This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This hook contains the name of a person with no article. I definitely believe that that sometimes it's a good choice, like when we included the name of the kid for the hook about the photograph Hair Like Mine. But in this case, why do we care what some apparently non-notable person even thinks about it in the first place? I don't see that it was discussed. Can we find a different ALT? Valereee (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Valereee - I had nothing to do with the nomination but, for information, Elisabeth Whittle is a published author on garden history, was for over 20 years Cadw's Inspector of Historic Parks, Gardens and Landscapes, and is now the president of the Welsh Historic Gardens Trust.[1] I've done that article, could it be weaved in, e.g. "... that Elisabeth Whittle, president of the Welsh Historic Gardens Trust, considers the gardens at Powis..." KJP1 (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
That would improve it, certainly...do you think it's possible we could put at least a stub together on her in the next couple days? That would be even better, if she's actually notable. Valereee (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
KJP1, oops, sorry, hadn't seen the ping. Valereee (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Valereee - No apology necessary! I think she's notable, as a published academic, and for her governmental/quasi-governmental roles, but others may disagree. The problem with a stub is that she has virtually no on-line presence, beyond the one I've given and her LinkedIn page. But I could give it a go. KJP1 (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@KJP1, yeah, I looked too. It's thin. FWIW, if any two of her books are notable, that's a very strong argument that she is, too. Valereee (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I might try a stub anyways, but for now, would "... Cadw considers Powis Castle has the "finest surviving baroque garden terraces in the United Kingdom", do?[1]KJP1 (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Totally! Unless OGJ or P2520 has an objection, we can swap that out! I actually like it better -- baroque is much more interesting than important and magnificent! Valereee (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
As an aside, if you also want a picture, Commons has some good images of the terraces, which are very lovely! KJP1 (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
It would need to be one that is both 1. used in the article and 2. clear at size (140x140 if square, it gets adjusted for non square images) This one is probably the best candidate, does show the terraces, but I'm not sure it's a great illustration of a 'baroque terrace'? Valereee (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
It's nice, but there are others. We could put any one we liked into the article. This perhaps? They are not easy to "get" for amateurs. KJP1 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Maybe with a tighter crop? Valereee (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I quickly started a
Draft:Elisabeth Whittle but I am not yet sure she is notable. Maybe someone has access to other RS? Bruxton (talk
) 14:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
There's not a great deal out there that I could find, I added a little. It's a bit thin but actually just squeaks over 1,500 characters - Dumelow (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Grand job! I think we could make this one stick. KJP1 (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
If someone wants to move it to main, we can give it a try...the risk is that it gets AfD'd before or during main page appearance. Pinging @DYK admins: for opinions. Valereee (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I just hope nobody who really cares about these things notices that the image in the hook isn't actually in the article ;-) -- RoySmith(talk) 00:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
It is a zoom/crop/tone adjust and it is excellent. Bruxton (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I've always thought that cropping images so that they look better on the MP should be encouraged. No rule broken, AFAIC. Schwede66 01:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree, and when someone is deceased I often add a fair use image. WP suffers from a lack of images. Bruxton (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Update to rules regarding image crops
Per the discussion immediately above, I have
WP:DYKIMG to explicitly allow crops if needed to improve image quality at small size (diff). Feel free to revert if you disagree. -- RoySmith(talk)
03:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I think that's fine. Here and there in the past, I've cropped images in queue, either because it was requested here at talk, or because it improves how or what the public sees. — Maile (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
tools
The tool for promotion does not work for Prep 2. Lightburst (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Update, I do not know what happened but a different hook worked. Lightburst (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
@Lightburst that probably means something is incorrectly formatted. Which hook were you trying to promote? -- RoySmith(talk) 02:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith I do not recall now, but the hook promoted in another prep area. Lightburst (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith It happened again just now with prep 2. I tried to use the tool to move Nomination in the last slot and it freezes. I am unsure if it is my own issue. Lightburst (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
@Lightburst The most common problem is that something is wrong with the spacing of the Credits. It's always safest if the sequence of Credits aligns exactly with the corresponding sequence of Hooks within the same set (including the "Example" placeholders in the Credits where there is a " ... that ... " in the Hooks). The sequence gets mixed up sometimes – I'm convinced the tool itself sometimes puts the Credits in the wrong place – but of course sometimes it's because of something human promoters have done as well. When I notice that it's out of order, or that the placeholders are in the wrong place, I usually go in and quickly fix it manually. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
@Lightburst I think I just fixed it. Prep 2 was missing the "Example Editor" line corresponding to the final "quirky hook" slot. You can't just have the "Example Nominator" line there; you have to have both. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
i am not sure what happened, but it looks like a previously promoted hook in the seventh slot had somehow been accidentally overwritten in this diff, which left the credit for the seventh slot untouched by placing the credit for the new hook where the credit for the eighth hook would normally go. i have restored the overwritten hook, but feel free to revert me if i did something wrong. dying (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm convinced the tool itself sometimes puts the Credits in the wrong place diffs or it didn't happen :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
@theleekycauldron For sure I'll flag it next time I notice it happening, as it would be interesting to find out why it does that. My hypothesis is that the tool does it in reaction to something else that is out of place. My bigger concern at the moment is the issue flagged by Dying. Does this mean hooks can be overwritten by accident? Cielquiparle (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Moving un-approved nominations out of /Approved
As discussed about a week ago, I've got most of the work done to find nominations which are in
WP:BRFA
waters.
@Wugapodes Alternatively, if you'd rather make this part of wugbot, I'll be happy to let you run with it. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Jen Zee is at AfD at the moment. Waiting for the end. Bruxton (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith I like this very much, as it feels like the actual number of Approved hooks is always overstated (unless we have exceeded the transclusion threshold), and the un-Approved ones clutter DYKNA. (Just trying to think of every possible scenario: Is it possible that automatically sending temporarily unapproved hooks from DYKNA back to DYKN will cause DYKN to overflow more quickly and break transclusion there?) Cielquiparle (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
no no
I was just in the supplementary guide and noticed slang that we should consider rewording:
DYKSG J1. it's a no-no to promote a hook you wroteBruxton (talk
) 17:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I personally don't see a problem with it... BorgQueen (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
My thought is we should probably avoid using colloquial language. We do not allow it in hooks or articles. We have to remember that these rules are also read by people who speak English as a second language. Bruxton (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, English is a second language for me. BorgQueen (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I was reviewing this after our discussion on your talk page. Bruxton (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
So...? I don't see how it can be confusing to non-native English speakers. If anything, it conveys the intended meaning pretty well. BorgQueen (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
And, @Bruxton, I wasn't promoting a hook I wrote, if that's what you're trying to imply. What I was doing was entirely something else. BorgQueen (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I was not implying anything. I was reading about promoting and came across this slang. I understood exactly what we were discussing on your talk page. Bruxton (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
OK, I'm relieved to hear that. Anyway, I don't think no-no is particularly obscure or gibberish. I'm a non-native English speaker myself and I don't see how it could confuse anyone except perhaps some could interpret it as a double negative, but then I still think it's a bit of stretch. BorgQueen (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
If people are really concerned, do a link to [2], but I think that's probably excessive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Those of us ESLers who might get confused by "no-no" should not do any Main Page work. —Kusma (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Lol. BorgQueen (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I figure if we're gonna have a tangled mess of shifting guidelines, we might as well make them human-readable – but most of it's not set by consensus, rewrite it how ya want. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I am actually surprised as I thought my suggestion was being helpful. To simply state it professionally or businesslike seemed logical, practical and accessible. Now I am
Dead horse? The supplementary guidelines to DYK will never die. CMD (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I've made a BOLD change, as there doesn't seem to be any reason not to make the statement less twee. Anyone should feel free to revert if you prefer tweeness. :D Valereee (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I thought that if it's going to change, it needed to be more definitive—to me, "no no" means "don't do", not "avoid doing", which allows considerable leeway. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Current DYK eligibility question
Could someone please comment on whether
The Mafeje Affair
actually is eligible for DYK (given that it was created from content forked from another relatively new article by the same editor)?
Please comment directly inside the nomination template. Thanks. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I never got back to the original ping. As I posted there, I'm afraid it isn't eligible; according to the reviewer, over half of the article was copied in February from an article that had the material since late December. The copied material would need to be expanded fivefold, which isn't the case here and isn't feasible. It could be renominated should it become a GA. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton and Oltrepier: I'm a little concerned that this BLP hook is about the person's COVID-19 history. Are we OK featuring it on Main Page? I was about to promote it yesterday and decided to discuss first, just to be sure. BorgQueen (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I've asked at the nom template for additional ALTs, to give promoters some options, although as I said at BQ's talk, I can understand why Oltrepier came up with this one, as it does seem like the only thing in the article that would be interesting to someone who wasn't particularly interested in football. Valereee (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen Thank you for mentioning me in this discussion.
I guarantee that I submitted this nomination with good intentions, but indeed, as @Valereee pointed out, that event is the only really notable thing about Saco...
I do have an idea to make that work, though, and I'll discuss it at the nom template right now! Oltrepier (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@Oltrepier, I don't think anyone thought there were any bad intentions on your part! Valereee (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee Sorry, my reply had a grumpier tone than I originally intended...
No worries, anyway! : D Oltrepier (talk) 10:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I didn't think you sounded grumpy. I just wanted to make sure it was clear that concerns about the hook being too negative for the main page weren't a comment on your choice of that hook. It's the only one I saw, too. Valereee (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
{{Template:Did you know nominations/Alchymic Quartet}}
when
{{Did you know nominations/Alchymic Quartet}}
would do exactly the same thing, since "Template" is the default namespace for transclusions? Is there some interesting historical reason, or did somebody just do the first one that way by accident and everybody's been cargo culting ever since? -- RoySmith(talk) 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I think it's as simple as taking the full name at the top of the nomination page, copying it, and putting it between braces for some. The full name is also when pasting into the Wikipedia search box, since it finds the page immediately that way. It's been both ways (with and without "Template") over the years, and I'd vaguely noticed that after a long time out of favor, "Template" had started appearing more frequently. I think it's because the automated processes use it when creating the transclusions; back when the typical placement was manual, the example within the instructions was without the "Template:" in front. (You do have to include Template when posting on this page if you want the wikilink to work.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I've been around for long enough that I did most of my nominations the manual way. As "Template" is superfluous between curly brackets, I leave it off whenever I do something manual with nominations. Having the "Template" part of the transclusion doesn't cause any problems, however, and hence it's inconsequential to include it. Schwede66 01:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
It only caught my attention as I started writing code to parse the nomination lists. Being able to accept either style is just one more little detail. -- RoySmith(talk) 01:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
@
problem solving
16:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Yup. Per Help:Transclusion, If the template's page name does not begin with a namespace, it is assumed to be in the Template namespace. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Writing the pagename including Template: makes some sense as a preparation for a move to Wikipedia: namespace (was a reasonably popular idea here a while ago but lost steam). —Kusma (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Moving to WP makes sense to me. The morass of namespaces our infrastructure lives in (Template talk???) is bewildering. Probably more effort than it's worth at this point, however. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Whilst you don't need this, you can transclude any item, which is probably why we include the full title. {{:World Snooker Championship}} would transclude an article for example. You can use this to transclude items from userspace too (just don't do it into mainspace). Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I think BlueMoonset is right, when I copy a Wikipedia page title I do it by double clicking. By default that highlights the whole thing, including "Template:". CMD (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
"Yuan" is more or less generic for "currency" in Chinese, you can say "3 yuan" and mean either 3 Hong Kong dollars, 3 Euros, 3 renminbi, ... Usually the currency is clear from context. Kind of like a lot of currencies are just called "dollars" in English. —Kusma (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
If the sources and article say "yuan", that's what the hook should say. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
In modern English-language sources (like those cited in the article), unqualified "yuan" means renminbi. The other currencies used in Chinese-speaking areas are usually referred to by other names in English ("dollar" or "pataca"). —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 16:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
In English, yes, there is no doubt that yuan=renminbi. —Kusma (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I have changed the hook to read "yuan" to match the usage in the article. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
As for the SZA hook, the relevant source is actually at the end of the paragraph: "... the only song that features the stern but kind voice of Norma, SZA’s late grandmother who we became so familiar with through CTRL. (...) one can’t help but feel Norma’s presence linger on the track as someone to which SZA is also directing and expressing her intense devotion. When her grandmother passed in 2020, the event, SZA said, sent her into a deep, deep depression." BorgQueen (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
The source should be at the end of the sentence, per DYK requirements. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. On a side note, SZA and CTRL showed up in a crossword puzzle the other day, and had me totally stumped because I had never heard of either of them. Had I only reviewed this nom a few days earlier :-) -- RoySmith(talk) 16:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
SZA is certainly an interesting name. At first I wasn't even sure how to pronounce it. BorgQueen (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Hey, @Paul2520 and @Cielquiparle, this is from ten days ago, just saw it while paging through the stats page, but for future reference, the review was marked as NA for image, and I don't think this image was clear at scale. You have to click on the image to see it full-size to even see the quarantine station we've described as being pictured, and even at full size it's a few tiny building with no detail. At scale, you could barely even tell there was an island in the image. Valereee (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee What does that mean, "NA for image"? I'm not seeing where it was "marked"? (On the day it ran, we received feedback that "(pictured)" appeared in the wrong place, but that was fixed.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle, I don't know if you use a review template, but there are lines that ask about each aspect of review. For the pic it asks "picfree=" and this was marked NA, which is what you are supposed to insert if there is no suggested image. If there is a pic, you mark y, and it asks you a few more questions about the pic -- like whether it's clear at at scale and used in the article. If you open the edit box you'll see what I'm talking about. Valereee (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee and Cielquiparle: I'm baffled how this happened! I follow the template, and must have been distracted I guess.
Thanks for flagging. I will be cautious of this happening again! = paul2520💬 13:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Queue 7 (March 26)
@Cielquiparle @Cplakidas @OnegreatjokeQueue 7: Abbas ibn Abi al-Futuh (nom). Would it be possible to write a shorter/simpler hook. It's technically within the 200 character limit, but it's so complicated it's hard to read. It tries to say too much. How about just " ... that Abbas ibn Abi al-Futuh assassinated his step-father, and was overthrown after murdering caliph al-Zafir?"
Good flag. Proposing instead (as on closer inspection, the article text doesn't use the word "assassinated"):
... that Abbas ibn Abi al-Futuh deposed his stepfather, and was overthrown after the murder of caliph al-Zafir?
(I think there is an issue here with ordering the murders vs. carrying them out, and the words used to describe those actions.) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I like the idea, but the sentence structure is confusing. It initially reads like "both" means "He ordered the assassination of this stepfather, and also ordered the assassination of his predecessor". -- RoySmith(talk) 16:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm, all right, let's get rid of 'stepfather' then? Constantine ✍ 16:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Objection to bold changes to hook currently in Queue 5
I'm a bit at odds with the bold change from then-Sistine Chapel Choir intern J.J. Wright to J.J. Wright, then a Sistine Chapel Choir intern,. The bold change, which occurred after promotion makes the hook more choppy; I strongly prefer the hook that was promoted verbatim due better flow, and I think that a better flowing hook would be able to draw more views than a very choppy hook. — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 00:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
May I suggest that both versions are too wordy. How about one of
I think the second one flows better and has the interesting part (Gregorian chant+Jazz) first. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Personally I also feel ALT-N+1 is the winner. Agree with what Narutolovehinata5 said, plus it's a double hook that invites you to click the first proper noun and the last proper noun in the question. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry @Kiril Simeonovski and Bruxton:, I made a mistake. the 44th Chess Olympiad can't be approved for DYK because as the rules state "It is also ineligible if it has, within the year prior to nomination, appeared as a boldlink In the news (ITN)" and the article was at ITN on 10 August 2022. So, I believe that a rejection is necessary. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Doh, I see it now Bruxton (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I have de-promoted it and closed the nomination. Thanks for pointing it out. Bruxton (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Follow-up question on DYK re-eligibility
Per an above discussion, should DYK articles that have since been deleted for copyright reasons (particularly re: Hathorn and Coldwell articles) be eligible for a rerun if they are created again? There was no consensus on whether DYKs should be rerun at the last RfC, and this could incentivize users to help work through an agonizing backlog of these articles – on the flip side, we have been pretty anti-reruns in the past. Thoughts welcome. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I have no strong opinion on way or the other, but if DYK eligibility incentivizes work on recreating these articles then that's certainly not a bad thing. I do think that with this copyvio/recreation situation there's a difference between renominating an article originally that ran on DYK in 2008 to one that ran in 2022 or something. - Aoidh (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
This makes sense to me. Just stipulate a time period, like five years. If it ran as a DYK on the main page within the last 2-3 years, it certainly does not deserve to run again, because the DYK review process really should have caught the copyvio in the first place. We shouldn't be rewarding sloppy reviews. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand who is being 'rewarded' for their sloppy review in this scenario, besides the person who puts the time and effort into rewriting the article, who, in my mind should be rewarded. Eddie891TalkWork 11:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm all for the fixers being rewarded. I guess it's just the QPQ reviewers who get away with a hand wave as to the copyvio yes/no question. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that is unfortunate. But I think they're getting away with it regardless of whether the article runs again or not Eddie891TalkWork 12:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes-- per my comment above. Eddie891TalkWork 00:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
We already have a rule saying that copyvios are an exception to the amount of existing material to consider for 5x expansion, so if an article ran on DYK before but the article turned out to be a copyvio, I don't think that should be a hindrance to the article running again. It's a very limited exception and I don't think it would happen very often, so I don't see how still enforcing the "no re-runs around" thing would be a net benefit in this case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Because of Coldwell and Hathorn, we have hundreds of articles this could apply to, if people get around to it – poke around in the 2010 archives, you'll see it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The DYK of 2010 is different from the DYK of 2023, and those runs were so long ago I very much doubt people even remember that they ran on DYK at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron I know about Coldwell, but who is Hathorn? Hathorn is a user with 0 edits. There must be some interesting story about that. -- RoySmith(talk) 01:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes-- per my comment in the other discussion, & comments above. Thanks for starting this discussion, theleekycauldronJohnbod (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Do we have a general guideline on deleted articles? Creating a new article at the same title feels like Theseus buying an entirely new ship, and I'm not sure there's much harm in this new ship getting a DYK. Don't think gaming through AfDs is a concern we need to worry about. CMD (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: I think standard practice is that recreated articles do count as new, it's just that reruns are an entirely separate issue. Reruns also prevent, for instance, running an article from new and running it again from GA. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Case in point, Minori Suzuki. When I first created it, I nominated it for DYK, but the nomination failed because the article was deleted. Over a year later, when the article was recreated, I nominated it for DYK again, and this time it passed and run. So you're right that if recreated articles still count as new articles for the purpose of DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 when I asked in 2021 (linked below) If an article that was featured in the dyk section was deleted, is a recreation eligible for DYK again or not?, you responded that (with a few exceptions) articles previously featured on DYK cannot run again, so I would disagree with your point that they definitely do count as new articles, and think it worth clarifying this exception, if we want to make it. The difference with your example here is that Suzuki never ran on the MP at its first nomination Eddie891TalkWork 10:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I apologize for not making it clear, but I was referring to Leeky's standard practice is that recreated articles do count as new quote, as opposed to deleted articles that ran being allowed to run again after recreation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
My supposition is that if it is a new article, ipso facto its DYK cannot be a rerun. CMD (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you here, but I think this is something worth codifying. For instance, when I asked in 2021, the response was that recreated articles could not run again, period. Eddie891TalkWork 10:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Allowing re-created articles that already appeared on DYK once before being deleted to rerun on DYK again, almost creates a perverse incentive to seek deletion for articles that one considers sub-standard, if you are desperate to re-run a DYK. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle, The exception we are talking about here is specifically for articles deleted as copyvio, most of which will have already been deleted by the point they are rewritten Eddie891TalkWork 10:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Even if the exception is for all deletions, good luck trying to get an article deleted because it is of low quality. It's a nonexistent incentive, whether or not its perverse. CMD (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, in the case that the original article was deleted for copyright violation and it's a new, copyvio free article, then it should be allowed to run. Notwithstanding that the copyvio shouldn't have run in the first place, this is consistent with other DYK rules e.g. on the 5x expansion calculations, that have specific exceptions for copyvios. For other deleted articles that are re-created, this is less clear, but correcting copyvios with new articles should be encouraged, not discouraged, at DYK. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I think if it's going to be allowed, we should have the WMF lawyers look at the policy, as running the DYK for a second time could be interpreted as a clear admission of prior copyright violation, where the actual verdict may have been ambiguous. (Maybe it could be addressed sufficiently with careful wording.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Actually, why not just allow any previously deleted article that has been newly recreated to re-run at DYK? There could be many reasons this is OK (e.g. because of current events), and it would stop generating a huge digital trail of "previous copyvio yes/no". A newly re-created article is a newly created article, regardless of what happened during its prior life. Start over, start fresh. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I would support allowing articles deleted for copyvio and then recreated without infringement to run at DYK a second time. Many of Coldwell's DYKs were of questionable accuracy or outright fabrications, and we should give these articles a chance to have proper hooks. I'd even support allowing articles stubbified to remove copyvio and then expanded again to be allowed another DYK run. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
@Trainsandotherthings The DYK hooks themselves were of questionable accuracy or outright fabrications, or the articles contained accuracy problems and fabrications? (Not good either way, just trying to understand.) Cielquiparle (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:DYKN that says, As long as the hooks are duly cited, and other criteria is met, and the rest isn't complete BS, that is what DYK is for.Cielquiparle (talk
@RoySmith: I believe this would be the reason – your hook was recycled for Main Page balance, extending the length of the set. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Also, sometimes if a hook gets pulled because of an issue raised at ERRORs, admins will cycle one in from the year before Eddie891TalkWork 21:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Which the archives don't really keep track of, so I'd discourage it... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this is really different whether it is for main page balance or swapping a hook in, is there? Fundamentally the hooks are being added for MP balance in both circumstances. Eddie891TalkWork 00:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, no, for sure, I'm discouraging both – in my opinion, it's really not catastrophic to leave a set at 7 hooks, especially when DYK already over-extends OTD... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Considering all the disagreements and lack of consensus on whether or not re-runs on DYK should be allowed, I'm staring to wonder if we shouldn't have a strong rule allowing or forbidding them and just evaluate them on a case-to-case basis, usually via discussion here at WT:DYK (not the nomination page where there may not be many eyes). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I might be missing something, but who in this discussion disagrees with permitting re running recreations of articles deleted as copyvios? Eddie891TalkWork 02:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
As far as I know, there doesn't seem to be anyone yet explicitly disagreeing with the idea (except maybe Cielquiparle in some specific case mentioned above), but I was thinking more of a general sense. After all, in the previous RfC, there was consensus to allow former TFA/ITN/OTD entries to run on DYK after at least a year after their appearance, but no consensus about former DYK articles. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, no other specific opposition I can see. I think Cielquiparle's objection is highly remote, & I don't think many recreations will appear here at all. Lithophane is once again running at c. 70 views a day btw. Few Coldwell articles got anything like that, & I doubt that many will ever be recreated, Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, my position in the end is that any deleted article that is re-created should be treated as "new" for DYK eligibility purposes, and that the specific reason behind the initial deletion should be irrelevant. (It could still be rejected on other grounds, as with any other DYK.) Cielquiparle (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I would agree with that. I would also opine that we actually have a standing consensus against rerunning the same article [ie. not a deleted article] on DYK, which is different from allowing former TFA/ITN/OTD articles to run. CMD (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've created a new list of all 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 17. We have a total of 212 nominations, of which 79 have been approved, a gap of 133 nominations that has increased by 11 in the eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any 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) 04:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Myat Phaya Gyi
I did the review and it solely lacked a QPQ but just realized the nominator is blocked for socking issues. What should be done? --Mhhosseintalk 07:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
I do not know where we stand with the nomination. I see a new hook, but was there any determination on the eligibility? Bruxton (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, three separate discussions had me confused. Bruxton (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Switch back to 24-hour cycles?
It seems like we're very close to the threshold, considering there are only 69 Approved hooks with 6 Queues and 5 filled Preps? Also, April Fool's Day is coming up, so it would be great if we know exactly where to put those April 1 hooks. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
No objection to switching a little early to avoid extra work filling the last two preps. Valereee (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:DYKNA counts 65 hooks, however the source text has 81 hooks, plus 1 special occasion. That suggests that 16 hooks have not been transcluded as they would exceed the maximum page size. TSventon (talk
) 12:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
@TSventon I think the 16 hooks might include the hooks that have been marked as problematic or rejected? Cielquiparle (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Cielquiparle, I think you are right, there does not seem to be a transclusion problem at the moment. TSventon (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
We're at 52 approved hooks at the moment (we're definitely below 60, and switchovers should happen once we go below that number); there seem to have been a number of preps filled today, since we were at 78 a few hours after midnight. I also moved about a dozen no-longer-approved hooks back from the Approved to the Nomination page, and the latter page is now not transcluding all the nominations, probably because there are 140 nominations trying to be transcluded there, and some of them have large text review sections. I think it makes sense to go back to one set per day a few hours from now, after midnight UTC. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
... that Panzer Dragoon II Zwei features visuals inspired by the work of Jean Giraud, a villain inspired by Dune's Baron Harkonnen, and a fictional language?
Is this a list of three things which inspired the visuals: 1) the work of Jean Giraud, 2) a villain inspired by Dune's Baron Harkonnen, and 3) a fictional language? Or is Jean Giraud himself a villain inspired by Baron Harkonnen? This needs some copyediting, but until I understand what it's supposed to say, I can't venture any suggestions for how to improve it.
Thanks @RoySmith. I've switched the list around to read 2), 1), and 3) – which I believe eliminates the problem. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Copying in @Bryanrutherford0, @ProtoDrake, and @Epicgenius to weigh in. But personally, it's "Baron Harkonnen" that makes me want to click more than just Dune. If it were up to me, I would cut Jean Giraud from the hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
I think it might be better to say something else, as it looks rather messy either way. Maybe change it to its short development cycle? --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
I like Cielquiparle's version. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Queue 7: Nitpicking Edition
I don't know if maybe I'm being too nitpicky but I did notice a couple of minor things when moving/reviewing Prep7 to Queue 7. - Aoidh (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
@Johnbod, Storye book, and Bruxton: The hook says "... that images on porcelain lithophanes only display properly when lit from behind (example pictured)?" but the source doesn't appear to say that this is the only way that it can be properly displayed. I've seen lithophanes before and I'm pretty sure that's the only way for them to be properly displayed but the source doesn't seem to reflect that. Is there another source that does say this, or can/should the word "only" be removed? - Aoidh (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes it is the only way. I think the source used in the nom (which was available online to cut and paste) does say this sufficiently clearly, and others do, plus the photos show this very clearly - better than words really. To remove "only" would be both misleading and puzzling to the readers, I feel. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
@Johnbod: The source says and shows that it is visible when backlit, but where does it say this is the only way to achieve that? It should not say that it can only be done that way unless a source supports that claim, and the source used does not appear to do so. The source only says Lithophanes ... when back-lit reveal detailed images. It says nothing about it being the only way to reveal the images, so at the moment the hook doesn't appear to be supported by the source. I don't think rewording the hook to say something like ... that images on porcelain lithophanes will display properly when lit from behind (example pictured)? would confuse or mislead any reader. - Aoidh (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Just an update, I have been looking for sources to back up that claim, and I couldn't really find anything saying it was the only way to display it. I did find two sources in [Hyperallergic and The AV Club but both just link to the Wikipedia article when stressing that it's the only way, and I'm concerned that they are just
WP:CIRCULAR references (the previous version of the article also said it was the only way in the lede at the time that both articles were written). Sources certainly describe the backlit method as the way to get the art to display, but none say it's the only way and I'm concerned that without a reliable source backing up that assertion that there's some alternative way to technically view the images using some rare process or something that makes the "only" claim inaccurate. Readers should be able to verify the claims made in the hook, and I don't see that particular part of the hook verified in the source provided. - Aoidh (talk
) 07:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
i don't have any lithophane to test this theory on, but i would assume that the images would similarly show up if the lithophane was lit from the front but viewed from behind. the different shades in the image appear to be based on the varying thickness of the material, which presumably remains the same whether the light passes through from the front or from behind, as nothing in the article makes me believe that the material is unidirectional. if chirality is an issue, one could just place a mirror behind the object to view the image properly from the front. (note that the later lithophanes that use coloured paint may show up differently, since if they are painted on the front, the colors may not show up properly when viewed from behind.) this entire paragraph is obviously original research, though.i wouldn't give too much weight to hyperallergic's use of the word "only". it also uses the word earlier, in the phrase "only when illuminated by flame in the dark", which seems obviously untrue. dying (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
looking at the cited source, i've tagged the lead lead with an {{
Sorry I have only just seen this discussion. I am sure that the hook must be true, because I possess some Chinese and Japanese porcelain pieces myself, and I can see how that would work: it is indeed translucent only if lit from behind, but opaque if not lit from behind - and some of my porcelain is very thin. So in my opinion the problem is not that the hook is untrue, but that we have not found a citation for the hook fact. I think that if we remove "only" and "properly", the hook remains true and works well with the picture, Thus: "... that images on porcelain lithophanes display when lit from behind?" On its own the hook is not exciting, but together with that marvellous picture, it is a pointer to the glory of lithophanes. Johnbod, would you accept that? Storye book (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Certainly not! The whole point of a lithophane is that the image only displays properly when lit from behind. The images look dull/stupid/wierd when lit from the front, and are very hard to read. I don't have a source for that as such, but it is also very clear from the images (and the many more on Commons). Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I found a source I will it insert so that the hook can remain. Bruxton (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
The argument for removing only has merit. The hook that Aoidh proposes is still interesting with the image. When looking at the image of the pane lit from behind it becomes obvious like
WP:BLUESKY, but the hook proposed works just as well. Bruxton (talk
) 14:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I disagree - "only" is crucial. The cows image at that link makes the point well - caption: "Here is an illustrative image of a lithophane lit from the front, left, and the same lithophane with illumination from behind to see the photographic image of two animals Monday afternoon, May 9, 2022, at the Hutchinson Public Library" - my highlight. "Only" is appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
All sources mention the viewing from behind, but I don't have one that actually says the images don't read otherwise - but this point does need to be conveyed somehow. Savage, George, and Newman, Harold, An Illustrated Dictionary of Ceramics, p. 180, 1985, Thames & Hudson,
ISBN 0500273804 says "intended to be viewed by transmitted light, ie , when illuminated from behind", without bothering to say the images just don't work otherwise. Johnbod (talk
"Only" is appropriate only if sources can verify that claim; the sources in the article and discussed so far do not verify that claim. The sources do say that it displays properly when lit from behind, but none say that it's the only way. The hook can't make a claim that isn't found in a reliable source. An August 2022 study found that In general, participants who were blind or blindfolded used tactile sensing to accurately interpret all five lithophanes so you don't even need to see it at all in order for the lithophane to be displayed properly to an individual. Without a source being unambiguous that backlit is the only way, the hook shouldn't say that it is. As it stands the hook as written fails verification, and also taking the other comments in this discussion into account I'm going to go ahead and change "only" to "will"; if sources can be provided that verify that this is the only way, then reverting it back to "only" can be addressed, but pictures on Commons for example only show that they are visible when backlit, they don't and can't show that this is the only possible way for them to be viewed as intended. - Aoidh (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I disagree that the hook fails verification. I think we all know very well that it is correct, and if you think that we don't have sources perhaps you could explain why the two sources I've mentioned here are worded the way they are. You asked at the beginning of the section "I don't know if maybe I'm being too nitpicky..." - I think the answer to that would be yes. You say "pictures on Commons for example only show that they are visible when backlit, they don't and can't show that this is the only possible way for them to be viewed as intended", which completely ignores the three pairs of images in the article and many more on Commons showing the same lithophane lit both ways - one displaying "properly" and the other, without backlighting, manifestly not. As to the source you've introduced, please note 2 things:
1) The effect it claims for blind people do not relate to the sort of lithophane covered in the article at all - they are some sort of braille graphics, not images (in the sense of pictures) at all, & I think they have misappropriated the term. They say "Here, we report that graphical data can be three-dimensionally printed into tactile graphics that glow with video-like resolution via the lithophane effect. Lithophane forms of gel electropherograms, micrographs, electronic and mass spectra, and textbook illustrations could be interpreted by touch or eyesight at ≥79% accuracy (n = 360). The lithophane data format enables universal visualization of data by people regardless of their level of eyesight." If, as many museums do, you want blind people to appreciate images you give them a relief or a sculpture to feel.
2) Their description of old-time lithophanes is helpful: "A lithophane is a thin, translucent engraving [er, no dude, it isn't an engraving in any sense], typically <2 mm in thickness (Fig. 1). The surface appears opaque in ambient light or “front” light (Fig. 1A). However, the lithophane glows like a digital image when held in front of any light source (e.g., back lit by a ceiling light in Fig. 1B and sunlight in Fig. 1C)." That sounds like "lithophanes only display properly when lit from behind" to me. Johnbod (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
The fact remains that by adding the word "only", the hook is making a claim that is not verified by a single reliable source. You're conflating "it's displayed when backlit" with "it's only displayed when backlit" and that is
WP:OR. The sources in no way make the claim that this is the only way to achieve this. That X happens when Y (which the sources say) does not mean that X is the only way to achieve Y (which the sources do not say). That you don't consider the tactile lithophane study a "true lithophane" is not up to you, and directly contradicts your claim that it being backlit is the only way for it to properly display. There is also software that displays the lithophane's true image, so your hook is factually inaccurate in multiple ways as written. When approving the queue the banner at the top says clearly that "The hooks below have been approved by an administrator". I have not and do not approve the hook as written because it fails basic verification. @Johnbod: There are three solutions, and whichever one you agree to is fine with me, but we can either (1) find a source that unambiguously and directly verifies your "only" wording, (2) reword the hook to make it reflect what the sources provided so far actually say, or (3) I can pull the hook out of that queue and replace it with something approved, and it can be discussed further and added to a new prep set if appropriate. If option 1 is not feasible (which seems to be the case), let me know which of the other two options you'd prefer, but I'm not putting my name on approving a hook that fails verification in this way. Given the discussion so far, I suspect you'd rather not have the hook reworded, so I'm inclined to pull the hook from Queue 7 and remove it from the approved queue because as written it fails verification which is not a small issue, that way it can be discussed and a solution worked out without a countdown looming over it. I would much rather just replace the problematic and unsourced "only" with "will", however. - Aoidh (talk
) 20:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Well I completely disagree about the sources, but of those three choices I will take the third, and think of a new hook, which make take some time, as really the ONLY interesting thing about lithophanes is their odd way of displaying, which I think we all understand perfectly well. Unimpressed. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Actually after thinking about it, maybe I'm wrong but it seems unfair and inappropriate to make a change that the editor that disagrees with the change can't revert, so I've self-reverted for now. @BorgQueen and RoySmith: would one of you mind weighing in here and let me know the best way to address this? I want the hook to pass close scrutiny, but I also want to make sure it's done appropriately. - Aoidh (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh I haven't been following this whole thread (and there's people who are better versed in DYK rules than I am), but I'll take a shot. I see two different issues here. One is which version of the hook is better. On that, I'd say the one that includes "only" is clearly the winner.
