Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
WP:Errors	WP:Errors
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

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

Prep 4

• ... that after Domen Križaj from Slovenia was a prize winner in the singing competition Neue Stimmen, he moved to the Oper Frankfurt where he has appeared as Massenet's Albert and Mozart's Papageno?

@Dumelow, Gerda Arendt, and Bruxton: Honestly I'm not so sure if the hook as currently written meets the following DYK criterion: The hook must be mentioned in the article and likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest. It's basically a role hook, or a hook about a opera performer performing a role, which is basically their job. Such hooks have tended to underperform when it comes to DYK views, at least according to statistics. Perhaps something else can be suggested here, or perhaps the hook can be rewritten to make it less specialist? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Listen, I don't think this is a good hook, but I would really prefer that DYK not wade into this discussion yet again. I'd like for Gerda to be able to move on to the projects she wants to pursue (she is, after all, quite busy), and I'd like for DYK to move on to the styles it wants to pursue. If that means letting these last few hooks air when the promoter and admin don't mind, as a thank-you to Gerda for all her work here at DYK, then it's an oppose action from me. Not on merit, but for the health of a project that needs to move on from this chapter. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 13:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict, I'm just always on the old-World slow side, DYK?) Today is still Christmas for Germans, and I hate to work on a Christmas day. But here I am. Narutolovehinata5, this hook is NOT a role hook.

1. This hook is a competition-winning hook. It says a person won the Neue Stimmen competition, which translates to "new voices", in case you are afraid our readers are unable to find background information offered in a link. We better don't write a translation into the hook because it's boring for those who know already. We had a Neue Stimmen winner on DYK already (6,8k views), - she went to Vienna. The hook could end there and be interesting.
2. Even the second part of the hook is NOT a role hook, but says where this singer is now based, which may be just "somewhere in Germany" for some, and "Opera house of the year 2022" for those who know a bit more. The hook could end there and be interesting.
3. The third part of the hook is still NOT a role hook, because it lists not one role, but from his repertory, with Papageno a cute enough name even for non-specialists to find out what that may be about (a bird-person). For those who already know it informs them that his voice is lyrical and light, and that he gets lead roles, - best said in roles than a boring general statement.

Read Talia Or today. Read the discussion, or just the above, or the one for Galina Pisarenko (where it has been suggested that we don't mention a performer of 30 years who was an academic teacher until her death at 88, because she has a profession non-specialists may not care about, - which has to be experienced to believed), and you know why I don't see a future for myself at DYK. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

A role hook simply means that a hook primarily focuses on a performer performing a particular role. Such hooks aren't necessarily bad, but they do tend to underperform especially when said hooks are too reliant on information that may not be widely-known among non-specialists. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

A role hook would be * Domen Križaj appeared as Mozart's Papageno?" I took some time to explain the difference. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this particular hook, but I am concerned that we don't let view-count statistics take a disproportionate role in our decisions. If people want information filtered by how often people click on it, they know where to get that. We should be more about human curation. Humans being what we are, that means the curators will sometimes disagree about what's interesting, but I wouldn't want it any other way. We shouldn't totally ignore the numbers, but we shouldn't be a slave to them either. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what others have said here. The hook may appeal to some of our readers. RS above makes a good point about not measuring success by clicks. I think it is good that we have editors with such varied interests so that we can present variety in our sets: something for everyone if you will. I also agree with what RS said above in another thread on this subject, some of us have experienced the fatigue of arguing; we can see that in a few of the responses here. So I say lets keep this hook, but I also do not entirely disagree with Narutolovehinata5. Bruxton (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

see you later

As mentioned further up, I'll focus on other parts of the project, beginning tomorrow, - call it a break from DYK. I don't feel that having to justify hooks is a productive use of my time. While I am away, at least until my next FA is written, you may want to check if the approach to look at view counts too much is a good idea, and if the method of assigning the label "specialist" to certain topics isn't a way of censoring what the audience gets to see. We had a few hooks now to look at performance (in case it matters):

• Talia Or was the pure role hook (not by me of course), and went well, - no surprise because of an attractive image.
• Quentin Oliver Lee had a top hook (mentioning also one role) and was less successful.
• open: Galina Pisarenko, and I hope that if we could point at the singer who sadly died young, we will also find a way to point at a singer who died old and was active teaching to the end, - isn't that interesting even for everybody? Not per the discussion so far.

  adding: the nom is no longer in danger of being rejected, but an interesting study anyway - thanks to CurryTime7-24 for incredible expansion! GA? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  the 19th hook is now in prep, saying (more or less) that this legendary singer who taught until her death learned Norwegian. Is that interesting, to anybody? I can't see it. In my list of those who recently died, I'll probably just omit it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think requesting that some part of a hook should appeal to the general reader might be an idea, while to request that the whole thing has to be for everybody might miss the special attraction of a subject for those who know it, and thus limit the potential and width of information we might offer. In the singer hook above: winning a competition would be for all, two roles specifying what kind of voice he has and that he gets lead roles are for someone who knows, or who is willing to find out. We should perhaps not underestimate the curiosity of our readers. My 2ct. Happy new year! I'll finish the noms I had planned, and then check in later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

"Plagiarism free"

Regarding {{DYK checklist}}; it asks reviewers if the article is, "plagiarism free" which it defines as, "Is the article free of material copied from other sources?"

This strikes me as potentially problematic, as it goes beyond what the DYK criteria requires. The DYK criteria requires the article to "be free of copyright violations, including close paraphrasing".

Material that is in the public domain (such as U.S. Government works, works published prior to 1927, or works that are freely licensed, can be copied without incuring a copyright violation, and so long as the source is cited (for example with a template like {{US government sources}} or {{EB1911}}, it is not considered plagiarism.

So basically, in the instructions we are providing reviewers, we are asking them if the article meets a higher bar than we are requiring in our formal eligibility criteria. Would anyone object to the example in the template being changed to "Is the article free of material copied from non-free sources?" ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Plagiarism is passing off another's work as your own; thus, those templates indicate whose work the article is quoting and provide attribution. Plagiarism -- not indicating you are quoting, or closely paraphrasing, (and instead passing it off as your own work) -- is barred. In Wikipedia's publishing environment, you assert that it is your work and that you hold the licence to give it into the commons. (Also, copyright vio and plagiarism are not the same thing, you still plagiarize if you copy without attribution, even if the copied work is no longer, or not, copyright protected.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

If this was a policy document, then I'd be more concerned about getting the wording exactly right, but it's not. It's just reminders of what reviewers should be looking for. As such, the vague wording in the checklist bullet is fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Objection here. As noted, plagiarism is indeed barred on Wikipedia, and should be checked for. It's also listed as a "Within policy" check above the edit window when you edit nomination templates: is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism. DYK checklist isn't clear that this item is, apparently, supposed to cover copyvio and close paraphrasing as well as plagiarism; just addressing copyvio in the proposed rewording also misses close paraphrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify; as I'm not sure I'm being understood correctly. I'm wanting to change text that currently reads "Is the article free of material copied from other sources?" to read "Is the article free of material copied from non-free sources?" as copying from free sources is allowable within policy so long as it is properly attributed. That is the only change being proposed. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Direct quotes from non-free sources, within limits and properly attributed, are allowed. See the block quotes in today's featured article for example. So, I'll stand by my original comment; the checklist isn't policy. It's just an aid to the reviewer to make sure they don't miss anything. It's kind of like being an astronaut. You train intensively on every detail of the mission and read mountains of manuals, but when it comes time to actually do it, you go by the checklist to make sure you don't forget a step. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

My worry though, is that the existing wording will lead inexperienced reviewers to decline acceptable articles that include properly attributed copying from free sources. For an example where an inexperienced reviewer may have declined see Template:Did you know nominations/E. Daniel Cherry and the associated article, which is properly attributed with a {{US government sources}} template. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not following your specific example, but in any case even experienced reviewers make mistakes. Altering the wording of the checklist isn't going to change that. The mistakes get discussed and corrected, which is why we have multiple levels of review, and this talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Why not just change it to "Is the article free of copyright violations, including close paraphrasing?"? Gatoclass (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

That would work. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 11:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree to that --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Well it should be 'the article is free of copyright violations and close paraphrasing'. Proper attribution (including proper presentation, citation, and mark-up) can cure several ills of what would otherwise be copyright violation or plagiarism, it becomes 'fair use' in its legal sense or 'fair dealing' in an intellectual, authorial sense - the remaining issue is whether you have appropriated too much of copyrighted material, such that it has become infringement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with either @Gatoclass's or @Alanscottwalker's suggested wording. Again, I urge people to not get overly worked up over this. It's a checklist. The intent is to jog the reviewer's memory, not to act as an official statement of policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe new Wikipedia articles should include significant copied-and-pasted content, even if from a free source, more so for those recognized at DYK. I recently saw an article that was entirely just duplicated a US government document, and I believe this is very inappropriate for any article even if not copyrighted and with a little attribution template. DYK articles should be written in Wikipedia's voice using multiple sources, and any copying or close paraphrasing should not be considered for the main page. Reywas92^Talk 20:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

just for clarification, we do have a penalty for copying from free content: it doesn't count in a 5x expansion, nor does it count towards meeting the 1500B minimum. You can't just plop a government document into an article and run it (or at least, you shouldn't be able to). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: - It looks like there is a loose agreement to change the checklist wording to "is the article free of copyright violations and close paraphrasing?". The template says to contact you if changes are to be made. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Thanks for letting me know. As long as you don't change the status=y/?/maybe/no/again parameter, everything should be fine, but let me know if something weird happens after the change. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus for solution for two problems?

I went through this to see if I could assess consensus. There are no policy arguments to asses, so in this case it really is sort of just a vote. Unless I've counted wrong (always a possibility so feel free to check my work) here's what I've got:

10 people want a change. 9 voted A2 through B2.* The 10th was by far the outlier with C4. 6 want no change.

To me that looks like it could be declared for B2 (as everything from A2-B1 specifically also votes for B2), but I'm not really comfortable calling it that unilaterally as C4 could certainly be arguable. Do we need discussion/an uninvolved closer, or are people comfortable with me closing it for B2?

* A2:5,B1:1,B2:3 Valereee (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with it being closed for B2 because there is a wide variety of opinions and barely anyone participated. I thought that votes on Wikipedia weren't decided just by counting them, but rather by the strength of the arguments. I would say that no change is more arguable than C4. SL93 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "barely anyone participated". I see EEng, Valereee, theleekycauldron, Kingsif, myself, Cielquiparle, Hog Farm, you, Epicgenius, Vanamonde, ONUnicorn, Dumelow, Narutolovehinata5, BlueMoonset, David Eppstein, Chipmunkdavis, Kusma, Andrew Davidson, Hawkeye7, Guerillero, and Gerda Arendt all participated in the thread. That's pretty much everybody who is active at DYK. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It is by the strength of the arguments to policy. But in this case, as I mentioned above, there's no policy to argue, so there are no relatively stronger or weaker arguments. It's all opinion. But we can request someone else to close who didn't participate. Both EEng and Narutolovehinata5 were reading but didn't vote. Valereee (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. There are many more people who regularly participate at DYK than those people. Why do you think we have a backlog? SL93 (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense again. The voters contributed to how it would affect the project so the strongest of those arguments need to be found. SL93 (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@SL93, could you clarify who you're nonsensing? Also you sound kind of pissed, is there something else going on? Valereee (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Both you and Roysmith. I am pissed because no change votes are apparently not being counted. SL93 (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they're being counted. There were six of them. Which I said above. Valereee (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's where I said it: 10 people want a change. 9 voted A2 through B2.* The 10th was by far the outlier with C4. 6 want no change. Valereee (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Then I guess I'm confused. C4 only has one vote, but it seemed that you said it is more arguable than no change. I do stand by that there are strengths to consider when it comes to how people think it will benefit or hurt DYK. SL93 (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

C4 only has one vote, but all votes A1-C3 count as a vote for C4. So if we can't find consensus at B2, which has nine votes (by the same method of counting, which was made clear in the instructions), we'd go with C4 unless someone objected to 10-6 being not strong enough consensus for change. Valereee (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

This whole thing sits wrong with me. 25 people deciding on the biggest change at DYK in like ever and it's decided by a vote count. SL93 (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It's actually fine to say, Hey, I see this has general support here, but this wasn't an announced RfC, let's get greater input on the proposed change. That's likely what we'd do anyway. Valereee (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Then why close the discussion at all and not just do a RFC? SL93 (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, we'd probably have to do an RfC and advertise it. I think this was presented as not an RfC but a survey to see what would gain support here? We "close it at all" to make sure we're agreed on what the outcome was in any discussion. A closed discussion doesn't necessarily mean "Policy is hereby changed". Valereee (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, here's what I'd suggest: go through the votes, as I did. Assess the arguments w/re:policy, as I did. Ignore people who are just upset and saying things like "strongest possible oppose" or "not fair" or "there is no problem" or "this is overexaggerated"; those are all opinions. If you can find policy arguments that support 'no change' more strongly than 'change', bring them back here and let's discuss. I did not find them. Valereee (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This whole thing sits wrong with me, despite what was said in the weak discussion. SL93 (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy with asking for an outside/neutral close at WP:RFCL. I'd also be happy with running a formal RFC. Either of those options would take some time, but I'd rather take the time and end up with a result that everybody can be satisfied with. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I would be upset even if all of the votes agreed with me. This feels wrong. SL93 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I followed the discussion above, but could not devote enough time to research and formulate the merits of various arguments. I think the discussion above was useful for brainstorming ideas, arguments, and policy discussions. Since the thread started with a declaration that it was a discussion, and not a policy proposal ("Has this been discussed before?" and "Note that this is intentionally not an RfC") I think a closer should determine which survey responses, if any, received enough support to open a possible RfC. This doesn't mean the "Support none of these" comments are ignored, but rather help determine which proposals are less popular. I would not support the above discussion being used to change DYK policy or procedures as I think a wider RfC would be necessary to do that with the specific statement that the result of the RfC could change DYK policy. Z1720 (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Upset

If I feel more upset than normal, Valereee is right when she wondered if something else was going wrong up in the above discussion. I apologize. I am healed enough from being hit by a car at a crosswalk for Wikipedia and online classes, but I can't go back to work until at least January 20. The police originally didn't cite the driver, and they still haven't found him to charge him once they found out that they messed up. My lawyer is hard to get a hold of. The police lieutenant ignored my email for updates. I have almost no money coming in. My new landlord is an idiot and I don't know how to get my rent to him because the property manager quit after a couple weeks. SL93 (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hope the situation improves for you soon, SL93. Best wishes! DanCherek (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Jeez, SL93, I'm so sorry things are continuing to be so messed up. :( Valereee (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the discussion for now. My head hurts. SL93 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

That's truly awful, I hope things take a turn :( theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Some thoughts on process stability

I've only been heavily involved in the DYK back-end stuff for about 4 months now. Most of the people involved in this discussion have been doing this for a lot longer, and I recognize that they have a depth of experience I lack. That being said, I'm an engineer so I'm looking at this from a control system point of view (hence my little circuit diagram way upthread).

