're thinking of?) Matma Rex talk 16:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was actually a successful proposal to move that out of template space, if i recall correctly; no one ever did that, unfortunately. Maybe that's something I could get on? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a good idea if you could find that proposal and link it here. Although Hawkeye says above that now any page can be transcluded, the question is how do individual nominations that transclude only on the article talk page, the nominator talk page, and Wikipedia:Recent additions . I think it's important to have a record of the complete review. My first nominations have no historical records at all, except for the talk page notice that it had been on the main page. I have no idea if they were self-noms, or how they got on the main page. Really and truly, I don't think we want to lose the review history, which should be linked on the article talk page. — Maile (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My first nominations are all in the page history of Template talk:Did you know; if you know when your hook hit the Main Page, it is not hard to find the nomination. —Kusma (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is, that I keep a list of my nominations - 10 years of them - with a link to the nomination template - as well as a link to the QPQ I did on someone else's. If I want to see any specifics about either, and I do refer back at times, I just click on the template link I've saved. It is not practical to scroll through a decade of WP:DYKN, even if I know the exact date involved. That's the method used if someone has to provide historical diffs at WP:ANI, and it can be very time consuming. — Maile (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't relate to which namespace nominations reside in, just to having one page per nomination. —Kusma (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we're talking across each other here. What I'm saying is that I can now click on my individual nomination, as well as the nomination that I reviewed for DYK, and instantly know what was on those reviews. I really don't want to have to bring up a long list on my browser, and scroll through a mass of nominations to find the info I want. Also, the more that is on a page, the more likely it can slow down the browser load of that page. To me, what's being proposed here is going backwards. — Maile (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the proposal was to move future nomination subpages into the Wikipedia namespace. This will have no effect on the things you describe. —Kusma (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, the transcluding would work regardless of namespace; it already works that way at AFD, where e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swimming clubs in Kent can be seen transcluded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 28#Swimming clubs in Kent. I'm not really proposing specific changes, although it seems to me that it'd be more intuitive to have discussions in the usual discussion namespaces. Matma Rex talk 15:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The [reply] links won't work on
WP:DYKN no matter which namespace the subpages are in. The only way they'd work is if we went back to how we did it in the Olden Days, when there were no subpages and all text for all nominations was on that single page. We're definitely not going to do that. You'll have to continue to click on the "Review or comment" links within each nom.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  06:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually, after reconsideration, I think that those links would work in another namespace. (Personally, I find those links to be an annoyance, and I've disabled them.)  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  14:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the reply tool can handle transcluded subpages (e.g. at AFD). But it looks like just moving the DYK pages wouldn't make them work – there is a second obstacle, because the nomination pages are wrapped in the {{DYKsubpage}} template. Anyway, I'm not trying to change that, the namespace just seemed confusing to me. Matma Rex talk 15:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandarax, the reply links would work within the nompage though, yes? because they don't now... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the user perspective, why can't we use the same system we use for deletion discussions? There are subpages, transclusions, and the reply links work there without any issues. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From a user perspective, we probably could. We're where we are because of path dependence. However, I believe after the discussion theleekycauldron mentioned above, I believe some (most?) of the DYK tools were retooled to work in the Wikipedia space in preparation for such a move. CMD (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion at WJWF

Could use some quick attention at Template:Did you know nominations/When Jews Were Funny, which I hope to run for the beginning of May. The reviewer has requested a second opinion on two matters: (1) sourcing requirements for documentary films synopses, and (2) whether 'among the last filmed interviews' by people now deceased can pass general verification (ie: uncited). Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vector killed the nom TOCs

...or, in plain English, it looks like the implementation of

WP:DYKNA. They show up as large empty boxes, while the new (and well-designed, although it's gonna take some getting used to for me) table of contents appears as normal in the sidebar. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Still a purging problem