The other is how much power does the nominator have to veto hook changes? This seems to be a question which has never been answered in a fully satisfactory way. My take on it is, "The nominator doesn't have absolute control, but we generally defer to them unless there's a strong reason not to." There's been some protracted fights about what makes a good hook, with nominators and reviewers defending opposing positions for months. That's a bad scene. I think your self-revert was a good move. -- RoySmith(talk) 02:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Just for the record; I'm with User:Aoidh on this. No verification means no main page exposure. Schwede66 06:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I am as well. To answer @RoySmith's question, we let the nominator veto any change in deference to the fact that they can withdraw the nomination entirely at any time. But if they can't come up with a viable alternative, the nomination closes, so most don't do that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
How would people feel about ALT1: ... that images on porcelain lithophanes are intended to be viewed when lit from behind? -- RoySmith(talk) 21:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I have no issue with that hook, since it's verifiable, accurate, and still interesting. - Aoidh (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
It's much weaker, but possible. Perhaps Aoidh could explain how this differs from the previous one, except in being more vague and weaselly? Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Can someone explain to me how Lithophane is even eligible? It ran on DYK in Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/May (under 19 May 2008). I thought articles were only allowed one DYK. The fact that the versions that ran have been deleted as likely copyvio should be irrelevant to that. And the nomination lists it as a 5x expansion but again, that's only if you fail to compare against the likely-copyvio-deleted versions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: I was wondering the same myself – I assumed this was a DC rewrite, but I didn't see a talk page template for DYK and didn't think to look further than that. This is currently technically ineligible under DYK rules, but if DYK wants to carve out exemptions for recreated Coldwell/Hathorn articles, that's definitely something it can do. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I was unaware it had run before, because the article had been deleted, and the deleter refused to let me see the old one. The new article is completely different, and if an exemption needs carving out, I think we should do that. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I wasn't aware it had already run on DYK, but per the above discussion I've pulled the hook from the queue and reopened the nom discussion. I have no opinion on its eligibility but I did note that concern on the nomination page. - Aoidh (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm strongly in favor of changing the rules to allow articles to re-run as DYK if the articles in question have been deleted as copyvios, whether DC, Hathorn, or some other user-- they shouldn't have been run in the first place, and since the article has been deleted because the text was copyvio it will by definition have to be a new article from the ground-up. I think the intent behind no DYK re-runs doesn't apply here. Besides, there was no consensus several months ago about allowing the re-running of any dyk after a certain time span, so it doesn't seem there would be a strong consensus against this change. Eddie891TalkWork 13:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron and Eddie891: as noted, there was no consensus to allow re-runs. That means this re-run should also not be allowed. The fact that it was deleted and rewritten is irrelevant. Either allow re-runs or don't, this halfway house is not fair on other editors who put good work into articles. — Amakuru (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
@Amakuru: While I agree that there was no consensus in the discussion, I disagree with the rest of your point-- it's entirely relevant that the article was deleted as a copyvio because it shouldn't have been run on DYK in the first place, and its being deleted means the rewritten article is an entirely new article, though it is on the same topic. I am also not sure how this is a 'halfway house'. It doesn't penalize people who do other good work (more than any other dyk criteria), but rewards people who rewrite articles that have been deleted as copyvio, something that we should be encouraging. It's also worth noting that this discussion has been continued below at #Follow-up question on DYK re-eligibility, where all participants seem to share this view. Though it is admittedly not a formal RFC, it is not an insignificant group either. Eddie891TalkWork 19:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean, "it shouldn't have run in the first place"? It did run in the first place. It has been featured on the main page. The rules are clear, no repeat DYKs are allowed. If you want to change that, then file an RFC to do so. — Amakuru (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
It may be "clear" to you that that's what the rules mean, but when you have people below (in this case, CMD) explicitly interpreting them as meaning something else My supposition is that if it is a new article, ipso facto its DYK cannot be a rerun, it is certainly not "clear" to everyone. Eddie891TalkWork 22:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
But your point is taken that there is (no longer) unanimous agreement on this point. RFC opened. Eddie891TalkWork 22:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I'm with Amakuru on this one. Either we allow reruns or we don't. As for ... rewards people who rewrite articles that have been deleted as copyvio, something that we should be encouraging -- well, then we should be rewarding and encouraging those work on many problematic old DYK articles too, and believe me, there are a lot of terrible DYKs if you go back to pre-2010 or so. Yet we refuse to rerun them even if they get improved to the GA status, only because they have run just once, more than 10 years ago. BorgQueen (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger, Lanternofdiogenes, and BennyOnTheLoose: (also Bruxton but I don't want to keep pinging you) The hook says "... that David DeJulius donates his student athlete compensation from jersey proceeds to provide books to inner city youth?" but the source only says he made an announcement that he would do this; neither the source nor the article say he does or has done this, only that he intends to. Has this changed since the October 2022 announcement, or should the hook be reworded to reflect that it's a future intention and not something that's already happened? - Aoidh (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
David DeJulius made this pledge in October 2022. There is no RS follow up. I can only find one March 7 2023 source which reiterates the pledge. I think we should look for a new hook or modify the hook,
The natural next question a reader might ask is, did he donate the proceeds? I will see what others think. Bruxton (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Apologies for being remiss in the original review. I think ALT1 is fine; I suspect it may be difficult to find an independent, reliable source to confirm that any donation has been made. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Done I started to add a comma so that it read that in 2022, David DeJulius pledged but decided against it since the MOS doesn't seem to specify, and from what I'm seeing with and without a comma are fine in American English. I'm fine if someone wants to come behind me and change that for whatever reason as appropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Both are fine. I'd keep the comma out for consistency with another hook in that queue (or change both). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Where do we get to his retraction. I see the pledge and the reiteration of the pledge.--
WP:WAWARD
) 15:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, I misread what "but decided against it" meant. I thought that was part of an alternate hook.-
WP:WAWARD
) 17:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
While we are discussing DeJulius, he is currently in Queue 7. He will be playing in a nationally televised game in the
WP:WAWARD
) 15:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
P.S. I don't know if people have paid attention to the fact that I have editted the page a lot since it was promoted.-
WP:WAWARD
) 17:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
@
WP:WAWARD
) 03:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger: You would have to get an administrator to move the article (if needed) because it is in a queue. Bruxton (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: Since you handled Queue 1, would you have any objection to swapping David DeJulius from Queue 7 with one of the hooks in Queue 1? If you didn't have an issue with it I thought it would make sense to swap it with Justin Schultz since they're both North American sports bios. - Aoidh (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh, well done! While you're at it, could you please double-check the hooks in Q1? Just in case. BorgQueen (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely, I'll take a look here in a little while (kids just got home). - Aoidh (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@
Parkville, Colorado's hook because the source verifying the information used "Capitol" instead of "Capital" so I didn't see it initially when I used Ctrl+F, but it and all the other articles and their hooks check out. - Aoidh (talk
) 22:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Great. Thanks! BorgQueen (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
April Fool's Day
If we switch to 24-hour cycles at midnight GMT, then would the April Fool's Day set run as Queue 7? And if so, can we just build it, say, in Prep 7 and then have the whole set slotted in to Queue 7 after the fact? Cielquiparle (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton We have to put the April Fool's Day prep set somewhere. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the April Fool's rules, but Harold H. Piffard (nom) may be appropriate, has a quirky hook. Thanks for checking, Zeete (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
@Zeete: I enjoy that hook and promoted it. I left a question in the nomination about an image caption. Bruxton (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
I certainly read the caption wrong. Nevermind. Bruxton (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
I will review it now. Bruxton (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
For another April Fool's Day candidate, I am liking Twelves the monkey...it would probably need a different hook but if you read the article there is SO MUCH POTENTIAL. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
It is low hanging fruit. I reviewed it and proposed hooks. The article needs a bit more copyediting as well. Bruxton (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton I was thinking of proposing a football + baseball mashup (rabbit + Castellanos). I could easily be talked out of it though as the mashup thing is very hard. I will go propose it in the newer nom. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: It is up to you, I have to leave the last of the prep to you since I reviewed the candidates. I can check out a hook that you may propose. Bruxton (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton: the hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles III, Count of Alençon would seem to be a very good candidate for April Fool's Day. In fact, I would be far less inclined to support the "deliberately misleading" wording of those hooks if they were run on any other day. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I may want to move the Wikipedia related quirky hook to another set, what do you think about moving it out @Cielquiparle:? Bruxton (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I will probably leave the rest of the set to another promotor. Looks like you stopped that nomination for cause. Coming down to the wire. Bruxton (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton: oh yeah I did stop it... Silly me, because I imagine the points I raised are rather trivial to fix. Would be good to revive it IMHO, unless there are better candidates for AFDay. — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton Sure... The Wikipedia Covid-19 one is genuinely positive and not a joke – in fact it's a very serious topic – so I'm fine with moving it (and probably coming up with a different hook for it). On another note... Maybe we should ask the DYK admins to leave room for swapping in April Fool's Day set from Prep 7 once we're actually done...? Hopefully tomorrow? Cielquiparle (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC) 22:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
I am with you @Cielquiparle:. I will move that hook to another set! Bruxton (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
@Amakuru That April Fool's Day hook probably only makes sense to British people. But anyway I've pinged the nominator and asked if the issues you flagged can be addressed ASAP. Let's see. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I passed it over because it may be too provocative. Bruxton (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
OK I've marked it as requiring more work and/or discussion on the hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Seeking military history fan...
...to please read the latest version of Buchanan's Station. Perhaps @Hawkeye7 or @Hog Farm could take a fresh look (as the article has changed significantly since you first looked at it), or perhaps we have another military history or American history buff in the house who could please take a look and then review/approve the DYK nom? I promise it is worth a read. Thanks in advance. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll take a look on my lunch break. Hog FarmTalk 13:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I have taken a quick glance at the article, checking neutrality only. I am concerned at the repetition of "Indian(s)", outside the context of quotations or article titles. In many cases, that word could be replaced by "warrior" or tribal names, or something else which may be considered acceptable. There is also the phrase "Native American". As an outsider myself, I would not presume to use those terms, so could you please either change those terms in the article, or let me know your grounds for using those terms in a WP article? This is not a complaint or political activism on my part, it just looks to me as if the article gives a voice to the white pioneers only, and that the warrior tribes do not have enough of a balancing voice in this? What initially hit me in this article, was the phrase "successfully repelled" (instead of just "repelled") in the lead: That expression sounds like the voice of the white-hat pioneer hero in the old black and white films. In those films, we never heard the voice of those hundreds of incredibly skilled riders and stuntmen who rode bareback and barefoot. Those are the actors I remember. Are we re-writing history by leaving out their voices? If we at least name their nations considerately, that would be a start. Storye book (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
@Storye book: - I don't think there's any major concerns with "Native Americans" given that's what American schoolchildren are generally taught to use, although I'd advise against using "Indians" in articles, except for specific terms like "Indian Territory" or "Indian agent". And as to the names of the warriors, that frankly often isn't recorded in existing sources. Keep in mind the Cherokee syllabary didn't exist at the time of the battle. The sourcing is by nature going to be limited in some areas for these topics. Hog FarmTalk 16:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
@Storye book Regarding how to refer to Native Americans: It's very complicated and I could fill up pages, but basically there is no simple answer to any of this, nor any single term that will make everyone happy. One of the best concise explanations I have seen was written by @Kevin1776 and is available here: Talk:Tecumseh#Rewrite in progress
Regarding the wording you suggested, we even argue about the appropriateness of the term "warrior" which conjures Western stereotypes of Native Americans. (Why not just call everyone "soldier"?) That said, I would just ask that you actually sit down and take the time to read the entire article very carefully. I spent a ton of time and took great pains to try to make this a balanced article explaining the complexity of relationships between all the different actors and interests, because I wasn't entirely convinced or comfortable with the previous version. I will also try to look at it "fresh" to see if there is more than I can fix.
(Your feedback about the hook is noted. Maybe it's a good argument for throwing out that hook.)
I generally try very hard not to use the word "Indian" but in this case, there were a few instances where "Native American" was going to be an awkward substitute, and this was a complicated story involving three different tribal affiliations, and sometimes you did not know which one was where. As Kevin1776 points out, in those instances, there is a school that says to go ahead with "Natives" but I think that has plenty of potential to offend as well. Meanwhile there are also communities of Native Americans that claim "Indian" as an identity preferable to NA – e.g. Indian Country Today, etc. But I will have another look and see if there are places where I can remove it without confusing things. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
(Edit conflict. I had written:} OK, though I'd better make clear that I wasn't asking for the names of the warriors - just the names of their nations. Presumably there was a limited number of nations involved in this bit of history? I accept that the sources are limited, but when paraphrasing we must interpret the wordage of those sources in a manner respectful to all. You say that you advise against using "Indians" as a single word, so could we please have examples of that usage removed and replaced? Thank you. (Update after edit conflict): Thank you, for your answers. You know best. Good luck. Storye book (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Correcting a nomination
I can't easily see how to correct a nomination after posting. Could someone kindly look at Template:Did you know nominations/Testimonies (novel) for me, please? There should be one hook, with the source text included. I think it needs to be edited above the words "Please do not edit above this line". Many thanks. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure what happened there, but I'll fix it up. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Looks like some kind of copy-paste snafu. Not to worry, these things happen. Thanks for your submission. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Edge case breaking PSHAW
Per the discussion above, @dying, I believe PSHAW doesn't like upside down. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
haha, yeah, Cielquiparle, i wasn't sure how pshaw would handle that. apologies for making you do it manually. (normally, i'd offer to help, but in this case, i'm not allowed to promote my own hook.) thankfully, i believe DYKUpdateBot simply copies everything between the comments to the main page, so hopefully there shouldn't be any issues there. dying (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
@dying It doesn't seem to like it even when you do it manually (just tried and looked at it in Preview) – it flips the image and sends it far left for some reason. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
strange, Cielquiparle, previewing seems to work for me. are you copying both the line above and the line below the line with the {{main page image}} template? the line above begins with "<div class", and the line below is "</div>". dying (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
@dying @Mandarax This was my very first time promoting a DYK hook manually, ever. Could you please check to make sure everything is ok now? Thanks in advance.
As a side note: I momentarily managed to turn three whole prep sets upside down on
T:DYK/Q, but I've fixed it now. I accomplished this by using PSHAW to try to slot in a hook above the Mondrian one (because it has added a few extra slots within the tool). Cielquiparle (talk
) 06:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
oh, sorry for causing such havoc, Cielquiparle! it looks like pshaw wasn't expecting the closing div tag. thanks for fixing that.i only found one minor issue with the closing of the nomination, which i have taken the liberty to correct. (i assume fixing such technical issues isn't considered a conflict of interest, but feel free to revert me if otherwise.) my assumption is that you were emulating how recently closed nominations looked, and weren't aware that you can simply substitute the {{DYKsubpage}} template. (for future reference, the manual instructions are here, though it seems everyone ignores step 2 when closing a nomination nowadays.) the credits in the set of hooks also seemed out of order, so i have sorted them, but please revert me if that was deliberate and pshaw doesn't work properly otherwise.anyway, everything else looks good. thanks, Cielquiparle! dying (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
I was unable to promote to 7 with PSHAW, so i did so manually. I enjoy the caption on the image, so I am ok with manually promoting. Bruxton (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thanks, Bruxton. dying (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
There was some routine maintenance earlier today which apparently had some unexpected consequences. Lots of tools are down. It's being discussed on IRC #wikimedia-cloud. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like it just got fixed a few minutes ago. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Looks to be back up, I got Violation Unlikely 8.3%. My question was more with the sourcing, specifically with the niche blogs given that it's a BLP (Jews in the City etc.) but am leaning toward it's probably ok...? Cielquiparle (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I added several other references to the article before promotion. Bruxton (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
@
WP:BLPSPS standpoint but I guess Jew in the City for example isn't "self published" in the sense that there's a rather large nonprofit organization with staff behind it. (So yes, technically it's a blog, and it's not exactly a news organization, but it's also not self-published in the sense of a lone ranger publishing whatever with no oversight.) Cielquiparle (talk
) 20:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Desert
Not sure what to do with Template:Did you know nominations/Desert of Maine. The participants have not returned to the nomination for more than one month despite pings. Other editor involvement included editing the article and proposing hooks. Can someone just adopt the approval process or should we mark for closure? Bruxton (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
IMHO, the nominator has a duty to remain engaged with the process. I would close it as rejected. It's not like we're struggling to find enough good nominations that we need to babysit things when a nominator walks away. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee: I am hoping they can approve a hook, because it is ready. Bruxton (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
All is well that ends well I was worried that I was too demanding in the nomination. They approved on their talk page and I promoted. Bruxton (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Are we stuck?
Prep area says: Last updated: 25 hours ago... Bruxton (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I've done that twice already this year lol. I'll leave it to someone else... BorgQueen (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering about that. I'm happy to manually do so, but if I'm going to be the one doing it (I've obviously never done it before) I'd need the "how to" broken down barney style for me. - Aoidh (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh It's the "Manually posting the new update (if the bot is down)" section at the bottom of every queue template. Every time I've looked at it, I've run away screaming in the other direction. Have fun! -- RoySmith(talk) 02:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Done Please feel free to double-check what I did, but I followed the instructions exactly and everything should be handled now. - Aoidh (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for being Johnny on the spot. @Aoidh:Bruxton (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Both bots are back online :) From the logs, both were unable to access Wikipedia's API (unclear if the issue was on the bot side, with Toolserver, or with Wikipedia), and after 22 minutes of retries, both bots gave up. Thanks BlueMoonset for the talk page ping, and Aoidh for the manual update. Overall the manual update looks solid! It was missing the article talk page credits though (when updating manually, it's the "tag" button on the credit template), I've gone ahead and issued the article talk page credits by script. Everything should be back to normal :) Shubinator (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Is there a way somebody else can see the status of the bot and restart it? It's really not good for an essential process like this to have a
Yep it's possible to see whether the bot processes are running, see the link at the Kubernetes migration update. Restarting it is currently only possible by me; it's possible to onboard another admin with technical know-how to be able to restart it, not sure if this is worth it though - the bot is designed to fail closed, and spamming restarts erodes this design choice. Also, in my opinion, rare manual updates aren't a bad thing, as they help admins understand how the updates work, and ensure the community is not 100% reliant on the bot. Shubinator (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I disagree that manual updates are a good thing. They lead to increased delays, increased workload and stress for admins, and a greater chance of something going wrong. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Let's chip away at reducing the difficulty of manual updates then :) For example, who can update the manual update instructions to make it clearer that credits should be distributed to both user talk pages and article talk pages? Shubinator (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
@Shubinator: would modifying PSHAW to include a "to Main Page" option help, or do most of the breaks that kill the bot end up killing a user script as well? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
My sense is this would exacerbate the problem we're trying to avoid, of over-reliance on one or two people. Shubinator (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
We now have a complete April Fool's Day set in Prep 7. (Famous last words.) Thanks to everyone who provided hooks. Quite frankly, I was surprised we didn't have more hooks "banked" for this year – but we did what we could and all the suggestions were very helpful. Hopefully if it looks ok, it can get promoted to Queue 7 after midnight? Cielquiparle (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
So it needs to go where Queue 7 currently sits, correct? That's what I'm seeing on Template:Did you know/Queue#Local update times. What's the best way to shuffle around those Queues, because the April Fool's Day set needs to replace what's currently in Queue 7. I could bump everything down by one queue so that what's currently at Queue 7 would go to Queue 1, and 1 to 2 and so on. Is that the best way to handle that? The only issue I see is that every set would have to be shifted down one, even the preps. There's got to be a better way to do that? - Aoidh (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh I was thinking you wait until midnight (1 am BST) until Queue 5 is free, then move the current Queue 7 to Queue 5, and slot in Prep 7 to Queue 7. Of course, I'm not an admin, but that's what I would do if I had a fox, a chicken, and a bag of grain. (Or, does it not actually work that way, and you can only shift things by one?) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: I don't know, because if I just move 7 to 5, we'd have a Queue 5 and also a Prep 5, and I'm not sure if that would mess things up (like with PSHAW for example); up to this point every time I've moved a prep to queue it's been the prep number to the corresponding queue number. I'm sure I'm overthinking this and there's an easier way to do it though. Maybe I could just shift Queue 7 to 5, and then Prep 5 to 3 or something I'm not sure. - Aoidh (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Why not just swap the two sets: Queue 7 to Prep 7 and Prep 7 to Queue 7? An extra edit window can hold one of the sets if necessary during the swap. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Are there another special date hooks interfering with the switch? Only one switch would be ok, though.
talk
) 15:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Done I've switched Prep 7 and Queue 7 so that the April Fool's Day set is in Queue 7 and will run on April 1. I did check and didn't see anything in the set I moved out of queue that requested any sort of special date or anything so I think it should be good to go in that respect. - Aoidh (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Was approved. Then @UndercoverClassicist and @DigitalIceAge decided to change it, not bothering to, oh, say, ping the nominator. Or apparently to read the article. Which resulted in the promotion of a factually incorrect hook. Which now has caused this lovely mess. Can someone please just change back to the originally approved hook? Valereee (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
In my defense, I only changed the wording from UndercoverClassicist's hook to avoid using gerunds (murdering and dismembering → the murder and dismemberment). DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I need to put my hands up for that one: I'd (wrongly) assumed that simply replying would ping the nominator, and I inadvertently introduced the factual error. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
My apologies, both, I was unnecessarily snippy. :) I was rushing out of the house and didn't have time to rein myself in. Valereee (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
No problem. I should've caught the error at the time, but as the case was particulary gruesome my eyes must've glazed over that detail. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for being understanding about me being snippy. :) Next time just ping the nom. I'd seen that the hook was approved and hadn't realized there was discussion happening afterward. Valereee (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Process of moving a hook to special occasions slot
It's been awhile since I had a special occasions request, and the DYK reviewer for Template:Did you know nominations/William Y. Slack recommended a special occasions date of April 17. Am I allowed to move it over to that holding area myself, or does that need an independent party? Hog FarmTalk 13:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Anyone can do it, except I'm not sure if the nominator is allowed to do so. In any case, there has to be agreement from the reviewer first. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Is agreement from the reviewer actually a rule? I don't see it anywhere in
I moved it to April 17 Special Holding for you. Looked through the rules and don't see anything about this. I think it's OK as long as the date of special holding was agreed on the review or here at the talk page. I don't know of any discussion about such a rule one way or the other. — Maile (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Ah. I was looking at the fine print. I should have been looking at the big type on the front of the box :-) -- RoySmith(talk) 19:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
@Hog Farm, FFR, you can just ask your reviewer if they'd please move it so it doesn't get overlooked. Valereee (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Self promotion allowed???
WP:DYKSG#Rules of thumb for preparing updates says Promoting your own articles is generally discouraged. Is there any situation where it's considered acceptable? Would anybody object if I changed that to say it was prohibited? -- RoySmith(talk)
15:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
More precisely: Promoting articles you have nominated, perhaps? No one actually owns the article per
no, that'd be a reasonable reflection of standard practice. I'd say go ahead and change it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I can't think of a case when it would be needed or appropriate, hence "prohibited" is better than "discouraged". Schwede66 18:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Like Roy and Schwede I can't think of a case where it would be needed or appropriate. Valereee (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
I could see it as being reasonable if there are no other admins who are active to move from P to Q. Granted,
nothing is prohibited if there is a good reason to ignore the prohibition, but I do think that hedging a bit is better for handling edge cases. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)
23:59, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
That's a different issue, though. I think it's okay for an admin to move to queue a set that contains an article they nominated or reviewed, particularly if the queues are nearly empty. An admin who is a frequent nominator could theoretically have a hard time avoiding that occasionally. But there's no real need for anyone to be promoting to prep an article they nominated or reviewed. Any editor can do that, and there's no time urgency to it. Valereee (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The real question is: Does this mean we're no longer saying it's a "no-no"? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
alt1q: to not promote / a hook you wrote, / it's no no-no!
I've updated the rules. When I looked at it again, it turned out that J1 already said what I wanted it to say, so I just deleted the extra text from the intro. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Queue 6
I have a few questions regarding Queue 6, which is almost a bit too good for my taste:
the lead image is an allegory of marriage, only the third day after we enjoy an allegory of peace.
hook 3 is about a ballet, and 4 about a ballet dancer - hook 3 doesn't say ballet but I believe that should be changed, and perhaps a link to suite might prevent misunderstandings, - The Firebird is not a hotel ;)
hook 4 doesn't need a link to Paris Opera, after one to Paris Opera Ballet saying it's "an integral part" of the other
hook 6 mentions another opera with an opera singer and an opera conductor (after we enjoy an opera also in the previous set)
4 hooks in one set about European high culture - almost too good. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Just 4? What, ABBA doesn't count as European high culture? -- RoySmith(talk) 20:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
It does seem to contain pretty much all US/European hooks. I think some swapping is in order for balance. Valereee (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I was just thinking I should circle back to this! Valereee (talk) 10:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm sad. Point taken but there was a logic to how the hook themes and words tied together. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle, you're thinking maybe we should do theme-based sets? I could see doing it for a special occasion. I think if you've built a set intentionally around a theme, you probably want to open a discussion. Valereee (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The fewer hooks we have to work with, the fewer choices we have. Sometimes it "feels" like after an extended run of 12-hour cycles, we've burned through all the "best" hooks super quickly and are left with...what's left. So we make the best of what we have. This, to me, is the strongest argument for why we seriously need to consider 18-hour cycles. It's not just a "fairness" argument. It's because it affects the quality of the sets. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I would argue the opposite. I'd prefer to be more selective about what we publish. 8 hooks every 19 hours is about 10 hooks every 24 hours. If we published the best 8, we'd still have an acceptance rate of 80%, which is astoundingly high for any publication that cares about quality. Looking at my own submissions, I can easily identify 20% (if not more) which technically met the rules but were still pretty marginal in terms of article quality. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith I have tried very hard to hit a higher quota in terms of rejections and withdrawals. I would appreciate it if you would take a look at the ones I have rejected, or questioned with serious reservations, and close them. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Could you suggest a few specific ones that I should look at? -- RoySmith(talk) 17:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I closed one, and left an ALT suggestion for another. I'll try to take a look at the others tomorrow. -- RoySmith(talk) 03:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
For me it's a strong argument for rejecting hooks that no promoter thinks are worth promoting, per @EEng's (sorry, didn't like to mention without pinging) proposal. Valereee (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee I would argue that the promoters and others have actually been very thorough recently in encouraging withdrawals and rejecting hooks that are not suitable or weak. But I don't think this information is tracked anywhere. (The other thing of course is that we actually do spend quite a bit of energy trying to improve hooks, so that other promoters can promote them.) Cielquiparle (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
The argument about "bottom of the barrel" is not to imply that what is left after the 12-hour cycles are done are the weakest hooks. What it does mean, though, is that the variety of what is left can be lopsided: Of course it's easier to space out picture hooks about paintings, if there are more picture hooks to choose from. But not if you just used them all up in a frenzy of 12-hour cycles. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I will also say that I would encourage some kind of reform to prioritize quality control over scheduling perfection – the latter lends itself to hard rules much more easily than the former, but that does sometimes lead to us putting too much attention on the wrong thing. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Reporting a missing hook in Prep area 5
Hello! I just wanted to report that Prep 5 (starting with TVBoy) is still missing one hook at the very bottom: I think it just went unnoticed by accident, but still...
@Oltrepier thanks for noticing, but that's actually normal. The prep areas are often in a state of flux, as people build them up and shuffle hooks around until they're happy. If you ever see a queue that's missing a hook, please report that, however; the queues should pretty much never be incomplete. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Clark won the Naismith award today (Sunday), and it's a more recognized national award, compared to the regional Pac-12 honor. The Los Angeles Times said it's "widely considered the nation’s top defensive award among college players" [3]
It's already stated and sourced in the body: "One of the top defensive players in the country, he won the Naismith Defensive Player of the Year Award, and the National Association of Basketball Coaches named him their defensive player of the year.[27]" (Source text: "The UCLA junior guard on Sunday was honored as the school’s first Naismith defensive player of the year..." (Los Angeles Times))
Thanks in advance. —Bagumba (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
In case OGJ doesn't get to this in time, I'm happy to endorse the change. I reviewed the new hook and checked the sources. Looks good. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with the new hook. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Passions (Homilius)Nom@Aoidh: Can we make room in the queue for this Good Friday request? It was nominated March 16, but finally wrapped up today. If it is too late for that set we can promote it to a later set. Bruxton (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff: Regarding this, the longer caption was inspired by a conversation with Theleekycauldron where they mentioned that sounds don't typically get the engagement that pictures do. Since there are sources which acknowledge variation in the spelling (e.g. the number of As), I made the caption longer to maximize interest/attention. Content to defer to others regarding whether this creates a policy problem (it doesn't strike me that it takes more liberties with representing the sources than, say, the April Fools hooks). FWIW. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 20:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
That's fair enough. However I think that this one might just be quirky enough that it might get substantial engagement anyway. Also, I'm not sure how much lengthening the audio caption might increase engagement by (I reckon that the main reason is that it won't as eye-catching as an image). But I'm happy to leave the decision to consensus. — RAVENPVFF·talk· 20:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I am fond of the hook, article and sound file. I preferred the original exaggerated caption. I am sure readers will make the connection. Bruxton (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I've restored the longerrrrr caption. BorgQueen (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not liking this hook much at all. I think the original ALT0 was better, but why not the even shorterALT2: ... that the origin of BRAAAM (featured) is disputed? with the audio player right there, it'll be obvious we're talking about a sound and it's a lot easier to read. -- RoySmith(talk) 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Here we go again
I've done a manual update, again. @Aoidh could you please take care of the credits? BorgQueen (talk) 00:09, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Credits on user and article talk pages are both Done - Aoidh (talk) 00:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Both bots are back online. In the future, the best way to reach me is to drop a message on my talk page, which ideally would have happened ~a day ago when Queue 2 was manually cleared as the bot failed to do so. If I was notified then, I might've seen this in time to restart the bots for today's update. Help me help you. Shubinator (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
We have a request from @Gerda Arendt to run a Good Friday hook on April 7, which maps to Queue 7. As soon as the citation needed tags are resolved in the article, we could either promote it to the existing Queue 7, or build a new set around it in Prep 7, and swap the sets. Thoughts? Cielquiparle (talk) 06:15, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't know which nom is being referred to, but as long as it doesn't unbalance the Queue in terms of bios or locations I think it would be simpler to just swap out one of the hooks and replace it with the date-sensitive one, once any issues with the article are resolved. That same set has already been pushed out of the Queue once to accommodate for April 1, so ideally I think we should avoid pulling the entire set back out a second time. - Aoidh (talk) 06:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh Thanks, makes sense. No wonder it sounded so familiar. The hook in question is currently at the top of the "Requested dates" section: Template:Did you know nominations/Passions (Homilius) Once the cn-tags are resolved, we'll ask for help from an admin to get it promoted into one of the Queue 7 slots, as long as there are no further objections. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Cielquiparle, Aoidh, the hook should go into Queue 6, not Queue 7; Queue 6 is the one scheduled to run on April 7. The hook should be inserted into Queue 6 and the displaced hook put into a free slot in a prep set. (Replacing set for set made sense for a whole-day set like April Fools' Day, but it doesn't for one or even a couple of hooks.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: thanks for catching that, but now that I'm looking at Template:Did you know/Queue#Local update times, it looks like it would be Queue 5 that runs on April 7, rather than Queues 6 or 7. Unless I'm missing something, Queue 6 looks to start at 00:00, 8 April (UTC). - Aoidh (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay...when I checked Template:Did you know/Queue#Local update times yesterday it clearly said that Queue 5 would start at 00:00, 7 April (UTC), but now that I'm looking at it again it now says Queue 6 is indeed what runs at that time. I'll take a look at Queue 6 now. - Aoidh (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Aoidh, thanks. If you're looking at the Local update times section right as a queue is being promoted to the main page, the table can be a day off for a few minutes while things are being updated and moving around, but it's correct the rest of the time. That might have happened to you. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to cause more problems. The Homilius is now in Queue 6 which is fine, thank you Aoidh, but the nomination wasn't closed, and I now have two musical hooks in that set. Can the opera (with Johanna Geisler) please be swapped instead of whatever was? - Completely different request, just seeing a few admins active: I have a nomination open for Recent deaths which needs a third support, and then someone to move it to the template. James Bowman was the second countertenor to revived the voice part. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Done - I've restored the Eurovision hook and switched out Johanna Geisler for Passions (Homilius). I won't close the nom yet since there's an ongoing discussion; I'll let the details discussed below get resolved and either myself or another editor can then close it whenever is appropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to be a party pooper, but the promoted hook is currently not good, and possibly even misleading if read as I would propose a rather natural reading is (the 2023 performance is not a "first" one, but the context makes it appear as if it is, especially since the relevance of said performance is totally unclear if it isn't a first one). See the nomination page for more. SnowFire (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt and SnowFire: I do want to acknowledge that I've seen these comments and I agree that any issues should certainly be ironed out before the queue runs, but I will be indisposed for a little while so I might not be able to immediately address this. @Cielquiparle, Bruxton, and C messier: I know the three of you were involved with reviewing the nomination and the hooks, would you mind taking another look at this? - Aoidh (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't have access to all the sources, but if I understand correctly, it could very well be a first-ever live performance of the full work, but as we all know, "firsts" can be hard to prove, especially if ~300 years have gone by (during which time territorial boundaries weren't even the same). (Sounds like small excerpts have been performed before, and to Gerda's point, the full work was even recorded in 1992, which counts as a "performance" depending on how you look at it.) So it is not intended to mislead but is rather trying not to assert or overstate something, based on the sources. But if the feedback from @SnowFire is that the hook is bad, that's different. I have also had a nagging feeling that the hook is fixable in a different way and burned quite some time on this yesterday, but will take a look again. Hope you feel better soon @AoidhCielquiparle (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Just found the FAZ article republished on Yahoo! and it does refer to other "performances" around the time of the recording, as well as "reduced" performances (with fewer parts in the cast), so for sure not a "first" performance but clearly very rarely performed, since it seems like the handwritten dots on paper were barely kept together. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
My suggestion is just to cut the fact entirely regardless of the research (although that is appreciated!). We should just avoid a hook that says something like "Did you know about this obscure piece that is just SO obscure." The quasi-interesting part is the long gap in time with the "resurrection" of the piece being the cool part. So something like ALT1c might be better. (The other option is to highlight some other interesting-and-verifiable fact about the 2023 performance - but not just its existence, because mere existence isn't interesting.) SnowFire (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
@SnowFire: I proposed a new ALT hook in the nomination template. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Update. We appear to be in familiar territory now – an impasse over which hook to go with. It seems like Queue 6 has already been changed a lot from the sidelines, so my recommendation would be to pull the Good Friday hook completely from Queue 6, if no suitable hook can be agreed upon by midnight today; it seems like way too much drama for a last-minute special occasion request. Discussion is here: Template:Did you know nominations/Passions (Homilius) Cielquiparle (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth I've thrown in a suggestion, hopefully we can get it resolved in time, I'd hate for a Good Friday-based hook to run a few days after Good Friday has already passed. - Aoidh (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of all 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 25. We have a total of 202 nominations, of which 70 have been approved, a gap of 132 nominations that has decreased by 1 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Adding a couple that need hook reviewers. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Follow-up RFC: Should recreations of articles deleted as copyright violations be allowed to re-run on DYK?