The gist of any control system is you've got something that you want to keep within a target range, which generally involves some kind of feedback loop. You set your house thermostat to the temperature you want; when it gets below that, it turns the furnace on and when the house gets warm enough, it turns the furnace off again. That's about as simple a control system as you can have. A more complicated system would be the engine controller in a typical modern car. You set the cruise control to the speed you want, and it adjusts fuel, air, ignition timing, gear ratio, turbocharger setting, and maybe a few other things to keep you going at that speed in the most efficient way.

We're trying to keep approved queue length within a certain range. The feedback loop is that we adjust how many hooksets we publish per day when the approved list gets above or below certain thresholds. In control system terms, we've got a single loop non-proportional system with hysteresis. Just like your house thermostat. The difference is that when your house was built, somebody worked out what capacity furnace you needed based on the size of your house, how well it's insulated, and historical weather data. So unless it breaks down, your furnace is able to keep up with the demand.

Unfortunately, that's not what we've got here. When I started working DYK, we were in 2-a-day mode, and in a state of continual crisis. The queue was often down to a single set, and there were almost daily panic calls to the admins to promote more preps to queues. We'd get the queue up to 2, then the next day we were back down to 1. Sometimes we were down to 0. Right now, we're in much better shape. We've got almost all the queues filled, and a good reserve of preps. But I don't expect that will last if we go to 2 sets per day.

So, I think what we need is a two loop system. Something like, "We go to 2 per day when the approved list gets above A1 AND we've got Q1 filled queues. We go back to 1 per day when the approved list gets below A2 OR the we've got less than Q2 filled queues." That gives us feedback for both the amount of material we have to work with and also the amount of labor we've got to process it. Right now we've just got the first part; we adjust our output based on how much material we have, regardless of how much capacity we have to do the work. That's not sustainable. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

We've got a second thermostat that overrides the primary. Anyone who doesn't actually live in the house (and that is a ton more than those who do) is authorized to opine that it's not really cold in here, and we have to take their opinions into account as we decide whether the thermostat needs to be recalibrated. I don't know about you, but I'm frickin' freezing. I've decided I'm of course going to bring in a cord of firewood when I stay here myself, but otherwise, this group can heat their own bedrooms. Valereee (talk) 23:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

In soviet wiki, thermostat controls you! -- RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Lol...I was in Moscow in January of 2013 on a business trip for a major multinational, very upscale hotel. We had to leave the windows open most of the night because there was not a thermostat we could control. Valereee (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

And another county heard from

Summoned by ping for my evaluation of the discussion. I can't invest much time in this, because I promised BlueMoonset I'd get my nose to the grindstone on something, and I'm overdue for that, plus my mom's been sick and I've gotta go see her. <Cue violins> But here's an outline.

Clear thinking about quantitative approaches, like Roy's just above, is badly needed, but I think we need to do something more fundamental first. DYK has many problems we're all aware of but which we don't seem to be able to do much about. If I do say so myself, we took a major step forward recently with the "interestingness" reform. But we could do more, and I believe the best way to move forward is by deliberate, definite, small steps, with consensus at each step:

• Right now we run essentially every nom submitted, with the occasional rejection. There is no problem we have that will not be at least ameliorated by a reduction in throughput, and some can never be addressed meaningfully until there's a reduction in throughput. So Step 1: we need to agree that throughput should "somehow" be limited to "some number" per day. The "somehow", and the "some number", are unspecified at this step -- we are simply committing that there will be some limit, achieved somehow. If we can't get this simple abstraction agreed to, real progress on DYK quality improvement will never, ever happen.
• Step 2: We discuss and agree on the "some number" limit. (My personal proposal would be that it be a single daily set of N = 6, 7, or 8, but that's just me.) But at this point "no change / no limit" isn't an option, because that was settled at the first step.
• Step 3 (and subsequent steps): We start agreeing on one or more "somehow"s to throttle things down to that limit. Likely we will need a combination of somehows, and we might enact those one by one, or in packages -- we'll have to see. But the limit will have been decided upon already, so we can just focus on the somehows.

The problem with the current discussion is that it's trying to do all three steps at once, with a confused, diffuse result. I humbly submit, therefore, that instead of settling on some compromise of disparities, we instead back up and start with just Step 1.

Thoughts? EEng 00:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Sorry your mom's sick, EEng! Valereee (talk) 00:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. She says her dying wish is for DYK throughput to be reduced via my step-wise system outlined above. You'd want to help make an old lady's dying wish come true, wouldn't you? EEng 02:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@EEng you said If we can't get this simple abstraction agreed to, real progress on DYK quality improvement will never, ever happen. Maybe we need to take a step backwards and figure out if quality improvement is what people want. Maybe people want to run every hook that's submitted, regardless of quality. If that's the case, we should save a lot of effort by eliminating reviews. A bot could easily figure out if it's "new enough and long enough", and if it is, just toss it into the next open slot. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

For those who are wondering, there really and truly are people who seem to want that. And though I've advocated taking things "one step at a time", that still leaves the question of what should be the quantum size of each step. I'm willing to roll the "quality improvement is desirable", and "throughput should be reduced", quanta into the same Step 1. Can you join me? EEng 02:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Step 1: Those who participated in the discussion seem to agree that throughput should be limited. Even those who voted "no change" tended to be concerned that the problem of reviewers flaking out would disproportionately affect inexperienced/less savvy nominators. (And I'd agree it's definitely the experienced and savvier nominators who refuse to help build preps who are really the problem here, not those with a handful or fewer noms.)

So I'd say that, at least among those who participated at that discussion, there is support for somehow limiting throughput, especially if we can ensure it doesn't disproportionately affect less experienced good-faith nominators. Valereee (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I participated in the discussion, and I didn't agree that throughput should be limited, so we're already mischaracterizing the previous discussion. I think we could be tougher on the quality and eliminate more noms that way (which RoySmith mentions), but the idea that a single daily number is the way to start is foreign to me and to what I think the idea of DYK is. One example on tougher quality: while it used to be feasible to get a copyedit there on a DYK timeframe, the Guild of Copy Editors is so backed up that it takes months to get a copyedit there. DYK shouldn't wait; if the nominator can't get a copyedit within a week or two and the prose is that problematic, the nomination should (regretfully) be failed. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Same for merge discussions, I'd argue. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

BMs, you started your vote there with No change unless there are protections built in for nominators when a reviewer flakes. How is it mischaracterizing to say even those who voted no change tended to be concerned about reviewers flaking? Valereee (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Valereee, I was referring to Those who participated in the discussion seem to agree that throughput should be limited, not your second sentence. I'm not wild about the notion of limiting throughput through arbitrary deadlines. However, reviewers can do a lot to keep reviews from running long by requesting prompt action and giving reasonable deadlines for responses. It used to be that seven days was pretty standard for most things. If people can't follow up on their nominations, then it should be inevitable that they see them close, and not after two or three months either. But if reviewers don't show up, the nominator shouldn't pay the price. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Jumping the gun?

I'm a bit confused about all this discussion here. Wasn't that discussion supposed to be an informal survey anyway rather than a formal RfC? As far as I can tell, it was only intended to take a feel of DYK's thoughts rather than actually implement any changes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe that Valeree suggested picking one internally and then setting up a wider RfC on just that one proposal. CMD (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

And (just in case anyone hasn't got the message yet), I advocate picking none of them and take the more stepwise approach described earlier. Not that I want to push that too hard or anything. EEng 02:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

We really should move back to 2 a day at least temporarily. The last four days are not transcluded at Template talk:Did you know/Approved. We really shouldn't be making it worse. SL93 (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm against going to 2-a-days. It's too hard on too few. Valereee (talk) 15:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

So we should break the nominations page? And I said temporarily so we at least don't break it. SL93 (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

What's going on there? Have we hit some wikimedia transclusion limit? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I can only suggest looking at Template talk:Did you know/Approved and scrolling to the bottom to see what I mean. That will just be the start. SL93 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that the transclusions are not being displayed properly. What I'm asking is "Why are they not being displayed properly?" You can't fix a problem if you don't understand why it's happening. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know either. Maybe BlueMoonset or someone more experienced knows. SL93 (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It's an issue with the Wikipedia:Post-expand include size. DanCherek (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

BlueMoonset mentioned such a thing on their talk page. SL93 (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

What's the downside of breaking the nominations page other than that things don't transclude? Does it cause actual problems anywhere else, or is it? @RoySmith, yes, that's the actual reason we go to 2-a-days: at a certain point the backlog breaks a transclusion template limit or something. Valereee (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I just feel like it will make prep building worse than it already is if we can't scroll down to read everything. SL93 (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

But the problem only occurs when there are too many hooks, doesn't it? So it's not like prep builders don't have plenty to choose from. Valereee (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking of how it will be in the future because I'm not sure when we will have an alternative solution. Who knows how many hooks we will have by then, along with the preps and queues available to fill. It's not as much of an issue now, but maybe someone should really get cracking on a RFC. SL93 (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Personally I am averse to temporarily fixing the problem while people are telling me we're exaggerating it. Maybe folks need to actually see the cracks before they'll believe they're there. Valereee (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggested on BlueMoonset's talk page to just close the project if we can't come to a conclusion that doesn't break things. I was really upset when I said that, but I still think it is an option. Maybe people would respond to that ultimatum. SL93 (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I've asked about this at WP:VPT. It looks like we've hit a size limit, but let's see what the experts say. In any case, the solution to the problem is not forcing people who don't want to do more work to do more work. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem is definitively that the total bulk of all approved noms is too large. It affects nothing other than what you see -- everything's actually still there. EEng 19:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

If this affects nothing other than cosmetics, why are we even worried? Valereee (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it mere cosmetics, exactly: the last N noms become invisible until a few higher up on the page are closed (after which the bot removes them, allowing a few that were just below the "boundary of visibility" to become visible). EEng 20:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

When I browse for nominations to promote, I would rather see everything on the same page instead of clicking on nominations to read what they say. It will be much worse if we don't go to 2 a day until we have an alternative and I'm not sure how many more hooks will not transclude if it goes to say, over 200 more hooks than we have now. I thought we were wanting to make things easier for prep builders. SL93 (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I want to fix the problem long term, not just make things slightly less bad short term. Valereee (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Not fixing it short term will make it bad for the long term. I thought I was clear on that. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

What is your solution then? This long discussion hasn't gotten DYK anywhere. SL93 (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand that you are also interested in a long-term solution. I just disagree that going to 2-a-days helps with that or that making sure prep builders have access to the untranscluded makes much difference to the work of prep building.

And yes, long discussion hasn't gotten DYK anywhere. It's IMO because there are many fewer actual workers (whose work would be improved by suggested fixes) than nominators (whose requirements would be increased). Which is why I'm actually here (after spending multiple years trying to be nice and get along) just deciding I'm going to go ahead and say it. Valereee (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I will just have to disagree about the transclusions. I do know that I personally won't be building preps if I have to open tab after tab after yet another tab just to fill one prep set. SL93 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

And I think it's not a bad outcome if prep builders decide not to build preps for a while. The rest of the project needs to see the cracks. Valereee (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I guess prep builders could go on strike, with or without a RFC going on, and maybe people will come to their senses. If not, DYK crashes and burns. I started building preps when I saw how much hard work Yoninah was doing practically by herself. If only that could be the case with other editors. Maybe I'm just more empathic than them. SL93 (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this is where I hold up a sign that says "UNION" or something? I need to go watch Norma Rae again. Valereee (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Strike isn't the best wording, but basically preps can stay unfilled. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I've got a ton of ideas for how to improve things, but they're all based on how I perceive the problems and what my personal workflow is. I think it would be really useful to have a big teach-in on zoom or whatever where we each walked through how we do various tasks. I'm sure we'd all learn a lot of tricks, and get some better ideas for how to improve the overall process.

For example, I find the one big page really annoying. Once I've found a nom I'm interested in, I want to open it up in isolation. SL93 obviously has a different workflow that works for them. The more we know about how each of us works, the better we're able to think about solutions that work for everybody. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Trialing 16-hour cycles

If there is concern about a backlog, I would propose trialing 16-hour DYK cycles for a limited time (e.g. 7–10 days) to observe how it could work. It would be less strenuous than the 12-hour cycle, and for DYK submitters, it has the advantage of allowing coverage across at least 2/3 of the world's major time zones rather than missing out on 1/2 (which can have a negative effect on results if your hook is tied to a specific geography). Cielquiparle (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

16 hour cycles require extremely complex input from those actually doing the work of making this project happen. Valereee (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd have to oppose on stats page grounds – hooks need to air within one calendar day, otherwise we can't reliably harvest the pageviews data. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

16 hours is a great idea, as it would fix the constant flicking between 12 and 24 hours problem. The stats pages are already wrong anyway (as they report dates 1 day out), and stats shouldn't be the sole driving factor for the project, instead it should be providing good DYK content at regular intervals. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: No, they're not one day off anymore. That's also not related? And while they're not the sole driving factor, an idea that skewers the entire enterprise should probably weight against the enterprise. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The proposal also doesn't actually help with the problem, which is that we have too many nominations and not enough promoters to process them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

16 hours sounds great to anyone who doesn't actually work the preps and queues. For those working the preps and queues it makes things much more complicated. Also what tlc said. 16 hour cycles means instead of asking prep builders to double their workload, we're only asking them to increase it by 50%. Not a solution to the problem of too few prep builders. Valereee (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I was gonna say, that sounds fairly complicated to build with the current working areas we have in prep (let alone those who promote to queue). I mean, I know I said we should try pretty much anything to reduce backlog and workload... but this doesn't really. Kingsif (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Am I reading this right?