I have moved Prep 1 to Queue 1, cleared Prep 1 and updated the counter, and none of these actions produces a visible result. Until this purging problem is sorted, I do not intend to promote any further prep sets. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@
T:DYK/Q that forces a server-side cache purge every time the page is loaded? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
or embed it in
T:DYK/Q1 if it needs to be a transcluded page... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
or maybe a client side javascript program? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way to use lua to purge pages. However, it can be done periodically by adding an entry to User:ProcBot/PurgeList, or with clientside javascript. – SD0001 (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a general problem. When I create an article, the link used to turn blue immediately. Now, it remains red (but works), for some time, and I haven't found out what changes to blue eventually. Beginning a new window and even closing Firefox don't change it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not already done so, go to your Preferences settings for your account, then Gadgets. Scroll down to Appearance, then select "Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache" and Save. I have Modern skin, and the Purge asterisk appears at the top. One or two clicks should turn the red to blue. — Maile (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try. How about - just observed - that a deleted page remains blue? - same? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tried and worked. Would that solve the preps problems as well. Nice side effect: seeing that I just passed 300k edits ;) - I would never know without you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Been offline, and just saw this. Re the preps problem, I would say it's the same issue. Use the Purge option and see if that resolves it. — Maile (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66 and Cwmhiraeth and anyone else interested: you'll want to add the following code to your common.js page:
window.autoPurgePages = ["Template:Did you know/Queue"]; importScript("User:Eizen/AutoPurge.js"); // Backlink: [[User:Eizen/AutoPurge.js]] theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does this extra coding do? 01:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
If Eizen's code works (and, as far as I can tell, it does), it'll purge the page while you load it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JobQueue lag and our purge issue

Please see VP Caching issue. I don't pretend to know all the technical jargon and particulars. But I do know everything is processed on what is called the Job queue. We have an ongoing issue - see phab:T300914. It doesn't look like the solution is just around the corner. So, until the tech bunch figure out how to resolve this, we deal with it. I vaguely remember something similar (not necessarily at DYK) when I was a fairly new editor. We're all in the same boat right now, admins and non-admins alike. — Maile (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be a similar issue to what is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Cache issue?? FAR has a manual button to purge the cache there, and that seems to have worked so far. I swear everything about Wikipedia has been breaking this year; it's time for the WMF to hire some more coders I guess. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5

Based on the DYK errors page, it seems that the $6.50 in the Julie Jensen McDonald hook should be US$6.50. I can't change it since I'm the nominator. SL93 (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Schwede66 20:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check my work?

I just filled out Prep 5 from the few hooks that were already there. This is my first foray into prep-building – feedback is appreciated! See Prep 5 ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the circus, ezlev! i'll leave notes here :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would've asked that Munkatsher Humorist include a lead section for
    WP:DYKSG#D7
    , but that's subjective.
  • Hokuseihō Osamu has a
    MOS:SEAOFBLUE
    problem
  • An ALT0a hook was suggested at Template:Did you know nominations/As It Was for accuracy—was there a reason for not putting it through?
  • "Foul-mouthed" seems to be lifted from the source, although it's not a quote; that could be minimal enough to avoid copyright or not, but you may want to change to vulgar to be on the safe side
That's all—nice work! thanks for helping out :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My brain did one thing and my hands did another on As It Was – thanks for the catch! As for the other three (and I think Munkatsher has a SEAOFBLUE problem also), how should I go about tweaking them, leek? Should I ping the nominator in the edit summary? (If so, I'll need a reminder of which ping method works in edit summaries) ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For now, ping the nominator (you'll want to link to their username directly, no pipe trick allowed) any time you modify a hook; as you start to do this 5, 10, 2,000 times (yeesh), you'll get a feel for what needs a ping and what doesn't. If someone ever closes the damn RfC up top so I can start building my bot, then you won't have to anymore. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By "no pipe trick", i mean [[user:ezlev|]] doesn't work, you have to use [[user:ezlev|ezlev]] if you want it to display without the user: tag. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I forgot to ping you, ezlev theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the tips! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, ezlev, one more thing! arguably the most difficult thing about prep building is balancing nationalities and bio/non-bios. In general:
  • no biographical hooks next to each other
  • no hooks from the same country next to each other
  • no more than one or two hooks from a non-U.S. country in the same set (based on the number of hooks from that country in DYKNA)
In this case, As It Was is next to Book of Common Prayer, both of which are English, and Osamu is next to Julie Jensen McDonald, both biographical. You'll want to separate them; I usually refer to this as a mechitzaing, although that maaay not be your cup of tea. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
nicely enough, you can kill two birds with one stone by swapping Osamu with "As It Was". I'm going to remove the link to sumo as overlink, but that's usually something that slips my mind anyway (and Ravenpuff takes care of it). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1085217274"