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is broad consensus that such articles should be generally excepted from the normal rule against reruns, so long as they would otherwise qualify as "new". Edge cases, such as a rerun after a very short period of time, can be handled
WP:DYKSG rather than the main rules, I will do the same with this consensus, as an amendment to D1. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed
] (she|they|xe) 19:53, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Following up on
eligibility criterion 1c (namely "An article is ineligible for DYK if it has previously appeared on the main page as a bold link at DYK.") be added which permits articles previously featured on DYK to be re-eligible if they have been deleted as a copyright violation and recreated? It has been pointed out that discussion above does not indicate a formal consenus, and as such this RfC seeks to more formally assess whether or not there is consensus to modify the criterion. Note that this is only discussing copyright violations and recreations, not broader re-runs, which a different RFC could address. Eddie891TalkWork
Yes per my reasoning above, namely: since the article has been deleted and completely rewritten in this case, it should be considered a new article and we want to be encouraging such re-writing. Eddie891TalkWork 22:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, provided some time has passed and it's not the same creator. Different article, by a different author, and long enough ago that few people will remember the topic running before. ~
problem solving
22:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Per my comments above, there should be a general understanding that all article that have been deleted were deleted, and new article are not the same article and thus cannot have a DYK rerun. Articles are not their title. CMD (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
That's rubbish. If the DYK is on the same topic then it's a repeat. The same would apply if an article was moved, so your "title" argument isn't what we're discussing here. — Amakuru (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
A moved article is the same article with the same history. A new article is not. CMD (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
No. This was argued at great length in the RFC earlier this year, and certainly I agree that we should be "encouraging re-writing", but that applies to any article which is 5x expanded from an earlier DYK or promoted to GA with substantial new content. But the community rejected that, and we remained with the strict rule that DYKs can not be re-run. Either we stick to that, or we revisit and allow re-runs across a wide spectrum, making it fair for all content creators. There shouldn't be niche exceptions like this. — Amakuru (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Do you have a link to this RfC? I apologize if it's already been linked, I can't find a link on this talk page nor can I find the RfC itself, unless it's this one from late last year. - Aoidh (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes. If somebody re-creates an article from scratch after that article was deleted due to pervasive copyright violations in the deleted version, it would only make sense for them to be able to DYK it. Using DYK as something that serves as an encouragement to re-create articles deleted for copyright violations seems like a way to encourage people to write encyclopedic content. And, isn't that the whole point of DYK? — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 22:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
No per Amakuru. If the point was to encourage people to write encyclopedic content, we should allow reruns for those old (pre-2010), awfully written, short DYK articles too as they certainly have room for expansion and improvements. BorgQueen (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm on the fence in this one, but I think it should be done on a case-by-case basis. The example scenario being done here is a bit of an edge case and, apart from Doug's articles, are theoretically very rare, and I don't know if it would be worth it to ban them entirely considering how rare they are. On the other hand, as much as I am sympathetic towards DYK reruns, it really depends on the circumstances and I don't think we should encourage reruns too soon after their initial run. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, with the caveat that attempts to game this will be frowned upon (though it would be quite hard to game, I'd imagine). I'd also like it to be a rule that you can't use the same hook as the original DYK. I realize the impetus for this is likely the Coldwelling, and this is an egregious example where most of the DYKs he ran were garbage or outright fabrications, but unfortunately I'm certain this will come up again in the future. If someone is rewriting an article from scratch after it was deleted for copyvio, I cannot see any reason to exclude that from DYK. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
I was pinged, so I guess I should respond. I kind of feel that we've got enough good submissions that we don't need to be carving out exceptions to allow more, but I don't really have any strong opinion either way. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Specifically, I'd support adding something to
eligibility criterion 1c, articles that have been recreated after having been deleted for copyvio are eligible, even if they had run as a bold link at DYK before deletion. DYK participants are less likely to support using this exception if the last DYK run was recent or if the nominator is the same as the previous run." I don't think this is going to be a common enough exception that it'd be worth cluttering up DYKCRIT. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs
) 01:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes per my comments in the previous discussion. I don't think this will happen very often, & I don't think gaming is a risk. In the Lithophane case the "gap" would be 15 years - if it were say 2 I can understand there might be objections. It should always be said in the nom (when known - I didn't know about Lithophane, as the page was deleted) & probably brought here. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Neutral for the moment. I wasn't clear on what you were referring to ... until the names Billy Hathorn and Coldwell were mentioned. I haven't followed the Coldwell chronicles in detail, but I sure have vivid memories of Hathorn - he was unique. I see Hathron was blocked from Wikipedia in 2015, but was still active at Commons into 2019. With Billy Hathorn as an example, I probably wouldn't object if an article of his was completely re-written and nominated. We probably shouldn't dismiss a subject matter revived and done correctly ... as long as it has nothing to do with who messed up on the original. — Maile (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Sure, why not. RoySmith makes a good point on repeats not really being needed for DYK's output, and I do hear Amakuru's point that maybe this gets a bit too much into the rules creep. For me, I think the encouragement to clean up these messes outweighs those concerns – I don't think it cheapens the value of a DYK credit to encourage more work. I'm also pretty okay with an exception not being made, but I am strongly opposed to any mandate for case-by-case handling, as that's bound to just cause unnecessary clutter. A clear guideline is more important than getting every single case right. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes. It doesn't matter why a past DYK article was deleted. If an article got deleted, presumably for a valid reason, and later gets recreated and resubmitted for DYK, it should be treated as a new article. I imagine this will happen very rarely, so it's not worth overengineering a complicated set of rules; nor does it make sense to enforce the "no DYK repeats" rule with such rigidity that it requires hundreds of hours of editor time wasted on verifying whether or not each and every "new" article submitted for DYK might have had a past life, not to mention the uneven playing field for non-admins and non-DYK regulars who may not be privy to such information. (Imagine you are a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, create a new article or take it to GA, then submit it to DYK, only to learn through the DYK process that it was in fact a previously deleted article that had appeared as a DYK ten years prior.) Keep the rules simple and easy to follow; don't waste editor time on unproductive "enforcement". Cielquiparle (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes if an article is deleted as a copyvio and a new article written, that article is new and meets all the new article criteria. And exceptions for copyvios are consistent with how we calculate 5x expansions on DYK. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Trainsandotherthings left me a note on my talk page about this RFC. In all honesty, I was going to go the exact route Maile66 pictured, and rewrite some of the Hathorn articles that were presumptively deleted, especially since I'm involved at CCI and I clean up a lot of this...questionable content. (Half the challenge is finding something that has RS and is clearly notable in that trainwreck of a CCI). @Narutolovehinata5: The Doug Coldwell ones in particular are the most recent. Much of the "ran at DYK" articles were created or expanded before 2020 I would say, so there's not a super large risk of one running in <3 years of its first DYK unless it's DC. Rewrites on the CCIs with massive amounts of presumptive deletions are almost always done by people not involved in the CCI, because most of the subjects are blocked as well. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Prep area 3: Alterlaa
I've just noticed I had written the utterly redundant "...that residents at the Alterlaa housing complex in Vienna have large concrete planters in which plants can be grown?"; I mean, what else would be grown in planters? Perhaps a better phrasing would be to replace the last six words with "in front of their balconies"? - Dumelow (talk) 06:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
To be fair, it might be easy to miss since "planters" may not be a familiar word to all. When I hear "planters" I think of the food company, for example. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The article calls them troughs. Maybe just switch the first mention to that? Valereee (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
And actually the terraces have the planters, not the residents? How about:
...that terraces at the Alterlaa housing complex in Vienna feature large concrete troughs in which plants can be grown? Valereee (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Or possibly:
...that terraces at the Alterlaa housing complex in Vienna feature large concrete planting troughs for residents' use? Valereee (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Valereee, those suggestions are great. Happy for either to be used - Dumelow (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Can I get a Done on these two alts? Valereee (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Could I suggest something shorter? The fact that this is in Vienna is less important, so:
... that terraces at the Alterlaa housing complex (pictured) feature large concrete planting troughs for residents' use?
Do we think 'in Vienna' provides necessary context? Valereee (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't to me :-) The interesting thing is that the complex encourages residents to put plants on the terraces and provides a facility to do so. That would be equally true in whatever city the complex happened to be in. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Scheduled tools downtime next week
There's two periods of scheduled toolforge downtime next week. This means most tools and bots will be down. Details were sent to the cloud-announce mailing list (see message archive for details). The expected downtime windows include most of the day on Monday, and about an hour on Thursday.
This will impact lots of DYK things. I'm guessing the April 3 0000Z main page update will fail, depending on exactly when they start taking things out of service. We'll certainly want to keep an eye on things. -- RoySmith(talk) 21:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Pinging Shubinator, since it's his bots that will be affected. Not sure whether it will also affect WugBot (Wugapodes), but also pinging just in case. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
WugBot might be fine but either way it should restart gracefully whenever things come back online. It doesn't do much writing to disk so it depends on the specifics of the shutdown. — Wug·a·po·des 22:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Good to know, will try to be online around then. I can run either bot from another computer temporarily. Shubinator (talk) 13:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Reminder: this is starting in a few minutes. -- RoySmith(talk) 23:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The second half of this is scheduled to start in about 45 minutes from now, and should last about an hour. This will involve the toolforge database going into read-only mode. I expect this will affect DYKToolsBot's category tagging. I don't know what other DYK-related bots will be affected. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Requesting credit for DYK
Could I receive a credit for the DYK for Buchanan's Station please? I normally wouldn't ask, but I ended up going deep on that one – as borne out by the page statistics. It is currently sitting in Prep 1. (I am receiving a credit for Sally Buchanan, but that was a minor work in comparison.) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry @Cielquiparlez: I thought you were trying to credit yourself for the sally hook so I swapped that credit in for the double hook. Bruxton (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Over the last ~15 months (per [4]), DYK has been on a 24-hour rotation about 58% of the time, and a 12-hour rotation the rest of the time. That implies that, on average, a 19-hour cycle (12 + 0.58*12) would very closely match the rate at which DYK hooks are approved. Over the same period, the DYK rotation period has been changed between 12 and 24 hours every 21 days on average, effectively maintaining this 19-hour average.
Now, 19 hours is awkward, but 18 hours could work well – it's four sets every three days, with four times of day that rotations can possibly occur (vs. one or two now). In the past, the rotation has been set to 6 or 8 hours, so this is not new ground, except that some sets will cross from one day to the next (which they already do for everyone not on UTC).
I see two advantages to this: 1) By using a rotation that closely matches the hook approval rate, it should be possible to go far longer between adjustments to the rotation rate – it may even be possible to never change the rotation rate, and just modulate the number of hooks per set ±1 to keep the number of approved hooks within bounds. 2) Hooks would be treated more equally, in terms of waiting time to get the main page, and display time once there.
Thoughts? —
bad idea
17:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
This has been discussed before. I can't find it in the archives, but I'm pretty sure there was an extended thread about this within the past couple of months. The general consensus is that it makes things too complicated when the rotation interval doesn't divide a day into equal parts. It becomes harder to think about which queue a scheduled special event hook should go into, and also makes computing historical statistics messier. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
It would be much simpler to simply do 2-a-days with sets of six instead of eight. That would produce the same average number of hooks over time as an 18-hour rotation of sets of eight. Valereee (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
damn, i never thought of that, that's clever! Removing two hooks from every prep and queue would be absolutely nuts without an interim place to store a large number of hooks, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that six hooks would be far too short a set to balance OTD and ITN on the other side of the page. The left side where we are is shorter today, even with eight hooks. (When I started, six or seven hooks per set was the norm, with two or three sets per day, but we get fewer hooks now, and OTD and ITN were both shorter back then.) As noted above, having a daily midnight switchover is preferable for a number of reasons. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
There's little hassle swapping between 12 and 24-hour rotations. You change a number on one page sometime after midnight UTC and that's it. Sometimes, a time-sensitive hook then needs to be go into a different prep or queue, and that's also easily done. Schwede66 06:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset, just a thought for length on the page...would increasing the size of the image and/or relaxing the single-sentence expectation/max length be helpful? (In general I think 200 is a good limit just for readability of a single sentence, but there are often hooks that could be longer, including by being more accepting of multiple sentences.) Valereee (talk) 12:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm gonna be honest: does anyone actually even care about Main Page balance? Like if certain parts are too long or too short, does anyone even notice? Or is this one of those things that editors care more about than actual readers? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Good to see the return of the 18 hour suggestion, as the way to actually fix things with much less effort than continually flipping between 12 and 24 hours. I support this same as all the other times it's been suggested. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
We really need to gather these discussions somewhere. The relative logistical issues for the people actually doing the work have been explained multiple times. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I've said it before, "main page balance" is a problem that we force on ourselves for no good reason and then complain about how it means we can't do other things. JUST MAKE THE MAIN PAGE A SINGLE COLUMN. Issue immediately goes away, never to teturn, and sections on the Main Page can be whatever length is most appropriate for the material available. You know, just like virtually every other page.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee I suppose it's a matter of taste, but I much prefer shorter hooks. I think most of our hooks are too wordy, with people trying to cram everything in. Also, as somebody who learned layout back in the xacto-knife and glue-stick days, the extra white space we leave at the bottom of the box bothers me. Maybe we should be running a variable number of hooks per day. If people get verbose, we only have room for 8. But if we tend pithier on a given day, we could do 9 or 10 and fill the box. On the other hand, I could see that creating a whole new set of challenges for prep-set builders, so maybe not a great idea. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
This is like the Goldilocks principle. Most prep builders might agree that two sets a day is an onerous schedule. But one set a day is like watching paint dry. Maybe 18 hours would be just right; the only way to know would be to try it. Bruxton (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Two sets of six every 12 hours vs. one set of 8 every 18 comes out to the same number of promotions required per day. The impact on promoters is the same. Valereee (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I think you mean 9 every 18 hours? That makes it the same as 6 every 12, but it also exceeds the current promotion rate. —
bad idea
20:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Each hook gets 18 hours, that is the difference for me. Bruxton (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Well, but each hook also gets to be one of only six...? Valereee (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I think the same sets, 8 hooks, 18 hours. But I am ok with whatever is decided. Bruxton (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I guess I'm just afraid it would be chaotic. Maybe a test run? Valereee (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
A test run could be good, and we could clearly document everything we learn from it, so that we can put the question to rest if it doesn't work. I agree with Bruxton that the difference between 12 hours and 24 hours feels extreme. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Would it take any more work to set up a test run than the normal switch from 1 to 2 a day? Valereee (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
You don't need to remove any hooks from the queues that are already finished, just put only six into prep sets from that day. (It doesn't matter if there are a few 12-hour 8-slot sets or a few 24-hour 6-slot sets). —Kusma (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
@
bad idea
20:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't know exactly what is the process for getting the main page layout to change, but I suspect the level of bureaucracy it would involve would put to shame anything we could generate here at WT:DYK :-) -- RoySmith(talk) 20:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Not something we can handle here. Likelihood of success: nil. Valereee (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Suppose for a moment it were possible. Would it help? And then, where would one raise such a suggestion? —
mutual
20:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Redesigning the MP to make the space taken up by each project flexible would certainly reduce objections here to white space issues. It would best be broached at Talk:Main Page to start, I'd think. Valereee (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
is this something that we want to try out? i am assuming that any trial should run for some multiple of four sets, so that sets and days remain aligned at the end of the trial period. (for example, a trial of 20 sets would last 15 days.) also, i think any such trial should start when we have an ideal number of approved (and unscheduled) hooks, as i assume that this value will remain roughly at an equilibrium during the trial. dying (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:DYKIMG. I don't know if an image should be swapped out or this one simply added, but this image does need to be in the article in order for it to be used in the hook. - Aoidh (talk
) 01:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I suggest we use the Pizza dolce di Beridde image instead, making it the first hook. We rarely get to use food images. BorgQueen (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I added the image to the Desert of Maine article. I would be equally fine with putting the DYK image into the infobox or swapping in the current infobox image as the DYK image. No opinion on this vs. pizza dolce. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I object to a Pizza dolce di Beridde image on the grounds that it looks too delicious. But in seriousness I don't mind that idea. The sweet bread (thankfully not sweetbread) looks interesting and the desert in Maine feels more like a quirky hook, and while the desert photo is interesting when you click on it in its full resolution and really examine the sand, as a hook sized thumbnail in my opinion it loses that interesting detail when shrunk down like that. - Aoidh (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Y Great! I've swapped the image. BorgQueen (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: Noooooo the image is in the article. Bruxton (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but the Maine article really makes a good quirky hook. Please give us some rationale than going noooo. BorgQueen (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
So does the food one. It is a matter of trusting a promotor to promote hooks, and this happened so fast I could not even weigh in before it was switched out. Bruxton (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The bread hook doesn't really make a good quirky one. What makes it quirky? Just because some pope liked it? BorgQueen (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
what is our policy regarding photo manipulation? i ask because the image of the sweet bread looks obviously manipulated to me. the food was clearly photographed at an angle, while the wood grain in the background suggests otherwise. in addition, the shadows make the dessert look like it is almost floating. (i am not against featuring food in image hooks; Bruxton's bondiola sandwich hook was the first image hook i promoted.) personally, i think the version of the image with a white background looks nicer. i also liked an earlier version that retained the original background, though i understand that the nominator specifically requested the removal of the background. dying (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Y Switched to the non-levitating bread. BorgQueen (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The image is a composite of two other images (the bread and the cutting board), per the description at
WP:IMGCONTENT says, The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. This kind of compositing is antithetical to that, so I would say it's inappropriate to use in an enwiki article. -- RoySmith(talk)
18:15, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I am the nominator! The problem is that the idea for the article came to me just as I was eating the last piece... So I wrote the article, but the cake was gone, so I thought I'd have at least the oven paper where the pizza had been baked digitally wiped, but if you think by publishing the original image I won't be arrested by the health department that's fine with me too. ;-) Alex2006 (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
oh, interesting, RoySmith. i don't think i had noticed that wp:imgcontent restricted the use of manipulated images before. thanks for pointing this out! dying (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, Cielquiparle, and BeanieFan11: The article has some matching text and close paraphrasing from this source. Earwig doesn't match much because it's been reworded slightly, and while the order of the sentences have been swapped around, much of the second half of the source's paragraph that begins with "O’Sullivan’s profile in the colony and in his profession rose steadily..." is paraphrased in the Wikipedia article to varying degrees. Compare for example the article's By 1829, O'Sullivan was appointed a commissioner for receiving evidence and in 1831 he was appointed a justice of the peace and King's Counsel. to the source's In 1829 he had been appointed a commissioner for receiving evidence and in 1831 was made a king’s counsel and a justice of the peace. Switching around justice of the peace and king's counsel and replacing "by" with "in" and "he" with "O'Sullivan" is still close paraphrasing. Also "by 1829" and "in 1829" are two different things. The paraphrased text needs to be reworded. - Aoidh (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I have edited to reduce the Earwig match further (to below 30% at least), and mostly looked at rewording expressions and connecting words that really didn't need to be the same. I left the long titles, and the string of titles, intact, and did not touch the paragraph identified above. I'm less concerned about "by 1829" in this case because the verb tense in the source is "had been" (past perfect) which suggests that the year may have been determined by a primary source, such as a letter in 1829, in which he made reference to the fact that he was functioning in that capacity, rather than a source documenting the actual date when he was appointed (although maybe I'm reading too much into it and it's just indicative of the passive tense used in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography overall). In reviewing matches with the first two sources, I was satisfied that some minimal effort was made to restructure the narrative and interweave facts from both; the text could improve even further (and paraphrasing reduced) by layering in more facts from at least one or two other sources. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The Earwig percentage wasn't the issue. This kind of ties into the
WP:LIMITED situation as there are many ways to express those strings of facts without copying the source nearly-but-not-quite word-for-word. - Aoidh (talk
) 04:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Obviously editing by Earwig doesn't "solve" the problem. But it's still an improvement, a first step among hopefully more to come. I will fix the 1829 paragraph a bit, but it's still a similar sort of quick-and-dirty fix. If the close paraphrasing is a serious concern, I would recommend demoting the hook to give the editor more time to rework. In this particular case, having gone through the path of edits, I think it's borderline, so I'm just trying to make it a bit better. I don't think there's anything wrong with giving more people time though, so maybe that is the answer. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for improving it, I do appreciate it and I apologize if my response came across wrong, it's just not Earwig that I'm concerned about with the article. I definitely think the close paraphrasing is a surmountable problem because it's not like the entire article is a close paraphrase (as far as I can tell). I mentioned in the section header that the queue is set to run on 12 April because thats ~7 days from now which should be enough time to address it given that it's just that one paragraph that was closely paraphrased into the article, and I don't like the idea of pulling hooks when its a fixable problem given the timeframe. It does need to be addressed before it hits the main page though. - Aoidh (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
When it comes to close paraphrasing, there are some things that everyone can agree are CLOP and others where there is a difference of opinion. Having looked at this closely, I was more alarmed by some of the unnecessary matches that were flagged up through Earwig (e.g. matches on connecting words which suggested that the linking of together of facts was relying too heavily on the sources, beyond the words themselves), which I've now changed. I found the 1829 paragraph less concerning, in part because there are only so many ways we can reword legal titles, plus if you compare that paragraph to the original Canadian Biography article, there is narrative woven in that does not appear there (plus that passage focuses on the progression of his legal career only). I've reworded further (and tweaked the wording back and forth about 10 different ways and decided in the end that maybe simplification is best), but I'm not sure we can change it much more without more information from other (preferably reliable secondary) sources which seem few for this period of his life. (But in the process of hunting have found a few other facts which I've added elsewhere in the article.) Copying in @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz once more, to consider and weigh in. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the comments. I'm off to work right now, so will take a look at the end of the day. Can comment that I've looked for other sources on O'Sullivan and haven't found much; he's clearly notable, given membership in the Legislative Assembly and official positions held, as well as his eye-witness account of a major battle in the War of 1812, but the DCB and National Assembly of Quebec are the two most comprehensive sources I've found on him. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The notability isn't an issue, a few sentences just need to be rewritten so that it's not so close to the source's own wording is all. - Aoidh (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Would you mind taking a look at the question of close paraphrasing discussed above and giving your opinion on whether its an issue? - Aoidh (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh I think it's fine. The only bit that gives me some concern is the paragraph starting "O'Sullivan built a large practice in Montreal...", but I think it's OK. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I did not prefer that hook. It is because of discussions we have had here about a railroad station with a person killed on the tracks... it is tangential to the railroad station. I chose the other hook because it was about the history of the building and it is succinct. I spend a considerable amount of time confirming and choosing hooks. Happy Easter, Passover and Ramadan to everyone. Bruxton (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton: Do you want me to revert it? BorgQueen (talk) 01:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I yield. Bruxton (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Sadness is irrelevant. Your hook will be assimilated. We will add your notability to our own. Resistance is futile. -- RoySmith(talk) 02:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: Could you restore the quote marks to "it struck some tenants not as an oddity but as a metaphor"? This is a direct quote from the NYT source. Thanks. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I notice a lot of reviewers using WP:EARWIG to claim that an article has no copyright violations or plagiarism. Remember that, as a general rule, Earwig does not catch copyright violations or plagiarism. It checks a handful of websites to see if the article is an exact copy or nearly an exact copy. Virtually all forms of copyright violation and plagiarism beyond a simple copy-paste will get past Earwig. It's not designed to do a full copyright check, it's designed to check if an article is a duplicate of another website. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. Earwig is a good tool, but it's only a tool. One must examine more than just the big percent number at the top. False positives could be somebody else copying from us. Or they could be direct quotes which are appropriately cited to the original source. More troubling is that, as @Thebiguglyalien says, Earwig misses places where somebody has basically copied the original sentence-for-sentence but changed enough words so Earwig doesn't catch the problem. That takes using your human brain to compare the two texts.
It can also completely fail to report anything simply because the plagiarised source isn't within its field of view. Sometimes I read an article and there's something that just screams out "This wasn't written by the same person who wrote the rest of this", so you need to go digging on your own. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith ... Sometimes I read an article and there's something that just screams out "This wasn't written by the same person who wrote the rest of this" reminds me of one or two of my college lecturers. BorgQueen (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
@
WP:DYKNA and flag up any concerns you have about individual articles, and will be rewarded with the gratitude and respect of the DYK team (and we hope, the nominators themselves who may be taken aback initially but generally appreciate that maybe they need to do more to avoid close paraphrasing issues). Cielquiparle (talk
) 03:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm hardly an expert on checking for copyvio, but
WP:DYKR is a game-changer, and it could be really helpful in setting a standard for the copyvio and plagiarism aspects of reviewing. Thebiguglyalien (talk
) 04:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Per the adage that one can't prove a negative, it is not possible to prove a complete absence of copyright issues. The extent to which known facts are described in an original way is, in any case, a matter of subjective opinion. One could therefore expend infinite effort upon this task and still not be fully satisfied. Per another adage –that perfect is the enemy of good – we should do this in an efficient and expedient way. I use Earwig myself and consider it quite adequate as a check. If other content similarity detection tools become available, we might use those instead or in addition. As such automated tools already exist, we should not waste our time on laborious manual makeshifts. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
What @Andrew Davidson says is certainly true; you can demonstrate plagiarism but you can't prove that it's not. As I've said before, Earwig is just a tool, but it's a pretty good tool, and the best tool most of us have available. We miss a lot of copyright/paraphrase problems, so I we need to do something to improve our process. Maybe at least require a short description of how the reviewer checked for problems. Something as simple as "Earwig (EasyBib, Grammarly, turnitin, whatever) flagged some passages, but none were of concern" would at least give us some confidence that due diligence was performed. It would certainly prevent things like I was so focused ... that I overlooked the copyright problem (Special:Diff/1144868587) -- RoySmith(talk) 13:46, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
A reviewer should certainly at least check the hook for plagiarism, if possible. That's what separates a from a . CMD (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Running Earwig and saying you've checked for plagiarism is like running spell check and saying you've checked readability. Sure, it'll catch blatantly obvious violations, but the vast majority are going to get through. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
@Thebiguglyalien: I think the reticence here, which I don't think anyone wants to point out, is that copyvio checking is absolutely rotten work. It's long, it's tedious, it frequently turns up null results, and it's about as fun as separating sugar from salt with a pair of tweezers. It's why CCI is one of the most arduously backlogged areas of Wikipedia. While probably a necessary thing we have to hear, telling the project "you actually can't trust a script to do this for you" is very much not what it wants to hear.
The ideal solution, in my head, would be having a dedicated copyright department at DYK that performs the checks. Maybe there's some way we could make that work with the QPQ system, I'm not sure – but everyday reviewers clearly aren't up to the task. Unfortunately, I don't think the copyright area has volunteers to spare. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
You're absolutely right. I'd probably do more review work, both here and at
WP:GA, if I wasn't worried about doing sourcing checks (and worried about doing them right, which I'm still not totally confident with). And I've never even looked into CCI because I see it as a dark corner of Wikipedia that I'm not at all qualified for. What we really need is a way to make it simpler. Like you said, Earwig is appealing because it promises this, though it fails to deliver. The question is whether this simplification is actually possible, whether it be through automation, delegation, a more streamlined process, etc. Thebiguglyalien (talk
) 00:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
I disagree copyvio checking is that much of an issue for DYK. This isn't CCI where every edit is gone through, or GA where you're reviewing a whole article, this is DYK where a copyvio spotcheck happens in literally the exact same step as the already essential checking the hook is supported step. (You can check another couple of sources of course, but most reviews would have at least one copyvio check as a matter of course. And because this seems to be always queried, no, this obviously does not apply to an inaccessible source.) CMD (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I think we should Ignore All Rules, assume this was an oversight, and swap it off the Main Page with some other hook. — Maile (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
That's fine. I went ahead and promoted it because the request was made in advance of six weeks, we were hovering below 60 hooks, and there wasn't really anything that looked quirky at the time. I haven't kept up with the discussion above, but I really think we should try the 16-hour cycles when we are averaging around 90–100. If the admins are up for it, that is. And/or the sandbox thing helps to fix this. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
(The other thing was that I got "thanked" for promoting it, so I thought the nominator was ok with it...although I also get that nominators don't all understand how promotion works.) Cielquiparle (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I say we just leave it as it is. BorgQueen (talk) 06:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Or we could run it a second time on its intended date of May 4 as an apology for over-riding the nominator's request. Looks like thanking for promoting does not mean the nominator understands where it's being promoted to. — Maile (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I didn't understand until very recently that the special date requests can bypass
WP:DYKT completely. I also thought the date requests weren't actually "approved" until the nomination had been moved into the orange box at the top of DYKNA, and even then, I thought the dates weren't guaranteed (e.g. for April Fool's and International Women's Day, there were too many). Now that I understand the process a bit better, I will be more careful in future, but I also worry that it's not a good thing to "promise" dates to people when it could easily turn out that someone down the line might find a problem in the hook or something in the article that makes it unsuitable for the main page, and requires further fixing. Cielquiparle (talk
) 12:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi, nominator here. @Cielquiparle: I don't think I thanked you for the edit where you promoted it. I've checked both this edit and this edit, and on both of them the "thank" button is still a link – if I had thanked you it would have changed to regular text. It's not true that the request was made in advance of six weeks – as I explained in the nomination discussion, I carefully made the request less than six weeks before the date. Anyway it's not a big deal – if the community is willing to re-run the hook on the requested date, that would be great, but if not that's also fine. (It's exciting to see the article on the main page regardless of the date!) In the future I'll keep a closer eye on my special date nominations so that I can leave a message here if one is promoted early. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 14:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Mx. Granger for looping back. I am sorry for the mixup, but at the time I was just grateful that there was a quirky-enough hook to slot in, and I did think it was a nice article, so I think I was just a bit overexcited to promote it. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
No worries – not a big deal from my perspective, and I'm glad you liked the article! —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 16:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
(And yes, you are right. Checking logs now, it was reviewer HenryTemplo who thanked me.) I just didn't understand what the process was for requesting special dates, and I understand now that I also misread the clarification about the dates. I thought, since it had been questioned, but not promoted to "orange" or discussed further at WP:DYKT, that the date wasn't fixed, but I'm now understanding the promoting to orange part is just a manual step in the process that is "hit or miss" (maybe someone picks it up along the way and performs it, but maybe no one does). Anyway apologies to both of you and to Narutolovehinata5. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I guess really I should have opened up a Talk item on DYKT to let everyone know why I wanted to promote the hook. That would probably have been best. Then everyone could have told me in advance that it was the wrong thing to do. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's much of a big deal. Special occasion requests aren't always granted, so it missing out on one, while it can be disappointing, is not the end of the world. The important thing is to learn from this experience and improve as an editor. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: it will be fine. I put them there, we often have consecutive hooks, tv hooks, radio station, art hooks etc. We can also separate them later when another prep opens. No need for removal. Bruxton (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron has her spot saved before the article is ready. Is this actually allowed? (Nothing personal, Leeky, I just have some questions since, if this is allowed, we should say so in the guideline.) BorgQueen (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee: some input please? ... as I see you're online. BorgQueen (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't actually have an objection to this occasionally. In general, it's probably better to just start the article in draft space and move it to article space when you feel it's ready for review, but I can see that occasionally someone might mistake how quickly they were going to get their hands on the sources. I wouldn't want to see this done with any regularity, but we can probably IAR occasionally. Valereee (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh OK. Thanks! BorgQueen (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Pornography
@BorgQueen: I moved the porn stub out of the quirky slot. I do not think it is quirky in any way. I know these things are subjective. I want to request that we have discussions before making changes. Right now they happen so fast that it is one person's quick decision and it negates work. Bruxton (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton: Discuss what...? It's not that I replaced anything. The last slot was empty, wasn't it? (Or am I mistaken...?) BorgQueen (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: you are very efficient. The downside is that you make changes very fast. And the good thing is you make changes very fast. I had already promoted the porn hook to prep 1 but you moved it to the quirky slot in a different set. The last few days working here, you have characterized me as sad, but I am not sad, I am dismayed. In seconds you have been making rapid fire changes with no consultation. You have replaced images, and changed hooks completely. It is good to have someone who is Johnny on the spot, but we are not in an emergency when we are in prep or queue. This kind of quick action may be suited for errors. Bruxton (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton: I swap hooks between different sets all the time, for a variety of reasons. So do others. @Cielquiparle:, I believe, had mentioned that we are low in quirky hooks recently, so I've been trying not to miss any if they possessed even a slightest potential for quirkiness. I agree, though, that the pornhub film hook isn't exactly the best ever, so I really have no problem if you could find a better one. BorgQueen (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: I think it would be helpful if the Admins could clearly state in the Comments section why they've elected to swap hooks across sets, as I agree with Bruxton that it can be disappointing or dismaying to see a hook moved after we may have carefully curated a set (not always the case...but sometimes it is). At the very least, if we've made a sub-optimal decision (e.g., put a violent hook next to a peaceful one, such that the contrast is jarring, or having too many performing arts-oriented hooks in the same set), we could learn from it, or we'll be less likely to feel randomly overruled. Sometimes the changes turn out to be brilliant, but it would still help to know for sure why the decision was made. Same thing with the ongoing quirky-or-not-quirky debates. The more we run into issues like this, the more the "sandbox" idea seems appealing as there seems to be a lot mixed up between the vetting step of promotion and the curation step of promotion, and it's possible that splitting them out might also help with getting more people on board to help with either. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle I like your Prep sets in general but your poetry approach... like, start with the hummingbird hook and then those start with an M... or Braaam and then those with a B... I mean, I must wonder... does anyone really notice the "poetry" in them or is it some form of self-complacent mental masturbation...? Because, while you might think it's all harmless fun in the la la land, you might be overlooking real-world concerns like topical/national varieties and MP balance, which required me to swap. That's honestly what I've been thinking. BorgQueen (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm so confused by this topic. One user adds a hook to a prep - the next user removes it, and says I want to request that we have discussions before making changes... But they weren't replacing anything? Then we are saying that someone is working too fast, but as far as I can tell, they've just added to an empty prep? Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs) 11:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski I think Bruxton's point was that I took a hook from a prep set he had assembled and added it to an empty slot. So basically, "respect my choice". BorgQueen (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
My point was that I know it is subjective, but a hook about a pornographic website is not good for a quirky slot, and that is why I did not put it there. I feel like all of us here are working together all the way up until the last stage. Images and hooks need approval from reviewer, nominator, and promotor - so once all of that lines up, the hook and image is promoted. But then another editor can decide to change all of it. We ended up in errors after a few of these undiscussed swaps with incorrect image licenses and incorrect hooks. I much prefer questions which are asked in DYKtalk, as some administrators have been doing. Bruxton (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment field in PSHAW?