We're going to have DYK noms expire because nobody felt like reviewing them or because nobody wanted to add them to the prep area? So, I could make a perfectly valid hook, wait three weeks and nobody reviews it, and then it "expires" because of that / my hook gets approved, but it doesn't ever make it to the main page because the promoters didn't add it to the prep area in time? Am I reading this right? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11 Nothing has been decided yet, but yes, that's one of the proposals on the table. All that needs to happen to prevent that is for enough people to stand up and say, "I'll help". Are you willing? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Presently I'm very busy, with things going on in real life + lots of work needing to be done in my topic area, American football, as its NFL season. Right now I've got too much to do, but I could probably try to learn the prep promotion process in late February once the season's over. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

lol...yep, that's pretty typical. No one wants to do the actual work -- one of the perennial excuses is "I'm really busy" -- but they totally are like, "Am I reading this right?!" when the rest of the project doesn't do the work for them. So, yeah, come on back when you've done a few dozen promotions, we'll talk. Valereee (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I told you I would try it next month, although if I'm going to be mocked here for having things to do in life maybe not... BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yep, that's the next excuse. You've gone from "I'm afraid of screwing up" to "I don't have time" to "you're mean". It's fine. Valereee (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's also partially because people aren't willing to help promote because 1. I'm afraid I'll screw something up or 2. various other excuses. Valereee (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The section works because of the varied interests of the editors who come here. I can see that just from promoting hooks to the preps. Some hooks or articles with limited appeal may not be reviewed for a long time. I think most editors review the hooks that interest them. I am not sure we can be forced to eat our peas. Bruxton (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

No pudding for you! Valereee (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That is only if I don't eat my meat! Bruxton (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Mother do you think I'll break the prep?
Mother do you think they'll like my hook?
Mother do you think they'll try to close my nom?
Oooh ahh, Mother should I write a bot?
-- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes! And yes to more bots. When they work they are glorious. Bruxton (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11 I think you will be very good at promoting hooks. As I found out, there isn't much to screw up technically if you've installed the PSHAW tool. Promoters don't even have to promote entire sets, so you could just promote one or two hooks here and there when you have time (while trying to balance out the right "mix" geographically, bios vs. non-bios, etc.). The hardest part seems to be checking the hook to make sure it's really main page safe, but even then, there are always other people checking and re-checking so they will catch mistakes or question or disagree or improve after you promote as well. You just can't promote hooks you have been involved in. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I dislike that approach. If a reviewer or promoter prefers to review or promote a given editor or editors, somebody's gonna get left behind. This is really unfair to the first-time editors, the very new editors DYK was created for. If an editor submits a nomination on subject matter most here are not familiar with - certain sciences for instance - that editor's nomination may linger for a long time and then just drop off. It might have the opposite effect if the editor and their given style/topic is favored by a reviewer/promoter. — Maile (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Maile66, I'm probably being an idiot, but what approach? The indent isn't clear. Valereee (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: I was referring to the lead paragraph in this section, and responses to that. — Maile (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Maile. I would agree that however we choose to solve the problem, we shouldn't be making new editors with few noms pay the price. Someone with 39 DYKs, sure. They could be expected to help out. Valereee (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Why not make it mandatory to promote at least a few hooks to prep every so often? Seriously, we can just forget their whiny complaints that don't amount to anything. Of course this wouldn't apply to new nominators. SL93 (talk) 20:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@SL93, we've tried that. The problem is that there are a lot more people that would affect than there are whom it would help. People who don't want to be required to do the work can easily outvote those who do the work. Valereee (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

For instance. Here's a participant at DYK -- 39 noms, 0 promotions -- who complained their hook wasn't promoted fast enough, explained that the reason they didn't want to try helping promote was that they'd screw up, then that they were busy, then that they were pissed, now voting against trying to fix the problem. That's basically the progression. Valereee (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've been directed to this discussion from the Women in Red talk page. Let me first say that I consider DYKs to be one of the most important features of the EN Wikipedia as they not only draw attention to important new additions but encourage budding editors to continue their efforts. Unfortunately, I am no longer very enthusiastic about participating in DYKs as many of the discussions have become increasingly lengthy and time consuming. A recent case in an area which interests me is the DYK on Galina Pisarenko. From Talk:Galina Pisarenko, you can see that we've now reached ALT15 and it's still not over! But on a more positive note, would it not be useful to alert some of the more active contributors to DYK as can be seen here? --Ipigott (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

One way to solve the backlog is to let any extended-confirmed editor review a DYK nomination from now on instead of making DYK nominators do it for quid pro quo. And I believe more people would do DYK nominations if quid pro quo wasn’t a requirement after 5 of them. Just my 2 cents. Trillfendi (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Trillfendi, any editor, ec or not, can review a nom. An IP can review a nom. Valereee (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you are completely misreading… everything. Literally anyone can do reviews. We don't want to encourage more noms. Kingsif (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kingsif: What I was saying (at least trying to) was what I believe intimidates more people from doing DYK is the quid pro quo aspect. More people would volunteer to create DYK nominations if it didn’t seem somehow like a chore. Trillfendi (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You still miss the point, Trillfendi. We have too many DYK nominations; that's the issue. You are talking about ways of getting more DYK nominations. Schwede66 22:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Numbers please

The discussion above seems to lack detailed statistics and "you can't manage what you can't measure". As it's the start of the new year, it's a good time to take stock. Would it be possible to list some key statistics to help us understand the issues, please? I would like to know:

1. The number of DYK's nominated, run and rejected during 2022
2. The number of times that switching between 12 and 24 hours was done during 2022
3. The numbers of DYKs nominated per editor during 2022 -- perhaps there are some high-volume nominators such as WikiCup participants?
4. The current size of the pipeline -- the numbers in the various states -- unreviewed, reviewed but stuck on some issue, approved, promoted, queued, etc.
5. The key numbers which risk overloading the structure and so trigger switching

I appreciate that some work might be required but my impression is that theleekycauldron has a good handle on such details. Perhaps the numbers already exist somewhere and just need summarising here, please?

As an example, please see a table of ITN nominations during 2022 which I recently compiled to help with recurring disputes about the treatment of recent deaths.

Andrew🐉(talk) 22:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

A request for statistics! Oh, goody! Here's what I've got:

1. We've passed 3,963 DYK noms in 2022, and failed 246 more. 228 remain pending, for a total of ~4,437 nominations in 2022.
2. We made 16 switches between 12-hour and 24-hour cycles in 2022.
3. The most prolific nominator of the year, Gerda Arendt, made 187 nominations. A majority of nominations is formed by 64 nominators, having 13+ nominations each.
4. That'll take me a while.
5. When we top 120 approved nominations, we cross into 12-hour cycles, and when we drop below 60 approves nominations, we revert to 24-hour cycles.

Hope this helps! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You are hilarious. Valereee (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

In my not at all expert opinion, a failure rate of 6.2% (246/3,963) appears awfully low. Perhaps we need to be more strict about failing things that do not meet the requirements, instead of having situations where we have ALT15 seriously being suggested. That sucks up huge amounts of reviewer time and is just quite frankly ridiculous. If you're at ALT15 and people can't agree, just fail the damn hook. Come on. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings Yup. That's the kind of (pardon me) train wreck I was talking about in Special:Diff/1131396433. The nomination discussion is longer than the article. It's hard to say "We can't do any more work than we're already doing" with a straight face when people are willing to spend 2 months haggling over one nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

A good place to start would be WP:DYKSTATS. There's also some per-user data at WP:DYKNC and WP:DYKPC. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment. Hello all. Hope everyone had a good holiday period. Wishing you all a happy new year as we get into 2023. I have not been too frequent around here (and other parts of WP) for sometime now and am briefly resurfacing. I see a lot of discussion has happened here in this project during the time I was away on topics as it relates to the nomination process, the promotion process, and the general functioning of the DYK engine. I did not know where to comment and being someone who roughly likes numbers, I am adding my comment here.

1. To the concerns that the failure rate is too low, I think we should ask the question what are we doing here in this project. Being a volunteer driven encyclopedia and a volunteer driven project, our aim can either be a) act as a stage-gate and ensure that we strike down hooks that we deem not worthy of main-page (note that I am deliberately not using the word 'interesting' as of yet) are prevented from making it to the main-page? or is it b) act as an enabler to ensure that our readers get to see the best that we can collectively offer? The answer to this question will guide your perspective on the failure rate. To me the success rate of 89.3% (i.e. ~90%) indicates that reviewers and nominators were able to successfully shape 90% of the submissions and get them to main-page levels of quality. To me that is a win, no matter how you see it.
2. To the belief that the success of the hook, or performance of the hook on the main-page is correlated to the number of page views that it receives while on a 12 or 24 hour appearance on the main-page, I continue to maintain that is absolutely incorrect. Every person clicking on the link is a win for the article, a win for the encyclopedia. Leaving popular topics (e.g. WWII) aside, it is no secret that risque hooks or will get the highest number of clicks, does that mean that we should all go towards creating click-baity hooks? Absolutely not.
3. To the concerns that we should only promote what we deem as interesting to a broad audience (however broad or narrowly construed), I think this is doing a disservice to an audience whose profile we do not know.
4. To the idea that we should allow nominations to expire (I forget which thread this idea was suggested in) just because we have not been able to match a nominator to a reviewer -- Very similar to audience interests, there are reviewer interests. We should be cognizant of that. That is to say, we should keep the nominations alive until a reviewer has a chance to come-in and either work with the nominator to get the hook to the next level or deem that the hook is not capable of being worked to get it to the next level.
5. Given a choice to throttle (slow-down) or squeeze (force drop-outs), I am not averse to throttling.
6. If there are system limitations e.g. page size for transclusion that is preventing us from functioning in a certain way, we should explore ways to remedy those system limitations. These limitations should not alter our processes, our behaviors here, and our overall project objectives! I know this is a bit of a rich statement for a volunteer run project, but, we should push.
7. There is a genuine concern that Valeree and others have called out about the lack of volunteers for prep-building. I will let others weigh in creative ways to remedy this situation. I will add my two ideas. Currently, there is a perceived heaviness to this action and hence folks are perhaps inundated by the process of "prep-building". I can definitely speak for myself. My suggestion to you all is break it down into "Hook-promotion" instead of "Prep-building". Hook-promotion atomizes the actions and makes it less of a perceived barrier. Also I had a chance to look at TLC's PSHAW tool and it can be used to promote hooks atomically. Encourage more editors to use the took and promote hooks in case they are intimidated to "build-preps". If you want bake it into the QPQ process. Review 2 hooks or promote 1 hook. Alternately, review 1 hook and promote 1 hook. Yes, there is a notion for hook cohesion etc. which can easily be achieved. e.g. if you want the last hook to be always be quirky, bake that into the PSHAW tool by a simple label against the last hook saying a text "(preferably quirky)".

Those are my few-cents across topics. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"To the belief that the success of the hook, or performance of the hook on the main-page is correlated to the number of page views that it receives while on a 12 or 24 hour appearance on the main-page, I continue to maintain that is absolutely incorrect" is a direct contradiction to "Every person clicking on the link is a win for the article, a win for the encyclopedia". Current consensus is towards the second position. CMD (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Not really a contradiction. 1000 clicks on an article is a win. A single click on an article by a reader wanting to be informed by reading the article is a win. Ktin (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Why opt for 1 win and 999 losses instead of 1000 wins? CMD (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

999 losses?? Ktin (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ktin I don't agree with all of the above, but I certainly agree with a couple of your points. Specifically:

• We should not let technology drive policy. If failure to transclude noms into WP:DYKNA is a problem, we should either get the limit raised or rework our process to not require that level of transclusion, or just put up with the fact that not everything gets transcluded. I'm an advocate of getting tougher on our acceptance criteria for several reasons, but "we've hit the transclusion limit" isn't one of them.
• I also agree that hook review and prep building should be decoupled. Hooks need to be reviewed to ensure they're correct, don't violate various policies like WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, etc. Assembling them into a sets of 8 is all about variety, balance, timing of special occasions. There's really no overlap there, so it's just a stumbling block to tie them together. I think it would make sense to just have the noms accumulate review checkmarks. After it has two checks, it's eligible for a prep builder to incorporate into a prep. And likewise, an admin moving a prep set to a queue should have to verify that all of the hooks have accumulated three checks. We need an admin to do the last step because the main page is protected; imposing on them the additional burden of enforcing all our DYK rules just leads to admins being unwilling to get involved.

-- RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

DYK approved on and after December 30

Just want to mention but DYK Approved stops showing dyk templates on and after December 30. I don't know how to fix this so can someone fix it? Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Known issue. See #Jumping the gun? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke, the basic problem is that we have too many nominations and not enough people to work on them. We can't seem to get enough people to help, so our only alternative is to find a way to limit nominations. But the people who don't build preps don't like that idea, and they way outnumber those who do. So we're sort of in a pickle, here. :D Valereee (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I imagine this will surprise people, given what I've been saying recently, but I'm currently thinking that going to 2-per-day might be a reasonable plan. When this extended conversation started, we were struggling to keep more than 1 or 2 queues full, and the preps weren't far behind. Now we've got some more people pitching in and new promotions are blocked by not having anywhere to put them.

Long term, we still need to get tougher on quality. According to leeky's numbers, we're accepting 94% of our submissions. That's rubber-stamp territory. Related to that, we can't afford to invest unlimited effort to salvage problem submissions. Sometimes it means getting people pissed at you, but keeping the system running smoothly is more important than any one submission.