Would it make sense to have a comment field in PSHAW, such that promoters could quickly explain why they chose one hook over another, or decided to ignore a special date request, etc.? I do think promoters need to be clearer in striking hooks we think are completely unsuitable, even if the QPQ reviewer approved them – for example, if there is a BLP or sourcing problem – so that people don't keep proposing the "problem hooks" as though they are viable alternatives, or swapping a "problem hook" in by mistake. However, a lot of the time it's just a "grey area" decision, where there are several viable hooks, but the promoter chose one in particular for a good reason, and it may be worth explaining. Or maybe we just append these types of comments to the bottom of the nomination. @Theleekycauldron @BruxtonCielquiparle (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea. Occasionally I now put that relevant comment in the nomination right before I close/promote like this. The whole process of nominating, reviewing and promoting can be slow and methodical. But things are speedy in the queue. The choice of hooks or images to promote is very subjective so it is easy for another editor to come along and undo it based on their own subjective criteria; which makes me feel like I have wasted my time. I understand that promotors do not always get it right and that is the time for talk - but maybe Cielquiparle's idea is better because the information would be easier to see and it may convince someone not to make a wholesale change. I think we would need to yield to Theleekycauldron in regard to the tool and and limitations. Bruxton (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure what would be the best way to implement it, but I agree that it would be good to have more clarity around which hooks were approved and which weren't. In theory, unapproved hooks get struck but in practice that doesn't seem to happen much. It certainly seems useful for PSHAW to have a field where you could enter a comment which gets appended to the edit summary, but I'm not sure that actually addresses this specific problem. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm generally in favour of allotting more leeway to promoters, but I'd be concerned about setting the precedent that promoters have to explain (or feel the need to pre-justify) why they chose the hook they did. I usually something along the lines of what Bruxton does: if it's really necessary, i'll leave it on the nompage just before closing it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Theleekycauldron: I hope you are well. We miss you around here in the backrooms. Bruxton (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Request assistance for renom
Hello, I'd like to renominate Template:Did you know nominations/Lords of the Earth. I withdrew it after creation as insufficiently long. It is a good article now, but I get an error message when creating a nomination. The error says the page already exists. How do I renominate? Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Theleekycauldron. I probably have just enough tech savvy to do that. (Or accidentally crash Wikipedia trying.) I'll give it a go and see what happens! Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, Wikipedia seems to be running fine and I think all is well with the nomination (at least procedurally). Appreciate the assistance! Airborne84 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how the Proposed South Shore Line station in South Bend could possibly be eligible - was DYK'd as a GA (only eligible as such I believe), but the GA status has been stripped due to the review having been G5'd because it was done by a now-blocked sock who was probably using a large language model to write the reviewer. Pinging Onegreatjoke as nominator and BorgQueen as promoter. Hog FarmTalk 01:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Pull, but don't close as rejected – article has been resubmitted for GA, a repass is not unlikely. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Marked as ineligible. @Aoidh: would you do the honour one more time? BorgQueen (talk) 03:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Well shoot. It was a GA at the time I checked it, though admittedly I didn't check the details of the GAR itself or I would have noticed that editor's name and knew something was up; I've seen the LLM nonsense that the blocked editor had been posting at AfD and saw their block. I've swapped it out with another hook. - Aoidh (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of all 26 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 4. We have a total of 218 nominations, of which 84 have been approved, a gap of 134 nominations that has increased by 2 over the past ten days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any 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) 04:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
The BRAAAM hook was one I was excited to see on the main page. I see it went to errors last night even after we had discussions here about the sound file caption. The hook that is running right now is not even one of the approved hooks in the Nom and the the caption has been changed. It was a bold decision to run with the first hook and caption, too bad we could not stick with it, since I do not think the hook was an error. It was an amusing hook that apparently confused folks. Live and learn, happy Tuesday everyone. Bruxton (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Just to help those of you trying to follow the history here, the discussion about this was WT:Did you know/Archive 192#BRAAAM. The hook was in Queue 3; with
WP:ERRORS#Current DYK
.
I'm sure everything was done in
WP:PREFER says, Administrators who have made substantive content changes to an article are considered involved and must not use their advanced permissions to further their own positions. Yeah, I know that doesn't exactly apply. Queues aren't articles, and the ticking clock imposes time pressures that don't exist elsewhere. But we do need to be aware that the protection of queues creates an asymmetric situation and use extra care to make sure we're not inadvertently using our tools to have an advantage on purely editorial decisions. -- RoySmith(talk)
15:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites and RoySmith: Thanks for providing links. I am excited to see the views for this hook. I could have selected the "tame hook" but went bold. I have probably clicked that sound file 50 times in the past week. It looks like right after the article was created it got 4k views. Hoping it did well and people checked out the article - because it was fun. Someone in errors said it should have run on April Fools. Bruxton (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Since it was me who changed the hook I might as well comment. RoySmith makes good points about the tension between admin actions for editorial decisions and the time pressure involved. I for one am never precious about my actions at Errors and if others come along and tweak my edits or even revert them, so be it. We are all trying to do our best and once items are live already, it’s often better to get on with it rather than running a long consultation session. In this particular case, it might have been better to continue the discussion at Errors rather than have a parallel one here; after all, the item is still on the Main Page. There has been and continues to be scope to tweak the hook. Schwede66 19:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Schwede66: I think the point that the nominator has made is that this was not an error. As to this discussion, I assumed that the errors discussion was concluded after changes were made and the nominator's objection at errors was ignored. Bruxton (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I got a message that it was accepted by WP:AFC on April 5 and its currently at 25,295 characters. 173.162.220.17 (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
Black Kite, the article is brand-new; got moved into mainspace on 5 April. Schwede66 02:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I have some extra QPQs so I will have a go at nominating this. Bruxton (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
My spot checks have revealed citations which [failed verification]. If you can copyedit and verify your citations I will provide a QPQ and help with the nomination. Bruxton (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I've added two new citations from
La Monde. If there's anything else I can do, please let me know. Thanks. 173.162.220.17 (talk
) 15:02, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Please nominate it, I am not comfortable nominating it myself unless I go through the whole article. And I just do not have the time or motivation. Bruxton (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
An IP cannot create a nomination, Bruxton. Maybe nominate on their behalf and then ask them to take over and take responsibility? Schwede66 03:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I will do so. Bruxton (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye on it. Appreciate the assistance. 173.162.220.17 (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I promoted a double hook with Vladlen Tatarsky on April 9, 2023. Just noticed that he appeared on a Previous ITN April 5, 2023. I do not think it was a bolded link per
yeah, we regularly promote Recent Death entries to DYK, all good :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Btw...
@Aoidh: I've just filled the empty queue, however the next one has *two* articles nominated by me so it's best if you do it tomorrow. Just letting you know. BorgQueen (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: I saw that, was going to move the most recent one but you were quicker than me, but I'll be sure to grab Prep 6 once the next queue empties out. - Aoidh (talk) 00:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! BorgQueen (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Ohh.. It is not split in technical sense (when parent article is too large, it is "split" in child article). I intended to write this article as stand alone one with some relevant text copied from the original article and then expanded upon it. Still, if it does not qualify for DYK, thats OK. I will happily retract the nomination if said to do so. Regards, Nizil (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
For DYK eligibility, the best way to handle such changes is to not copy text. Instead, copy the sources, and write new text from them. (And hopefully have other information from new sources, or the point of creating a new article is somewhat absent.) CMD (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
@GRuban what do you think -- perhaps simplifying a bit too much? BorgQueen (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
So the changes are removing "their comic series", and changing "had" to "was"? I'd want to leave the first words in, because removing doesn't save that much space, and I would like to specify what exactly was featured: their comic art, not photos of themselves, they're not performing artists. And the second change, I think "had" is better, indicating a specific point in time, rather than ongoing. But, honestly, not a big deal in either case, if everyone else disagrees I won't fight to the death here. --GRuban (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
I understand that not everybody agrees, but my general philosophy on hooks is that shorter is better, even at the cost of precision. We've got a whole article to fill in the details. The hook is just to get somebody interested enough to click on it. Just one editor's opinion. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps I should delete the draft? Bruxton (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
none of the sources in the article currently count towards GNG, so, I hope there's more stuff out there? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: It seemed so, but the Legacy items states: published by the New York Times. But the article cannot stand only on that. I also hoped someone could find rs. He made such a terrific contribution to this project, I wondered if he ever had coverage for wikimeets. Bruxton (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
True, but, The New York Times produces many short-form obituaries for many people. The article doesn't seem to offer much SIGCOV, only basic biographical details. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
While DGG was an incredible editor, and no doubt an equally amazing person, I don't see the coverage to establish notability here, unfortunately. Eddie891TalkWork 00:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Eddie891:, it was very thin. I hoped someone here would know about RS or have other search terms. I appreciate you saying something here. Bruxton (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I saw that @RoySmith: I wondered if he published as a prof. Bruxton (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I am not finding anything on Google Scholar, and it seems he switched careers at some point to be a librarian. DGG more than once said that most full professors probably qualified as notable because few would get to full professor without significant publication and citations to those publications. The family obit said he was a professor, but that could mean assistant prof or assoc prof. Valereee (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't think he meets
WP:PROF. He was an assistant professor in biochemistry, became a librarian, then associate professor in library science at Long Island University[5]. I did find some articles: [6], [7], [8], but the last two are unpublished preprints. —Kusma (talk
) 13:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@Kusma: Those are some cool finds. I will butter it up and use some of this, it can always be deleted later after all hope is lost.
I had the pleasure and privilege of meeting David a number of times at NYC wiki events. Although he wasn't a close friend, I think I knew him well enough to know that had he been here today, he would have pointed out that
WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. I think we would dishonor his memory by pushing through a mainspace article like this. -- RoySmith(talk)
14:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
His father's obit. Interesting - his father was the last surviving original member of the American Trotskyist movement. Bruxton (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Bluerasberry: it is great to see that document. I have fleshed out a bio but it is based on primary documents. I still had fun writing his bio and learning about him. I am always a bit sad when I complete a bio. People have a beginning, middle and end, and a life filled with highs and lows, and then they are gone. Bruxton (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Sandbox proposal
I've been wanting to get back into promoting for a while now, but thankfully, it seems that Cielquiparle and Bruxton are usually on top of it :) that being said, it would be nice if I could promote a hook when i have the energy, without doing the prep work to fill a whole set or wait until one is empty. So, I propose that there be a single faux-prep area of unlimited size (PSHAW can automatically create a new slot in a full set) that anyone can pop by and promote a hook to, without regard for hook placement. This has quite a few benefits:
It's always accessible, even when the preps are full.
The preps can be full, because there'll always be an emergency place to dump hooks.
It allows promoters to decouple the steps of re-checking and scheduling – as a longtime promoter, I found that dealing with one of those at a time was much, much easier than having to balance both in my head while looking for nominations I could verify.
Promoters can easily fill multiple sets in the sandbox this way, too; instead of having to deal with U.S. and bio hook problems in each set individually while promoting, that can be worked out at the end.
It allows promoters to decide on a hook ahead of time.
It gives new promoters a way to dangle their feet in the water without being too worried about consequences.
I don't personally like this, but admins frequently take replacement hooks when one is pulled from prep – it would be nice if they could do that without screwing up finished preps.
The only drawback I can think of is that DYKHousekeepingBot might need an update if we allow an arbitrary number of hooks to be promoted at any time, to adjust how we handle two-a-day sets. This good with everyone? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it makes sense to uncouple reviewing from assembling a prep set. Different people might be interested in (and good at) certain aspects, but not others. And as leeky points out, doing a full prep set may be more than somebody can handle in one session. And I certainly agree that stealing a hook from a previously-completed prep set to backfill a hole is sub optimal.
But I'm not sure a variable-length sandbox is the right solution. Why not just do your re-review right on the nomination template? If it passes, add a second tick (or we can come up with some snazzy new icon). Prep builders will be instructed to not promote a hook unless it has two ticks (kind of like Saul Goodman not having enough parking stickers). It's also easy to decide which of several hooks to use; just specify that with your re-tick. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I gave a lot of thought to that myself, but I think there are a couple of speed bumps that pop up with that solution. First off, Prep builders will be instructed to not promote a hook unless it has two ticks very quickly runs into problems, as that just creates more headache for prep builders who want to promote directly – the sandbox is more out-of-the-way. Second, two-ticks makes it more complicated for new promoters to get started – a sandbox, by contrast makes it simpler. Third, it would break any kind of promotion–counting tools someone might be intent on building, since the person who closes the subpage is no longer necessarily the credited promoter. For overall user-friendliness, I think the sandbox is a less bureaucratic and more easily understood solution than "wait, I need another approval before I can see my hook on the Main Page? And a separate closure?"
I'm not entirely opposed to a two-ticks solution: it has a lot of advantages, to be sure, and I'd probably support it if it were the only thing on the table. But I think a sandbox is just a lower-cost way of gettin' it done, and given that I really do want to get back into promoting, I think it's the best pick. It'd truly suck to have a no-consensus-defaults-to-status-quo on this one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
i admittedly prefer the sandbox proposal over the two-ticks proposal. the sandbox proposal hides the additional complexity from editors who are still just trying to get used to nominations. in addition, promoters who don't wish to use the sandbox can just ignore it, while implementing the two-ticks proposal appears to necessarily disrupt their current workflow. offhand, the only downside i can think of that hasn't already been mentioned is that if a hook with a preferred run date is promoted to the sandbox, the editor moving the hook from the sandbox to one of the prep areas may not be aware of the date request. (this issue seems easily solvable, though; invisible comments could be one solution.)what if we tried the sandbox proposal for a month? i assume its implementation is fairly simple, so trying the idea out shouldn't cost us much. we can always revert to our current practice if it turns out that the sandbox causes more problems than it solves.theleekycauldron, i don't know if you already have a name for the sandbox in mind, but what do you think about calling it prep area 0? i think this would make it more clear that hooks in the sandbox have already gone through an additional review by a promoter, and are simply waiting to be scheduled. (i assume that this will also make it easier to update the code for pshaw.) dying (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
@dying: I think calling it "prep area 0" might be a little confusing; how about "preparation area sandbox", or the cheekier "pre-preparation area sandbox"? pshaw probably handles it fine either way (although "0" might still be the code to access it there). @RoySmith: any objection to us going through with a trial period? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Mumble. I don't think it's a great solution, but I'm just one opinion. My objection shouldn't be a blocker if there's wider consensus to go ahead. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith, the two-ticks proposal sounds interesting, but there seem to be a number of details that have yet to be worked out. (will promoters now be required to add a second tick before directly promoting a hook to the prep areas? if so, will theleekycauldron be able to find the time to implement this in pshaw, or will it have to be done manually? will there be a separate wp:dyknaa page? if so, how would wp:dyknaa differ from the sandbox? will wugbot need to be recoded as well?) i think theleekycauldron's is the better of the two proposals i know of so far, though i am open to other solutions.theleekycauldron, that sounds good. i think my main worry was that, if the sandbox was simply located at "Template:Did you know/Sandbox", nominators unfamiliar with the promotion process might worry that the sandbox was some sort of indefinite purgatory. calling it "preparation area sandbox" should hopefully make it more clear that hooks in the sandbox were going through the normal promotion process. i wasn't sure if there should be an additional indicator that the sandbox was a step between the initial approval and the current prep areas, but had only suggested using '0' because it comes before the numbers of the other prep areas, and integrating it into existing code would hopefully be fairly simple. your other suggestions are also fine by me, though if we're going to use the word "pre-preparation", i would also suggest dropping "sandbox" as redundant. dying (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, that's fine by me. i am assuming the name "preparation area 0" is being used to make the code easier to implement, while the term "pre-preparation area" is being used to refer to it on wp:dykq to make the use of the new page more clear. perhaps a redirect from "Template:Did you know/Pre-preparation area" to "Template:Did you know/Preparation area 0" would also be helpful.by the way, i just realized that the set of images used for the numbers on {{DYK queue/navigation}} includes an image for '0', so the new page can easily be integrated into the navigation template if desired. dying (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I am kind of worried that hooks promoted to the sandbox could linger there for a long time and that this just hides the backlog in yet another place that people have to watch. "Prep sets are always full" seems not a common problem from a five-year perspective, but more a temporary issue. So count me as unconvinced, I guess. (But I'm not very active at DYK these days, mostly because all queues are always full when I want to help...) —Kusma (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Why is it again that we can't have the number of Queues and Preps expanded to, say, 10 each? Is it simply too complex to expand because of the way everything is interconnected and/or physically impossible under the current setup? Cielquiparle (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Kusma, given that 1. it's far easier to take a hook out of the sandbox than it is to do the verification work to promote an entirely new nomination, and 2. the sandbox is pretty noticeably placed in the queues, I'm not sure I see that becoming an issue. Cielquiparle, expanding the number of Ps and Qs isn't technically infeasible, but I think it just kicks the can back down the road. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron So does that mean that anything in the sandbox has already been verified? Or is it a sandbox where you spend time verifying hooks? Cielquiparle (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Cielquiparle, it'd be the former – a nomination generally shouldn't be closed unless it's verified. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron Is the sandbox then like a long list? We just put hooks in there as they are verified? And then they don't get assembled into prep sets until they make it out of the sandbox? Cielquiparle (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Cielquiparle, the sandbox is optional – no one is required to put hooks there, they can be promoted directly to prep sets as normal. But yes, it is a long list that preppers can use to store emergency hooks and sort through what's available to use. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron Thanks I'm starting to understand a bit better what it is. My question then is what happens when there are multiple "good" hook candidates? I guess the promoter always has the option go open the nomination back up and choose a different hook? Sometimes you choose a different hook based on what is in the set, etc. But sometimes you don't realize the "best" or "only viable" hook was the one that was chosen for a reason. (I'm realizing now that I have to be clearer and more explicit if I'm absolutely ruling out a hook before closing, because otherwise people have questions and/or the wrong one could still get chosen after the fact.) Cielquiparle (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Cielquiparle, I'm not sure how that problem applies more here than it does to prep sets as normal. The promoter gets to choose a hook, and that about settles it unless someone takes issue post hoc. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
We already have a long list at /Approved. I wouldn't want an additional place where hooks can stay for a long time. Having zero to three more prep sets (maximum 24 additional hooks, ideally fewer) sounds much better to me than an unlimited list. —Kusma (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
If that issue crops up during the trial period, we can always can the idea, but I'm fairly sure it won't. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there is a major technical problem with that (might require a slight update to the bot and a few edits). —Kusma (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Would the sandbox count against the "at least ten prep/queue sets" mentioned in
RoySmith, given that the sandbox can't really be "full", and will usually remain near-empty unless the preps get full, I would imagine no... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I assume an arbitrary number of image hooks could be added, and not necessarily at the top?
I don't think it should be called a "sandbox", which is an established name for a place where anybody can play around, doing pretty much anything they want to (as long as it doesn't violate a few rules). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
multi-image implementation would take a bit of extra PSHAW work, but it's doable – probably as a commented-out bit of wikicode after the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Ugh, no. Whatever we end up with, it needs to be parsable/editable using the standard wikitext parsing tools. Embedding essential information in comments is a non-starter.
I'm getting more and more convinced this is the wrong direction. If we want to have more prep space, just generate more prep sets which are identical to the existing prep sets in structure. Let's not invent yet another kind of thing with its own custom structure and its own custom rules for how to use it. Then the only change that has to happen to tools is to understand that there's more than 7 of them, and everything else just works. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
... or we can just only do one image in the sandbox. Or we can be fine with it looking a little rough sometimes. Or we can let the images break up the list. All of those are preferable to creating prep sets willy-nilly – if you create more prep sets, there will simply be an expectation that those prep sets will be filled. That is exactly what happened the last time we created a new prep set, and now we're right back where we started and it didn't help with backlog reduction. It's not a workable solution. This is just a prep set. The only thing that separates from other prep sets is the fact that it doesn't rotate. I can extend the size of any prep set right now, it'd just have to get shrunk back down. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, i am admittedly not familiar with how you've coded pshaw, but i think handling multiple image hooks per set can be more easily implemented by treating each hook in a set as potentially being an image hook when you are parsing it, and disallowing the moving of a hook if (1) the hook does actually contain an image and (2) the destination slot does not accommodate an image. if you only consider the newline characters at the end of lines that begin with '*' as the delimiters for the hooks, your code should be able to handle more unusual situations, such as editors placing invisible comments above hooks to note requested run dates. dying (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
dying, i think the problem would be that images "belong" to the prep set, not any specific hook. There's no clear association in the wikitext between the image and the hook, other than that the hook that has the image goes first. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
i feel like there has been some misunderstanding due to the proposal being called a sandbox, when it's simply a new prep area with unlimited capacity that has hooks ready to be scheduled. (this is why i had suggested the name "preparation area 0".) what if, instead, we simply agreed that the last prep area available has unlimited capacity? presumably, administrators would never promote this set so there isn't really any danger of an abnormal number of hooks showing up on the main page. also, whenever a set in a prep area is promoted to the queue, anyone can just move the supernumerary hooks (if there are any) from the formerly last prep area available to the newly cleared prep area. dying (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
if there isn't any appetite for an unlimited capacity prep area, would people instead be open to me appending a full set of hooks at the end of the last available prep area if there isn't an empty prep area available? i have found that i generally prefer promoting a full set all at once rather than promoting hooks individually, but it seems that usually there are no empty prep areas available when i want to promote a set. dying (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
My objection here is pretty much the same as before. Please don't make special cases. Every time you make some special case (i.e. "the last prep set can be longer than the others"), it's just more pain for people who are writing tools. If you want to be able to prepare more full sets of hooks, then you want more prep sets. Having more of the same thing you've got now is a simpler than having some ever-growing assortment of one-offs. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I guess I would say that, we were instead designing something for less technically adept end users, I'd agree with you – but this isn't contract software development, where the users need everything handed to them on a clearly marked silver platter. Being a DYK promoter or a bot writer already requires a certain amount of skill in MediaWiki mechanics and Wikipedia policy – for that group, this is simply not a complicated measure. It's a prep set that doesn't have to be 8 hooks long, and that's all it is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
That said, since there's no consensus for this, and no viable alternatives seem to be getting off the ground now, I think we should put this in a drawer. The implementation isn't exactly complicated, but no one hitting the button after 21 days suggests we're probably not gonna get much of anywhere. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith, my apologies. i had assumed that the only tool out of the scripts and bots dealing with dyk that i know of that would be affected by these proposals was pshaw, and had presumed that theleekycauldron wouldn't mind adapting her code since she was the one who made the original proposal.theleekycauldron, i think you're right. Kusma's suggestion below was actually an alternative i was thinking about, which appears to address what your idea would have solved. dying (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I had to replace the image because I could hardly see the cap in it. It is best if the object in question is isolated in the image, I think. Just letting you know, @Bruxton: so you don't get sad again. BorgQueen (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: I noticed. You are in charge. Thanks. Bruxton (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
On the next hook, I'm not excited about "first First Lady". And on the subject of awkward wording, the next hook after that has "feature four of the fastest five", which is pretty tounge-tripping as well. Perhaps we could find better wording for both of those? -- RoySmith(talk) 00:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: As to the marathon hook I think it works in my opinion. As to the first lady hook, you can change the wording if you like. I would not have an idea how to restate that fact. Bruxton (talk) 00:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't have any better suggestions. I'll keep mulling on it. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Lol. At least it's not first First. BorgQueen (talk) 01:05, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a tough one. I read through the article looking to see if maybe we could do something else entirely, but apparently she was an incredibly unremarkable person, so I think we're stuck with this as the topic. Maybe turn it quirky with "... that John Tyler was the first US president widowed while in office?" -- RoySmith(talk) 01:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's very rock 'n' roll to only mention 19th century women in the context of their husbands. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Good point. So we're still struggling with an alternative to first first. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
On the other hand, what is calling somebody a first lady if not mentioning them in the context of their husband? -- RoySmith(talk) 18:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to thank @Materialscientist for making transparent-background images, like he did today (UTC). Looks cleaner and more professional now! BorgQueen (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Transparent PNG
Original JPG
BorgQueen and Materialscientist, I appreciate the effort, but I respectfully disagree. The transparent PNG version of the thumbnail is inferior. See the explanation at Commons. Having a sharper image is much more important than a transparent background. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@Mandarax indeed. I've reverted it to the JPG image in the article. I still think the transparent-background one looks better on Main Page; but I agree it will need some discussion to gather consensus. BorgQueen (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. For a very good, clear explanation of the issue, please see this Phab link, specifically the first comment by Gilles. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
So if we want transparency and sharpness, we need to manually create a sharp transparent PNG of the correct size? —Kusma (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
i think the generated html includes code for thumbnails of three different sizes to account for a range of resolutions, so resizing an image for one particular thumbnail size may not help improve the clarity for the other two sizes. dying (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
wp:dykimg
wp:dykimg states that {{DYK listen}} should be used for sounds. is this outdated? it looks like the last time this template was used may have been in 2012. the braaam hook used {{main page image/DYK}} instead. dying (talk
Moving query left by @FunnyMath on my Talk page below. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I notice in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6 that the original hook and picture are used instead of the modified ones on the bottom. The hook is supposed to be like this:
Lee at MIT's radio experiment station, 1925 (square crop)
@FunnyMath: I've tweaked it mostly to your modified hook, except that it is best if her name is shown first. BorgQueen (talk) 08:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
And replaced the image as requested. BorgQueen (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm wondering though... if the The Boston Globe bit is really necessary? BorgQueen (talk) 09:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: I selected the other image because it was just better. The scale of the machine and her size in relation to it. Also her choice of clothing and her shoes were relevant to her station and the 1920s. The cropped image is not as illustrative. This happened so fast I could not even respond to the ping before everything was changed. Bruxton (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton: I figured as much. The original image looked different in the Prep set (better) compared to when I first saw it, which made me think someone had enhanced it, but maybe it was just the device/time of day/lighting environment that dulled the contrast earlier. I was going to explain and ask but had an edit conflict...and seriously I'm now completely creeped out so I think we just need to let it all play out. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: I think it should stay. I only found two contemporary sources that said EE was the hardest major: The Boston Globe and Chinese Students' Monthly. The Monthly seems to rely on the Globe report for some of its information, so the information probably originated from the Globe. While writing this reply, I took a look at Newspapers.com and looked through several newspapers that mention her; none of them said EE was the hardest major.
By the way, while I was searching through the newspapers, I came across the photo of Lee (that's used on the DYK) that seems to have doctored her face: [9] Or maybe it's just a bad reprint? FunnyMath (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
I found another clipping that says she was taking the "stiffest engineering course": [10]FunnyMath (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
oh, wow, FunnyMath. it looks like they narrowed her forearm in that image as well. dying (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it freaked me out when I first saw the photo. I don't know what happened when they were printing the photo. FunnyMath (talk) 02:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton if you disagree with any of the changes, you're welcome to revert. I was just responding to the nominator's request. BorgQueen (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I will not revert based on this no consensus discussion. Bruxton (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Indef blocked nominators
I suppose we don't give them credits, or perhaps doesn't really matter? Prep 6 has one such nomination. BorgQueen (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Btw thanks to @Mandarax for fixing it to avoid confusing the bot. BorgQueen (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Prep 6: Margery Jackson
Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives/(DYK Prep 6). The Margery Jackson hook has been changed, but I don't agree with it. It needs to be changed back to the original hook as agreed on the DYK nom template: ... that the CarlislemiserMargery Jackson, who chose to live like a pauper, possessed a fine court mantua dress(pictured)?" I have explained my reasons for disagreement on the alert page for the post-promotion hook changes. The hook needs to include "Carlisle miser" because
1. "Carlisle Miser" is her best-known nickname as still used in Carlisle, notably in Carlisle Museum,
2. The main point of the article and hook is that she was a miser.
3. "Carlisle miser" indicates that she was one of our famous English eccentrics.
4. Acting like a pauper, on its own, can mean anything or nothing (ascetic saint? thief hiding high income? person with mental condition? modest non-flaunter?) . A miser, who lives like a pauper, on the other hand, has both a pile of gold and a self-starvation habit, and that always fascinates.
5. "Miser" also gets clicks. In my recent ten-article hook, the bolded link labelled as a miser got more clicks than any of the other nine bolded links. Misers attract audiences.
So please revert the hook to its original condition. If you disagree with that, please discuss it here, with your reasons, before changing the original hook. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
"Carlisle Miser" is her best-known nickname as still used in Carlisle, notably in Carlisle Museum I think that's a little pointless objection, as the hook is just to get somebody interested enough to click on it. The excellent article explains details very well, and having the hook short and mysterious, it seem to me, serves that purpose more effectively than a wordy description. But of course, I will support what our consensus supports. BorgQueen (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@Storye book Having said that, I have restored the original hook for now. Still de-linked miser as it's a commonly known term. BorgQueen (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, BorgQueen, the reversion to the original hook is much appreciated. And I am happy with miser being delinked. Storye book (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@Storye book But, I'm just curious, isn't miser a derogatory term? Some of those called as such clearly had mental issues and if they did, they deserve our sympathy. Miser, on the other hand, sounds purely mocking. Please understand English isn't my first language though, so I might be missing something... BorgQueen (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree that "miser" can be used in a derogatory manner, but the article and hook don't use it that way. It is just used to mean someone who secretly collects a pile of gold, but lives as if they were on the breadline. How that is judged by society has changed since Margery's time.
In her time, it was a sin in Christian terms and contemporary social terms, because there were no statutory provisions for the poor, and the rich were expected to be charitable in some way. Rich philanthropists and benefactors were not just admired - they were desperately needed. So at worst, in Jackson's era, a miser was judged to be actively and knowingly withholding the chance of life to the starving.
Today, we recognise hoarders, who in most newspaper stories are mostly hoarding rubbish and clutter, and we have medical terms for that, and compassion for the hoarders. I'm not sure that we really have misers in the old sense any more, because even if someone does have a hidden pile of money and goes around in old tracky bottoms, they are doing us no harm, because we have government-supported institutions to care for the poor, and many charities - so the onus is on us to support the charities - but voluntarily. Because we don't expect anything from hoarders with apparent mental conditions, we don't hate them or call them misers - and most hoarders are not secretly well-off anyway.
As I understand it, a "miser" in its archaic usage is a rich, hateful, and mean character who does not want to share, but is socially required by the community, culture and religion to do so. Today, "miser" is a fairytale or pantomime character in 18th- or 19th-century costume - caricatured and hammed-up on stage for entertainment. The Margery Jackson article looks at that change of use of the word, and if you read it all, you'll see that I have used the word very carefully. Where it is used in the negative sense, I have made clear that it was used in that way by Jackson's contemporaries. We cannot use a different term for Jackson's behaviour today, because that behaviour belongs firmly in her era. Women have no need to do that now. Storye book (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Very well, thanks for the excellent explanation! BorgQueen (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Hehe, you've got me started now. Thinking about it, "miser" in Jackson's era had a very precise definition, and to be called a miser you had to fulfil all of the following requirements:
The great era for misers was mid 18th century to early 19th century, when banks were notoriously unreliable, and everyone had at least a few coins hidden under the floorboards, if they could manage it. But to be a miser, you had to store a shockingly large pile of gold and/or silver.
To gain such a big pile of gold, you had to work much harder, and for much longer hours than your neighbours who were in the same trade. You also had to limit overheads and expenses to an excessive extent, to be a proper miser.
So that meant, to be a miser, your lifestyle had to be utterly mismatched with your wealth. You had to deprive yourself of the comforts of life to a shocking degree: hardly any food, hardly any fuel, hardly any warm clothes, etc.
Bearing in mind the contemporary social responsibility of the rich to the poor, the miser had to lack compassion for the poor. Maybe today we would ask whether they were sociopaths etc. if they had that attitude, but in fact they were surrounded by many poor, dying openly in the street in winter, and begging with cancer sores etc. exposed. The presence of the poor was overwhelming.
To be a full-blown miser, you had to live apart, socially, because sociability involved a lot of paying-out, dressing up, giving dinners etc. Due to social pressures to take part, you had to make a massive effort to live an isolated life, especially in the centre of a busy town like Carlisle. In Jackson's era, where community was all, voluntary isolation made you a pariah.
Today's usage of the word as a derogatory term is very different, and much weakened. The people we may impertinently call misers today are not fulfilling any of the above archaic terms of miserliness. Today we might see a stay-at-home-with-the-kids partner calling the perfectly decent household breadwinner a "miser" when on one occasion only, they refuse to tip a waiter, or fail to buy their round of drinks. The word is just used lightly today, to imply a slight meanness. In the UK, I have heard it mostly used by greedy hangers-on, about people who have wisely refused to lend them money. But maybe the word is used differently in other countries. Either way, the Margery Jackson article is about the UK, and is written in British English. The above is only my personal opinion, of course, but I hope it clarifies things a little more. Storye book (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Interesting...
According to this multiple pageview comparison, not only those articles linked in the lead hook, but a closely-related-yet-unlinked article (Erich von Stroheim) has been viewed noticeably more than usual. So people do check out related topics, as expected. BorgQueen (talk) 04:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Very good. --evrik(talk) 04:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Is this image problematic?
Maya and Yehuda Devir with their artwork
The image is currently used in Prep 5. I'm a little concerned by their lovely copyrighted artwork in the background. (Sure, they're voluntarily showing them off, but that's not the point.) On the other hand, those drawings are partially covered up by the couple, so perhaps may not be a big problem. @GRuban, Valereee, and Theleekycauldron: Some input please? BorgQueen (talk) 07:07, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Borderline. commons:Commons:De minimis implies that such a file where the copyrighted stuff is background and not the point of the file may be OK, but it's a lot of the background. I'd probably consider altering the image (say by splitting, cropping and re-merging) to reduce the artwork's prominence and recognizability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Oh OK. Thanks. BorgQueen (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand the problem. Are you saying that the Devirs (who apparently released this image) are not the copyright holders of the art in the background? —Kusma (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No harm being cautious, but this may not need a de minimis justification, given that the copyright in question belongs to the photographer. CMD (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, makes sense. BorgQueen (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
We have, however, two artists here. Are we satisfied that both of them can release this under a free license in one go? I'd like to see that checked with a Commons admin. With regards to de minimis, it's definitely far too prominent for that to apply. Schwede66 09:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Could anyone ask a Commons admin please? BorgQueen (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Valereee! BorgQueen (talk) 10:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
@
(talk)
16:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I however have another observation, ofcourse, because we learn every minute. The image appears to be taken by Maya Devir but is released by Jude Devir. This appears to be that Jude has no problems with his art being in the background - but not being the actual photographer, is he eligible to release the copyright? The reason I accepted the license is likely because of
(talk)
16:40, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
First, they're a team, in every possible way. They're both work partners, and a married couple. Just read the article. The artwork is not just by Yehuda Devir, but by both of them. The photo is owned by both of them and is released by both of them. They have joint ownership of and access to the Instagram account, despite the fact that this one is named Jude Devir; you will notice they also have rather popular Instagram accounts in the names of each of their two kids, who are quite young, again, see the article, are we going to assume that those Instagram accounts are owned individually by the kids because they're named after the kids?
Second, as for "de minimis", they certainly considered it that way: here is what Maya Devir wrote me when I asked whether she would release just one of their artworks:
She wrote this from an email account titled Yehuda Devir! (Just to give an example of how much they're a team.)
Third, if you require I can probably get them to write whatever you want wherever you want to clarify the release, but it will take a couple of weeks, they're busy, it took that a week or two to respond to any request I made. However, since the image is so important, I would prefer that we wait that long and run with the image, then not wait and run without the image. --GRuban (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @
(talk)
00:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
That's great! Thank you all. I'm relieved. BorgQueen (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for getting this all clarified and signed off. Good work. Schwede66 18:57, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
That was the feeling I had, too -- that they're a work team and if either of them had objected to the release, neither of them would have made it. Thank you, TheAafi. Valereee (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Seems sensible to me, as the event is on 23 April. Pinging queue promoter Aoidh to see if they can add it? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh please swap one of the biography hooks, as Queue 1 has too many of them. BorgQueen (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
@Ham II, Joseph2302, and BorgQueen:Done. I did change the wording of the hook slightly to say "that today is..." to make it clear that it's running on the day of the event. - Aoidh (talk) 01:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh: Thank you so much for this! It needs to be tweaked very slightly again to be watertight, as the quote is from a newspaper report about the second Day of the Book in 1927: ... that today is the Day of Books and Roses, which originated in Barcelona in 1926 as the Day of the Book, described as a "festival of civility and intelligence"?Ham II (talk) 07:26, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I propose a companion project to Wikipedia:Did you know called Wikipedia:Did you not know, in which rather than revealing interesting obscure facts, we relay things that are just common knowledge that everyone should know, like "A year has 365 days, except in a leap year, which has 366 days"; or "On the spectrum of colors, orange is considered to fall between red and yellow"; or "Both raisins and wine are made out of grapes". This just struck me as a good idea for a basic learning tool. BD2412T 03:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
That is an interesting idea. Maybe it could be open to every single article in the project? If not a whole project - maybe one blurb each day. Bruxton (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I'd recommend also proposing this at Simple wiki, actually – seems like an easy, no-brainer project they could get started with, instead of trying to run a fully-operational DYK. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
forgive me if i am missing something, but to me, the present hook appears to be violating
c6 of the supplementary guidelines, which requires the hook to "involve the real world in some way". i think this can easily be fixed by adding some real-world context to the hook.
alt1a: ... that the ballad The Noble Fisherman unusually places Robin Hood in the seaside town of Scarborough, from where he somehow finds himself fighting French pirates?
please note that i am describing scarborough as a seaside town to make more clear how the placement is unusual, as main page readers may be unfamiliar with scarborough but familiar with stories of robin hood in a forest. the article does not explicitly state that scarborough is a seaside town, presumably due to wp:bluesky, but i assume that this can easily be added if required. dying (talk
) 16:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion in progress at ERRORS. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
thanks, Cielquiparle. i had checked wp:errors before composing my comment, but admittedly not immediately before posting it. dying (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Building preps
I've been enjoying building sets lately, but looks like I could use a break. From now on I'll let others handle it (for a while) beginning from Prep 4. @Bruxton @Cielquiparle @Theleekycauldron Thanks! BorgQueen (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Hallo, would it be possible to move Template:Did you know nominations/Le Corricolo back to the page of the hooks awaiting approval? The hook has been approved, but a second reviewer has reopened the discussion, but she/he would now like to have a third opinion. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I've moved the nomination back to the Nominations page. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 9. We have a total of 228 nominations, of which 102 have been approved, a gap of 126 nominations that has decreased by 8 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any 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) 04:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Appeal closed with no consensus to overturn the topic ban. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Requesting change in promoted hook
BorgQueen has reverted me for swapping the hook chosen by a promotor with a more interesting approved hook from the nomination page, because "you can't edit your own hook here", even though the hook I added was approved by the same editor who approved the promoted one. Anyways, one hook here is clearly more interesting than the other so I am requesting that it be swapped according to whatever formal procedure exists for the same.--NØ 06:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Apart from "more interesting" being subjective, the now-reverted wording is badly written: * ... that after the sound of Meghan Trainor's album Takin' It Back was inspired by one of her songs going viral on TikTok, another track from it did the same? needs at least one comma added, clarification of what "it" and "did the same" refer to, and some clue as to how an album's sound can be inspired by something, rather than the album's artist. Bazza (talk) 08:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Bazza, the "now-reverted wording" is not some gobbledygook I randomly threw together, it is a proper hook approved by the DYK reviewer and is correct according to every Grammar checker I can access. These extreme standards seem to exist only for my nominations, while other music articles, especially nowadays, appear with hogwash hooks. "... that after the sound of Meghan Trainor's album Takin' It Back was inspired by one of her songs going viral on TikTok, another track from the album also went viral on the platform?" is the best I can do to address your nitpicks.--NØ 09:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I have to admit I had to read the hook twice to parse what it was saying, and proof-reading is part of my job! It is certainly a more interesting fact than the original hook, but can it be phrased in a less wordy fashion? Do we need to know about the second song going viral - just stick to something like "Trainor's album reverted to her previous doo-wop sound after an old song of hers went viral on TikTok"? Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@MaranoFan: I didn't say it was gobbledygook, I said it was badly written. That means I had trouble working out what the hook actually meant, and it would appear I am not alone. I don't agree with your opinion that volunteer editors who point out text which is ambiguous or not easily understood are "nit-picking"; nor with your view that the desire to produce content which is clear and easy-to-read is an "extreme standard". I don't recall commenting on any of your other published nominations. Bazza (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Here is the nomination I chose an approved hook that I found interesting: the reviewer approved both hooks ALT3 and 4 but I was interested in ALT3. I am not sure why the OP said "extreme standards seem to exist only for my nominations". We all try to do our best for the good of the project. Promotors and reviewers only exist to help nominators feature their work within the rules. FYI: I had a similar experience with the OP when I tried to help with another nomination. Bruxton (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Bruxton, you have now involved yourself with three of my last few nominations. As I pointed out on your talk page, you chose the less interesting hook on one of my earlier nominations which faired extremely poorly in pageviews. Then you sanitized the interestingness out of the nomination you have pointed out above with your suggested hook. I think you have now chosen the less interesting hook on the nomination in question as well, and I, albeit unpopularly, think the hook which was not picked is much better. This is frustrating for me to watch as other editors get much more leeway and nominate catchier hooks which generate a lot of pageviews. At this point, I would like to politely ask you to leave my future DYK nominations to other promotors. Anyways, I stick by ALT4 as the most interesting hook for this nomination and am stopping my participation in this discussion as it does not seem like it is going to make a difference. I will naturally decrease my participation in DYK after the bullying here.--NØ 13:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I do hope you will continue to participate here. I am certainly trying to help you feature your work. I just do not like to have the hooks bounce back. It looks like many in this thread are in agreement that ALT4 was not all it could be. If you really want that hook I do not object but it appears to need some workshopping. Bruxton (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Bruxton is a very active promoter, and only a few people regularly promote hooks; your implication that this is driven by malice or targeting is patently false, and calling this "bullying" when everyone has been polite to you is just absurd. If anyone is being bullied at DYK, it's the volunteers who keep the entire process moving who are time and time again attacked by those who have never done anything to help. Quite frankly,
I think otherpromotors are more liberal and allow for creativity so I will take my chances with them. Thanks for the help.--NØ 14:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
This is because of elevators. By this logic, every floor of every building with an elevator is a first floor.
Developers say whatever they want to promote their buildings, but Wikipedia shouldn't be saying those things in its voice. Can we please say it's a quote from the developers? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree. @Aoidh: would you do the honour? BorgQueen (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
It is a quirky hook, so I say we leave it. Adding a disclaimer takes the quirky out of it Bruxton (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Besides, there are other hooks proposed by epicgenius i find interesting enough to swap this hook out with in case this hook is too much of a problem. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:52, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
The "quirky" slot shouldn't be seen as a license for inaccurate or misleading hooks, and I agree that we shouldn't state this in wikivoice. We should change it to something like ... that at the 19-story Starrett–Lehigh Building, it was claimed that "every floor is a first floor"? or use one of the other hooks. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 14:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
It is illogical and impossible that a 19 story building would have all first floors. So on its face it is absurd. As the saying goes, if you have to explain the joke, it is not a good joke. I am sure we are not trying to promote "inaccurate or misleading hooks": we are just trying to have fun with the quirkification of the information. I suppose the hook has not lost quirkiness with the qualifier suggested. However if the hook gets workshopped into literality we will need a different quirky hook. Bruxton (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
What's the inaccurate or misleading part? I find it hard to imagine that people won't understand what is going on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
"By this logic, every floor of every building with an elevator is a first floor." well only if they have truck sized elevators like the Starrett–Lehigh Building does, thats the key part... That trucks and cars can operate on any level of the building like its a first floor, that wasn't normal then and it sure isn't normal now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I disagree that the suggested hook is "inaccurate or misleading", it just requires the reader to rub two braincells together - which is good! It's like how teachers are told that it's better to involve students rather than straight-lecture them. The hook is saying something counterintuitive where the face meaning is obviously false, but the deeper meaning is true if someone is curious enough to click in to find out WTF is going on. This is good practice, not bad, and if need be, there should be some citable clarification that such statements are fine in DYK, especially in quirky slots. It's basically the same thing as the trick where famous names are used that really refer to someone or some place else with the same name, but it's true for the other sense. Basically, I'd draw a line between false-and-plausible hooks, like just flat out giving the wrong date for FDR's presidency or something, and obviously-false-at-surface-but-actually-true hooks. (Since leekycauldron mentioned it, I was the nominator behind that Pilate cycle DYK awhile back, and some users disliked the original hook promoted for it... but come on, nobody is going to believe that a zombie was writing letters hundreds of years after his death! And yet, there was a deeper truth to the original hook, because that's precisely what happened, a dead man produced new works, just via forgeries.) If a reader was truly confused by paradoxical hooks, then they can click in to the article and be enlightened, which is precisely what we want to happen. SnowFire (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
This is a great hook! Being the curious reader SnowFire described, this hook drew me in, and led me directly to a quite interesting part of what I would expect to be a very dry topic. The engvar confusion around "First floor" feels more likely to mislead a reader than anything else. (Lastly, elevators are magical! Look at what they've done to urban landscapes.) CMD (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment - @
WP:VOICE without detracting from the quirkiness of the hook? My best suggestion is ... that the 19-story Starrett–Lehigh Building was built on the principle of "every floor a first floor"? but I'm sure others could craft a better one. - Aoidh (talk
) 07:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh: Take your time... not really urgent. BorgQueen (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
with wording like this, i would have expected the building to have been built into the side of a hill or something with entrances on every floor, so that which floor was the ground floor and which were basement floors were fungible. needless to say, i was sorely disappointed to learn that "first floor" was novelly reïnterpreted here, based on a marketing slogan. after further examination, i am admittedly not even sure if the source texts state that "every floor is a first floor". the landmarks preservation commission only appears to state that truckers can treat every floor as a first floor.
Electric inter-terminal transfer trucks carried freight directly between the ground floor railroad terminal and the floors. This "vertical street" type structure, with its operating principle of "every floor a first floor," was a continuation of the innovative features of Russell Cory's New York Dock Trade Facilities Building (1928–29). [footnote marker removed]
the architectural review also clearly describes the phrase as a marketing ploy.
'Every floor a first floor' was the tagline used to attract tenants.
note that, in both cases, the word "is" does not appear in the quoted phrase, so i think it may have been accidentally added to the quote in the article. in any case, if we decide to run this hook, i think we should at least place "first floor" in quotes to prevent its use in wikivoice. neither of the two sources above appeared willing to describe the building in those words with their own voice, so i think we should follow suit. dying (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh and @Dying, I've rephrased it to Aoidh's suggestion. BorgQueen (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
While I probably agree with the edit, one cannot !take a position in a discussion and then decide the outcome of that discussion.
@Bruxton Good point! Forgot I did agree to @Mandarax. Reverted my edit. BorgQueen (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee you wanna take a look? If you some free time. BorgQueen (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
It was a decent suggestion that nobody really weighed in on. Maybe another of our @DYK admins: can come over. It is in a queue three days away. Bruxton (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
I do think the edit BQ self-reverted was a good compromise. Valereee (talk) 14:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. I have restored that edit. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Auto-GPT
WP:RSN in ways that don't give me much confidence. -- RoySmith(talk)
Because the sources for humanity not having been destroyed are unconvincing? Lol! Sandizer (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, it is funny, isn't it? BorgQueen (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Of course, that's why I submitted it. Should I consider submitting another DYK, I will endeavor to be far more serious. Sandizer (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
does the whole statement need to be attributed, or only a specific part of it? also, regarding the reliability of the cited source, i think the article actually cites vice news, but if that is insufficiently reliable, i found articles in the jerusalem post, indy100, and terra. however, only the first appears to explicitly state that chaosgpt has not been successful so far. dying (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:DYKHOOK's "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change" we could IAR because if it does achieve its goal of destroying humanity we would be doomed and DYK would be kaput.[citation needed] However if we run the hook we could be like Paul Revere warning everyone! Tongue-in-cheek intended. Bruxton (talk
) 14:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton I think it is best if we use it as a quirky hook. What say you? BorgQueen (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: we are not! links go to the whole article, by default – people might want to skim the lead before finding the hook and its background in the article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Y So fixed. BorgQueen (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Besides The Day of Books and Roses being very perfunctory (generally fine for DYK, though I'd question its accuracy), somewhat duplicating Saint George's Day (Spain) and Traditions of Catalonia, and having a very telling-friends-a-story-at-the-pub tone, there is quite a pressing concern... the hook may be an amalgamation of correct statements, but is not a correct statement in itself, at least not how it's written: that today is the Day of Books and Roses, which originated in Barcelona in 1926 as the Day of the Book, described as a "festival of civility and intelligence" – referring to April 23 as St George's Day/Diada de Sant Jordi. The origin of a 'Catalonia Day of Books' in Barcelona was in 1926 (originally unconnected) and was described that way, yes, but celebrating a patron saint with national icons is a much older concept. And since books and roses are symbols given on the day in England by daring traditionalists and school children, it's hard to claim an October book fest in Barcelona started the whole thing. The hook at least needs rewriting to not directly suggest that celebrating St George's Day "originated in Barcelona in 1926", perhaps finding a way to emphasise that Day of Books and Roses is a specific Catalan street celebration, and not the day itself (as it currently does). Kingsif (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I see from above that it was @Aoidh: who added the part of the hook ("today is") that makes it inaccurate, so courtesy ping. Kingsif (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Question, is April 23 not the correct date? I'm confused about that being the inaccurate part. - Aoidh (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
April 23 is the correct date, but the impression given by the phrasing is that the day = the celebration, rather than it just happening on the day, and also that the celebration is the whole/original purpose. The day is St. George's Day, not Day of Books and Roses. St. George's Day is something that's been around centuries, something that has been celebrated in similar ways for a long time, and this one named expression of that celebration is not the whole day. I feel a phrasing like ... that the Day of Books and Roses, which originated in Barcelona in 1926 and is described as a "festival of civility and intelligence", is held today? - I guess it kinda changes the emphasis too, but quote-as-hook isn't spectacular anyway. It's a matter of phrasing clarity.
As a separate thought, we might want to check with OTD to see that they've not got it in their box. Kingsif (talk) 22:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
... that YouTube channel Trial & Error's manner of selling live show tickets—HK$10,000 on day one, $5,000 on day two, all the way to $10 on day 24—appeared on a university entrance exam?
My bad for overriding this. ALT9 does sound more interesting. Should I switch to it now? BorgQueen (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Switched to ALT9. Sorry for overriding in the first place! I try to respect the reviewer's wishes whenever I could but this somehow slipped. BorgQueen (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
@Cunard It was the best option, yes? BorgQueen (talk) 12:57, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I am fine with any of the approved hooks running though I agree with ALT9 being the best option. Thank you for switching it out, BorgQueen (talk·contribs)! Cunard (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for a bit of a late date request, but I'd appreciate if my nomination for
2023 NFL Draft and April 29 is likely when he will be selected). Is this possible? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk
) 18:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
At first I thought the hook was interesting, and then I saw that the guy is huge and was already a Tight end so already a blocker. But I will look at it. Bruxton (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I checked it out and promoted it after adding quotes to the hook, and changed defenses, to "defensive line" because that was the quote. I would like someone to copyedit the article and to look at the hook which might still be a bit clumsy. It is presently in Prep 7
ALT:... that although he only had ten minutes to learn to play offensive lineman, college football player Jake Witt was able to successfully block against one of the "best defensive lines in the U.S."?
The quote in the hook doesn't match the quote in the article: one of the "best defensive lines in the U.S." vs. "the best defensive line in the country". Also, would a wikilink to Blocking (American football) be helpful? As someone who knows nothing about the sport, I couldn't understand from reading the hook (or the article) why the offensive lineman was defending against an apparently attacking defensive line. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I see, that was my mistake @Sojourner in the earth:, it should be changed to "the best defensive line in the country". I think the US bit was to distinguish which country. Perhaps @Aoidh: can take a look and change it to the direct quote - and also consider the wikilink suggested. Bruxton (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton, Sojourner in the earth, and BeanieFan11: How would you all feel about changing it to this: ... that although he only had ten minutes to learn to play offensive lineman, college football player Jake Witt was able to successfully block against "the best defensive line" in the U.S.? The hooks should be contextualized for a global audience so I think specifying the country should be retained, but this change adjusts the quoted part so that it actually matches the quote? - Aoidh (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh: I like it, I think the part about offensive lineman reads funny but maybe it is just me. pinging @BeanieFan11: to see what they think. Bruxton (talk) 21:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with changing the hook to what Aoidh suggested, although I'd recommend having the link to blocking at the word "block" rather than at "defensive line," which doesn't really make sense (the hook should read, ... that although he only had ten minutes to learn to play offensive lineman, college football player Jake Witt was able to successfully block against "the best defensive line" in the U.S.?). @Bruxton: Are you suggesting that we do something to remove the mention of offensive lineman from the hook or am I reading your comment wrong? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
This is currently in
WP:CRYSTAL. Some things it's safe to predict. Charles's coronation date. When the London Marathon will be run. But not when somebody will get picked in the NFL draft. -- RoySmith(talk)
17:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I mean, if the hook entirely depending on him being selected (e.g. ... that Jake Witt, who will be selected in the NFL draft today...) I would agree it should not be on there – but the hook doesn't – its just simply being run on DYK like it would for any other day; the only difference is that the draft will be going on. (FWIW, I do think its very highly likely he will be selected then, as there's no chance he's being selected in rounds 1-3, which are held on the days prior, but its very likely he will be a late-round selection; The Athletic even guaranteed it in the title of their feature story on him: "The Rapid Rise of 2023 NFL Draft Prospect Jake Witt: He's Going to Be Drafted") BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
@
WP:CRYSTAL issue? From what I can see the only thing draft-related about the hook is the date that it's being run on, which seems like a topical "Football-person hook on Football Day" and not a "by running this particular hook on this particular day, we're suggesting that this person will be drafted" thing? - Aoidh (talk
) 09:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh My apologies for being vague. You are correct, there's nothing WP:CRYSTAL about the hook per-se, just the desire to schedule it on a particular day. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Kore Ilbo
@
Kore Ilbo has since been renamed to Koryo Ilbo which should be reflected in the hook. :3 F4U (they/it
) 02:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
oh wait i realized this is Wikipedia and i can just edit the prep myself nvm lol :3 F4U (they/it) 02:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I've taken care of updating the DYKmake template for that article now that the hook has been updated. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Rumrich spy case has been holding up for over a month without promotion, is there anything I should be doing to move it along?
Coronation of George II of Great Britain and Caroline. Aren't you too involved to do that? Anyway, if you have a rationale to keep them together, please tell us here. BorgQueen (talk
) 18:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I am, yes. Just thought that it would be better to keep them all together. If I am too involved, just revert it. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Reverted. No one should ever move or edit their own hook, however noble the motive. Request on this page if adjustments are necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok. If so, I am requesting that we keep all the coronation-related hooks together. It doesn't make sense to have them spread across the section like they are. Doubly so because 6 May is the day of
Coronation of George II of Great Britain and Caroline is a redirect, which should also be changed. Tim O'Doherty (talk
) 20:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, the link to Coronation of George II of Great Britain and Caroline is a redirect, which should also be changed.Y Fixed. BorgQueen (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Since the hooks will have to be pulled back to the special occasion section with us going to two sets a day, this will need to wait for several days before the set for the day should be built. Are there any hooks that would be better for the first part of the day (01:00 to 13:00 UTC) vs. the second part, since they will only run for 12 hours now? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Regarding your second sentence, I think the following would be best:
The remaining spaces can be filled with whatever else. Given that the coronation is a one-in-seventy-years event, it doesn't hurt to have a few of them together. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The Abingdon bun throwing is my hook. I nommed it for 7 May as that is the date it will occur, not the date of the coronation - Dumelow (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
WP:VPR, I guess), but let's at least start the discussion here. -- RoySmith(talk)
12:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith For the record though, the edits to the Braaam hook were done while it was on Main Page, therefore had nothing to do with the queue protection you're talking about. BorgQueen (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
This is true. It's just what got me thinking along these lines. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm opposed. I am happy to allow many of our regulars to edit the queues, but they should become admins in order to do that. Making Main Page content like DYK accessible to non-admins takes away yet another argument why some people should become admins. The "template editor" permission has cost us dozens of potential "tech" admins already, let us not make it harder to promote "content" admins as well. —Kusma (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
But, *why* should they become admins? Another one of my frequent laments is indeed that we need more admins, but that's really just a proxy for "We need more people doing certain kinds of work that only admins can do". If there's a particular kind of work that needs to be done and we've got people who are capable and willing to do it, requiring them to be an admin to do it just because we want to force more people to be admins doesn't make any sense. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Why should they not become admins? Becoming an admin is something that should naturally happen to most experienced Wikipedians, as it used to back in the good old days. —Kusma (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
As to @Kusma:'s rationale, it ain't easy. I think we all believe that Leeky is infinitely qualified here, yet the RFA process has denied the tools. Bruxton (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, we also need to replace RfA by a process that gives people the sysop flag. —Kusma (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Bruxton is right; passing RfA isn't easy. In my view, what us DYK admins should do is collaborate on who should be put forward, work with the willing candidate and do some deliberate work towards that, some coaching, and then present a united front at RfA (maybe even nominate the candidate as a group). Yes, Leeky didn't pass at the first try but I reckon that it'll work the second time round (e.g. now). I suggest us admins working together to get candidates over the line could work better than changing permissions. Schwede66 18:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I have a much more radical idea to address the "non-admins can't edit the queue" issue. Imagine we do away with preps and queues and the bot copying over things at midnight. Instead, we try a model more like
WP:TFA. We just have one or two subpages per day (something like Template:Did you know/Daily/2023-04-14a) that can be automatically transcluded to the Main Page based on time (and a switch somwhere decides whether to transclude one or two pages on a given day). These pages can have low protection until two or three days before they hit the Main Page, when they are automatically switch to full protection (can be done fully automated using cascading protection). These pages would serve as the prep and the queue and the Main Page item all in one, no copying required (we might need to have a few formalised "endorsements" to ensure quality control still happens). Non-admins could help with anything until a few days before pages are up to be displayed. —Kusma (talk
) 10:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a day, and I like it. It would solve a lot of problems.
There would be less make-work of copying hooks around. It would solve the problem of non-admins being shut out of hookset management for half of the hook's active lifetime. It would make it easier to trace the history of a hookset because it wouldn't be split across a prep page and a queue page. It would solve the issue of people wanting to build more hooksets in advance than we have space for in our current queue/prep system. It would satisfy my desire to keep the data organization uniform to simplify tool construction. And by naming the hookset pages for when they run, it would simplify scheduling of special occasion hooks.
The only downside I can see is it might also complicate
WP:DYKROTATE if we need to re-name already composed hooksets. On the other hand, we could just sequentially number hooksets in an ever-increasing sequence and only rename them to a specific date when they're one or two slots away from hitting the main page (and protect them at that time too). -- RoySmith(talk)
14:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
We could also change DYKROTATE: instead of immediately showing two sets per day, we could just change to creating two sets per day. That would eliminate all of the frantic scrambling to fix special occasion hooks. —Kusma (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
This means the main-page-visible change won't happen until we drain the pipeline, which might be anywhere from 2 weeks to whenever, but that's fine. The goals for switching seem to be 1) managing long-term imbalance between approval rate and publication rate, and 2) avoiding transclusion failures because
WP:DYKNA
exceeds whatever the magic size limit is. This scheme would satisfy both of those.
We could even eliminate
WP:DYKNA#Special occasion holding area completely. Once we've decided what date it's going to be published on, we can just create that hookset, even if it's months in the future and the intervening hooksets don't exist yet. At some point, somebody will go to create 2023-05-06, discover that it already exists, pre-populated with Westminster Abbey
, and proceed from there.
I'm liking this more and more. @Theleekycauldron you've been opposed to my various "let's just make more prep sets" ideas, which is similar to Kumsa's proposal, so I'm especially interested to hear what you think. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I like this a lot! It works around my objection from before – having to manually put new preps in the rotation is not unlike the debt ceiling crisis (we shouldn't keep having to raise a manual bar with a huge fight). It also addresses the idea that we should have a variable number of open spots so everyone can pitch in, which is good. What we can do is have PSHAW's "move to queue" option become "protect prep", which will automatically protect the page and apply protection. I have a few ideas on implementation – I'm going to start screwing around in my userspace, see if I can't create a workable prototype with some Lua. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith and Kusma: I've created a prototype over at User:Theleekycauldron/Projects/Did you know/Queue. The number of queues per day is customizable at Module:DYK queue generator (I'll add better functionality for that at another point). Basically, what this does is that it will display enough queues so that there is always one empty queue at the bottom, to a minimum of 7. Queues are named so that the subpages are "2023-04-15", "2023-04-15a", "2023-04-15b", etc. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
The part of this proposal that I don’t yet understand is how we manage the time on the main page in relation to dated hook sets. How does a switch from 24 hours to something shorter happen? And how does that integrate with special occasion hooks? And dare I say it, if we consider making such fundamental changes, 18-hour sets should be part of the discussion. Schwede66 20:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
How does a switch from 24 hours to something shorter happen? pretty much the same as always – we'd have some kind of subpage that details how many sets we're running per day, and the rest of the codebase references that. The generator I've created handles that automatically. We wouldn't even need DYKUpdateBot to make changeovers.
how does that integrate with special occasion hooks? even more easily than usual, since sets are labeled by date! The date a set airs won't change based on how many we air per day.
The tradeoff is that a switch from one-to-two or vice versa requires quite a bit of set-shifting – going from one to two per day adds a bunch of "b" subpages to the rotation, and going from two to one removes them.
If we wanted to avoid that, we could decouple set names from dates – just have a variable number of prep sets, numbered as usual, with no separation between prep and queue. That way, instead of having "a" and "b" sets, we'd just have 1–whatever we wanted. We would have to keep DYKUpdateBot – the problem with making date subpages, as Kusma proposes, is that it would make 12-to-24 switchovers very difficult. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Are you saying that special occasion hooks are always in an a set and b sets are the ones that get brought in as needed? Schwede66 20:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
We could probably automate this even further: if 2023-04-16b exists, it is a two-set day and we switch to this at noon, if it doesn't exist, it is a one-set day and we only use 2023-04-16a. Only problem is we need create protection for the "b" set. —Kusma (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
probably wouldn't be difficult to do in template space, either. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:48, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
going from one to two per day adds a bunch of "b" subpages to the rotation, and going from two to one removes them. Not really.
Ignoring for the moment special-occasion hooks which might be scheduled far in the future, I would expect hooksets would be filled more or less in order. Right now, we're in 1-per-day mode. The last prep area we've got is scheduled for 29 April UTC, so in the new scheme would be called 2023-04-29. Let's say the prep builders go hog-wild and build us 2023-04-30, 2023-05-01, 2023-05-02, and so on up to 2023-05-17. If we decided today that we needed to switch to 2-per-day, all that would happen is that the next hookset that gets built would be called 2023-05-18a. No need to rename any existing sets, with the one exception that any special-occasion sets would need to get renamed. But that's likely to be just 1 or 2, and maybe not any at all. -- RoySmith(talk) 20:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, but consider – what if we have something where promoters create 2023-04-29, 2023-04-29b, 2023-04-30, 2023-04-30b, etc., all the way up to 2023-05-17b. What happens when we switch from 12-hour sets to 24-hour sets? Do we add a second {{User:Theleekycauldron/Projects/Did you know/Queue/generator}} for the 24-hour sets, starting from 2023-05-18? That's doable, I suppose, but not the easiest... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
We run something like 500 hook sets per year. What makes things complex are two factors: varying display times on the main page and special occasion hooks. Even with a and b sets, we might have the desire to run the special occasion hook in the b set for timezone reasons. So, why don’t we simply accept that we have to swap in a special occasion hook once we know when a set will run? That way, we can simply give hook sets a running number and everything else is kept simple. Start at 0001 and that will break once we go beyond 9999 in about 20 years' time. Schwede66 21:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Just start at "1". Zero-padding it to some fixed number of digits just adds complexity for no good reason. -- RoySmith(talk) 20:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
We might need to have something that stops promoters from filling more than 10-15 queues in advance (a week's worth at two per day) and then we switch by filling one-per-day queues (distinguished by naming scheme) from then on. —Kusma (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
i think 18-hour sets can easily be accommodated by also using the suffixes 'a' and 'c'. in addition, by placing sets in pages with titles based on when they are scheduled to appear on the main page, we can also easily transclude them into monthly archive pages. i also like the idea of using sequential numbering for the sets, but would start at 1 instead so coders don't end up relying on the value being four-digits long and causing an issue in twenty years. once a set has been compiled by promoters, an administrator can schedule the set by moving it to a page with a title mentioning the scheduled appearance date (perhaps with the help of pshaw if the math gets confusing). to avoid the shuffling of sets whenever wp:dykrotate is triggered, we can have wp:dykrotate only determine the scheduling of sets that have yet to be scheduled; sets already scheduled can remain as they are. dying (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
London Marathon
I was amazed to see this hook just now:
... ... that the elite men's event at today's London Marathon will feature four of the five fastest competitors of all time?
DYK is supposed to deal in settled facts but this is an event that hasn't happened yet. If the event goes to plan then the article will get lots of updates to tell us what actually happened. These major updates will then tend to void the reviews of the article because the reviews obviously can't have considered material which hasn't been written yet.
When the event is over, it is then likely to be nominated for
WP:ITN/R
. ITN is quite picky about such events, requiring good prose update and careful sourcing of the results. DYK should not be trying to steal the thunder for topics which properly belong in other main page sections and which specialise in handling breaking news.
I've been watching the event and the big news is that Kelvin Kiptum has set a new course record, breaking that set by Kipchoge, who was the missing person. And, in the women's event, Sifan Hassan did remarkably well on her first appearance.
The hook's trail thus turns to be quite irrelevant and distracting from the actual results. And the article hasn't been updated at all since the event started and so will be quite a disappointment for any readers who click through. Tsk.