I also think our mode switch criteria should must include some measure of available work capacity, not just pending submission count. We emphatically don't want to be in a situation of perpetual crisis because we're trying to put out more product than we can reasonably handle. But given the state we're in right now, I think we'd be OK. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think we leave it up to prep builders. If prep builders are saying they can manage 2-a-day, go for it. Valereee (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We could just give it a go and move it back to 1 set a day early if it doesn't work out. I'm hoping that these discussions have started something. SL93 (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

If we do go with what seems to be the planned route of closing nominations that are going nowhere, I marked these three nominations for closure - Template:Did you know nominations/Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (France), Template:Did you know nominations/Lafarge scandal, and Template:Did you know nominations/Execution of Russian soldiers in Makiivka. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why the Unknown Soldier or Lafarge scandal noms were closed. Both seem to have had the issues raised actioned, and were simply awaiting new reviewers. CMD (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

There is still a citation needed tag at Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (France). As for Lafarge scandal, multiple editors have been discussing closing nominations where there is no interest. In this case, it was already on the main page once and pulled. Plus no new reviewer. SL93 (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

One tag (and one area needing a tag) on a 1600 word article is an easily addressed issue (just delete the unsourced bits). There is no consensus on removing DYK noms that simply await reviewers. CMD (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

There really should be, even in a case where there has been a citation needed tag for over a month. Or in the case of Lafarge scandal, it already had its chance and was pulled. Its bs that practically no one wants to build preps or make it easier for prep builders. It also isn't simply waiting for reviewers when they have come and gone with the nomination being stagnant. SL93 (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Noms on DYKN have nothing to do with prep building, prep building is an issue due to the overload on DYKA. CMD (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

but DYKN noms move to DYKNA when they're approved, and we get so many at DYKNA in part because we give nominators absurd amounts of time to work out any issue that may arise, at the expense of the time of other volunteers. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This does not reflect the cases mentioned at all, which were awaiting reviews, not nominator action. The nominators actioned the issues raised a long time ago. CMD (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, as long as we're in agreement about the principle of the thing. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The principle is that two noms were closed out of process based on an idea that has not gained consensus. CMD (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

They aren’t actually closed and are still open for editing. One of the two noms still had one issue, no matter how small. We don’t need to babysit the nominators by doing their work no matter how small. SL93 (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

No-one has asked you to do that here, please don't invent strawmen to fight. What you have done instead is go out of your way to look at a nomination which has two nominators with zero DYK credits (per QPQ tool), who did not receive a single follow up from the original reviewer, and decide that this was a good nom to arbitrarily close per reasoning which has explicitly not gained consensus above. CMD (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

All I will say is that anyone can edit at the nomination, which you just did, and I honestly don't care about any of your comments at the moment so it is better for you not to respond to me in this discussion. SL93 (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there a special vetting process for prep builders, or can anybody do it? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: Anyone can do it! There may be a slight learning curve, but it is greatly simplified by WP:PSHAW. CMD (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: I'd also say to quickly give WP:DYKSG#J a skim, but really, just jump in :) there are lots of people around here willing to help you out whenever you're stuck. My talk page is always open – don't be afraid to make mistakes and you'll do great! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Anyone can do it! You've got about a dozen DYKs, so you know basically what you're checking for What you're trying to do is achieve balance both between and within sets. So if the preceding set had a bio in the image slot, look for a non-bio for the image. Alternate bios/non-bios within the set. No more than 2-3 US hooks, and try to avoid more than one music/military/history/whatever subject. Look for something quirky for the final slot.

Once you've filled a prep, open a section here and ask for feedback. Valereee (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Akshata Murty

Queue 7: Akshata Murty (nom) needs some attention. The hook says she is richer than King Charles III but the cited source only goes as far as likely ... to be richer than their monarch—but only if King Charles III’s personal wealth is defined in very specific ways. We're saying more than the hook supports. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

how about saying something like "Murty reportedly has more personal wealth than"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• I just noticed this on the main page at the last minute before the change at midnight. This should not have been run because:

1. The King and the PM's wife are major figures who should be taken more seriously
2. The supposed valuation was dated in October of last year but that's three months ago and such valuations are quite volatile
3. The valuation did not clarify the extent to which her wealth is personal or should be attributed to the couple or whatever their family arrangements are
4. The valuation excluded the Crown estate which is the subject of a complex arrangement per the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 which gives the monarch a substantial income. This income stream is a form of wealth worth billions.
5. Valuations are generally problematic as they are often paper values and you can't really be sure what something is worth until you actually sell it. Titles such as "richest man in the world" are frequently bandied about and so seem attractive for hooks but are best avoided for such reasons.

Andrew🐉(talk) 00:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback requested for first time promoting hooks

Following the discussion at User talk:Valereee#Help at DYK I've put together Template:Did you know/Preparation area 7 and would welcome any feedback, since it's my first time doing this. - Aoidh (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to help!

Re: the Ravenshoe hook...that hook doesn't meet the nonfiction requirement at C6 in the Supplementary Rules, I don't think. (And I'm not sure I see where it was approved, it looks like it was suggested by RoySmith but never got approved?) ALT2 works, though. Valereee (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Whoops! I saw the J section of those rules since it was linked in the Prep area but didn't scroll up to that section, I'll take a moment to read over that whole thing top to bottom to get an idea of what to look for moving forward, but I've replaced that hook with ALT2 in the meantime. - Aoidh (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

First, thanks for pitching in to help! As for C6, I'm not even sure why we have that rule, but I'll cover that in another thread. In this thread, I mostly wanted to thank you for helping. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. I found the previous discussion on this. I'm not in agreement with that outcome, but I've got bigger fish to fry today. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore if you're busy; the point of C6 is that when we're dealing with a fictional world, literally anything can happen. So any hook that doesn't connect somehow to the real world is basically a hooks that says: ... that in [a fictional universe], X happened? Valereee (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that. But, this is a work of literature. What's interesting is the work, not that Mark Twain owned a copy of it. But those fish aren't frying themselves, and I'm not saying anything that wasn't said in the RFC, so I'll leave it there. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Did someone say fish fry? Valereee (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: What a coincidence, I just put together the refs section on that page yesterday :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw, that was a good thing. That's how I found the discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you've done well for a first timer. I just shuffled it slightly so the quirky hook goes to the last. BorgQueen (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I think either of those would work in the quirky, actually.

Aoidh, there are eighty gazillion rules here, so do not feel even a little bit like you need to know all of them before you can promote. This is what I meant when I said people will comment (and keep commenting) on your preps. I probably built a dozen or more before I built a set that had zero comments from anyone.

Re:other people shuffling/swapping things -- totally normal for other people to shuffle things within a set you built, or to swap an item from a set you built into a different set. It can be because they needed an X hook in that set, or because they needed to get a Y hook out of that set.

When you're working on a set, it's fine if you do a few hooks and then need to step away. If someone sees that you haven't added anything in an hour or so, they'll assume you're indicating you aren't still actively working, and they may start in. You should feel free to do the same, especially in the case of a set that is nearing the top of the pile and still needs a hook or two. If the last editor hasn't edited in the last hour or so, feel free to complete the set. Some people never do full sets, soe people almost always do. Totally up to you how you prefer to work, although if you try to for instance fill all the image slots (or all the quirkies), it's likely to be considered annoying. :) Valereee (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah nothing jumped out at me as "oh this is very quirky" so I went with what I thought was the best case one but I can see either one working there. I'm also perfectly fine with (and this early on expect) others coming behind and swapping/fixing things so I will not be bothered by anything like that. Nobody's said "this is terrible take it all down and we'll start over" so I consider that a win. :) - Aoidh (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

lol...you'll do fine here. Valereee (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not check your work, but I was enthused to see you jump in there. You stepped up and I appreciate it very much! Also thanks to the the BorgQueen. Bruxton (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Aoidh. This is a genuine question, how did you pick up Template:Did you know nominations/R. K. Padmanabha? I thought I moved it out of approved, and no later tick was given to it, so I'm wondering if it made its way back to approved somehow or if you saw it was ready from the wider nom page? CMD (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: No that's a fair question and that's my mistake, the first three hooks that I added were from WP:DYKN rather than WP:DYKNA because I misread and messed up on that account. I later saw the mistake and pulled from the right area for the remainder. I saw the tick and the concern about QPQ which was later rectified so I thought it was good to go, but if that needs to be removed I have no objection to that. I'd do it myself but that is the part I'm concerned I'd mess up; since it's no longer in the WP:DYKNA queue would it need to be manually re-added and this edit undone or would there be some other way of doing that? - Aoidh (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, it's not a problem that requires fixing! You are correct that the issue was later rectified, but no-one put a new tick on it. For future reference, to pull it you would indeed revert your edit to the prep page and manually re-add to DYKNA, however, to re-emphasise, it is not an issue in this particular case. CMD (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

References

International Women's Day, March 8

@DYK admins: @Ipigott and SusunW: and everyone else. Please hold open a Special Occasion holding area for March 8. We may be getting nominations from both Women in Green and WP:WIR. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Sweet Bruxton (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I've had User:RoySmith/drafts/Loretta Staples on my todo list for a couple of years now. I guess it's time to dust it off. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Maile66 I wasn't sure how early we could create the special holding area, so appreciate you taking the lead on setting this up. SusunW (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@SusunW: I don't think there's any set time for such requests. But when it's an international event, better to give as much advance notice as possible. You never know if it will end up being two nominations, or enough nominations to fill two sets (it's happened). — Maile (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Are there any kinds of articles you're looking for to make it a varied set? Like, events in women's history; women from underrepresented geographic regions; topics related to women's rights? Kingsif (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I would say any of those aspects. The more variety, the better. The idea is to celebrate accomplished women around the world. Doesn't matter what part of the world, or what they accomplished. — Maile (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Maile. I think it'd be really cool if we could do a whole set dedicated solely to women and all their diversity. Various periods of history, various accomplishments, various locations. SusunW (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh I like that idea @SusunW:. I will have to hunt down a good subject to write about. Bruxton (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@SusunW: I helped do that set last year, and I'd be happy to do so again this year :) we only get 8–16 slots for the day, so if you wanna give us lots more, we'll slot 'em in for Women's History Month! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Theleekycauldron for all you do at DYK. It's a hard platform for me, but I'll try to give an article or two. SusunW (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm almost certainly going to have one new dyk-compliant BLP up by then, in case someone's doing the mental math on how many articles they need to write. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

if there's one thing that can get me out of a DYK break, it's an upcoming special occasion set... Kingsif (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

SailRail

@Aoidh, Ritchie333, Hog Farm, and Theleekycauldron: Prep 7: SailRail (nom) still has some cleanup work that needs to get done, per my review comment. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Should it be pulled from Prep 7? I don't mind doing that and swapping it out with something in the approved queue. - Aoidh (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

IMO that's probably best. Having read through it with fresh eyes after looking at it too much in early December/late November, I'm starting to think the scope needs some definition - there's some lack of clarity between if this is a unified sort of program, or just related things with similar names. Hog Farm _Talk 02:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Prep 7 won't hit the main page for almost 2 weeks. That's plenty of time to do the relatively minor editing in the article text to clarify things. So I'd just leave it where it is and avoid the busywork of pulling it. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, see Hog Farm's comment right above this (looks like we edit-conflicted). -- RoySmith (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see your comment until after Hog Farm's, and went ahead and pulled it. Just to make sure I did it right since I haven't done this before, I undid the approval on the nom page, re-added it to the queue, and then removed it from Prep 7. If I missed a step please let me know, but if nothing else it was at least practice for me to figure out how to properly pull something from the queue. - Aoidh (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the article with Hog Farm's comments in mind there are some issues with the scope being unclear, also the United States section because it says "a SailRail ticket can be purchased" but neither the source nor the ticket issuers call it SailRail but rather "Sail & Rail" so it's not accurate to say you can purchase a SailRail ticket, which kind of makes it sound like it's the same program as the British one. - Aoidh (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Aoidh: Perfect! The one thing I also usually do when pulling a nom is make sure there's an unapproved tick with an explanation so that it doesn't automatically move it to the approved page, but luckily, doesn't look like that's necessary. In the future, if the last tick on a page isn't or , I'd suggest pinging the reviewer to see if they still object, where applicable. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I think you got all the things, but I usually depend on @Theleekycauldron to look over my shoulder :-) Yeah, going through the process for practice is a good thing too. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for checking behind me. I added a new hook in its place in the meantime. - Aoidh (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to progress with this. Maybe just close the nomination as "no consensus". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hold on: I can probably help here with my access to specialist sources. Have just seen this on my watchlist. Will also comment on nom template. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

“Bowl-game” in prep 3

Pinging Ravenpuff who made this change, could we switch “bowl-game” back to “bowl game”? As far as I know, that term is never hyphenated, or at least I’ve never seen it hyphenated. Thank you! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It's because it's serving as an adjective compound modifier in that instance, which is compliant with MOS:HYPHEN. So you know that it's a victory in a bowl game, not a game victory which is bowl. Another option would be to reword to "victory in a bowl game" or similar. The thing is, while "bowl game" is probably an everyday obvious term to everyone in North America, it's likely many in the rest of the world won't know what that is, so helping them parse it is part of the goal here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyright issues with GA The Thing About Pam (queue 5)

While looking at recent GA and upcoming DYK The Thing About Pam, I noticed the strange phrasing a self-appointed "businesswoman". Googling this led me to other sites that had used that phrase, which prompted me to audit the article for copyright violations. I found a number of issues that, while each relatively small on their own (the sort of mistake plenty of editors make from time when paraphrasing), add up to something I find troubling. Others of these are too small to be issues at all (i.e. non-copyrightable but distinctive snippets of a few words), but are included to show the general pattern.

Copied text	Original text	Source
The studio's intent is to produce documentaries, docu-series, select scripted programming, and content for emerging platforms.	NBC News Studios was launched in January, 'part of a bid by NBC News to produce premium documentaries, docu-series, select scripted programming, and content for emerging platforms, including streaming-video outlets.	Variety: NBC News, Blumhouse Set Scripted Series Based on Dateline Story (Earwig's)
Since 2014, Dateline has devoted several episodes to the story and created a podcast centered around the case in 2019 titled "The Thing About Pam".	“Dateline” has devoted several episodes to the murder of Besty Faria in 2011, a case in which her husband was originally sentenced, then freed as another suspect came to the fore.
Producer Cathy Singer decides to devote several episodes of Dateline NBC to a story about Betsy.
Meanwhile, television producers sought to devote several episodes from Dateline NBC to Betsy's story, which uncovers Pam's past and makes her a suspect in the case.
At the time of its announcement, NBC News Studios had already struck partnerships with Focus Features and Blumhouse Television, with the latter revealing they were in negotiations to develop and produce scripted programs based on stories told on Dateline.	The new studio, which Cole will lead as president, has already struck partnerships with Focus Features and Blumhouse Television.	Variety: NBC News Launches Documentary Studio for Streaming-Video Era (Earwig's)
Judy Greer as Leah Askey, the Lincoln County prosecutor who tried Russ Faria twice for his wife's murder.	Greer will play Leah Askey, the former Lincoln County prosecutor who tried Russ Faria twice for his wife’s murder.	Deadline: The Thing About Pam: Judy Greer & Katy Mixon Join NBC Limited Series (Earwig's)
On August 24, it was announced Borsiczky had exited the series as writer and showrunner due to creative differences but that she would remain an executive producer for the time being; Klein was appointed as the new showrunner.	Jessika Borsiczky also is credited as executive producer for the time being; she exited recently as writer-showrunner over creative differences.
Josh Duhamel as Joel Schwartz, the defense attorney for Russ Faria.	Duhamel will play Joel Schwartz, the defense attorney for Russ Faria.	Deadline: Josh Duhamel Joins Renée Zellweger In NBC Limited Series The Thing About Pam (Earwig's)
Renée Zellweger as Pam Hupp, a self-appointed "businesswoman" arrested for the murder of Betsy Faria.	Ironically, this having been the one that got me looking, it's less conclusive. It comes up in a few sources, but all slightly postdate the addition. So either they're copying us, or everyone's copying some other source that isn't coming up in Google.

Assuming that this is the extent of the copyright issues, then fixing this is as simple as rewording four sentences. But I'm hoping some others can take a look at this; I've not been in this situation before. Pings @A person in Georgia, Onegreatjoke, Lullabying, Bruxton, and BorgQueen: as author, GA-reviewer/DYK-nom, DYK reviewer, promoter, and queue approver respectively. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, some of those phrases are so short and standard that they fall under "there is no reasonable other way to phrase this without over-explaining". Some probably need more examination, like Greer's role. When it comes to the part on business, I wonder if the editor was unfamiliar with what the source meant so just used their words to not be inaccurate… obviously also needs examination, but it's not severe even all together. Kingsif (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin thanks for your diligence. I agree with Kingsif here. Bruxton (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Nikkimaria in the hopes that she can take a look before the article hits the main page. I'm less confident that these is acceptable usage; for example, there are other ways to convey the Borsiczky departure that are not nearly so close. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the "self-appointed businesswoman" language is problematic for tone reasons but not close paraphrasing; I do agree that some of these though should be rephrased or quoted. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Why not just make more preps some sandboxes?

Although the calendar says it's the middle of winter, it was like a spring day today so I went out for a bike ride. Along the way, I had an epiphany. The only reason folks don't want to go to 2 sets/day is because we're worried it'll be too much workload for the available workers. Right now, it looks like we're in good shape, but who knows if the recent recruits will stay around long enough to get us through N weeks of 2-per-day?

So, why don't we just create a bunch more prep templates of sandboxes, and let people continue to promote hooks into those? Right now, we've got 14 sets worth of buffer (7 queues and 7 preps). Let's spin up 14 sandbox areas, then we'll have 28 sets worth of buffer. We don't need to alter the main queue/prep rotations. Just have the 14 sandboxes on the side somewhere and when space opens up in one of the 7 preps, just do a copy-paste from a sandbox to a prep. Once we've got a bunch of sandboxes filled in addition to the preps, then we can switch over to 2-per-day without any significant risk of running out of labor before we get the approved pool down to where we want it. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes please! From a new recruit point of view, it has been very confusing to hear that there aren't enough promoters when there appears to be very little empty space to fill and/or technical issues, so this sounds like a good plan. It would be nice if we could see the other prep templates in the sandbox (so we have some awareness of what else is coming up)...but whatever works. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron how much work would it be to modify PSHAW to add "sandbox 1" through "sandbox 14" to the destination menu? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not a bad idea at all. But, is our problem that we do not have sufficient hands for "building" preps or that there is not sufficient space in the prep queues? My understanding is that it is the former, but, when the former was surfaced -- it opened up a set of new volunteers and now there is no space in the prep queues? Ktin (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense I know Leeky discussed this before. I cannot remember where Bruxton (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Ktin the worry is that (with apologies to the new recruits) that if we go to a faster schedule, the people who are doing the work now may not stick around, and then we'll be back to too few people trying to do too much work. Search way upthread for "DYK signup sheet" and you'll observe that nobody has been willing to commit. If we can pre-load enough completed preps to get us through a full 2-per-day sprint, that should alleviate those concerns. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith I'm happy to sign up for the faster schedule, as I'm sure others are as well. How long of a time period do you expect needing extra hands for? (It seems like a many hands make light work situation.) You can put my name in whichever sign-up box you like, for whatever you need. (Think it's hard for people to put their name in a box with no examples, plus that was many threads ago.) Cielquiparle (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm also still up for promoting. SL93 (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Not much work at all on my end – but you should know that adding more preps has been very controversial in ages past. Getting a seventh prep was a knock-down drag-out discussion (that didn't lower the backlog all that much), much less 14 sandboxes.

What I would like instead is not 14 sandboxes, but probably between one and four – these sandboxes would have no maximum size, and would not rotate with other preps.

For those asking, the problem is that we don't have enough promoters. One solution for this would be backlog drives – but given that the preps and queues together can only hold 112 hooks max at any one time, that's not the most feasible if we want drives of scale. So even if we wanted more promoters, we're not currently set up to retain them in a way that doesn't involve the janky solution of switching between 12- and 24-hour cycles.

What the non-rotating sandboxes solve is that they have no maximum size, so we can hold as many backlog drives as we want and those sets will fill – then, we take the overfull sandboxes and parcel them out into preps whenever we need to. This scheduling can be done by the same people who do the promoting, no problem. This could definitely work in concert with any other solutions we might propose, such as QPQ requirements or incentive.

That said, I'd reaaally like to have a more structured way of throwing ideas out there. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I like having the same number of preps as queues. This makes calculating when a prep will run much easier. There are special events requiring a particular day, and when we had multiple hooks per day I would deliberately schedule for a particular time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The sandboxes would be outside of the prep/queue scheduling system. If you had a hook that was supposed to run on a certain day, you would still put it in the right prep area based on the calendar that's currently published. The sandboxes wouldn't be in any particular order; they're just a way to stage some work in advance so when things start happening quickly, we're not in perpetual catch-up mode trying to assemble prep sets at the last minute. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, that's the point of non-rotation of the sandboxes – they're not whole sets, so they don't need to rotate, they're just buffers/storage areas. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Would they still be in sets of 8? I'm all for this idea if they're still structured the same as the prep areas since where they go seems as important as that they go, and I'd love to help build more queues; at the moment there's nothing that needs filling out prep-wise and I feel like I'm in hurry up and wait mode. - Aoidh (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Would you minding linking to that discussion about adding the seventh prep? I'd like to see what the objections were to it, given that there's obviously a need for more prep areas I can't imagine what the downside would be. - Aoidh (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Aoidh: Sorry for the delay! You can find it at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 169#7 queues and preps. It doesn't seem to have been controversial, although I do see some predictions that it'll be mostly unhelpful re: backlog reduction. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I realized now that I confused the issue by calling these additional spaces "preps" in one place and "sandboxes" in the other. I've struck my original use of "prep" to emphasize that these are outside of the normal prep area. They're not in any particular order, they're not beholden to the schedule. But, I do think they need to be in 8-hook sets. A big part of building a hook set is complying with the rules about too many biographies, similar hook types adjacent to each other, and so on. You want to be able to get that sorted out in the sandboxes. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

A week or two ahead seems plenty. Usually we're in trouble when the preps and queues are empty; right now the preps and queues are full and we have too many accepted noms so they don't transclude any more. We need to either (a) go to two sets per day or (b) decline two dozen approved noms. Going to two sets per day would have the additional benefit of allowing the recent potential prep builder recruits to do some of the work. We could go back to one set per day if we run out of filled preps and queues, not just when we run out of approved noms. —Kusma (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We probably do need to go to two preps a day for a spell. If there was only one prep builder I would say no, but atm there are a few. If it stalls out, we go back to one. Bruxton (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'm just waiting for the categorising bot to be fully accurate/cover all bases, so we can then ask the delightful bot builders to have another bot use its data to build sets automatically, that then just need the article and hook checked for accuracy (rather than also trying to build a balanced set) - presumably when the categorising is all worked out, someone could build a bot that can check how many US/bio/image, etc., hooks there are (so it knows what kind of hook to use in the image slot, and how many of the US/bio hooks can be in each set) and can move the relevant code from nom to prep sets when filling them up. Without needing to build sets, just check for accuracy and policy, fewer users will be needed at that stage. Let the bots take over or something. Kingsif (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I haven't been following the discussion that closely, but just a note that I am hoping to get back into prep building as well in the near future if someone is keeping tabs of how many active users are around. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

• Just chiming in here, but one reason why we have so few prep builders is simply because of the pressures involved. You're always going to be worried that something will go wrong since there may be issues that reviewers may have missed, or you will miss any existing issues. It's hard enough when you have to check eight articles, but even more so if you have to keep doing it. I do wonder if one way to mitigate this would be to encourage collaborative prep-building: like instead of relying on one person to do an entire prep, multiple editors could individually promote just some hooks. Of course, there still needs to be someone who will oversee everything and make sure that sets meet guidelines, but maybe splitting work could help ease the burden? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. I had noted it above in my text dump last evening. We need to break down "prep-building" to "hook-promoting". That way, individual editors can use TLC's Pshaw tool and promote hooks to a prep or a sandbox after doing their due diligence. If needed, someone at a later point can shuffle the hooks etc. Pasting my comment from yesterday again.

  There is a genuine concern that Valeree and others have called out about the lack of volunteers for prep-building. I will let others weigh in creative ways to remedy this situation. I will add my two ideas. Currently, there is a perceived heaviness to this action and hence folks are perhaps intimidated by the process of "prep-building". I can definitely speak for myself. My suggestion to you all is break it down into "Hook-promotion" instead of "Prep-building". Hook-promotion atomizes the actions and makes it less of a perceived barrier. Also I had a chance to look at TLC's PSHAW tool and it can be used to promote hooks atomically. Encourage more editors to use the tool and promote hooks in case they are intimidated to "build-preps". If you want bake it into the QPQ process. Review 2 hooks or promote 1 hook. Alternately, review 1 hook and promote 1 hook. Yes, there is a notion for hook cohesion etc. which can easily be achieved. e.g. if you want the last hook to be always be quirky, bake that into the PSHAW tool by a simple label against the last hook saying a text "(preferably quirky)". Ktin (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

What I personally like about this corner of the project is that it is accessible to ordinary editors. I am afraid adding another layer of QPQ may make this section less accessible. As Narutolovehinata5 said, prepping is not easy at all. It is frought with callbacks, and we already have people who nominate a hook and then go dark for weeks. Bruxton (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dietrich v The Queen

This nomination would normally be ineligible under either the previous rule regarding bolded OTD entries being completely ineligible for DYK, or the newly-revised rules where they are ineligible if they have appeared on ITN within a year prior. The nominator, who I should note appears to be new to DYK, is asking for a one-time exemption for the rules considering the circumstances of the nomination and the hard work they did towards the article. Considering the circumstances, should IAR be granted in this case? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This article was passed as a GA on November 4, nominated on November 8, and appeared at OTD with a nice entry on November 13, so it presumably was seen by a lot of people very shortly after the article achieved GA status, which did reward the hard work. New or recently expanded articles have had their DYK nominations preempted by an In the News or On This Day appearance before the nomination reaches the main page via DYK; how is this any different? If the OTD had appeared close to a year ago, that would be one thing, but this hit the main page right away. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yup, that is too recent. I'm going to close the nom. BorgQueen (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

New DYK nomination: I did something wrong...

I just tried to nominate Isabel Cooper (artist) for DYK, but I appear to have gone terribly awry in the nomination formatting. Instead of showing a nomination that looks like the others, I have a mess. I went to 'edit source', but the message there indicated "...if you have already created the subpage as per the instructions and arrived here to transclude your subpage, you may proceed as normal". Sadly I don't know what it means to transclude a page, so I am lost as to how to fix this. sorry for the mess, and I appreciate any help on fixing this. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Never mind...I found the culprit (missing "]]")). DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@DaffodilOcean, for future reference, there is a tool you can use that will correctly format a nomination for you! It's at Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination Valereee (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I did use the tool, but I missed that the preview looked wrong until after I hit submit. This is entirely my fault. DaffodilOcean (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Totally not your fault. :) Sorry, didn't mean to imply I thought you somehow weren't savvy enough to know there was a tool, if that's how I came off! Valereee (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Enough is enough

To quote Captain Picard, "The line must be drawn here. This far, no further!" I am referring to the insanity on display at Template:Did you know nominations/Galina Pisarenko. This was nominated on October 28, 2022, by Gerda Arendt. Editors promptly spent over two months workshopping at least NINETEEN different alts. The DYKN page is not only longer than the article, it's longer than many good articles. It was finally promoted today. I am sick and tired of certain editors receiving preferential treatment at DYK just because they complain a lot. Numerous editors have bent over backwards time and time again for Gerda's hooks, and now it has gone TOO FAR.

I'm not really a DYK regular, I've done maybe a dozen hooks or so since I started in July 2021. But I keep tabs on what goes on here, and I am extremely disappointed to see how things have proceeded in this regard. And so I cannot remain silent. This preferential treatment must end. Nobody else would get the luxury of nineteen different alts suggested to turn an article arguably unfit for DYK into something that can go on the main page. This is an insult to each and every editor who has ever had a hook rejected for failing the "interesting" criterion.

I am well aware this comment will cause drama. I don't care. My own principles require that I speak my mind here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Gerda has said she will take a step back from DYK, I think in that regard the problem is solved. We like to offer many chances, and you're right that most people wouldn't receive so many; in large part, this is because most people wouldn't ask for any. I've voluntarily withdrawn more than one of my noms for far lesser sins than "literally nothing interesting to say until two other users expand the article and a dozen alts get workshopped". The other part is that Gerda is a valued prolific content creator - not all of that content needs to feature at DYK, but offering the chance too many times has been a mix of reward (for the content creation) and motivation (for more). For a bit of perspective on why I have, year after year, taken the time to help make Gerda's articles main page fit. But, yeah, Gerda said she'll step back, and you know such treatment isn't common with other users - is there anything else to address? Kingsif (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Gerda has been a prolific contributor here. I am not sure that is preferential treatment - I think it is just editors working to get the best hook. I for one will miss Gerda and her contributions here. Gerda has already decided to step back from her considerable contributions here. I agree that the fussing there is not ordinary, but we are all moving forward. Bruxton (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't want this to happen again, for anyone, not me, not you, not anybody else. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure it will, but you can always approach any noms you see getting out of hand quite ad-hoc; step in to BOLDly close, to paraphrase. Kingsif (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The problems surrounding such noms have been covered extensively, but I agree with Bruxton on the question of preferential treatment. Everyone gets a lot of chances here, the failure rate is low for all. CMD (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I will start out by saying that I do not know the specifics of this case. However, I do not believe the failure rate being low is an issue. I had posted my thoughts on this one yesterday.