Also DYK isnt supposed to feature things that have already appeared in bold on the main page, this is going to result in it being in bold twice on the main page at the same time. Really think this hook should be pulled. nableezy - 17:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
It's no longer on the main page because the hooks have switched out, but it wasn't even listed at
WP:CRYSTAL as it was sourced/verified, almost certain to happen (which it did), and certainly not speculative. - Aoidh (talk
) 02:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I was the article creator, and was regularly checking news coverage the past few days to check that the hook remained true. It was true- 4 of the fastest 5 men in history did race. Though there were also other hooks that could have been run anyway. Would have been good if people had updated the article yesterday (I guess people like me were out watching it rather than writing about it), but it still got 21k views. All in all, in future we should maybe try and use "safer" hooks that don't have a chance of becoming untrue. Both the other proposed hooks were true, but the promoter Bruxton chose ALT0. Glad it wasn't pulled as the solution would have been a different hook, and an ITN when it's at DYK rule literally doesn't exist, so isn't a valid reason to pull. Also, thanks for notifying everyone involved in this article/DYK promotion.... Joseph2302 (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, Kiptum was one of the fastest 5 runners, so the assertion that the DYK hook was irrelevant is not entirely true. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
But it isnt an off-chance, the London Marathon is by consensus always going to be ITN if it has been sufficiently updated and a good enough quality, a quality already assured by DYK. I thought there was a point of the criteria of a DYK not being listed if it was already bolded on the main page, honestly Id be totally fine removing that criteria, but if it does exist it seems like a run around to promote it to DYK before it appears on ITN. nableezy - 04:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I thought there was a point of the criteria of a DYK not being listed if it was already bolded on the main page That would be
WP:ITNC until the hook had almost concluded its time on the main page, so the article certainly wasn't previously bolded on the main page. The point of that criteria is that the hook should be new, and potential future inclusion in other sections, even if likely, does not create an issue with the newness of the hook or its article. I'm not saying that shouldn't be discussed or changed if consensus deems that appropriate to do, but there was nothing wrong with this hook being run as far as the current DYK criteria. - Aoidh (talk
) 11:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
This article ended up on ITN over a day after it rolled off DYK (and only then because I did significant editing to it the day after the event, not knowing about the ITN nomination). We should not presume it will reach ITN and therefore reject articles pre-emptively at DYK. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Joseph2302; whether something gets accepted at ITN is never assured. No DYK rule broken. Schwede66 17:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
So then maybe ITN should institute a corollary rule to ban hooks on items already featured in DYK. It just doesnt make any sense that it would be fine to run prior to ITN but not after ITN. nableezy - 20:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
There is no point discussing here what ITN should or shouldn't do. I suggest you take that discussion to the relevant ITN talk page. Schwede66 23:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
2-a-day
Guess what... We currently have more than 120 approved hooks. I suppose it's time to begin 2-a-day again? BorgQueen (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I hope we can try the 18 hour sets. GoldilocksBruxton (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Unless there's been a new clear consensus to go for 18 hours sets, then we're still under the previous consensus that mandates two a day when we hit 120 with at least ten combined preps and queues filled. I count twelve at the moment. Note that the special occasion hooks in Prep 6, Prep 7 (3 in total), and Prep 1 will need to be unpromoted; they're still in the special occasions section on the Approved page, so they'll show up again there once unpromoted, and be ready for promotion when the two-a-day sets come around to May 5, 6, and 7 respectively. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
please don't, it does make it quite difficult to keep records. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
It's clear that neither 1 a day nor 2 a day is working, since we keep flip flopping between the two which is very frustrating for nominators and those involved with the project. That means the true velocity lies somewhere in between, and it would be nice to come up with a stable length such as 18 hours. — Amakuru (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
It would probably be easier to switch to once a day with more hooks, or twice a day with fewer hooks, then to have a switch time that doesn't divide naturally from 24 hours. CMD (talk) 08:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I suspect it'll be easier on us though, to wait until we have, say, 200 or more approved hooks so we don't have to flip so often. BorgQueen (talk) 09:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Having said that, I know it's not the currently established consensus so I guess I'll have to press the flip button soon. Perhaps right after the next run? BorgQueen (talk) 09:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Going up to more than 120 approved hooks would be a fairly simple tweak, but it would be helpful to deal with the problem of transcluding more than about 120 noms onto the approved page first. Delaying switching to 2 a day could also mean that some noms would wait much longer before being published. TSventon (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
My recent suggestion to eliminate the prep/queue system would make changing between 12 and 24 hour sets easy. —Kusma (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Time to switch
Can we please get one of the @DYK admins: to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200 now or in the next several hours (before noon UTC)? The Approved page is once again not transcluding all the approved nominations, so we actually have 148 approved nominations rather than the 120 that the Count of DYK Hooks table claims. We still have 12 filled queue and prep sets. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@JennyOz I don't recall the nominator asking for the date, as far as I can tell. BorgQueen (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@JennyOz: Come to think of it, I do feel too that it suits May Day, but I don't know if @Dahn is OK with the delay. BorgQueen (talk) 15:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks BorgQueen Isn't that Dahn's suggestion (though not technically a request I s'pose) on the template? JennyOz (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@JennyOz: I didn't interpret it that way. But let's wait for his comment. BorgQueen (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
JennyOz, BorgQueen: Yes, I did (lightly) suggest May Day as the date for the hook, provided other better hooks didn't come by; IMHO, it would be pretty strange to have a hook floating May Day and be featured on Main Page not on May Day, but some days before it. So I'm okay with a delay, but also with any other editorial decision. If you feel it's a May Day hook, like I do, then by all means postpone it. Dahn (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@Dahn: Very well. I'll swap it out to feature it on May Day then! BorgQueen (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh just letting you know. BorgQueen (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: Thanks, no issues here. - Aoidh (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
JennyOz (talk·contribs), Aoidh (talk·contribs), BorgQueen (talk·contribs): Between my proposal and the current queue, the caption of the attached picture was changed to something that no longer reflects the immediate association with May Day. May I suggest adding "May Day issue" or something of that nature to the caption? Dahn (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@Dahn I'll get to that. It needs to be swapped again anyway, since we've just started 2-a-day. BorgQueen (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: Sure thing, no rush. And thanks! Dahn (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@DahnY Done, and it's now in Prep 1. Please check to see the wording. BorgQueen (talk) 11:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The May 6th hooks regarding coronation will be promoted to the set. Prep 7 is now empty and below are the hours. we have about 4 hooks set aside for the date, and if you see any more lets get them in. I will begin promoting them today.
Second thoughts, nevermind. BorgQueen (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Glad you reconsidered that. Just so other prep builders are aware, I want to make it clear that running the Ice Spice hook on May 6 will be seen by many as deliberate mockery of the British royal family. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 07:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Should we really be running a whole set on the same topic? We only rarely do that, and it's usually after a consensus here to do so. Personally I don't agree with running a whole set on one topic, as the point of DYK is to be broad and give people lots of different hooks. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I like this idea a lot – lets us air everything we want to air without having to feel like we're choking out too many other hooks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
My apologies. I thought I had. Thanks for the nudge. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm, the last coronation in the UK was 70 years ago so I thought a May 6 set was ok. It will not be the whole set anyway. If we are against the set like this, that is my mistake for assuming. Bruxton (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I think Joseph2302 raises a good point here – there was quite the uproar over DYK's choice to create a special set for the death and state funeral of Elizabeth II. I think we got called monarchists a couple of times? We may want to widen this discussion ahead of time, gauge the community's response before moving forward. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm against a special coronation set. At the risk of being labeled an anti-monarchist, what's so special about this event? We don't run special sets for installations of any other world leaders, and the King of England isn't even a world leader, except symbolically. On a more pedestrian level, the hook above doesn't even come close to meeting our 200 character limit. -- RoySmith(talk) 21:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
As far as the pedestrian bit goes, i think it falls under 200 chars if you follow the rule of omitting every bolded article after the first and we take out the Colobium Sidonis. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Ah, another one of those secret rules. OK, not so secret, I see it's
WP:SEAOFBLUE
issues, but beyond that, C3 notwithstanding, it's more like a novella than a hook. I also think it fails the interesting requirement. Basically it's "Somebody partaking in an ancient ceremony comes in wearing a bunch of fancy clothes and goes out wearing other fancy clothes." The only part that piques my interest is the single white glove. Maybe we could do:
... That a British monarch wears a single white glove during their coronation ceremony?"
I know that leaves out all the other multiple bolded links, but it's a better hook, and seems much more likely to get people interested enough to click on the link and figure out why they're doing a Michael Jackson impersonation. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm guessing Michael actually copied them... BorgQueen (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith, that is almost exactly the hook I proposed at Template:Did you know nominations/Coronation glove. I proposed the multi-hook precisely because I thought people wouldn't want too many separate hooks on similar subjects. If that's not the case I can separate each robe into a separate hook:
... that while they are being crowned, the British monarch wears a single white glove said to be a symbol of purity and integrity?
... that the Supertunica, worn by the British monarch during their crowning, dates to 1911 but is inspired by the ecclesiastical robes of the early Christian church?
... that the
Commonwealth Realms
?
... that the Robe Royal was made for the 1821 crowning of George IV but was in private ownership until the early 20th century since which has been used at every subsequent coronation?
... that the Imperial Robe worn by Elizabeth II in the procession from her coronation weighs 15 pounds (6.8 kg) and took 3,500 man hours to embroider?
I suspect this would need to be spread over several days. Let me know your preference - Dumelow (talk) 06:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I think I'd prefer just one multi-article hook on the day. BorgQueen (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
My objection to the multi-hook was fundamentally, "We don't need to devote this much coverage to this". Given that, turning it into 6 times as much coverage isn't really what I was hoping for. But, at this point, I've said my peace on the subject, so I'll just leave it there. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Don't we actually need a discussion to have a special set in the first place? It seems like this set just sort of happened without any consensus or discussion, and given the very legitimate concerns that have been raised above by RoySmith and the others, we probably at the very least needed to have some kind of discussion first to see if there was even consensus for a set, and perhaps even an RfC or some kind. I understand the event is just a few weeks away, but still. I mean, even our other special occasion sets like Christmas and so on are discussed way ahead of time and usually have consensus to run, I didn't see that happening here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
This was my fault. I saw a special request for a May 6, then another, and another, so I set them aside in the special holding area. They have been there for weeks under a May 6 heading. I was excited that we could celebrate the event with hooks, thanks to Dumelow. Also, kings and queens have always fascinated many people and I did not know that we needed the consent of the community to create a set and I had no idea that this was controversial in any way. So it is my fault entirely, and I apologize to all concerned. I will give myself a timeout now. Bruxton (talk) 00:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
It is utterly bizarre that we are happy to run special occasion hooks for any number of religious, international and trivial events but want to specifically go out of our way to avoid mentioning the coronation of the ruler of 85 million people (and who is head of an organisation spanning 56 countries and a third of the world's population, including most of the English-speaking world). I was trying to highlight some interesting facts relevant to what will surely be the top news item of the day but if this is not allowed and they cannot run on 6 May I would request the multi-hook nomination is run as separate hooks as I list above - Dumelow (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here is necessarily against these hooks running on the coronation day. What people seem to be having an issue is having an entire set related to the coronation on May 6th, and even then, it's not because of the idea of having a coronation set itself, but rather there being one without seemingly any form of consensus or discussion. In the past when we'd have special occasion sets, we'd usually have at minimum a discussion about it happening and if there's consensus to run such a set in the first place. If there had been a discussion first on if there was an appetite for a coronation day DYK set, then if there was consensus or at least agreement to do make one, then I don't think there would have been much complaining about it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
i don't have an opinion on whether or not we should have a special set commemorating the coronation, but i feel that i should point out that tfa [nom] and potd are scheduled to acknowledge the event with related content. (itn will likely post the event around the time it happens, otd's content for that day will likely be refreshed within the next few days, and tfl is not scheduled to run on that day.) i am not sure if this means that we should also take part, or sound the alarm to the other projects to avoid having wikipedia editors being labelled monarchists. (however, i am for running Joseph2302's london marathon hook today, so i guess you could call me a racist.)by the way, Bruxton, to me, it looks like you were just fulfilling special requests, so i don't think you should be too hard on yourself. i don't know if i have the power to do so, but if i do, i'd like to commute your self-imposed sentence to time served. dying (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
@Dying: Thanks for the message; it was good to take a short break. Bruxton (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
One mega hook seems like a good compromise. --GuerilleroParlez Moi 14:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I have no problems with running a themed set for this occasion and acknowledge that it would result in a themed Main Page. If the preference is for a multi hook, so be it. Whatever we do, there will be comments on that day’s Main Page setup. Schwede66 14:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree. If we have some space for other topics (perhaps from some republic or other) there will also be something to look at for those bored by the British monarchy. —Kusma (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
As a Brit myself I don't think we should be running a themed set again. In a recent poll, 64% of Britons said they didn't care much, or at all, about it. Acknowledge it by all means, of course. Black Kite (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
But how much do they care about the other stuff on DYK? A great deal less, I'd imagine. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Can we please not do this ode to the British Empire thing again? A hook is reasonable, an entire section of the main page is not. We dont do this for any other coronation, election, elevation, whatever. nableezy - 18:03, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Please see
WP:VPM#How much coronation coverage is appropriate? -- RoySmith(talk)
18:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with a special set, as we do for Christmas every year (in fact usually a few of them). This is wp's first coronation, & there is unlikely to be another for years. Johnbod (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with Johnbod's assessment. A president of the US is every four years and Christmas is every year. This event last happened on June 2, 1953. Lightburst (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
And US president is approximately a million times more powerful than the king. nableezy - 19:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
@Nableezy: A president is infinitely less interesting than a King IMO. Power has little to do with interesting. Side note: I was surprised that we had no hooks to acknowledge Eid al-Fitr which happened Friday April 21. About 25% of the planet identify as Muslim and Ramadan came and went. Contrast that with Christianity, 32% who identify as christian. But I digress. It is all about what hooks we have submitted here, and luckily we have a selection of hooks for this event. Estimates are that 300 million people will be watching the coronation. Lightburst (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, rich white person has title his mommy gave him and thats all hes ever done or ever will do is interesting I suppose /sarcasm. nableezy - 21:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Im not opposed to having a hook, a super hook or whatever with all the different articles bolded, run that day. I am opposed to something that was like the main page the day Charlie's benefactor was buried, in which the front page for a global encyclopedia glorified this family of little (positive) consequence for that global community. nableezy - 21:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Yet part of the purpose we have here and at other main page projects is to get readers to look at the articles, and, for example, the TFA for 19 September 2022, Elizabeth II, is the most-viewed TFA ever, with its 1.7 million hits nearly a million more than the runner-up. Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Isn't it a pro-British monarchy bias then? It's not like the UK is the only monarchy in the world yet we don't usually do anything DYK related on the investitures/installations of other world monarchs. Yes the UK may be the world's most famous monarchy, but it's far from the only one. We might as well have a Malaysia-related hook for every installation of every Yang di-Pertuan Agong, or in the future, a hook for the enthronement of the Japanese Emperor then. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Since we are the En Wiki nothing is more En than this. Malaysia not as much. Lightburst (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
When the Queen died, the readership for our articles about her and the rest of the royal family was huge, dwarfing the numbers for any other topic in that year. I'm not sure the coronation of her heir will be quite so big but it seems likely to be significant. If Dumelow has gone to some trouble over this then they should be respected as their DYKs are always of outstanding quality – they stand out whenever I browse the main page.
Running the coronation hooks together in a thematic way is best as there is a natural synergy which will make sense to our readership and which will be lost if they are scattered in a random fashion to spite the event.
Appreciate the discussion is still going on here and have linked to it from my new nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Cross of Wales which has a strong coronation connection. Listing the hook here also for comment - Dumelow (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Event sets are interesting, I don't think they are an issue (so long as the articles are notable). There is the very valid note that we didn't mark Eid, which is a problem but not something that can be addressed by not having another set. I do think that if there is multiple hooks on the topic, we don't need to say "Coronation of Charles III and Camilla" in each hook, as the currently proposed Template:Did you know nominations/Cross of Wales does for example. A mega-hook would also avoid this, if that is a desired outcome. CMD (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
The plain fact is that we wouldn't have enough noms for a whole set on Eid, which happens annually. Not of actual Eid-related stuff, rather than general Islamic-related. Compare the 19 articles in Category:Eid (Islam) with the vast tree under Category:Christmas, which probably gets to four figures. And this is by no means just due to wp bias/main cultural locations & so on. We only seem to have one article on Eid-related music, and none on art. Johnbod (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
We didn't have enough noms, but I highly doubt that it wouldn't be possible. There's no way that 19/4000 is unrelated to wp bias/main cultural locations and so on. In fact, it suggests, as does your later comment, that there is huge opportunity for fresh articles. CMD (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
It's no doubt "related", but if you know anything about Islam, you'll understand why Eid art and music don't generate much. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment Hello all, I see the set has been reorganized and filled prior to this discussion's close. @
started a discussion at Village Pump which has not concluded. I see an approved nomination of Cross of Wales above which is likely to be much less interesting if run another day. The event is twelve days out so we have time to finish discussions or take a poll and get to consensus before imposing changes. Bruxton (talk
) 14:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I like the multi-hook. This isn't about glorifying Charles, the monarchy, or colonialism, it's about a very old and intricate ceremony that few have seen and many will not see again, and which (no matter what your feelings on the issues) most of the English-speaking world has some connection to. I think we should stuff it full, myself. Valereee (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I don't think many people, if anyone, is against a coronation-related hook going up that day. The question is if there was consensus to have an entire set about the coronation, rather than just one or a few hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Rapid fire
@DYK admins: If we are going to enter into this crazy 12 hour rotation and keep up we are going to need to have some open preps. Right now there are only four queues and according to the section directly above this one, hooks are also being rapidly de-promoted. Bruxton (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Was trying to step back for a couple of days to avoid burnout, but I'll see what I can do here in a bit. - Aoidh (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm happy to do some prep promotion too. — Amakuru (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thanks. BorgQueen (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The queues are all full. ~
problem solving
17:03, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Special occasion hooks need some attention...
Since we've switched to 2-a-day, most of the special-occasion hooks will need to be de-promoted and returned back to the approved hooks page. Prep 7 will now be featured on May 1. BorgQueen (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
So I have to recall what I promoted and then promote the same hooks again? Lightburst (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Yup. After a while a prep will be available for the appropriate date. BorgQueen (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset put it well: Note that the special occasion hooks in Prep 6, Prep 7 (3 in total), and Prep 1 will need to be unpromoted; they're still in the special occasions section on the Approved page, so they'll show up again there once unpromoted, and be ready for promotion when the two-a-day sets come around to May 5, 6, and 7 respectively.BorgQueen (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I've just unpromoted the May 5 lead hook; May 6 and 7 are still to be done. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
This seems clumsy. Can a prep be swapped so that the articles remain promoted? Because it takes time to promote a hook and that work is undone with a click. Lightburst (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I've unpromoted the May 7 hook. Hope I didn't break anything. BorgQueen (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I've unpromoted all the May 6 hooks. BorgQueen (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Prep 2: Radomir Lazović
... that Radomir Lazović and other activists opposed to a redevelopment plan for the Belgrade Waterfront chose a rubber duck to symbolize what they opposed most about the proposal?
Two queries with this:
The way it's worded, with "opposed most about the proposal" it sounds like the development actually included a duck. Whereas from the article, I gather that the duck symbol was chosen by the protesters and was not part of the plans.
The source does not say it was a rubber duck, and indeed from the image at [11] I'm not particularly convinced it actually is made of rubber.
@Amakuru: The lead of rubber duck seems to imply that the name of a toy rubber-ish duck is still called a "rubber duck" just because that's the name. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 15:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
How about "a giant toy duck"? Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't speak Serbian, but I found a BBC article suggesting that that patka (duck) is Serbian slang for fraud. If so shouldn't that be explained in the article? All the references about the duck are in Serbian, so they don't need to explain Serbian slang. TSventon (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
If you can find a source saying explicitly that the duck represents fraud in this particular context, then please put it in. Otherwise that would be OR on our part. Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
The BBC article I linked above does just that. @Vacant0: hopefully you understand Serbian, does patka (duck) mean fraud in Serbian? TSventon (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this is even mentioned in the Vreme source and in his Wiki article. Vacant0 (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I have added a sentence about duck being slang for fraud, referenced to the Sydney Morning Herald, as I don't think it was clear to non-Serbian speakers before. TSventon (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Alt1 ... that Radomir Lazović and other activists opposed to a redevelopment plan for the Belgrade Waterfront chose a rubber duck to symbolize that they see the proposal as a scam? the Vreme source says "The duck symbolizes the lex specialis, but also the entire "Belgrade on the Water" project. We see both as a big scam or a trap that we must not fall for." TSventon (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
A bit wordy, but if Amakuru's good with that, I am too :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
How about a tighter "...as a symbol representing the project as a scam?" Daniel Case (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Daniel's proposal. Vacant0 (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The last hook about a SZA song is a highly amusing one. I personally think it's OK for a hook to be creative that way but I'd like to hear what others think. @
Your Power: Just for the record, I love your hook! BorgQueen (talk
Your Power: a lot of pop culture music hooks tend to underwhelm at DYK in terms of views... they do, don't they? I wonder why. Interesting, especially given that hooks for other pop-culture mediums such as films or video game seem to do just fine. BorgQueen (talk
) 13:20, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, this is a thing I see a lot – one part of what I see is that hooks tend to rely on the coattails "star power" to attract views. A hook about Kanye West, for example, would get a lot of views. A hook about a Kanye West song, not so much – especially if it's not a song people know, or if the hook wouldn't stand on its own two feet if it was by a lesser-known artist. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh yeah, I did start a discussion here after promoting it. BorgQueen (talk) 07:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Since the set's already been mentioned, I think there's some delightful juxtaposition in it. Kudos to the setbuilder. Kingsif (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
@Kingsif ah, I was wondering if someone was going to mention it. Thanks. BorgQueen (talk) 22:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4, and BorgQueen: I have a concern about this hook, namely that the article itself doesn't seem to reflect the wording of the hook. I'm not sure where some "sad girls" is supposed to come from, because the article makes a mention in the lede about SZA previous being known for making "sad girl" music but wanting to get away from that descriptor when she wrote this album the song is on. The other reference to "sad girls" is in the Lyrics section
where it says she wrote the lyrics to dispel a narrative that she only makes "sad girl music". The article doesn't say that the song is about "sad girls" doing anything, the only reference to that phrase is that SZA was trying to get away from that description for her music. From reading the text of the article it seems the intention of the song is to be deliberately unrelated to a "sad girl" descriptor, so that part of the hook seems inaccurate.
I also don't see anything about will diss desperate men in their texts being mentioned anywhere in the article. The Lyrics section does say She deliberately ignores many athletes who try to flirt in her messages and insist she text them back and further down in the section says she finds various ways to insult her ex-partners, but doesn't say anything about dissing desperate men in their texts. - Aoidh (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Moved as a subsection to the relevant section - Aoidh (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I probably made a mistake okaying this. It's my first time reviewing a DYK and I could've honestly done a much better job covering my bases. I apologize and will keep this in mind in the future.
I suppose the hook could be changed to be more accurate and straightforward without trying to be "quirky" at all, something more like
... that songwriter SZA wrote the lyrics to "Smoking on My Ex Pack" to dispel the popular image of herself as a "sad girl"?
If this is deemed acceptable, and no one has any alternate proposals, then I would suggest moving forward with that hook (or something to its effect).
... No. If we put aside all facts, this one is undoubtedly way more convoluted and way less interesting. As the nominator I still get a say in how this should be written, no? Apologies I haven't responded sooner --- I'm back in classes after a mental health break, which means my Wikipedia work can focus only on a narrow set of things that interest me.
I usually hate diluting an otherwise interesting hook with boring specifics like the singer-songwriter's name or the song's name, so this was an irk. Let me come up with something - "that one can change
Under what criteria did Queue 3: Zenni Optical (nom) qualify for DYK? The nom says it is new (moved to mainspace), but the article history goes back to 2017. There were some intermediate deletions, but that shouldn't reset the clock on what's considered new. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I remember looking at this when checking the queues. Looking at the article history, this intact history was created in mainspace in 2017 and then moved to draftspace a few hours later, and the version that was moved could hardly be called an article. It's been sitting in draftspace/deleted/restored a few times since then, but the Feb 27 move to mainspace was the first mainpage exposure its had since that brief few-hour-window in 2017 where it was just an infobox with no prose. - Aoidh (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Just as a note it's currently in Queue 6 rather than 3, Queue 6 being the set that is due to run next. - Aoidh (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
deletions and recreations typically re-qualify an article – it's reasonable to say that an article that breaches the barrier between deletable and viable is per se new content. Given that it was moved to mainspace the day it was nominated, I'd say that counts. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Seems like an odd way to do things, but OK. I defer to your expertise in dyk jurisprudence. -- RoySmith(talk) 20:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the analysis and information, Aoidh, BeanieFan11, and theleekycauldron. Cunard (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Should we have a Eurovision set?
Presumably on the day of the grand final? It's a massive event and popular on Wikipedia. So popular that I suggest this in part because there's a bunch of Eurovision articles going through GAN that might be nominated here soon-ish. Kingsif (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I like this: this is an international event (Australia and Israel are in Eurovision, even though they are not in Europe: don't ask) and with enough research we could hopefully have topics from various disciplines (not just music and television: maybe architecture of the locations of Eurovision, choreographers and other artists, geography articles, etc.) Z1720 (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Sounds like a good proposal. I support it. BorgQueen (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: DYK is supposed to provide a variety, all of these proposals for date sets seem like a
WP:CREEP away from this. Especially for Eurovision, where almost all the articles are going to be very similar, this doesn't seem like a sensible set to me (even less so than the British coronation set proposed in a previous section). Special sets should be limited to extraordinary events, or date requests where we can still provide readers with some variety (e.g. International Women's Day, when we get 8 very different articles posted). Joseph2302 (talk
) 09:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, looking at Wikipedia:Good article nominations, most of the Eurovision ones have been waiting for months, so there's no evidence they will be promoted soon. And two of them are for previous contests, and 3 are for countries at a previous contest, so listing all of these on one DYK set would be a very dull, repetitive set. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I really don't see lack of variety being a problem. Jumping off Z1720's comment and my own experience with other themed sets, picking a theme still allows you to be very broad in the hooks. For a museums' day set, you might think we could only manage history of museum hooks but there was architecture, art, internet, etc. - with a theme that is already international like that and Eurovision, hooks can be any interesting (tangential) fact about subjects, not just saying what it is (and hooks are pretty lame if they do just say "X is X"). There's decades of songs, people, locations and all their trivia, I don't think it would be short of variety. (You give IWD as an example, saying there is variety in hooks about eight very different women? There's three dozen competitors this year at Eurovision, you could pick eight of them and it'd be the same, no?) As for the GANs, I was looking at them for reasons and may be taking several of them on to resolve said reasons so, don't worry. Kingsif (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment I think we should go with hooks that are approved, on days which are relevant and make sense for the hook. So if we have hooks for the day I think they should be run. Bruxton (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, I kinda thought to suggest this when I realised there may be several hooks nominated around the same time. They may have been staggered due to having similar subjects, and I thought a theme set could work better. Kingsif (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
run time
Have we ever tried to calculate how many nominations we typically approve per year or month and then tried to determine a more constant run time like say 16 or 18 hours rather than bouncing back and forth between 12 and 24?-
Queue 7: KASA-TV (nom) The quote in the hook is a day late but not a single program short, which is the same as in the article, but the source says, They're a day late but they're not a single program short". The quote we present should match the quote from the source. @BorgQueen @Juxlos @Sammi Brie -- RoySmith(talk) 23:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith I lopped off the "they're" because I have a singular subject, and I added an ellipsis between "but" and "not" to the article which should be mirrored in the hook. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I've updated the hook. -- RoySmith(talk) 02:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Richmond, Indiana facility fire
Richmond, Indiana facility fire (nom) @Bruxton @Storye book @28bytes @Tails Wx I'm concerned about the amount of direct copies of text in the Background section (earwig). At a minimum, these need to be quoted and properly attributed. Even better would be to rewrite the section. -- RoySmith(talk)
15:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, I think "unsafe to people and property" needs to be quoted in the hook, but I'll leave that to our style mavens. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Other than phrases clearly quoted, with quotations marks, the remaining similarities found by Earwig are:
widespread roof leaks and structural issues
some of the materials were too close to the property line
an excessive amount of plastic
one of the buildings at the
Seth Smith, the owner of the recycling
In 2022, the city seized two of the three land parcels
after Smith failed to pay property taxes
When reviewing, I took those as being common phrases which would not be worth the bother of big-ass lawyers out to make money. Nevertheless, since it worries you, I have listed them above, so that whoever is concerned can rewrite them (I guess I can't do so as reviewer? I'd be reluctant to do so anyway, as my style is distinctly British, and it would not match the rest of the text). @Bruxton @28bytes @Tails WxStorye book (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
We should be aiming higher than "Not likely to get sued over". -- RoySmith(talk) 16:22, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith I've rephrased several sentences in the article. Please see if it's acceptable now. @Nikkimaria: care to take a look? BorgQueen (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't have access to all the relevant sources, but don't see anything majorly concerning in what I have. That being said, I'd always emphasize that Earwig catches direct copying only, not too-close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
... that although it was a centennial project, the Canterbury Pioneer Women's Memorial(pictured) in New Zealand was opened 90 years after the region's organised settlement began?
I'm a little confused by this one - the article states that the memorial was designed as "a good project for New Zealand centenary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840", hence it's opening in 1940 is exactly 100 years, as you'd expect. I'm assuming the hook is saying that it was really for the centenary of the First Four Ships (1850), as outlined in the Background section, but the above sentence about 1840 doesn't seem to tally with that. As was raised by Bruxton at the nom page, we really need the hook fact to be more explicitly stated and cited in the article - especially so if we're going with the odd situation of celebrating a centenary ten years early... Pinging @Schwede66 and Onegreatjoke: — Amakuru (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I've amended the lead to spell out even more explicitly that the memorial commemorates two events that happened ten years apart. Does that resolve any confusion, Amakuru? Schwede66 19:55, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@Schwede66: so is the purpose of the hook to pique people's interest by using deliberate ambiguity in the wording? It seems like the factual interpretation is that it was a centennial project for event A, but opened 90 years after event B. But as an uninitiated reader, I interpret it as meaning the project was intended for the centenary of the region's organised settlement, but somehow ended up opening 10 year early. I'm not sure if this is an actionable issue or not, but it does seem quite confusing as written. Happy to drop the matter if you and others think there isn't an issue though. — Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that was the idea. The hook is of course factually correct: ... that although it was a centennial project, the Canterbury Pioneer Women's Memorial (pictured) in New Zealand was opened 90 years after the region's organised settlement began? Event A was the centennial and event B happened 90 years ago. It's deliberately "puzzling", so to speak, and it is rather unusual that a memorial has two quite separate events that it commemorates. The aim is for the reader to be curious as to what is going on. Are there other ways to work the 90 year plus centennial into a hook? Schwede66 06:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Praefectus vigilum
Queue 7: Praefectus vigilum (nom) The hook says the praefectus vigilum ... is unknown but the cited source says ...in all but one ... of the account of the Great Fire ... there is no specific reference to ... the praefectus vigilum. I read a bit of the cited article on jstor but couldn't find anything about what the "all but one" account says. I'm uncomfortable going from the statement in the source to a wikivoice statement that the identity of the praefectus is unknown. @Alessandro57 @BorgQueen @Dumelow -- RoySmith(talk) 23:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Hallo, @RoySmith, and thanks for checking! I don't see the problem: what the article says is that all the sources don't even mention him, except one, where the office is mentioned, but not the person who held it. On the other hand, if this were not the case, the article would not have been written, or at least not in that form, especially since given the scarcity of evidence in general on the subject, to identify a praefectus vigilum in most cases an epigraph or a quotation from an ancient historian is considered sufficient. If you consult Sablayrolles (1996), which in my opinion is the best source on the subject, and go to the Appendix 1 (List of known Praefecti vigilum), p. 480-481, you will see that between 62 AD (End of Tigellinus' office) and 69 AD (Plotius Firmus) there is a gap (the Great Fire took place in 64). Of course, there are conjectures (having read the article you will have realised this), but they remain so. Cheers, Alex2006 (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi RoySmith, I initially had the same thought but the explanation is as Alex2006 states. The full quote from Daugherty (1992) is "It is remarkable that in all but one (Dio Cassius 62.17) of the accounts of the Great Fire in Nero's Rome there is no specific reference to the people who had the primary responsibility for the prevention, detection and extinction of fire, the cohortes vigilum, nor to their commander, the praefectus vigilum". You can read a translation of Dio Cassius book 62 here, the relevant portion is "Many houses were destroyed for want of anyone to help save them, and many others were set on fire by the same men who came to lend assistance; for the soldiers, including the night watch [cohortes vigilum], having an eye to plunder, instead of putting out fires, kindled new ones" so he only refers to the unit, not the commander.
Daugherty (1992) goes on to say "For Nero's reign we are only certain of four facts. Laelianus left the post in 54 to assume the governorship of Armenia (Dio 61.6). Tigellinus left the post in 62 to become the Praetorian Prefect (Tac. Hist. 1.72). Annaeus Serenus died in office during the reign of Nero and before 65 (Pliny NH 22.96 and Sen. Ep. 63.14-15). Plotius Firmus left the post in 69 to become Praetorian Prefect under Otho (Tac. Hist. 1.46). Accordingly, there are four possibilities for the praefectus vigilum of AD 64: Annaeus Serenus, Plotius Firmus, an unknown, or a vacancy. An argument for any of these requires a solution to the order in which the offices were held in Nero's reign"; he goes on to state that it was most likely one of the latter two scenarios with Serenus dying before the fire and Firmus entering office after. In any case it is clear the office holder is not definitively known.
That was enough for me to approve the hook, but perhaps it can be made more clear as "... no contemporary source identifies the praefectus vigilum, who had responsibility for firefighting in Rome, during the the Great Fire under Nero?" - Dumelow (talk) 06:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@Dumelow, @BorgQueen, thanks a lot! A last thought: wouldn't be better to pipe "praefectus vigilum" to "fire chief" ? Then the hook would become shorter.
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.
Proposal for 18 hour sets. Twenty-four hours is too slow and twelve hours is too fast... 18 hours might be just right. The only way to know is to try.
Support as proposer. Bruxton (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I gotta oppose – it's a perennial suggestion, but it's easier for promoters and the stats page if the set changes at midnight UTC, no matter what. Now, if we had a system where we alternated between 12 and 24-hour sets daily, that might be worth discussing. But really, I don't see how our current system is a problem – yes, 12 is too fast and 24 hours is too slow. We keep the backlog light until we have to do a clearing of house, and then we go into that sprint for a little, and then we slow down. It's designed that way. If we do 18 hours, it won't be just right – it'll be off by a little bit, one way or the other, and it'll slowly creep out of sync until we have to slow down or speed up anyway for a little. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose leeky makes good points but I also consider the reader, who will have even less idea of when to see new facts than they probably already do. Permanent switch to 18-hour isn't going to massively affect the promoters' workload, but it could make DYK a worse reader experience. Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I really like the idea Kusma proposed. One thing I just thought of (an additional point in favor of Kusma's idea) is that since there's essentially zero cost to switching between 12 and 24 hour slots, we can do it at whim. Let's say we were in a 12-hour phase, but decided that there was some extra-special event coming up that we wanted to commemorate with a special hook set that ran for a full day. No big deal, just create a 24-hour hookset at the right place in the queue and then go right back to doing 12 hour pairs. We could even do things like 12 hour sets on weekends and 24 hour sets during the week, if we decided that's what we wanted to do. And you know what, that would give us 9 sets a week, which is pretty close to our long-term average rate. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
We used to do two-a-day weekends, unless I'm mistaken – we also did some switchery around Christmas 2021 for the occasion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
To clarify, I oppose 18 hour sets. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Comment This is discussed above under the heading Change queue protection to TPROT. I can see such a time change working as part of a bigger change to how DYK is run. Just by itself, it's been discussed plenty of times before and rejected. Schwede66 00:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, better to switch DYK numbers as I mentioned above than make weird timeframes. CMD (talk) 09:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Alternative suggestion would be 16 hours, as that would alleviate some of the "random times" pain, since there would be 3 sets every 2 days (rather than 18 hours, which is 4 sets every 3 days). Although having a fixed time period seems more sensible to me than flicking between 12 and 24 hours, which causes hooks to get different levels of DYK exposure, and also means readers are less likely to see some hooks. And fixed time period makes it easier for people who only promote preps/queues infrequently to better know which preps/queues they want request dates in, rather than having to work out if we're on 12 or 24 hour cycles. So support 18 hours over the current 12/24 hours switching. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I am for your idea or any idea that achieves balance for readers and volunteers. It is unequal at the moment - some hooks get twice as much front page exposure. We can serve the readers worldwide with an 18 hour window, but less so with a 12 hour window. Unfortunately for prep builders we are either bored or nervous. What does ITN FA and OTD do for rotation? Are we alone in that we are either sprinting or walking? Bruxton (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
ITN updates as-needed, TFA and OTD update daily. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I think the idea cadence would be one update per day. The problem with that is we wouldn't have enough room to run all the approved hooks. But, as I've said before, I'm fine with balancing the input vs output by running the hooks we have room for and rejecting those that don't make the cut, but I seem to be in the minority on that idea.