To the concerns that the failure rate is too low, I think we should ask the question what are we doing here in this project. Being a volunteer driven encyclopedia and a volunteer driven project, our aim can either be a) act as a stage-gate and ensure that we strike down hooks that we deem not worthy of main-page (note that I am deliberately not using the word 'interesting' as of yet) are prevented from making it to the main-page? or is it b) act as an enabler to ensure that our readers get to see the best that we can collectively offer? The answer to this question will guide your perspective on the failure rate. To me the success rate of 89.3% (i.e. ~90%) indicates that reviewers and nominators were able to successfully shape 90% of the submissions and get them to main-page levels of quality. To me that is a win, no matter how you see it.

If a reviewer feels the back-and-forths are not consistent with their desired time investment -- it is not unreasonable to excuse oneself and wait for another reviewer / nominator to come-in and work the review if they are so interested. That is perfectly alright in my opinion. Best of all, it will act as a feedback loop to the nominators, and at the same time ensure the best for our readers. Ktin (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think I do have to agree that some of the concerns about Gerda's hooks being given special treatment are not without warrant. It can be argued for example that her hooks have had a de-facto exemption from the broad interest requirement; indeed, the recent discussion to change that particular criterion was started over one of her nominations. Hooks by other editors that are deemed not to meet the criterion have been rejected in the past, but it is extremely rare for similar hooks by Gerda to receive the same treatment; indeed, in the rare times where her nominations were closed for a lack of a suitable hook, it was not without controversy. While we can all agree that Gerda is a valued part of our community and her taking a break from DYK is regrettable, we do have rules that need to be followed. Just because an editor complains does not mean that their wishes should be granted all the time, especially if their interests are in conflict with DYK's and the community's. In the end, no one, not even the nominator, has ownership of their nominations. Rules need to be followed, even if it means letting nominations fail or not nominating articles for DYK at all. Not every article is meant for DYK and it's not wrong for things to fall through, even if it can be painful. We need to be accepting of the idea that nominations can be failed if they fail to meet the requirements, even if it personally hurts (I'm sure we've all been through that at least once in our DYK careers). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

This is also not specific to Gerda. Personally, I have rejected her hooks before, similar to hooks from other editors which did not come off well. At the same time, many many non-Gerda hooks get through without being that interesting. Remember the series of Taylor Swift hooks? Gerda is prolific, so examples come up a lot, but this is not the same as individual preference.

With that in mind, I agree with Kingsif that there is not much point to this thread, as the general issue is being discussed elsewhere. CMD (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this meant to refute my point? Because I think the Taylor Swift hooks were ridiculous as well and another example of how rules are not being consistently applied to nominations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

My reading was that this section was about "preferential treatment...for Gerda's hooks". Is it instead a general statement that things should be changed? We recently made the interestingness criterion more explicit, hopefully that makes things clearer. CMD (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pretty much. Basically, I do feel that it is somewhat unfair that just because an editor is a well-regarded member of our community means that we have to give them a pass on our rules. The rules need to be applied to everyone fairly regardless of their tenure, and giving one editor a pass but not applying the same to other editors would be very unfair to other editors. We need to be consistent in our rules, even if it means it would affect our own hooks (I for one have declined to nominate several of my own articles for DYK owing to a lack of suitable hook options, and other editors probably have similar experiences). This issue isn't necessarily about Gerda alone but in general; theoretically this concern could apply to any editor. It just so happened that Gerda was the most common editor to have this kind of concern, but it's not like it could have happened to anyone else. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no time for another discussion that's too long, I began one further up, #see you later. The shortest possible way: when I joined DYK it was about articles and facts, and now it seems about hooks and their views count. Read above: an article about a young baritone was taken, because the hook was super, and an article about a soprano who worked for decades and influenced generations of singers by teaching was rejected. I don't have the language to cope with that. I brought her to RD, for a five-digit view count - that I can handle. I can give you the articles I work on here, and you do with them what you please. Kurt Horres. Happy new year! I look forward to writing about a Bach cantata, the title translates more or less to enough is enough. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Back to 2 sets a day

@DYK admins: It has been suggested by RoySmith to go back to two sets a day while we figure something out for prep builders and to see how it works out. Bruxton has agreed elsewhere. I'm fine with it. We have a few more editors who are interested in building preps. All queues and preps are currently full. It looks like it's time to go back to 2 sets a day. SL93 (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: just making sure you aren't accidentally left out of the loop on switching to two sets a day. I haven't had time to keep up with the above threads on this issue, so have no opinion as of yet. — Maile (talk) 04:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Just don't forget that I also said our mode switch criteria must include some measure of available work capacity, not just pending submission count. So, how about we bail out of 2-per-day mode if we ever get to less than 4 full queues and 4 full preps, no matter how many approved noms we've still got? -- RoySmith (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

👍🏼 Kingsif (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Fine by me. SL93 (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Which, I think, is what we've been doing all along. If we have all preps filled, and we have a backlog of approved hooks, we've been going to two a day. One or more somebodys here keeps an eye on the two-a-day backlog, and then lets us know when we're lacking in prep so we can go back to one set a day. — Maile (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Maile, thanks for the ping. We've actually done the switches, for the most part, when the approved numbers hit their requisite levels of sub-60 and 120 or above, but the last couple of times we've tried to avoid the switch to two-a-day if the preps and queues aren't filled sufficiently to sustain at least several days of twice daily set promotions. I think the first time we topped 120 in December, there were only four sets filled; it was clearly a bad time to go to twice daily.

Eight of fourteen seems too high as a minimum to me, since if we drop below it we still have enough for a full week at one per day. Also, requiring at least four of each type seems unnecessarily fussy. May I suggest continuing until we drop below six filled sets in any combination of preps and queues, though there should be at least one queue filled at all times. Otherwise, I think we're clearly in a position to go back to two a day for now with all seven queues and seven preps completely filled and 143 approved hooks waiting for promotion. (That's 255 approved hooks between queues, preps, and the main section of the Approved page.)

Just a reminder: the third hook in Queue 6 is a special occasion hook for January 9, even though it isn't labeled as such, and if we go to two a day, it will need to be moved to a later set. Which one depends on whether we start two a day at midnight tonight—probably simplest—or start at noon UTC, a mere five-plus hours from now. I would suggest that the target set for this hook be the one that runs from midnight to noon UTC on January 9, which is 01:00 to 13:00 in Germany. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that six full whatevers is a better threshold. I would suggest to switch asap, not wait another day. —Kusma (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You want to switch now, so that a new set runs a midday? I can make that change, if its the consensus view here. Happy to muck in as and when I can in queue promotions too.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ve swapped it. Agree that it’s high time; it’s no good when the nomination page can’t handle transclusions any longer. Schwede66 07:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I went to bed thinking we had reached a compromise which I wasn't happy with, but could live with. I woke up to find out that the plan had been eviscerated. Six finished sets in the pipeline is not enough. One filled queue is living in a state of perpetual crisis. Not at all what I had in mind. When the frantic calls for help go out, don't look at me. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Six finished sets is three days at 2/day, and if they aren't replenished quickly and we switch to 1/day at that point, we'll have scheduled content for four or five days, which isn't a crisis. —Kusma (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. More to the point, this thread started out with "RoySmith said we should do this" and then what got done was something very different from what I had suggested. So, OK, it's done. We'll see how things go. I just want it clear that if things go badly, people shouldn't start pointing fingers at me. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the new consensus that we should go back to 1/day not just if we go under 60 approved, but also if we run out of completed preps/queues is already a significant step towards being more considerate of prep builders and their workload. Is that enough? I don't know, but it should help. —Kusma (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@DYK admins: @BlueMoonset, RoySmith, and Kusma: I have not been reading all of the above. Whatever is decided here, please please, post it and bold it somewhere so we know what is expected of the prep builders and promoters. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Update to rotation rules

There is some consensus (not by a very large crowd) above that the switch to 1-a-day should also happen when we run low on prep/queue sets, not just when we get below 60 approved noms. Also, switching to 2-a-day is delayed depending on prep/queue fullness. So the suggestion is to clarify/update the rule to something like

• If there are more than 120 approved nominations while at least ten prep/queue sets are filled, we rotate to two sets per day. If there are fewer than 60 approved nominations or fewer than six filled prep/queue sets, we change to one set per day.

Or am I overlooking something? —Kusma (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Six is too low. More critically, we need some minimum number of filled queues, not an aggregate "queues and preps" count. Filled queues are what makes the system work. We've often been in the situation of having a number of filled preps, but we're down to a single filled queue (or sometimes none at all) and frantic calls go out to admins to move some preps to the queues before the world comes to an end. People are worried about nominations not getting transcluded into an intermediate holding area as if that's a failure which has any real effect on how things work. The real failure mode is the clock ticks over and there's nothing ready to move onto the main page. Queue occupancy is the important variable that needs to be monitored. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That failure mode hasn't occurred for years. (Most common failure is when the bot goes down). We usually have enough people ready to move prep to queue if necessary, and the colour coding introduced recently has made the situation better. Six days is plenty. —Kusma (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm actually more concerned that six might be too high and cause us to switch back to 1-a-day too early. Currently the minimum number of preps/queues to run 2-a-day is zero. —Kusma (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Kusma, I think we need an adequate supply of preps/queues, and I remember thinking that four was worryingly low when we were down to that level last month. Six seemed a reasonably safe bottom number, while eight felt excessive to me in that regard, hence my post earlier. I like your summation of over 120 approved plus at least ten filled preps/queues to start two-a-day, with a switch out below 60 approved or below six filled preps/queues; it's long been a weakness of the method we've been using that the variation in filled preps/queues hasn't been considered at all. Like you, I also can't remember getting down to the point where there wasn't anything to promote to the main page when the bot went to do so. We also haven't had problems getting preps promoted when we ask the admins—they're usually happy to do so, but frequently don't think to check to see whether promotions are needed. I think we'll all be monitoring things more closely during the just-started two-a-day period to keep things going as smoothly as possible. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The most worrying issue if the queue has to be filled last minute is that the promoting admin doesn't have time to run the full gamut of checks expected. As such, it is very sensible to keep several queues filled, assuming people do actually complete those checks when the queue they promoted goes live a couple of days later. If it hasn't been checked, it would actually be preferable not to run that set and just let the existing one stay on for a other round as we don't want incorrect information hitting the main page.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the "120/60/whatever approved count", how is that determined? I'm guessing it's a count of how many have been transcluded into WP:DYKN/A, and shown as the "Total" value at the bottom of the "Count of DYK Hooks" table? The problem is that many of the noms in N/A aren't actually approved. They had a tick at one time so got botified into N/A, but have subsequently been unapproved by a {{DYK?no}} or similar query. We should really be counting "currently approved", not "had been approved at some time in the past".

I also don't understand the concern that we might "switch back to 1-a-day too early". Why is that a problem? The gap between when you switch modes in one direction vs in the other is called hysteresis. In physical systems it's important to have some hysteresis because there's a real cost to switching. Relay contacts are damaged by sparking. Motors have excessive inrush currents when they start up. Bearings have excessive wear before getting full oil flow. Flame igniters have a finite number of operations before they wear out. But, what's the cost to switching too soon in this case? As far as I can tell, it's a one line edit. I don't see the problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith, DYKHousekeepingBot creates the "Count of DYK Hooks" tables; it only counts noms as approved when the final icon is one of the two ticks. So the count is accurate whether the hook is on the Nominated or Approved page. The bot does not count special occasion hooks, and it can't read untranscluded hooks, so if the Approved page is overloaded and isn't transcluding all the hooks, it will only count those that are transcluded. In such cases, the total and approved/verified counts will be lower than they should be. For example, as I type this, there are eight untranscluded noms, so the count of 231 total and 135 approved hooks would likely be 239 and 143 respectively if the Approved page showed all the approved nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The bot does not count special occasion hooks, and it can't read untranscluded hooks. OK, that's the first good explanation I've heard so far as to why transclusion failures are a problem, thank you. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Special occasion hooks in the preps and queues also need manual adjustment. This is the main cost of switching between 1 and 2 per day. —Kusma (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Wait, I'm sorry, that raises a technical question for me. If I were writing DYKHousekeepingBot, I would have it run through the source texts of WP:DYKN and WP:DYKNA, find all of the links to nomination pages (minus s.o. noms), read them individually, and dissect them for parts. Does DYKHousekeepingBot read the raw HTML of the two list pages instead? That seems like a design flaw, attempting to depend on Wikipedia's ability to transclude hundreds of noms consistently... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, the bot was developed by Shubinator. I'll let him answer your technical question, since it's his code. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

How many bots are there making DYK limp along? I knew of WugBot. Now I know of DYKHousekeepingBot. And of course, I'm in the process of writing my own bot. I'm been a useful exercise in bot husbandry, but from a software engineering point of view, it seems like having so many different bots would be kind of a maintenance headache. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: See WP:DYKSB for a list of approved bots active at DYK. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh my. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kusma: I'll go along with your original suggestion, with the change that at least some of the sets have to be in queues:

• If there are more than 120 approved nominations while at least ten prep/queue sets are filled, we rotate to two sets per day. If there are fewer than 60 approved nominations, fewer than three filled queues, or fewer than six filled preps/queues combined, we change to one set per day.

There's some nice symmetry there in that "ten prep/queue sets" implies at least three queues (since at most seven of them can be preps). -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Posing the question

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.

---

With reference to the immediately preceeding discussion, there's two concrete suggestions that have been made:

A: If there are more than 120 approved nominations while at least ten prep/queue sets are filled, we rotate to two sets per day. If there are fewer than 60 approved nominations or fewer than six filled prep/queue sets, we change to one set per day.