Another thing that occurs to me is we don't have to run the same number of hooks every day. As far as I can tell, we settled on 8 per set because the tends to fill the space we've got allotted on the page. But sometimes we've got short hooks. Currently, Queue 3 has room for one more, for example. If we filled by space instead of by count, we could get a few more out the door. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: actually, DYK's acceptance rate has dropped over the past few months by a few points. Nothing life-changing, but 94% to 90% ain't half bad. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Exact phrasing
Ive been away from DYK for a while. Since I left I can see suggestions of changes to hooks based on ideas that soccer isn't football and invisible doesnt mean not-visible. Over the 12 plus years that I have been creating DYKs then one of the most important emerging ideas was rephrasing sources to avoid plagiarism when creating the article and then to suggest a hook based on the article - but again maybe not quoting word for word. If we are going to move to the idea that the hook has to use the precise words that are used in the article then lets have a debate and maybe change the rules Holding meta approvals here based on the words not being identical is just creating work. Some of the changes suggested are trivial/picky but I can see that the team just go with the flow as its not worth debating. I can see that. But should we not just have a rule about exact wording or forget about the idea? Victuallers (talk) 08:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Victuallers, can you give us an example of what you mean by someone arguing the hook has to use the precise words that are used in the article? Valereee (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Invisible doesn't mean not visible? Trivial difference. Victuallers (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@Victuallers In the given context, not visible in the same way means less visible, not invisible. So yes, RoySmith has a point. BorgQueen (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The source says "Vera Kurtic (2013) interviewed 15 Romani lesbian women and 10 non-LGBT Roma in several cities of Serbia. While most non-LGBT respondents claimed that both gay men and lesbian women are treated the same in the Romani community, they only knew gay or bisexual men and transgender people in the community; Romani lesbian women were completely invisible." see https://crs.ceu.edu/index.php/crs/article/view/119, so perhaps the article should be reworded rather than the hook. TSventon (talk) 09:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
There is a precise difference between any two exact words. That's why we have different words. There is a difference between null, nought, nothing and zero and I would have pleasure in debating the difference with you over a beer. But in Wikipedia I would just change it to the one I preferred, leave it as it is, or suggest a change on the talk page (so anyone who is interested could join the debate without holding anyone else up). Victuallers (talk) 10:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
My issue with the hook is that the word "invisible" was in quotes. That implies a direct quotation, so that's what I expected to see in the article. BorgQueen's edit Special:Diff/1152117424 solves the problem. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you all. Drmies (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Queue 7)
Is there some reason
Wikipedia:Main Page alternative (Tomorrow and Queue 7)
don't exist? The obvious explanation is that somebody just forgot to create them, but it's hard to imagine nobody's noticed in all these years, so I'm guessing there's some magic reason that I'm just not seeing.
These are what you get to via the See how this template appears on both today's Main Page links on each queue. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't believe there's a reason, just an oversight. Queue 7 was created years after the others, and likely after the alternatives were wired up. Shubinator (talk) 05:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Looking at this closer, the links in Template:Did you know/Queue/xx all are to Special:Purge/Wikipedia:Main_Page_alternative_(Queue_xx), which is silly since those pages are all redirects to the Wikipedia:Main Page alternatives/(Queue xx) versions. So every time somebody clicks one of those, they're prompted to purge the redirect, which is pointless. I suggest we update those links to 1) bypass the redirects and 2) omit the Special:Purge. Given how long the 7 link has been broken, I'm guessing nobody actually uses them. Do they still serve a purpose? -- RoySmith(talk) 15:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Koryo Ilbo
Queue 1: Koryo Ilbo (nom) The hook says ...once known as Lenin's Banner.... The only place this appears in the article is in a note. Is that acceptable, or does it need to be in the main body text? @BorgQueen @Jacoblee628 @Freedom4U -- RoySmith(talk) 19:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
It is acceptable. Actually the article does mention Lenin Kichi in the main body, which means Lenin's Banner in the Korean language. BorgQueen (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I was slightly hesitant, but supported inclusion of ...once known as Lenin's Banner... because "Lenin Kichi" doesn't mean anything for non-Korean speakers (and is still confusing for Koreans too) and a number of sources also call it Lenin's Banner in English meaning the translation wasn't just pulled from nowhere. :3 F4U (they/it) 19:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@Freedom4U 기치 is an archaic Korean word for sure. But not too esoteric, if you're familiar with early 20th-century Korean literature. Lol. BorgQueen (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I was more talking along the lines of it being difficult for me to read romanized Korean. Lenin Kichi reads as "Kitsch Lenin" to me than "Lenin 기치". :3 F4U (they/it) 19:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Y I've replaced the cite web with the cite podcast template. But I haven't altered the time parameter to the specific-to-the-second one you provided, as the ref covers several other sentences in the article too. The range is just a few minutes anyway. BorgQueen (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Someone changed the hook from the approved "quantum materials researcher" to "nanotechnology researcher". Both are technically correct, but I chose to feature the quantum materials aspect of her research in the approved hook. Can someone please change it back? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Soccer is a British term and it narrows down which form of football we are talking about. In the article there are pictures that show this is not rugger or Aussie Rules (and links to Assoc Footie). Do you see the rationale? Victuallers (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
This is still kind of confusing. The article mentions, "the Lions women's football team of Columbia University", and links to Columbia Lions, which is the name used by all the Columbia sports teams. I would assume "women's football team" means Columbia Lions#Football, not Columbia Lions#Soccer. In any case, even if "soccer" is indeed a British term, we've still got the hook using a different term from what the article uses, and that's confusing. If the article talks about "football", shouldn't the hook say ... has been chosen to play football for the Republic of Ireland? Or maybe ... has been chosen to play association football for the Republic of Ireland? -- RoySmith(talk) 17:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith it is confusing. Folks call soccer football in certain parts of the world. My thinking is if we call it football in the hook as the article does it will confuse many readers. But I think they will not be confused by the word soccer. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
"Soccer" was originally a British term, and really was until the Premier League took off in the 90s, but the article uses "football" because this is the current common term (with the subject being British). Though Gaelic football is a thing and that would be the realistic argument for saying it could be confusing, I don't think there will be any confusion with "goalkeeper" also present and the fact that (as standard) "football" is wikilinked to association football already. The one thing I do take issue with is the phrasing has been chosen to play – players can deny call-ups, so she wasn't chosen by ROI, she had to actively choose herself (and this is, of course, what the article says). Kingsif (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I did originally wonder about "has been chosen", but decided I was being too picky so didn't say anything about it. But now that you've also mentioned it, I guess it's more than just me so we should fix it. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I find the arguments unconvincing. If they can suggest the wording that they would find acceptable then lets use those words. They will have to be quick as I hear that you can get yourself chosen for the Irish Soccer team so I'm getting my kit - I'll be the first bloke on the team! (DYK here I come). Imagine - my mate was (chosen/decided to) to play soccer for that team and she was stunned to find out that they play football! Sorry, I don't agree with these changes but lets make them, I think our readers will work it out anyway. Victuallers (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Just want to say I am following the discussion. I see that Victuallers is a DYK vet (579 nominations) so I am deferring to them on their hook wording. I too think that she was chosen makes sense. Lightburst (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Well, you could say she currently plays for; the hookiness is the disparate countries, so editing this can only improve the hook. The fact she hasn't played in an official match may be why the current wording was chosen, but she does play for them. (If you want the explanation... Well, first, the verb "chosen"/its iterations just isn't really used in soccer like that. When it is, it's players with multiple eligibilities (and offers) choosing themselves which one to go with. And this is why being passive doesn't work: even when a player has been selected/"chosen", they can turn it down. I also am not exactly a fan of the wording in the article, but it's just not going on my priority list.) Kingsif (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
User:Bazza 7, User:Black Kite: I have rephrased this hook to improve readability and wanted to ask if you approve of this one.--NØ 18:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@MaranoFan: I can understand that better than the previous incarnation. It might be helpful to link doo-wop. It might be made snappier by stopping after the comma and inverting the order (e.g. ... that Meghan Trainor took things back to doo-wop on her latest album after her earlier title went viral on TikTok? but I'm OK with your suggestion. Bazza (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! I've added a link to doo-wop.--NØ 19:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I think I prefer Bazza's hook. It's brilliant. BorgQueen (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: Might be too many wikilinks but I like the flavor of it. Bruxton (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
BorgQueen, I think Bazza's hook is absolutely brilliant so I came up with a compromise to include the other track as well!! What about this one? --NØ 05:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@MaranoFan So fixed, but we usually don't link TikTok these days. I mean, most people know what it is, right? Heh. BorgQueen (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: Most people will have heard of it; whether they (including me) know what it is is a different matter. Leave it unlinked anyway. Bazza (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bazza 7 Really? Well in my country it is a bit more famous I guess. I stand corrected lol. BorgQueen (talk) 10:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Order of Excellence for Women / Order of Righteous Son of Sudan
Queue 1: Order of Excellence for Women (nom) The description doesn't make sense: It consists of a silk scarf wavy light in colour with two green and pink on the edges in the middle, of which two green lines separate three white stripes. There must be a word (or several) missing. The hook describes it as with a pink ribbon, which needs to be clarified.
The more I look at the article, the more I'm concerned. The entire Insignia section is unsourced. Many of the sources in the Notable recipients section look like awardees own resumes (I only spot checked a few, using google translate). I'm also concerned that wawards.org doesn't look like a
WP:RS, more like a personal hobby blog. -- RoySmith(talk)
@RoySmith: for future reference, I don't think it would; even if that technically counted as "in the article", it certainly wouldn't count as cited with an inline citation at the end of the sentence. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:58, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@FuzzyMagma For starters, the main color of the ribbon of this medal looks like green to me. Khaki is a different color. BorgQueen (talk) 10:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@FuzzyMagma we usually don't allow hooks about film plots, so your example is irrelevant. We are talking about DYK hooks here, not Wikipedia articles in general. BorgQueen (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Let's pick this up on the nom page. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Battle of Nicopolis (1798)
Queue 6: Battle of Nicopolis (1798) (nom) The article hedges with "According to Richemont...", but in the hook we state "placed their artillery on top of an ancient burial mound" in wikivoice. Perhaps the hook should be similarly circumspect with "believed to be" or something like that? -- RoySmith(talk) 16:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I queried this in the nom, since the article at that time said "apparently". Constantine (Cplakidas) confirmed that this is stated as a fact in the source, and changed the "apparently" to "according to Richemont". As I understand it, Richemont was the man in charge of erecting the fortifications, so this is a first-hand account. For the avoidance of doubt, it would be helpful if Constantine could provide a direct quote from the source. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The source says "What distinguishes this fortification from the other was that the hill (mamelon) on which the right redoubt was built was, in Richemont’s words, «a type of burial mound (tumulus) covered by a multitude of tombs,which only offered void spaces that made it difficult to maintain the lines of defence and which lacked the earth necessary to build the parapets.»" from: https://www.academia.edu/6916101/_Remember_the_Moment_when_Previsa_fell_The_1798_Battle_of_Nicopolis_and_PrevezaTSventon (talk) 23:54, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
@Cplakidas, Sojourner in the earth, and RoySmith:, the source seems to accept Richemont’s account, so I would suggest removing "According to Richemont..." from the article. TSventon (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
No problem with removing it, but I don't see a problem with leaving it in, TBH. It is not a case of hedging, but of source attribution. Richemont is identified as the officer in charge of the artillery there, so his is an eyewitness account. Constantine ✍ 19:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
I want to acknowledge that I am aware that there are three music related hooks in Prep 7. May need some rejiggering as preps open. Bruxton (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok, update, I moved a music hook out of prep 7 and into prep 1. The two remaining music related hooks are dissimilar enough in my opinion. Bruxton (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
@DYK admins: also please consider promoting all seven queues som we can keep up with the 12 hour rotation. There are 6 promoted now. Thanks and have a great weekend! Bruxton (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Now only five. This happens fast. Bruxton (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
BTW @Bruxton, the next Prep to open (Prep 2) is for the May 5 special occasion hook, Lixia. Just letting you know. BorgQueen (talk) 12:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I may have to put it in Prep 1 which has much May 5 runtime. I will need to move the other hook with image or leave the image and promote the hook sans image. What say you @BorgQueen:? Bruxton (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton I like the image! Let's use it please. BorgQueen (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Nobody is moving preps to queue - now only four in the queue Bruxton (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton if I may be so bold, let me suggest that the DYK admins are probably aware of the state of the queues and will attend to things as their time and proclivities allow. There's a fine line between helpful alerts and nagging :-) -- RoySmith(talk) 16:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Honestly yes, but if they feel so disinclined for any reviewing work they can just promote the set to the queue and ask us to sort it out. Then it takes just one click. BorgQueen (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton @RoySmith Actually I got an idea. The only reason I can't promote Prep 2 is that I'm the primary builder of the set. Prep 3 and 4 were assembled by others, so if I alter their order (by swapping entire sets) I can proceed to promote 3 and 4 first. Are you OK with this move? BorgQueen (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
That seems like needless busywork. Tell ya' what. I'll handle prep 2. After that, you're on your own. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
OK thanks. Lol. Bless you! BorgQueen (talk) 16:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you RS and BQ - noted. Bruxton (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: can you help me determine if the May 5 Lixia hook should be in prep 1 or 2? I have it as the lead in Prep 1 now. Bruxton (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
It can be in either of them. Both are May 5 UTC. BorgQueen (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I was determining what time it would run in China since "Lixia signifies the beginning of summer in Chinese culture". Bruxton (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Also I think because of times a prep appears in London, the coronation hooks should likely be in Prep 4Bruxton (talk) 17:12, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
If you're concerned about our readers in China, Prep 1 is the one as Beijing is 8 hours ahead of UTC. BorgQueen (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@BorgQueen: sorry for reviving a closed thread, but just to say thanks for the ping and duly noted. I find it a little amusing that four filled queues is seen as panic time now, a year or two ago it often got to only a single filled queue before urgency was needed! Anyway, I've been out all day today but hopefully I'll be able to do a queue or two tomorrow and I'm the coming days. Cheers — [[User:[nb 1]|Amakuru]] (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@Amakuru: It was just me trying to keep up with the 12 hour rotation. With no open preps I was circling like a vilture. I am going to take a break now myself. Bruxton (talk) 21:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I have re-promoted the hooks for the coronation. I trust that we will figure out what we are going to do with the set. Perhaps @BorgQueen: can remember details about this set. I think there was an additional hook that I have not promoted here because of previous discussion. Template:Did you know nominations/Cross of WalesBruxton (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I do. But let's resolve the copyright issue of the image first. Its license says This work is not in the public domain in the United States. If that's true, we can't use the image. BorgQueen (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: I promoted the Cross of Wales to Prep 4. It makes sense to run on that day. If edditors disagree we can move it. Bruxton (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Bruxton, there are two sets on May 6. Prep 3 runs from 01:00 to 13:00 in England, and Prep 4 from 13:00 on May 6 to 01:00 on May 7. According to a timetable I found online, the coronation begins at 11:00 and runs for a little over an hour—that's during Prep 3. At some point after 12:00, the coronation ceremony ends and the entertainment begins, and at 14:00 (Prep 4) is the procession back to Buckingham Palace. Having all the hooks in Prep 4 doesn't make sense; many of them clearly belong in Prep 3, though I'd imagine that the Caroline of Ansbach one could stay in Prep 4. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
We could, however, stick everything into Prep3 and then run that set for 24 hours. I suppose there would be enough interest in the material to justify this. We've done this (i.e. display sets for 24 hours while we are in a 12-hour-cycle) before. Schwede66 22:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
An opinion on the hook which has no reference point. Is it too bare?
ALT: ... that the title of Lemnis Gate refers to lemniscate? Bruxton (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I think it's a great quirky hook, @Bruxton! BorgQueen (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok I will rejigger it to the quirk. Looks like it is just me and you today. Bruxton (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I can still hear my high-school calculus teacher talking about "Your friend the lemniscate". Thanks for the memories. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I was one of those girls who barely survived math classes, so I don't even know what that thing is. Lol... BorgQueen (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
I passed pre-algebra with a C+. Bruxton (talk) 19:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
You guys missed out on a great class. The teacher (damn, I wish I could remember his name!) was a riot. He would tell you that you needed to go to the hospital. You can imagine what he did with latus rectum. -- RoySmith(talk) 23:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: your pre-algebra teacher taught you intro-to-calculus material? wild. My algebra class was the first one i took at a local community college, much fun :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Must be around 60,000. BorgQueen (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
That’s what I think too. Thriley (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Nearly was @Bruxton's wording, I believe. BorgQueen (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
From age 81 of the source: And so the Panther Woman contest raged, attracting a reported 60,000 applicants. The book doesn't give a source for this figure, and page 86 says, not very reassuringly: If it's true that there were 60,000 contestants... (my emphasis). Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith wait, we've just had a complaint about the Masurian Canal hook being about a rumor at ERRORS. This will probably get the same reactions too. BorgQueen (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Queue 7: Medjed (nom) @Bruxton @Gen. Quon @BorgQueen @Ficaia @A. Parrot The first paragraph of the "In the Book of the Dead" section is largely copied from the source. It needs to be re-written. I'm surprised the GA review didn't pick this up. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The source this paragraph cites (Taylor 2010, p. 54) uses different wording. I don't see any indication that the text in Medjed was copied from it, unless there's some other part of the book that you're looking at. This paragraph does look to be based on close paraphrasing from our own article about the Book of the Dead, but I think that's an understandable use of the text, given that there are only some many ways to give a concise description of what the BD is. I don't think this requires anything more than a note in the page history for attribution purposes. A. Parrot (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I've rewritten the paragraph a bit anyway. BorgQueen (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Since 6 May has some empty spots, could we move that hook to Prep area 4? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
@Tim O'Doherty @Bruxton I've moved it to Prep 3. Please note Prep 3 covers the early half of May 6. BorgQueen (talk) 21:42, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
In the same context: could Te Deum (Reulein) perhaps run on 6 May, because - while not connected directly to the royal coronation, a Te Deum is usually sug for such festive occasions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Queue 5: Mansfield Hotel (nom) The hook says "two neighbors from Vermont", which sounds like they lived next to each other when they were in Vermont, which is not the case. This could be worded better. @Epicgenius @Lightburst @Onegreatjoke -- RoySmith(talk) 22:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith, good point. I'm not sure how to say this concisely, though, because they were both Vermonters but were only neighbors in NYC. How about "two men from Vermont"? – Epicgenius (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't have any great suggestions at the moment, but I'll think on it. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Just getting back to this. Yeah, I like it:
... that New York City's Mansfield Hotel was developed by two friends from Vermont, one of whom later served as governor?
It really depends on the article, the circumstances of why it was late, and who the nominator is. Generally we tend to be more lenient for newer nominators, and while we usually IAR accept 8 and 9-day-old articles, 10 days is sometimes considered a stretch but not unheard of. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith I had suggested another hook to @TompaDompa but they wanted the Barabbas hook (See their talk page). I'll swap the other hooks out. BorgQueen (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, as somebody interested in astronomy (and an eclipse chaser), I think the Barrabas image is wonderful. Whether it's the right image for a DYK about the movie, I'm not sure, but it's a cool image, and it's awesome that the movie crew went the extra distance for authenticity. People who know about this kind of stuff are known to call out movies for using sky images which couldn't possibly have existed at the time and place purported in the film. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Tagged the talkpage with {{Backwards copy}} to show both of these articles are copies of our article (and so not copyvios on our side). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Y Resolved. BorgQueen (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
So one problem with the 1984 New York City Subway shooting nomination I noticed but, the article appeared as a bold link on OTD on December 22 of last year, which I believe makes it ineligible for nomination. Pinging @Freedom4U, Jengod, and BorgQueen: for comments. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Oop, it completely slipped my mind to check for that! I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination. :3 F4U (they/it) 02:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
oh gee, I'm so sorry I didn't remember to assess for that. I think I voted on some RfC about that too! My bad. apologies to all jengod (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Don't stress; these things happen. Nobody got hurt. I've pulled this from Prep and closed the nomination. Schwede66 05:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I've just run through the current preps and queues and want to flag up a few potential issues. Some minor hook suggestions are listed below, and I've put my other comments into individual subsections.
Queue 4: ... that Mary Taft said, in 1799, that stopping women from "bringing souls to Christ" would, one day, be unbelievable? – Too many commas? I think at least the commas around "in 1799" should be removed. More importantly, the quote doesn't quite match the article; this can be fixed by changing it to read "bring[ing] souls to Christ".
Prep 4: Supertunica, Stole Royal and Robe Royal(examples pictured) – It appears that the image was swapped from this to this due to licensing concerns, but the new image doesn't depict all three articles of clothing. If we know which robe is depicted here, the parenthetical can be changed to "(example pictured)" and moved to the appropriate spot in the hook.
... that Radomir Lazović and other activists opposed to a redevelopment plan for the Belgrade Waterfront chose a rubber duck as a symbol to represent the project being perceived as a scam?
This was altered in prep following discussion here, and then "perceived as" was added for NPOV. The result reads very awkwardly to me, and almost suggests that Lazović is opposed to other people perceiving the project as a scam. There's inter-language nuance here that's hard to capture in a hook; could it not be simplified by focusing on what the protesters did rather than what it represents? E.g. "... that Radomir Lazović and other activists protested against the redevelopment of the Belgrade Waterfront by bringing a giant rubber duck to the House of the National Assembly?" Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
... that if a criminal travels to Coleman's Island on the N54 road, they are untouchable and no police can get to them?
The source used for this is the Irish Daily Mail, which is explicitly included in the
deprecation of the Daily Mail. Here's a source that contradicts the hook claim: uniformed Gardaí in decorated squad cars cannot use [the N54] without prior consent from the PSNI – indicating that they can use the road with prior consent, or in an unmarked car. They can also access Coleman's Island via a longer route around local back roads. Sojourner in the earth (talk
@Ritchie333 seems to be on a break since 27 April. BorgQueen (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
It's fairly clear though that they're not "untouchable", so the hook needs to be amended at best (quite apart from the hook being sourced to a deprecated newspaper). Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
This might take some time to resolve so I'm going to swap it out. BorgQueen (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Swapped. @RoySmith: would you please check the newly added one? BorgQueen (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Good move. I looked at the N54 hook when I moved it to the queue and wasn't sure if the "untouchable" was excessive, but eventually I decided to let it go as a quirky. In retrospect, a bad decision and good to know you folks had my back on that. Lydian–Milesian War looks good. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
ALT0 looks fine to me except that the length of the section of road is also sourced to the Irish Mail. But I don't know whether we actually need a source to state the length, or if it counts as blue-sky since it can be verified by looking at a map. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
As much as I hate relying on unreliable sources, it's hard to get too worked up over how long they think the road is. FWIW, Google Maps says 3.6km. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd like a third opinion on whether the cited source is appropriate for this. It's essentially a blog post, and the author appears to be uncritically repeating what she's been told by Veolia employees during a tour of the facility. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps add allegedly to the hook? BorgQueen (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I'd still be uneasy because it's such a self-serving claim, I think at minimum you'd need inline attribution. If others agree that the hook is problematic, then I think it should be swapped out for something else rather than watered down (no pun intended). I can see several other potentially hookable facts in the article – the plant is a listed historic building, it was one of the first in the world to produce a marketable fertilizer, and it's surprisingly popular with tourists. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I hadn't actually checked the sourcing for any of those claims, I was just throwing out ideas for potential hooks. Looking at it now, the source given for the National Register listing is non-independent; I found a better source here which I'll add to the article, but I can't find the actual listing. The databases are searchable but I'm not seeing anything for Jones Island. Possibly it had another name at the time of the listing. I suppose the magazine source is good enough for DYK though. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The hook says that Digidog was the first robot dog to analyze a structural collapse, but the article only says that this was the first time the NYC Fire Department used the Digidog for this purpose. The cited source doesn't appear to say even that much: This is the first time that we've been able to fly inside in a collapse to do this and try to get us some information. This seems to be talking about the use of aerial drones rather than the Digidog. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, this looks like Spot[12], albeit in an unusual (but fire-department appropriate) paint job. I assume "digidot" is just the FDNY's name it, like you might name your dog rover or fluffy. So it's not "the Digidog". And, yeah, doing examinations of dangerous environments is one of the main reasons these things exist, so it's hard to imagine some other agency hasn't sent one into a collapsed building before, and we should be clear about that. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Y Removed the "first" claim. BorgQueen (talk) 12:50, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I added two "better source needed" tags following the AfD; I don't know whether this is an issue for DYK, just pointing it out. Also, I think it's fairly certain that someone will ask at ERRORS how it happens that Tolotos never saw his own mother; just to save argument later on, it might be worth amending the hook to read "in his entire adult life". Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I'm guessing I'll have to pull it... BorgQueen (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I accepted that the Hartford Courant - December 24, 1938 gave the explanation. We can't accept this as a reliable source and plausible explanation? Bruxton (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Given that the source is American-based and not Greek-based, would that be a factor in how reliable claim is? Would changing the hook to have attribution solve the issue (i.e. something like "... that [source] claimed that Greek monk
Mihailo Tolotos never saw a woman in his entire life following the death of his mother?") or would that not help? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions
) 14:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I accepted it as RS, but since it beggars belief - the word "purportedly" is in the hook. Bruxton (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I think purportedly covered it without all the qualifiers. It is now un-quirky. Bruxton (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
So don't use it as a quirky hook. The better-source-needed tags still need to be taken care of, otherwise we'll have to pull this anyway. BorgQueen (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I removed the tag as it runs counter to our guideline about what is
WP:RS. Purportedly is the only qualifier needed. The explanation in the RS is that his mother died after four hours. Bruxton (talk
I'll start with the obligatory ST:TNG clip. Overall, I'm dubious about this whole thing. I did a bit of searching and couldn't find anything I consider a
WP:RS. I think it's telling that the BBC's Why are women banned from Mount Athos? doesn't mention anything about Tolotos. The BBC is surely a RS, and surely were aware of the story, but apparently made the editorial decision to stick to things they could verify. As for the Hartford Courant being a RS, I think you need to evaluate that in context; while I'd trust them for news reports, this isn't a news report; it's a bit of human-interest fluff plucked off the wires to fill a 1 column-inch hole in the day's layout. I don't put any stock in it. I'm not terribly surprised the article survived AfD, but that just reinforces the low opinion I have of AfD. DYK should aim higher. -- RoySmith(talk)
18:25, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Ok I will de-promote the article and revert my removal of the "better sources" tags, you all can decide to re-promote or reject the hook. If the main concern is whether our
WP:V policy is the issue we should certainly reject the hook. Bruxton (talk
) 18:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I was about to comment here to explain the "better source needed" tags, but then Bruxton's self-reversion made that somewhat moot. I've summarized my main concerns about the sourcing at the article talk page instead. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5, Bruxton, Sojourner in the earth, and BorgQueen: Strangely, this does seem plausible to me. Tolotos seems to have lived in the monastic community of Mount Athos most of his life. That community does not allow women to enter, and it hasn't allowed women for at least a millennium; there are plenty of scholarly sources about this phenomenon. However, a short obituary in the Hartford Courant from 85 years ago seems like a relatively weak source for this particular claim; it's not really well-known outside the Northeast US, and newspapers from that era didn't have the fact-checking capabilities that today's newspapers have. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
all right, but "his mother died when he was born" is such a weak explanation that i don't feel like the Hartford Courant did much digging either. This seems like one of those urban legends someone'll have to sort through, or it's lost to history and an RS needs to report that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
@Epicgenius The monks reportedly never bathed, so I probably wouldn't want to visit them anyway. BorgQueen (talk) 10:15, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Y The nom has been closed. BorgQueen (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
The source is an unvarnished PDF titled (according to DeepL Translate): "Songs from the new Gotteslob that have proven themselves in youth services: Compiled by Martina Steinhauser-Kampelmann (pastoral area musician)". This appears to be one person's Top 100-or-so youth hymns from the Gotteslob; I'm not sure that inclusion on such a list is at all significant or interesting. Additionally, the hook's wording seems a little off to me; Wie als een God wil leven is not "a hymn in German", it's in Dutch. It's the German translation that's on the list. Maybe that's just pedantry, I don't know. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
What the hook says in other words is that the songs of this Dutch writer became highly successful in Germany (although he left his church). If you can say that better, I'll be glad. He was the first foreigner to receive the Predigt prize. The list is not one person's list but help for people selecting which songs to use for services. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Adding: the idea that this song - as four others - were in danger of not being taken to the second edition edition of the German hymnal is discussed in more detail and was the hook for Herr, unser Herr, wie bist du zugegen (long discussion in the nomination). We could just say that this song was his first, being written when he became student parish priest, but that would omit how popular it became altogether. Again, help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I suggest pulling the current wording as, while I think the hook fact is okayish, the source does indeed not appear to be a definitive or significant ranking. I took a look at the article and the "successful with young people" part is the only thing that seems to have promise, so to be frank I'm kind of skeptical the article should even run on DYK at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
German version is in the given source. Regarding "interesting", we go through this from time to time, one person's interesting is another person's meh. There is not a
West Wing interesting. I am not for rejecting hooks/articles based on subjective criteria. Bruxton (talk
) 15:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I can agree with the criticisms being raised by Sojourner to a point. The CHORUS website is a part of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cologne (its managed and staffed by their employees) and reasonably anything they post on their website is work product approved by the archdiocese. The website seems to be designed as a resource for musicians involved with church music for youth, so reasonably a list of this kind on a website under the umbrella of the archdiocese would seem to have some more credibility than just a random individual person's favorite songs list. I do think we could attribute it to the archdiocese in the hook (and in the article) given that is is one of their websites that is the publisher of the list. That said, the significance of the song's inclusion on the list is debatable. However, I can't see anything else in the article that is hook worthy.4meter4 (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
If there's nothing else in the article that's hook worthy, we don't need to force the nomination. Sometimes, articles just don't work out for DYK because of a lack of suitable material, and this might be one of those cases. However, there could be a possible alternative wording if there's still potential in that particular angle. Maybe this would be better?
I think that is a reasonable alt hook but the text of the article should be updated to match it.4meter4 (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I guess the question now is if 4meter4's concerns about the list and inclusion being significant have merit or not. If they do, the hook probably has to be rejected for lack of non-specialist interest. If it they don't have merit or if they are not really an issue, then perhaps the ALT could work rather than the original hook. As I mentioned earlier, rejecting the nomination entirely is a possibility and if consensus determines it won't work out, there's no shame in rejecting the nom. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 did you mean Sojourner in the earth? I am not the one who raised these issues. I only said that I could understand the merits of the objections being raised and could agree with them to a point (meaning I can understand the validity of such a point of view but not that I shared the same opinion in terms of rejecting the hook). I did approve the hook earlier, and I stand by that decision as the article is new enough, long enough, and seems to pass our various policies for notability, verifiability, etc. To my mind, the alt hook is reasonably interesting given the niche topic area, and I would be ok with this hook being promoted.4meter4 (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
late to this: I don't like in ALT1 the repetition "list ... that listed", and we don't need "Roman" when our article is Catholic Church. I'd prefer not to stress "Catholic" at all, in other words I prefer the original. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
The original hook was already deemed problematic so it's probably not usable in any case. Would shortening the mention to simply "Archdiocese of Cologne" and changing "listed" to a different word like "included" or "specified" solve your concerns? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Actually, Narutolovehinata5, it seems like Sojourner's sourcing claims were somewhat addressed without need for action – if 4meter4 is right, the hook is free to enjoy its limited purview on the Main Page as-is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I was referring more to 4meter4's concerns about attribution. The one about how it could be more reasonable to include the source of the list in the hook (i.e. the archdiocese) in case readers think it's "just a random individual person's favorite songs list". Sorry for not making it clear in my earlier comments. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
all right, but that concern isn't prohibitive. Happy for you and the nom to continue discussing, but it doesn't seem to be a deadlocked negotiation and the hook is free to go through as-is if no consensus is reached. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Requested extension for special occasion hook
Seeking consensus for a special-occasion hook, where the requested date is well beyond the six-week rule. It's Template:Did you know nominations/Holy door (Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela), a three-article hook centred around an event which takes place on 25 July. That requested date is about 12 weeks out from the nomination date (30 April). The nominator intended to allow extra time to get the articles, reviews and hooks in order. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment no one has reviewed the articles yet, but please and thank you. --evrik(talk) 20:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I removed the stub tag. Sorry I missed it. Lightburst (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
So for the upcoming coronation...
Prep 3 covers the first 12 hours of May 6, and Prep 4 does the rest of the day. I've moved the Westminster Abbey hook to Prep 3 and featured its lead image. Accordingly, de-bolded the Westminster Abbey link in Prep 4. BorgQueen (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I honestly don't understand why Prep 3, during which the actual coronation takes place, has only a single coronation hook, while the rest of the hooks are in a set that's on the main page during the post-coronation music and the procession back to Buckingham Palace. Why not just have that large combined hook (including Westminster Abbey) heading Prep 3? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but I honestly don't care that much about this "crowning" thing. Feel free to swap them out if you have the necessary motivation, thank you. BorgQueen (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, by the time I got there, Prep 3 had been promoted to Queue 3, so an admin will have to do something about it if hooks are to run at the correct time. I'm not that enamored by the "crowning" thing either, but given that some folks were very eager to have a big special occasion thing, it seems odd that after all the fuss we won't be posting most hooks at the right time. (For the record, I would have recombined the lead hook of Prep 3 into the one in Prep 4 and placed it in Prep 3 (now Queue 3), and also moved the bulk of the hooks there.) Running everything in Prep 4 so the Americans can see it during their daytime is a very odd result. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
As I suggested earlier, we could run Q3 for 24 hours and that would overcome any timing issues. Just need to rejig what we’ve got. Schwede66 17:52, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm still not sure if we even had a consensus to run a coronation-themed set in the first place. There was support for a set, or at least a combined hook, but I didn't really see if there was actual consensus among editors for one, rather merely editors and prep builders wanting one without much outside consultation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: That's pretty much how things work around here generally. The people building the sets do their thing, sometimes they put together a "special edition" set of some sort, and it's up to others to object if they feel like it. FWIW I'm quite happy with any of the above solutions, either (a) leaving as is, with the coronation things split between two sets, (b) combining them into one for the morning slot, or (c) IAR and running a single set for the whole day... I can jig things around if there's a decision. — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
It was best to run the main coronation set after the event as most people interested in the event will have been watching the live coverage while it was happening or have been actually present. So the balance between the morning and afternoon sets seems to have been reasonable. The main thing that looks odd is having a couple of incongruous hooks in the main set such as a defunct TV station. They look like mistakes in this context. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:51, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I did not promote ALT0 even though I liked it. I just thought it may be too bare and or misleading? Second opinions please. It is in the Prep 7 quirky slot now. Bruxton (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived last week, so I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 22. We have a total of 206 nominations, of which 84 have been approved, a gap of 122 nominations that has decreased by 4 over the past couple of weeks. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any 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) 20:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset About the Monster Max review, I actually left some suggestions over there: so, can I still take over it, or should I leave it to someone else? Oltrepier (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Proposed update to J1
WITHDRAWN
Not feeling a whole lot of love. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
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.
WP:INVOLVED is really for admins to not use their position and tools to force their will, not editors. Bruxton (talk
) 15:27, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:INVOLVED also says Non-administrators closing discussions and assessing consensus are held to the same standards, and surely promoting a hook falls into that. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment I think the addition adds clarity, but I am neutral. --evrik(talk) 15:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd have to oppose – there are lots of times where people should still be free to promote despite being substantially involved. If you have to prod a nominator into finishing their work, give an advisory on a policy question, contradict another reviewer's judgement, or open and close and issue, you shouldn't be then barred from doing something that keeps the project moving. INVOLVED is too broad a standard; quite often, preppers also have to get their hands dirty in nominations before they can promote them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Quite frankly, I fail to see what this adds, and am of the opinion that Lightburst did not do anything wrong here. The AfD was closed as SNOW keep. Why should that preclude someone from promoting a hook about the article at DYK, just because they participated in an AfD about that article? This is a solution in search of an actual problem, in my opinion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Dumelow- public thanks
A big thank you to Dumelow for enthusiastically contributing here - especially for the coronation hooks. I watched some of the festivities and was able to reference the articles we ran. It is a pleasure to read your many contributions. You also got me started here with Gallos (sculpture). I think I started the article not knowing you had a version in draft, and then you helped me edit the article and nominated it here. Next we got the article to GA. The rest as they say, is history. Bruxton (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
As for the Gallos hook -- they (whoever promoted it) didn't use such a great image?? BorgQueen (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: It was a striking image, but I think it worked well in the quirky lot. Bruxton (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Dumelow is one of our best contributors and really hit the spot this time. He clearly rolls his sleeves up and gets the work done with a minimum of fuss and drama. Kudos! Andrew🐉(talk) 16:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much guys, it's a real morale boost to know people read (and perhaps even like!) what I write. Not done much recently but hopefully I'll get back into the swing of things in a couple of weeks (combination of travel and
It's great to see that there's still more coming – the Abingdon bun throwing is a wonderfully zany addition today. I cycled around the events in my borough today and the best was just a smoky hog roast which was tasty but not so special. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Help needed
So, I nominated
WP:DYKCNN. But for some reason, the nomination came out completely malformed. How do I fix this? Onegreatjoke (talk
) 19:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
By replacing ]''] with ]]'', which I have done for you.--Launchballer 19:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Reporting a possible backlog error
Hello! I've just noticed that, at the moment, only three queues are fully loaded: however, I see at least five prep areas which look ready to go, as well. Is it a mistake by the bots?
Speaking as one of the bots, no, it's just a matter of not enough people to handle the workload effectively. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
No rest for the wicked! R&R is verboten. Bruxton (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The beatings will continue until morale improves. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith @Bruxton Oh, ok, that's fine. I'm still not so used to the dynamics of the DYK format, so I was afraid a sudden glitch was about to ruin our day... : D Oltrepier (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Jokes aside, we can actually move queues manually, right? Oltrepier (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @DYK admins: in the hopes that we can get some preps promoted to queues, since we'll soon be down to only two queues loaded. Many thanks for your help. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset I wish I could, believe me. I happen to be the primary builder of several of the sets so... I'll have to wait for a day or two. BorgQueen (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC) OK, that has been resolved rather quickly! YBorgQueen (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Alternate view for noms awaiting approval?
I've found Template talk:Did you know to be really unhelpful in finding nominations to review, as it's difficult to tell at a glance which noms still need reviewers, and it's easy for older unreviewed noms to get lost in the mix of in progress noms. Is there any other way to view a list of nominations that still need a reviewer? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
MOS:REPEATLINK), but also since "The 1975" is the name of the band, I am not sure why "the" is not capitalized throughout the article since it is the title of the band and a proper noun "The 1975". I could have corrected these things, but wanted other opinions as I may be missing something. Pinging involved editors @Launchballer and Schminnte: and promotor @BorgQueen:Bruxton (talk
) 15:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
You're missing
MOS:REPEATLINK though, and I've taken out some duplicate links.--Launchballer
Some hooks were originally written presuming main page appearance from 00:00 UTC (1am British Summer Time) so some may need tense tweaks. I've just read through all and think these are the possible problem ones. I have made a few rough suggestions that may avoid a flood of reports at Errors through the day.
Queue 3 (UTC am) appears Saturday from 1am to 1pm London time (BST)
First hook "... that 39 English and British monarchs have been crowned at Westminster Abbey (pictured) since 1066?"
(Charles III will be 40th.) The service starts 11am BST London time and finishes at 1pm (per gov.uk here). Therefore the hook will be factually wrong during its last hour or so on main page. (There is still much to happen in the 2-hour service after the king's crowning including enthroning, prayers, Camilla's crowning, etc.)
Suggestion 1 - change hook now from "that 39 English and British monarchs have been... " to "that nearly 40 English and British monarchs have been..."
Then the minute Charles's crown is on his head, an admin makes quick change to remove "nearly". Page 25 of this shows when actual coronation literally occurs "The Archbishop brings the crown down onto The King’s head."
Immediately after that there is the Fanfare and bells start then gun salutes - so that's the signal for an admin to remove "nearly".
Suggestion 2 - if hook isn't changed before it hits main page, admin simply swaps 39 to 40 on above signal.
I think it might be simpler to add "before today," to the original hook after "that" (... that before today, 39). That way, we don't have to worry about split-second timing; the hook is accurate during its entire run. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
First hook "... that a British monarch arrives at their..." - no tense change necessary
Second hook "... that the Cross of Wales, which will lead the procession at the coronation..." - "will lead" will be incorrect tense. The procession into the Abbey will be long over by 1pm. (Cross of Wales has "The cross will lead the procession into Westminster Abbey".)
Suggestion 1 - change now from "which will lead" to "the Cross of Wales, leading the procession at the coronation..." and won't need further change.
Suggestion 2 - change to "... that the Cross of Wales, which will leadled the procession at the coronation"
Done – it now says "leading". Schwede66 09:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Fifth hook "... that today the Bishop of Edinburgh will play a ceremonial role at the coronation of Charles III and Camilla as a representative of the Walker Trustees?" - "will play" will be incorrect tense.
Suggestion - change to "that the Bishop of Edinburgh's ceremonial role at the coronation of Charles III and Camilla was as a representative of the Walker Trustees?"
Why not keep the original wording, but instead of "will play", substitute "plays"? BlueMoonset (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Done – it now says "plays". Schwede66 09:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
First hook "... that today, to mark the coronation of Charles III and Camilla, Abingdon Town Council will throw thousands of currant buns from the roof of the County Hall (building pictured)?"
According to this, the bun throw is at 4pm therefore "will throw" will be wrong on main page after 3 hrs. (3pm UTC)
Suggestion 1 - Change now from "will throw" to "throws" - won't need further change
Suggestion 2 - Leave "will throw" in until 4pm (3pm UTC) then admin changes to "threw".
Done – it now says "throws". Schwede66 09:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Feel free to throw something at me (buns preferably) if I've got anything wrong or am being too pedantic. JennyOz (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I shall throw you a bunch of flowers for consistently being on top of Main Page issues. Schwede66 17:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
This is now moot, but "today... Abingdon Town Council throws thousands of currant buns" is just grammatically incorrect. This isn't a news headline. "Is throwing" could have been used instead. --2001:FB1:39:CF36:95BD:E0B5:DA63:41EF (talk) 09:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
May need rejiggering. There were two few biographies in there after some movement. Also the last hook I promoted to fill the prep may need tweaking if someone can look. It was a bio for Chadd Cumberbatch and the nomination was Template:Did you know nominations/Chadd Cumberbatch. Bruxton (talk) 13:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Sleep in the NBA
MOS:QUOTE says Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. I think what we've got here goes well beyond that standard. My inclination is that this is severe enough that the article should be pulled, but I'd like a second opinion on that. -- RoySmith(talk)
14:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Actually yes, I'll have to agree it's excessive. BorgQueen (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
OK, pulling it now. I'll find a replacement. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
PS, somebody should double-check that I got the DYKMake/DYKNom stuff right. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Careful with the Achy Breaky prep rejiggering my liege. Bruxton (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton there are some who would object to having two bios in a row in prep 3 :-) -- RoySmith(talk) 15:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Can be rejiggered. Bruxton (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Done rejiggered. Glad for the slow down that is coming. Bruxton (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
I had attempted to pare down the overlengthy quotations myself but in the end I agree there's still more to be done. I think anything that quotes a journalist rather than a player, executive, or coach should be paraphrased. DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Back to 1-per-day?
We've got 5 filled queues and no promotable preps at the moment, so the "fewer than six filled prep/queue sets" of
WP:DYKROTATE has kicked in. Technically, that means we should switch now, but seeing as we've got one prep almost full and another two in progress, I'll hold off a bit before switching. -- RoySmith(talk)
13:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
According to
WP:DYKAI switches are done after 00:00 UTC but before 12:00 UTC, so a bit of waiting is needed. TSventon (talk
) 13:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the reminder; I knew there was some time window, but couldn't remember the details. Let's see, 0000Z is about 10 hours from now. I'll try to remember to take a look then and if we're still below 6 full hooksets, I'll do the swap. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, there's currently seven filled queues now so would changing it back to 1 per day still be justified? Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, like I said, "if we're still below 6 full hooksets, I'll do the swap". We're not, so I'm not doing anything today. We're also down to 80 approved hooks, so I'm guessing we'll hit the 60 approved limit in the next few days anyway. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
The rules say "when we drop below 60" but if that's what we now want to do, so be it. I've swapped it. We should update the instructions on that page, though. Schwede66 00:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I hadn't refreshed the page before doing the change. Happy to swap it back / for it to be swapped back. Schwede66 00:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
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.
Current consensus is that adminship is required to change the content of the Main Page – but I don't think that the frequency with which DYK updates needs to be a part of that. All of the sets that go live on the main page thru DYKUpdateBot are already admin-stamped, so it's the admin that is primarily responsible. I think it'd still be consistent with previous community consensus if we lowered the level of protection on DYK's update frequency to template editor – it seems like we're gonna be switching a lot more, now that the update rate depends on the output of preppers. cc: RoySmith, BorgQueen, BlueMoonset. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
You guys know a lot more of the history than I do, but for whatever it's worth, I'm good with reducing the protection level required to switch modes. I'd also be happy to do some RfA nominations, if you guys want to go that route. -- RoySmith(talk) 01:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm opposed to lowering the protection threshold for DYKUpdateBot config pages. DYKUpdateBot is an
WP:ADMINBOT; both the "what" and "when" of its edits should be driven by admins. Shubinator (talk
) 05:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm opposed per Shubinator. Also happy to work on RfA noms for people who want to edit that page. —Kusma (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Unless coupled with a drive to get some DYKers template editor right, this change would not do much practically. CMD (talk) 13:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
t'was the plan, but it seems like this is stayin' where it is for now :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:52, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Also opposed. A small number entered by a vandal could cause a large number of promotions in a very short period of time. If it takes a little longer to round up an admin to make a switch, it's not a big deal. I agree with Shubinator's point, too. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there's any need to worry about vandals with template editor rights. There's a small number of carefully vetted users with this right (187 at the moment). Far fewer than the number of admins. And being an admin doesn't guarantee that you're going to do it right either. Look at the most recent switch. I didn't understand the cutover time window correctly, and then Schwede66 also misunderstood the process. Having a mop doesn't automatically make you an expert on everything. It's pretty clear that this isn't gaining traction, and that's fine, but if you're going to oppose, at least oppose for a legitimate reason. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I'll have to oppose this proposal. Unnecessary move. BorgQueen (talk) 18:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
IP changes happening in 2024
Tech News: 2023-19 - FYI, does the below affect DYK in the future? — Maile (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this will affect DYK in any significant way. It'll mostly be a pain to people who are dealing with vandals and sock puppets, and DYK (thankfully) seems to be free of those problems. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
IPs can't make nominations at DYK on their own, so they generally don't get involved at all. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it’s rare. We have one IP who has had about four nominations over the last year. I nominated them and the IP contributed to the nomination page discussions, and provided one of the QPQs. Schwede66 19:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Need to get some things done in the next days so looking for others to help with prep building. Even if someone can promote just one or a few hooks it will be helpful. My participation will be a bit spotty over the next few days. Bruxton (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@Premeditated Chaos, Tamzin, and BorgQueen: "In a dumpster" is not supported by the article or the sources. The article says "among the rubbish"; Thomas 2015 says "behind the club's dumpsters"; Wilson 2015 says "under some rubbish bins"; Watt 2012, with a direct quote from Simon Ungless, says "behind garbage containers".
Also, minor point, "forgot" for "left" is an American colloquialism which may not be understood by a majority of English speakers. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
How about "among a nightclub's rubbish"? "Forgot" isn't a euphemism here, though; he literally forgot it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 10:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
What about "forgot leaving the entirety of his second collection among a nightclub's rubbish"? The article should be, and mostly is, written in British English. TSventon (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I have changed the "forgot" to "left" in the lead. The fact it's written in British English means that "dumpster" shouldn't be used either, regardless of its use in a source. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
To clarify my objection to "forgot", I mean that a non-American might say either "He forgot his collection" or "He left his collection in a dumpster", but wouldn't say "He forgot his collection in a dumpster". The only meaning that the latter phrase conveys to me is that McQueen was in a dumpster at the time when he forgot his collection. How about the following, which ditches the "forgot" and incorporates Tamzin's suggestion: "... that British designer Alexander McQueen accidentally abandoned his entire second collection among a nightclub's rubbish?" Sojourner in the earth (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
The "most expensive" claim is sourced to a book published in 2014, which can't support the claim made in the lead (and implied in the hook) that this is the most expensive Israeli photograph "as of 2023". Sojourner in the earth (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I didn't find any newer source that talks about another photo as "the most expensive". But yeah, it can be safer to add "as of 2023". Artem.G (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
What I meant to say is that we can't add "as of 2023" without a source from 2023; all we can say is "as of 2014". It would be original research to claim that this is the most expensive photo to date only because we can't find a more expensive one ourselves. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
@Sojourner in the earth please fix the article first (it's not protected) and I'll tweak the hook accordingly. BorgQueen (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Artem.G, In my opinion, the statement should be tweaked to include the exact value, such as 'Sold for $264,000,' which is more relevant than claiming something as 'the highest' or 'the most expensive.' This claim is supported by sources. If you're okay with it, we can revise the statement in the article and the hook. Thanks RV (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Article now says The photo was sold for $264,000 (equivalent to $312,000 in 2021) at Sotheby’s in 2012, the highest price for any Israeli photo ever paid as of 2023. Why should it be tweaked? It's sourced, it gives the price, date, and the fact that it _is_ the most expensive photo by an Israeli author. Why would the exact number in the hook be better? Something like "that the Israeli photograph sold for 264,000 $ was inspired by one of Leonardo da Vinci's paintings and described as a "homoerotic challenge to Israeli machismo"?" is meh... Artem.G (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
@Artem.G Earlier someone said that the "most expensive" claim is sourced to a book published in 2014, not 2023. BorgQueen (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
ok, but then almost everything can be called OR without this "as of xxxx". maybe it's easier to remove the price from the hook and go with something like ...that a photograph inspired by one of Leonardo da Vinci's paintings depicts 14 Israeli soldiers and was described as a "homoerotic challenge to Israeli machismo"?Artem.G (talk) 14:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
WP:OR, it's that it's a fact which is likely to change over time. The records for "the highest price paid for a xxx" are continuously being broken, so it's pretty much a given that this will no longer be true at some point in the foreseeable future. Statements like "Mount Everest ... is Earth's highest mountain" are certain to be true for any time frame during which the wiki will exist and don't need to be time qualified. -- RoySmith(talk)
15:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
sure, the record would be broken, but any DYK is live for only 24 (or even 12) hours :) I'm fine with changing the hook, I just didn't think it can be that controversial. Artem.G (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
From
WP:DYK#Content: The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change ... -- RoySmith(talk)
17:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Marisa Anderson
Queue 6: Marisa Anderson (nom) @Bruxton @QuietHere @Onegreatjoke @Mike Christie (who reviewed the GA) I'm concerned about the long quote in the Style section. It's broken up as two smaller quotes (nit: each one needs a citation right after it) but the real problem is that the text between the two quotes is a close paraphrase from the same source. This should be one longer quote and if there's material in the middle that you don't want to include, indicate the elided parts with ellipsis. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Roy, I assume you're talking about "She said that's fine and that she's not opposed to structure, but that" in the article, which comes from "That’s fine, that’s for a reason. Any song that’s sung tends to lend itself to having a structure that you have to follow. Words are the boss, a lot of times. They’re the boss of how a song goes, when it starts and when it ends, and what order the emotions lay out in. I’m not against structure. I’m not even against doing things the same way. But" in the source? If I recall, I thought that was acceptable as a way to shorten the quote -- it does reuse a couple of words but I think it's just about on the right side of
Per this edit by @Amakuru, while it is true we usually use the term pictured, I thought we used depicted when the image happened to be a painting, drawing, or some sort of artwork about the person, for pictured usually implied that it was a photograph. Even the crowning image we used, which was promoted by Amakuru themselves, had it example depicted. Any opinions? BorgQueen (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I can't get too excited about the difference between "pictured" and "depicted", but I'm not loving the "portrait pictured" alliteration. I'd lose the "portrait" and make it just "pictured". I'm also not getting good
On the original point, I'm not sure I follow. "Pictured" and "depicted" mean exactly the same thing (Merriam Webster days they are synonyms), there's no difference based on whether it's a photo or an artwork, in either case it's a visual representation of the subject. So technically you could use either, it's just that convention on all our main page sections is for "pictured". That's the term the DYK rule
WP:DYKIMG uses too - "The first hook should be modified to include (pictured) in the appropriate place..." unless there's some extra detail needed to clarify what's meant. The above usage in the set I promoted was an oversight, apologies. Cheers — Amakuru (talk
) 06:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Of course, all the "artworks" are photos too... I don't agree with Merriam Webster: using "depicted" for a photo of say a building would surely strike most English-speakers as odd, if not wrong? Personally, and perhaps pedantically, I don't like using "depicted" for sculpture, respecting the etymology. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
This native speaker has no problem with the use of "depicted" for buildings, statues, or anything else. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, ok, but outside WP you will find such usage extremely rare. Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
@Amakuru I stand corrected. I believe that it was @Ravenpuff who started using depicted for artwork images (if you see the archives there are quite a few instances) which I mistook for an established practice. From now on I'll replace them with the good ol' pictured. BorgQueen (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: yeah, thanks. To be fair I have seen this distinction made at DYK in the past, but I personally do find it to be rather pointless and probably not particularly helpful for readers. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Personally I don't have any strong opinion on which word we use. I must have subconsciously presumed an unwritten rule that "depicted" was used for a more indirect case (e.g. a king on an ancient coin) – and on further reflection I have a vague recollection that this originated somewhere in OTD – but, for consistency, I'm perfectly happy to stick with "pictured" in all such cases in DYK. — RAVENPVFF·talk· 21:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Here's my meta-take on this. The "(pictured)" is scaffolding. Its only job is to let people know which of the various things mentioned in the hook are what's in the image. As scaffolding, it should fade from view as much as possible and not compete with the meat of the hook for attention. By making it the same word all the time (unless that's obviously incorrect, as with an audio clip), we reduce the attention it draws to itself, which is what we want. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
The correct answer is Q7. I'll move it; got to keep DrThneed happy. It's no trouble at all, Bruxton. Schwede66 03:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Whew, thank you much, I have not checked the hook or the earwig score but will do so now and alert here if there are issues. Bruxton (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
All done; hook check done as well. Say if earwig shows something but DrThneed is a seasoned editor; she doesn't do copyvio (fellow Kiwi; I know her well). Schwede66 03:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Need opinions. I do not intend to withdraw the nomination. So I am wondering if anyone has ideas which will satisfy the concerns of the fringe editors who were canvassed to the nomination. Bruxton (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Any hook will need to unequivocally define them as hoaxes. Black Kite (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
@
Giant skeletons (United States) but the Hebrew Bible, Christian bible and Koran all document giants or races of giants. If you have a hook suggestion I would appreciate it. I followed the reliable sources for the hook and article and attempted to keep a NPOV. Bruxton (talk
) 20:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
@ONUnicorn: has come to the rescue with what I believe is a solid hook at the Nomination. Bruxton (talk) 20:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
@BruxtonHebrew Bible, Christian bible and Koran all document giants or races of giants yes, so? On Wikipedia biblical narratives are considered myths. BorgQueen (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I did not mean to be controversial @BorgQueen:, many people believe those books and use them like history books. Bruxton (talk) 21:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
I found that the fringe, med, and paleontology folks are group ivoters. I learned to be careful in those areas. Lightburst (talk) 22:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm. Not unlike ARS? -- RoySmith(talk) 22:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Their power is a myth - not unlike the power of these giants. Lightburst (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
By the way RoySmith I promoted a few hooks and filled out one prep. I am doing what I can as it looks like there are few in the prep business right now. Lightburst (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out. -- RoySmith(talk) 23:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
Just a note, none of the Abrahamic texts, suggest giants in the United States, or anything at all about North and South America. This is more Paul Bunyan territory. Hyperbolick (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
@Hyperbolick: You probably missed my comment above "This was unrelated to the Giant skeletons (United States) but..." Bruxton (talk) 01:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks all, especially @ONUnicorn: for the clever hook idea. I withdrew both nominations. There is the threat of an AfD now at fringe so I thought it best to save us all the time. Might have been a great Halloween hook? hmmm, maybe we should start thinking of a set for that day! The possibilities! in the words of Jack Nicholson playing the joker in Batman "The skulls, the bodies. You give it all such a glow. I don't know if it's art, but I like it." Bruxton (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't withdraw the nomination. Just because they're discussing an AFD doesn't mean it's going to happen, and even if they do send it to AFD, we can hold the DYK until the AFD closes and run it then if the article is kept. ~
problem solving
15:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks ONUnicorn I was completely unproductive for more than a day following the AfD, editing to improve the article and following the fringe discussion. I would like to move on from these controversies. I have always appreciated the way the editors here support each other and work toward affirming each other. It has been a great blessing for me to find myself in DYK and it certainly improved my editing. When I get mired down in these multiple negative threads this hobby loses its luster. Bruxton (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
We need non-biography hooks
I just looked through the available approved hooks while promoting. We have a plethora of biography hooks. perhaps consider reviewing some non-biography hooks? Bruxton (talk) 23:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
@Evrik: I will check it out Bruxton (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Lata Tondon - new article, new editor
Just FYI - I ran across Lata Tondon while doing page patrol. This woman won the Guinness World Record title for longest cooking marathon. Ran Earwig's tool, and the Early Life section would have to be re-worded. But what a neat accomplishment. Also, nice image, if anyone wants to adopt this for DYK nominating. — Maile (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
The article is a tad too short, though. Schwede66 23:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
That, I know. But I figured at 1420 characters, anyone interested in the subject matter could easily bring it to 1500 and nominate it. Just depends on if there's interest or not. — Maile (talk) 23:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
We should all tag team it. Bruxton (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Cool, I will see what I can find. I love a good cooperative effort. Bruxton (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I did some organizing and cleanup and rewriting, but it may need a bit more. Bruxton (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
On break for a spell
Hello my fellow editors. I will be taking some R&R now. Some editors will need to assist with the preps. I appreciate you all very much. Bruxton (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Arrests of Ulysses S. Grant
Queue 4: Arrests of Ulysses S. Grant (nom) @Tamzin @Lightburst @Launchballer Most of the "1866 arrests" section is directly copied from the nps.gov source (earwig) Some of it quoted, but needs more direct attributions. Some parts are not quoted/cited at all (the paragraph stating Several months later...). These need to be fixed. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: The NPS source is in the public domain, and its usage is declared in the relevant citation as required under WP:Plagiarism. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
OK, I guess that works. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Luo Wenzao
Queue 4: Luo Wenzao (nom) @Bruxton @TheLonelyPather @BorgQueen The hook states became the first Catholic bishop in wiki voice, but the article equivocates with Historians consider ... I'm not sure if this is a problem, so would appreciate some other opinions. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi RoySmith (talk·contribs)-- I am definitely open to more feedback, particularly the style of how I put the information. I did write Historians consider ... in the article, but I did not encounter any sources that says Luo is not the first Catholic bishop.
The Historians consider Luo to be the first Chinese bishop sentence comes at the end of a paragraph & section talking about Luo's episcopal consecration. It serves to provide more information that Luo is the first Chinese Catholic bishop. Without that sentence, I am afraid that this information will only appear in the lead section.
Please kindly let me know what to do with it. I am still quite new to Wikipedia and am still learning. -- TheLonelyPather (talk) 17:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I also want to mention that, if there is no consensus, I am open to modifying the hook. The hook's emphasis is not on how he is the first Chinese Catholic bishop. TheLonelyPather (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
@TheLonelyPather if the sources are clear that he was first, then I'm fine with the hook. The "Historians consider" wording is the kind of thing we usually do when the sources aren't clear and we want to emphasize that we're just saying what somebody else said. For example, I see in Jesus, Most modern scholars consider Jesus' baptism to be a definite historical fact, along with his crucifixion. That's to make it clear that we're not stating it as fact (i.e. "in wiki voice"), just reporting what other people have said. Anyway, if nobody else has any problems with this, I'm good with it. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know! I will modify the article accordingly.-- TheLonelyPather (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Q5 redirects
The bold link in the fourth hook of
a redirect, as is the "NTNU" link in the caption. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM
Not an error but very dull. Secretlondon (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Either switch with alt1 from the DYK nomination, on it's depth below sea level, or use the 'only station on the Victoria line that doesn't interchange with other lines' factoid. Modest Geniustalk 11:52, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Not sure it's really important what you find dull. Not aligning to your personal interests are not errors. If there is a factual error, please let us know, but being dull is not a mistake that needs fixing. If you find it dull, avert your eyes, and you won't be forced to read it. --Jayron32 12:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
But if everybody finds it dull and uninformative, few will click on the link, which is surely a waste of the slot. In this case I agree that Modest Genius's suggestions would be worthwhile improvements. JMCHutchinson (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Secretlondon, I suggest you copy the entire discussion to Wikipedia talk:Did you know. There’s 30 hours before this goes live; plenty enough time. I’m sure the DYK community will agree with your concerns and do something about it. Schwede66 19:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
This is going to run in 20 hours' time. Schwede66 03:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
To clarify, the hook proposed to replace ALT0 is this one:
I can see why @Bruxton didn't choose this one – it requires some inference of the sources cited, although it seems like a reasonably straightforward conclusion to draw. It also seems to oversimplify the claim a bit.
To make it more precise, could we say something like:
Yeah, it's a cobbled-together list of things, but I think he's just about notable - he's sung on two Top 10 singles (and another half a dozen Top 50 ones), even ignoring his multiple TV appearances. Black Kite (talk) 11:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Ofoedu meets
UK Singles Chart under his own name, and having been a prominent member of two independently notable groups. I've stripped out the unreliable sources from the personal life section; its remaining sources are The Guardian, The Independent, Huffington Post, Billboard, and Birmingham Mail. As for the hook, might be worth starting it at "Ben Ofoedu".--Launchballer
For what it's worth, I do think Ofoedu clears the notability bar, even if he's not necessarily famous. Though, I do think the sentence "He is best known for being the former fiancée of Vanessa Feltz" might give the impression that Ofoedu is mainly famous for being engaged to Feltz, rather than for his music. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that solves my original concern because it would require familiarity with the other three names as well. Maybe just drop the idea of a double hook and instead propose separate hooks for Ofoedu and Benz? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
And the Ofoedu hook?--Launchballer 11:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Kinda eh for me but it's more because I'm not familiar with the other names, but I'll leave the decision to another editor. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
@DYK admins: Apologies for the ping but as this is in the next queue to go up, maybe we can have some action taken on this? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:04, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
What action is required? The original concern over not naming Ofeudu has been addressed. I don't think we particularly need to say what Feltz's role is, there's a link in the hook for those who need it, and the hook isn't intended to be a detailed article covering all points, it's meant to be hooky (plus for anyone in the UK, Feltz is very much a household name). Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Maybe it's my being-not-a-UK-person senses tingling, but that seems like a very UK-centric thing to say if the hook is fine because one name is a household name in the UK. We aren't the Britishpedia. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how this got on the main page without being checked for spelling, but he is her ex-fiancé, not ex-fiancée. 194.217.118.50 (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I have raised this issue at
WP:ERRORS, I agree it should be fiancé as he is male. Joseph2302 (talk
The previous list was archived over a week ago. I've created a new list of 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 1. We have a total of 218 nominations, of which 71 have been approved, a gap of 147 nominations that has increased by 25 over the past 19 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any 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) 04:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
To avoid similar problems in the future, double-checking revision histories for edits by that user is probably needed. Enhancing999 (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm. Since we're talking about this hook, the one thing that had occurred to me was that it should say "highest capacity in the world", but I decided to let it go the way it was. Looking at the nom, I see that was indeed brought up by @Cielquiparle. It's unclear to me why that suggestion was rejected, since it seems to be an improvement. Also @Sammi Brie who suggested ALT0a, which I like. How would folks feel if I went with that one? -- RoySmith(talk) 16:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith The problem with ALT0a is that as far as we know, it *had* the world's highest transport payload capacity as of 2017 when the cited source was published...but unclear if that's still true now, etc.
Since we're limited to 200 characters, if we want to say "world's highest transport payload capacity", I think we have to decide whether it's more important to specify "215 tonnes", or if it's important to mention the four transformers it carries 882 metres uphill:
ALT0d: ... with a payload capacity of 215 tonnes, the Standseilbahn Linth-Limmern was the world's largest funicular railway for material transport when it was built?
ALT0e: ... that the Standseilbahn Linth-Limmern funicular railway, designed to carry four transformers 882 metres (2893 feet) uphill, had the world's highest transport payload capacity when it was built?
0e I think is a little more hooky than 0d. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd go with the agree version (ALT0c). Otherwise we risk revising this again. Avoiding past tense and "world" might make it more "hooky" and less beer-companion-book like. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
@
WP:ERRORS, which can result in the DYK hook simply getting "pulled" from the main page without completing its full 12-hour or 24-hour run. Cielquiparle (talk
) 05:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
That said, I think I've finally solved it (thanks to your comment above about the verb tense)! IMO, here is the best one so far:
ALT0f: ... that the Standseilbahn Linth-Limmern funicular railway was built to carry four transformers 882 metres (2893 feet) uphill, giving it the highest transport payload capacity in the world?
@Enhancing999, Sammi Brie, and Roy Smith: Please confirm re: ALT0f. It is written in such a way that it doesn't matter if it turns out another funicular built between 2017 and 2023 has an even higher transport payload capacity, while leaving it open that it is probably still true; is hooky and idiomatic while remaining within the 200 character limit; and specifies the context ("world") per the original source. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I would accept this. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
With a bit more tweaking:
ALT0g: ... that the Standseilbahn Linth-Limmern funicular was built to lift four transformers 882 metres (2893 feet), giving it the highest payload capacity in the world?
PS, whichever version ultimately gets chosen, see #Q7 redirect below and take care not to re-introduce that same problem. -- RoySmith(talk) 20:26, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Here is one more (based on feedback that the weight is more compelling than the distance):
ALT0h: ... the Standseilbahn Linth-Limmern was built with a transport payload capacity of 215 tonnes, the highest of any funicular railway in the world?
I'm fine with this as well based on feedback. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
William L. Breckinridge
Queue 7: William L. Breckinridge (nom) @Lightburst @PCN02WPS @BeanieFan11 The quote in the hook would "disqualify [him] from political usefulness" doesn't quite match the quote in the article (had disqualified themselves from political usefulness". It changes both the tense ("would disqualify" -> "had disqualified") and from a plural subject (Breckenridge and several of his brothers) to just the singular Breckinridge. It's OK to elide part of a quote, but I think this goes beyond what's acceptable. I think as a paraphrase it would probably be OK to make those changes, but if you're going to put it in quotes, you need to reproduce the exact quote. I'm open to other opinions. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith Would something like this be acceptable, based on that quote:
ALT0a:... that one abolitionist said that the anti-slavery views of William L. Breckinridge and his brother, Robert, had "disqualified [them] from political usefulness"?
I feel like that more closely reflects the actual quote; do you feel that the alteration to one word ("themselves" to "them") is still too much of a change? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:47, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Interesting hook, ... that Scrabble player, Nigel Richards, won two French Scrabble tournaments without speaking the language?
It looks to be rejected for not meeting the requirements of DYK. Should this nomination be rejected in the promotion tool? Lightburst (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I just did. Done. BorgQueen (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Shubs, hope all's well. Back in December 2022, we decided to implement move protection for DYK target articles. It hasn't happened yet, though. I was reminded of this as I fixed a redirect on the Main Page yesterday that resulted from a move while up as a DYK. Is this something that DYKUpdateBot could handle? I envisage something like the following:
DYKUpdateBot runs to promote the next Q to the MainPage
It checks whether any new queues have been promoted since the last run and applies move protection to the target articles
It removes move protection from Q-1 (i.e. the set that's just come off the Main Page)
That way, a set would be move protected within 24 hours of being moved to queue. That should be plenty long enough to tidy up any recently created redirects.
An alternative way to do this is to add this task to TFA Protector Bot operated by Legoktm. If I see things right, that bot move protects articles as soon as they get scheduled, which is often a month out from being displayed.
The decision that we move protect has already been made. The purpose of this follow up is to work out how we achieve this. Schwede66 00:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
but BAG turned it down because BAG thought it should be for VPR, who in turn refused – we need community wide consensus to go forward now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I had completely forgotten about the VPR discussion. Ah well, never mind. If the community doesn't want this, so be it. And we won't remind the community that TFA does exactly this: automatically move protect everything that gets scheduled. Schwede66 03:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}} template (see the help page).
_3_(geograph_6154322).jpg)
.jpg)
BorgQueen (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for this, Rabbitson2001! paul2520 💬 02:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Done I started to add a comma so that it read 
.jpg)
.jpg)
Bruxton (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
_en_1924.jpg)
Done. BorgQueen (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
BorgQueen (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
.png)
_-_Restoration_(square_crop).jpg)
.jpg)
_%E2%80%93_Royal_Collection_RCIN_922540_(cropped).jpg)
Like BorgQueen (talk) 10:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
_%E2%80%93_Royal_Collection_RCIN_922540.jpg){kind=link}
_death_in_the_Hartford_Courant_of_Hartford,_Connecticut_on_December_24,_1938.jpg)
Moved from User talk:RoySmith