B: If there are more than 120 approved nominations while at least ten prep/queue sets are filled, we rotate to two sets per day. If there are fewer than 60 approved nominations, fewer than three filled queues, or fewer than six filled preps/queues combined, we change to one set per day.

Can we pick one of those and move on, please? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• I prefer A because it is simpler, but I won't argue further against B. —Kusma (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  With C in the mix, I am A > C > B. —Kusma (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• I prefer B because it controls what's important to control. But I'm hoping we get input from more than just the two of us. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• Prefer A as it's simpler. Although still in favour of 16 hour hook sets rather than this constant 12/24 hour changing. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Does that mean you'd volunteer to be in charge of making sure everything is on schedule? It means keeping up with a rotating shift: Day one: Midnight, 4pm; Day two: noon; Day 3: 4am, midnight. Repeat. You'll need to know whether today is a Day 1, Day 2, or Day 3. No two days in a row on the same schedule. No two weeks in a row on the same daily schedule. Oh, and you'll need to keep track of which admins can be pinged at which times of day or night if one of the bots stops working. It would be WAY less complicated to increase output by going to 3 sets of 4 hooks per day (or 2 of 6, or any combo that divides a 24-hour day evenly), but that still wouldn't solve the problem of too much work for the current typical staffing levels. Valereee (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think both of them are fine. BorgQueen (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• i admittedly have not been following the discussion on this topic closely, but what if we simply dropped the third disjunction in option b?

  C: If there are more than 120 approved nominations while at least ten prep/queue sets are filled, we rotate to two sets per day. If there are fewer than 60 approved nominations or fewer than three filled queues, we change to one set per day.

  i think this keeps the rule simple while also "control[ling] what's important to control". option b only covers six cases not covered by option c: 3 sets queued with 2, 1, or 0 sets prepped; 4 sets queued with 1 or 0 sets prepped; and 5 sets queued with 0 sets prepped. in each of those cases, i assume it's okay to keep the pace at two sets per day for at least one more set. (also, realistically, i think those six cases are fairly rare.)
  personally, i'm fine with any reasonable option. dying (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Prefer B because it does what we need it to do (which is prevent going to 2-a-days when there aren't enough people currently building preps, and possibly gets people's attention to the fact the backlog is building up and there aren't enough people building preps), but I will support A if that's what can get consensus. Valereee (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Valereee, I'm not sure of your logic here. Both A and B require a minimum of six prep/queues to stay 2 a day, but B also requires three queues (allowing fewer filled preps if there are six total sets filled). On the other side, to go two a day, you need 10 preps/queues with both A and B (and C, for that matter), but if it's 3 queues and all 7 preps, the next promotion to the main page could cause us to switch back to 1 a day with B or C, defeating the purpose of reducing the backlog while still having preps filled (or mostly filled). BlueMoonset (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  I think all three of A, B, C serve that purpose (unlike the status quo), just at slightly different levels of admin involvement. In practice, I agree that "getting people's attention" is an important factor here, and I hope that it will help us avoid frequent invocation of the new addition in either of the suggestions. —Kusma (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support any option, preference C>B>A - Dumelow (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• I support B. SL93 (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• Not to complicate this, but do two half-full preps count as one full prep? What about two preps that are both missing a quirky but otherwise full? We may want to do this on hook count, rather than prep count... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, good point. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  That is a pretty good argument for C. —Kusma (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

  No, we want full preps, ready to move to the queue. One of the hard things is complying with all the intra-set rules about numbers of bios, numbers of US hooks, too many bios in a row, etc. If the set isn't full, there's still work to do on that. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Prefer A. I've found that admins, if prompted, are typically willing to promote preps to queues, so having a temporary low number of queues can be addressed. C allows us to get down to three filled sets (3 queues and 0 preps), which strikes me as dangerously low, while B would allow an earlier switch to 1 a day than I think is necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
• I support A. As mentioned by others above, it does seem to be the simplest and most practical option. Whenever possible, let's keep with the simple. If we put in too many scenarios to choose from, it gets too confusing. — Maile (talk) 23:53, 9 January 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.

All queues and preps full

Just as a note, I've just seen that every single one of the preps and queues are full. This may seem like a nice situation, but makes it hard for admins who need to swap out hooks. Unless it's changed, the consensus was that the last prep should always be left empty. Not a suicide pact obviously, but something to keep in mind.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I didn’t want to bring this up yet again because I’ve said this twice already over the last few months. Thanks, Amakuru. Schwede66 07:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Aoidh:... BorgQueen (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A good lesson for our other new promoters as well, @Cielquiparle and Bruxton. Keeping the last prep set at least partially open is a nice idea, especially the image slot.

Of course, if we had sandbox buffers (might need more than one), this wouldn't be an issue, and we wouldn't have to explain to every new promoter that the job of the prep builders is to build the preps except when it's actually to not build preps... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron Can the "rule" be added to the tips for new promoters? Cielquiparle (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: See WP:DYKSG#J14 :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not know this. So just for clarification the last prep area should be left completely empty until it moves up and is no longer the last one? - Aoidh (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It can be partially filled if you wish. What’s needed for convenient hook shuffling are slots for the picture hook, the quirky, and one other. Schwede66 17:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I filled the picture slot and quirky slot in that set. The rest was by Aoidh. Sorry. I forgot about the rule. SL93 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The key issue is that we need a few slots empty, at least an image, a quirky, and one other, and the easiest way for experienced prep builders is to just not completely fill the bottom set. But even when all sets do get accidentally filled because someone forgets or we have a newer prep builder who doesn't yet know it's helpful to have a few slots open, the problem doesn't last more than 24 hours.

I typically tell new prep builders to start with the bottom prep, as that provides at minimum three days for others to chime in with feedback or make swaps/shuffles, but of course it also means I've told someone specifically to fill the bottom set. :D Valereee (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Quotes in hooks - in text attribution needed

Resolved

@DYK admins: and reviewers/promoters, sorry I have to keep banging this drum, but where quotes are found in hooks, the article needs to say where the quote comes from, per WP:INTEXT.

Just as one example, I have been looking through Queue 4 (the next to go live) and noticed this:

• ... that "Atlanta's quicker picker-upper" aired martial arts movies, professional wrestling, jazz music, and Japanese-language programming?

This quote was given in the article without any attribution, which can make it look like Wikipedia's opinion, given in scare quotes, rather than something a third-party has said. Where there's a named author, give that, otherwise say where the quote came from, as I've done for this example here: [1] . This really needs to be something we spot and deal with at the review stage, rather than them getting all the way to the main page. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Should've caught that, my bad! Pinging @Sammi Brie and Onegreatjoke: for an extra reminder. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I've also added the actual author to the mainline text here. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to cite WP:DYKSG#J15b in the future, I added that a bit ago. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

In queue 1, I noticed that "one of Hull's most haunted pubs" in Ye Olde White Harte needs in text attribution. Pinging Dumelow. SL93 (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I took care of it. SL93 (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

What's an "American hook"?

Now that DYK-Tools-Bot has been running for a few days, I'm going back and tweaking the heuristics on how I determine if something is an American hook. I'd appreciate any thoughts on good ways to do this, and in particular, if you see any which were mis-categorized (I'm aware of Farah (film) and understand what went wrong there), please let me know. If you have github access, creating an issue would be great. If not, just ping me or whatever. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The bot seems to misinterpret the mention of South American (the continent) as being American. Please see here for example. Flibirigit (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, technically, there are three: South America, Central America and North America (which includes Canada). — Maile (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it should be looking for "U.S." hooks rather than "American" ones, since DYK instructions talk about U.S. hooks? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, wow. Yeah, South America is a bug, thanks for spotting that. As for US vs. American, I guess US would be more accurate, but that's kind of a nit. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A nit is also a bug, BTW. EEng 05:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I remember looking at a hook about athletes being conducted into a Canadian hall of fame. The target article was a US-born athlete who spent most of their career playing in Canadian leagues. US hook or not? :D Valereee (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd say they'd still count as US hooks for DYK purposes since they're still about American people. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Balance with a hook about a non-American playing in a US league, easy. CMD (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm. If you've got a specific example, I'll take a look. I also remember sometime within the past few weeks a football game being played in Bermuda between two American teams, which somebody pointed out to me should be considered an American hook. I suspect with edge cases like this, there really aren't any heuristics that are going to work well. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Image hook question

@RoySmith: I saw that you swapped Prep 7's image with Prep 6's since prep 5's image is also a bio, that way there's no bios back-to-back. With that in mind, would it make sense to swap Prep area 2's image over to Prep area 3, and put a bio image on Prep area 2 since there's so many bio images? - Aoidh (talk) 22:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The rule (oh, there's so many rules!) is you can't have two bios in a row, so what you've got now in preps 2 & 3 is fine. However, I think what you're saying is if we could put a biography in the lead slot of prep 3, that would be a good thing since it would use up one of the (over-numerous) biographies. Yeah, that makes sense, go for it. As an aside, I'm not thrilled with the "Statue of Gandhi" image we've got in prep 3 now, for two reasons. One, the statue is so small in the image, you can't even tell what it is. But, more than that, the hook is about C. S. N. Patnaik, the person. A photo of the person would make a lot more sense than a photo of one of his statues. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I figured there wouldn't be a rule against having two non-bios back-to-back but because there are so many bio photos that it might make sense to sandwich one in between the two non-bio ones. I've changed Prep 2's to a bio(/nonbio combo) hook and moved the Patniak to a non-image slot in Prep 3. I'm not going to worry about adding an image on Prep 3 until it ticks over and is no longer the last one, per the above discussion about leaving those free. - Aoidh (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: there's really a rule to cover back-to-back bios? — Maile (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Funny you should ask. I don't know if it's written down anywhere, but I know I've been taken to task for violating it. There's a fine line between institutional knowledge and cargo culting :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I do know that somewhere in recent weeks, I moved a bio hook in prep because it was right below an image bio hook. Looked odd to me, so I moved it. — Maile (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Speaking of cult, we have been called "High Priests of DYK". :-D BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

There Is No Cabal -- RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I totally think we should have a cabal. With a drinking game, if possible. Valereee (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The High Priests comment is kind of funny for me to read. The person who wrote it, more than 2 years before I had my first DYK nomination, was really good to me when I was a fledgling editor. They were very patient and instructive about how it all worked, and how I could improve. — Maile (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

BorgQueen's link is quite a throwback. That's a link from 2009 yet much of what they're talking about then is not much different from the discussions we still make today. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Shall we make hats? I vote we take cardboard dunce cones :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a big reason I have not ever tried prep building or stuff like that. No matter what I do I'm gonna make all sorts of mistakes and violate unwritten rules. I like to have clear and consistent rules. And there's oh so many rules for prep building as well. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Trainsandotherthings, if you are a person who is made anxious by balancing one rule or goal against another, you may be excused from building a full prep. But you still should be able to promote a hook into an empty slot in an empty prep: it's just a matter of re-reviewing that hook. If you can review a hook, you can promote one. Valereee (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I see. Promoting hooks is something I will attempt in the very near future (I have an open GAN and FAC to worry about right now). Hope you don't mind if I ask you some questions or for a second opinion when I'm first trying it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Ask away! When you do your first work, just open a section here. People will be happy to advise. Valereee (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

But, wouldn't this rule mean that when you go to 2 hooks a day, one half of the world would always see bio-image-hooks during their daytime? Ktin (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It's only a maximum density, not a minimum – having two non-bios in a row (not uncommon) switches it around, so it ends up evening out.

It does seem a little silly that we can run an image of a person for 24 hours – as long as it's only one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the back-to-back bio/non-bio image rule was something Yoninah informally enforced, possibly originally put into place. I think the informal rules she developed to ensure balance were really very good ones, but I don't think they need to be anything we consider inviolable. Valereee (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I've amended WP:DYKSG#J6 to reflect established practice :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Prep 5 4: Eliza Bland Smith Erskine Norton (nom)

@Gamaliel, Kingoflettuce, and Graearms: while 1500 bytes of prose is a hard minimum for character count – and this article passes that by 66 characters – in practice, the bar can be a bit higher depending on the formatting of the article. In this case, I've gone ahead and assessed the article as a stub; I'd request that a lead be added to the article, separate from the body, to make it a bit more complete and presentable before it gets moved to queue. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be in prep 4. SL93 (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I've tweaked it a bit to organize the bulk of the content into two sections. Gamaliel (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Good to go, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Prep 5 feedback request

Hi all! I've filled in the remainder of Prep 5. I'm looking for feedback, since it's the first prep to which I've substantially contributed, and I'm making this section here to do that. (CC: @Valereee, Theleekycauldron, and Chipmunkdavis:). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk here's a few things I spotted.

• "Matilda Lansana Minah V has backed a 30% quota". WP:DYKHOOK (Content) says, "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change". My first though here was that this could be fixed by pinning in to a date: "In 20xx, Matilda stated that...". But as I dug into the source, I see it just cites "Conteh 2020" for that, and looking that up, I found that this is an unpublished master's thesis. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. So, I think we need a better source for this one, especially considering that it's a WP:BLP.
• You should shuffle Usman Ja'far, Jack Melchor, and Aang Kunaefi around to avoid three biographies in a row (even two in a row is frowned upon).

But overall, it looks good, and thank you for pitching in to help! -- RoySmith (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

PS, I'm pickier about photos than most people, but I'm not sure the Detached Unit of the Polish Army photo really works at small size. I'd be inclined to find a different nom (with a better photo) for the lead slot. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for helping build preps! RS had some good advice above. Bruxton (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I'll take a look through to see if there's a better photo. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm good with the photo. I think it's clear, and it's an unusual enough photo that it's worth it. IMO the "clear at size" requirement should be the least picky. It's so much more important that an image be:

1. A good illustration for the hook
2. Unusual
3. Not easy to get
4. Not boring

Valereee (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@RoySmith: Sounds good regarding the re-shuffling. I'm not sure what you mean by "unpublished master's thesis" though; the claim appears in a book published by Bloomsbury and edited by a number of professors. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The statement in our article is indeed cited to War, Women and Post-conflict Empowerment: Lessons from Sierra Leone. Bloomsbury Publishing. So I clicked on that, where it says, "Minah has called on government to enact the 30 percent ... (Conteh, 2020)". I then looked to see what Conteh 2020 was, which is the master's thesis I mentioned above. If we don't consider the primary source to be reliable, I don't see why we should consider the same fact to be reliable just because somebody used it in a book. Facts don't become more reliable just because somebody copied it somewhere. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes WP:Fact laundering is an essay, but also the reason that we tend not to use SPS and Masters' theses is because of their lack of editorial review. The fact that it's a professor-edited book by an established publishing house indicates some extra level of editorial review and fact-checking. Much in the same way that we don't allow for the use of primary sources directly in WP:BLP articles due to reliability issues but allow reliable secondary sources to comment on them due to their extra levels of editorial review, I don't see an issue here with the academic WP:RS citing the thesis for that fact. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I agree with you on that, but don't feel strongly enough about it to push the issue. To drag this back to the original subject of DYK review process, I'll just mention that one of my pet peeves of reviews is that often when I try to verify a fact in a hook, I find that I can't. Which makes me suspect that many reviews don't get past the level of "Yup, it's got a reference". I like to dig deeper and actually verify that the reference supports the statement that it claims to support. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith What is your thought on the thesis paper that is used for the hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Australian Building Codes Board? SL93 (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting. Starting at the simple part, WP:SCHOLARSHIP likes doctoral theses better than masters theses, but still urges caution because it's not always possible to know what level of review a particular thesis got. I'm assuming the statement in the thesis which backs up the hook fact is '... I commonly send technical inquiries to the Building Codes Board and they don't understand it either.’ (Participant #5). It's a little disquieting that the person who said that isn't identified as other than an anonymous participant in a survey, but I think it's probably fine for what we're using it for. I don't have a real strong opinion on this. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well I do. Under no circumstances can we run any of those hooks, given the "sourcing" (and yes, those are scare quotes). EEng 05:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I have a pretty strong opinion, too. Unless a thesis is published by a reputable publisher, I don't think we can use it. Re: another source quoting an unpublished thesis...I guess if it's a very strong RS, I'm good. Like NYT/WSJ level, though, or something in an academic journal? I'm just very leery of theses. Valereee (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Usman Ja'far (nom)

@Juxlos, Lefcentreright, and Cielquiparle: I'm not sure this source is solid enough for the claim it's making (he was "known as a pioneer"). This piece isn't journalism, it's a mini-biography, which makes me a bit nervous. The source also reads a little partisan in his favour (or, at least, that's what Google Translate is giving me). Is there a stronger source to be found? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Potentially another, somewhat more mundane hook?

ALT1: … that before entering politics, Usman Ja'far ran one of Indonesia's largest retail chain stores?

I’d add the source as [2] (an official Indonesian government investment prospectus). Juxlos (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: article and hook revised, satisfactory? Juxlos (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Juxlos: I suppose it checks out, but I don't think it's all that interesting? I mean, there's a reason we call the passage between public service and lucrative private employment a "revolving door". Happens all the time. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I suppose, but that's probably still in the middle of the lower quartile of interestingness when it comes to DYK hooks? If you think it's unsalvageable, I'd be fine to just reuse the QPQ. Juxlos (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Juxlos: I mean, I will tell you that you don't actually get to re-use the QPQ, unfortunately. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Juxlos@Theleekycauldron@Lefcentreright I don't like ALT1 (not the most interesting...also, wasn't the retail chain in question a state-owned enterprise?). Re: ALT0, one additional note is that this source actually also says that Ja'far was considered an "elder" of the retail industry, but maybe it's still not independent enough of a source to feature in a hook on the main page. As an alternative, I wanted to propose this hook (which I've now added to the article as well). What do you think?

• ALT2: ... that Malay Muslim businessman Usman Ja'far was the first locally born governor of West Kalimantan elected in nearly 40 years?

Source is here and in the article now as well. Further modifications very welcome. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That’d be fine by me, maybe remove "Malay Muslim" from there to prevent people from catching him as Malaysian. Juxlos (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• ALT2a: ... that businessman Usman Ja'far was the first locally born governor of West Kalimantan elected in nearly 40 years?

@Juxlos: Thanks for the feedback, have changed accordingly. @Theleekycauldron: or anyone else: Could you please also approve ALT2a above? And then also modify the hook accordingly in Prep 5, before the set gets promoted to queue? (Not sure if that requires two more people to approve or one, but either way, it shouldn't be me.) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Y It looks good to me. BorgQueen (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hook amended accordingly. BorgQueen (talk) 09:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Signpost news of note

Nothing to do with DYK, but some alarming news.

Signpos: Wikipedia admins jailed in Saudi Arabia The IP posting this has left references, and it looks like Signpost is going to mention it. — Maile (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Pulled one hook

Per this concern I've pulled the hook. It's in Prep 3 now. BorgQueen (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Brihony Dawson

The Brihony Dawson hook (link to nom page) got pulled from queue by BorgQueen and is now in Prep 3 following a discussion at Errors. I'll copy that discussion here so that it can be resolved:

... that Brihony Dawson, the host of reality television series The Challenge: Australia, is the first non-binary television presenter in Australia?

@Happily888, Kingoflettuce, and Cielquiparle:. Ruby Rose, who is gender-fluid, was a presenter in Australia years before Dawson. Hugh Sheridan is non-binary, and presented Playschool from 2009 on. In general, for "first" (and similar) claims, not only verify that the source supports this claim, but look for counterevidence as well. Fram (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I had some misgivings about the fact but the source seemed unequivocal about "first" or at least "first in a major series" (though as I recall it was quite a skimpy article). What to do though, is there a source that says Sheridan or someone else "is the first non-binary TV presenter"? I don't think it's good enuf to cobble facts together, no matter how straightforward - might border on original research. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 17:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

What needs to be done is pulling the hook, reopen the DYK, and find something which is uncontroversially true. We shouldn't indeed state that e.g. she was the third after these two, as we don't have a source for this (I found these two examples, don't know if there are others). Even if I hadn't found, it would have been better to state that she was the first openly non-binary one, as we can't know otherwise. Fram (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the sources making the claim, it seems the qualifier is "to host a major TV show in Australia". Cielquiparle (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This is again (as happens all the time) why superlatives make terrible blurbs, they are often blatantly wrong, or require so many different qualifiers as to be entirely unremarkable. "To host a major TV show" seems to be such a qualifier that is impossible to quantify. What makes it major? There needs to be some kind of new ban on using superlatives as blurbs. It almost never turns out well. --Jayron32 19:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

According to our article, Hugh Sheridan came out as non-binary in 2021, so it makes sense not to count their 2009 show for this particular "first". Adding "openly" makes the hook better, but is only implied in our sources, not explicitly stated. —Kusma (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Yea, wouldn't be too fussed about anything unless there's a source explicitly stating that someone else wuz "first" --- otherwise I still think it'd be our original research doing the talking. The source says they were first, so let's roll with that. KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:21, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@DYK admins: Per the above, could someone please replace the words "first non-binary television presenter in Australia" with "first non-binary presenter to host a major television show in Australia". This is the minimum change needed before the set goes live in a few minutes' time, but personally, I'd prefer to see the hook pulled completely, since I'm not sure we can trust Body+Soul magazine to have done thorough research into this matter. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Pulled for now. It's in Prep 3 now. BorgQueen (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Re: Body+Soul, it's owned by NewsCorp, and while that doesn't mean an automatic pass for all claims, it struck me that they are probably pretty sensitive about making claims like that about other media outlets, if nothing else because they would get a ton of flak for being wrong. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

--

End of Errors discussion. Schwede66 00:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Pull and re-open discussion for a better hook. Kingsif (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I've moved it way down to Prep 6; it had been one of three bios in a row in Prep 3, so I swapped it with a non-bio in Prep 6 pending consensus to reopen. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
    • I boldly pulled the nomination so a discussion can occur at Template:Did you know nominations/Brihony Dawson. SL93 (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of all 19 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 30. We have a total of 239 nominations, of which 141 have been approved, a gap of 98 nominations that has decreased by 31 in the past ten days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these!

More than two months old

• October 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Thurgood Marshall
• October 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Nikke: Goddess of Victory

More than one month old

• November 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Lewis (playwright)
• November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Caroline Ellison
• November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Wetjen
• November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Aerial photograph interpretation (geology)
• November 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Commission on Training Camp Activities
• November 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Goncharov (meme)
• November 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Grobe
• November 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Benjamin Tompson
• November 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Hacı Abdullah Restaurant
• December 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Davlos
• December 5: Template:Did you know nominations/William Nicholas (officer)

Other nominations

• December 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Cycling in Turkey
• December 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Botaş Saros FSRU Terminal
• December 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Vivianne Ruiz (Jane Doe)
• December 25: Template:Did you know nominations/MT Botaş FSRU Ertuğrul Gazi
• December 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Phylogenetic reconciliation
• December 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Eighth Avenue South Reservoir

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) 06:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a note: I did try to review Template:Did you know nominations/Nikke: Goddess of Victory but couldn't really tell if the sources were reliable. Probably needs someone with more reviewing experiences. BorgQueen (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

SS Sir William Siemens

We have this complaint at WP:ERRORS. Should I pull the hook? BorgQueen (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I've weighed in at ERRORS :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! BorgQueen (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Reviewing process on DYK

In the past I was told by an admin that for DYK each paragraph needs a source at the end and an other admin demanded from me to source an opening phrase of a paragraph. I try to apply it when nominating as well as in reviewing. Today an article is on the main page without a source at the end of three paragraphs, a whole paragraph and researchers were also unsourced when the article was approved. The beginning of the history paragraph is also unsourced. This was the state of the article until yesterday. Today it is on the main page with three paragraphs without a source at their end and the begin of the history paragraph also unsourced. Has something changed in the DYK process? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging the promoter and reviewer: @Cielquiparle: @MB:... BorgQueen (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: That's definitely a valid concern – proper sourcing is still a requirement for DYK, and WP:DYKSG#D2 is still around. I suggest you log the deficiencies at WP:ERRORS. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle That is really bad. It shouldn't have passed in the first place, and I should have caught it as well. (It was one of the first articles I promoted, and I was so focused on questions about the image and the hook, that I didn't check the rest of the article (as I think I took it rather literally at first that I didn't need to re-review the whole article itself).) I can try to add some citations to the article now, but I imagine it needs to be pulled. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

psst, BorgQueen! You can ping multiple people with one template, like this: {{yo|Cielquiparle|MB}} :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Aha, ok. Thanks! BorgQueen (talk) 10:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

thanks from me, too Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd definitely misspell someone's username. The only way I'm positive I've got them all right is to use the reply tool. Valereee (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I noticed this myself while copyediting the article, but when I checked D2, it only says that one footnote per paragraph is a "rule of thumb", so I didn't raise it as an error. If this is actually a hard rule, I think that should be made clear. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sojourner in the earth: Yeah, I've updated it. It's established practice that the article should be sourced anyway – plus, D6 prohibits WP:DISPUTETAGs, including {{citation needed}}. I'd rather have a firmer D2 than require that reviews put cn tags anywhere they want a source. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I've now fixed the article, mostly. In one case, the footnote was in the wrong place, but there were a couple of sentences that appeared to have OR, so I have removed those for now. I have left one phrase without a citation (exact location of tree in relation to a government building), which I think *might* be "obvious" from the photographs across various sources, if you know Geneva buildings. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: I think footnote 3 ([3]) might verify that ("juste en face du siège des autorités" = just opposite the headquarters of the authorities?), but I don't speak French so I can't say for certain. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 10:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Have now cited this source instead, which calls out "Tour Baudet de l'Hôtel de Ville". Cielquiparle (talk) 10:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I suspect the one footnote per paragraph rule of thumb language is a holdover from earlier periods of en.wiki, and doesn't reflect current practice at all. It's actually quite woeful advice; the number of sources needed isn't dependent on how the text is divided into paragraphs (although obviously at least one source would be needed for each paragraph as that is how text-source integrity is determined). DYK articles should be fully compliant with WP:V and WP:NOR. CMD (talk) 10:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I can following your reasoning and thank you very much for beginning to promote hooks cielquiparle, but the fixes still don't source the beginning of the history paragraph which begins with "Between 1807 and 1817, Marc-Louis Rigaud..." and for me also the rule of thumb of one source per paragraph is a bit questionable. This can apparently be taken literally as Sojourner in the earth has shown and apparently also the reviewer wasn't aware of the rule of thumb of one source per paragraph. I'd approve an update of the requirements in order to prevent uncertainties in the future.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe it is stated in the full article, of which the webpage cited is just the summary/abstract. (I just tried to provide a direct link to the full article, but that results in automated download, so in this case linking to the summary is correct.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:58, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a note for those who may have missed leekycauldron's update, D2 now says "Every statement in an article should either be cited or exempted from citation". Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Could we also maybe have a rule requiring at least two secondary sources? Cielquiparle (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Sojourner in the earth Thanks for the notice for TLCs update.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: That would be WP:DYKSG#D12? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 13:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron It doesn't specify secondary sources though. Personally it would make me happy if the word "secondary" were inserted. It wouldn't fix the problem necessarily, but it might spark a few discussions now and then about whether the sourcing in a DYK submission is adequate for the main page or not (beyond whether or not there are verifiable facts with citations, etc.). Cielquiparle (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - not assigning blame here, but looking at lessons for the future, For a reviewer, promoter and promoting admin to all miss a DYK fail as obvious as this one suggests to me that the procedures aren't being followed. Everyone in the process, but particularly the promoter and the admin (we can cut reviewers a bit of slack as they're often nominators themselves and not always as experienced in DYK), need to be familiar with the DYK criteria and need to explicitly check that every hook meets the basic specifications, including proper referencing in the article. Promotion isn't simply copying a hook from a nom page to a prep, and admin queue building isn't just copying from prep to queue, there's a checking component to both. And quality is more important than quantity - if you don't have time to do two sets, just work on one at a time. (I just looked at the queue thinking I might promote a set and found all seven queues full, that means other admins are doing a lot of checking of hooks right now!) Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru: If the queues are full, you're welcome to use a prep. I think Prep 6 could use some help, although Prep 7 is supposed to be more or less empty. BorgQueen (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Btw this admin instruction does not say anything about checking components you're talking about. Just copying and pasting. Perhaps it needs to be rewritten then. BorgQueen (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC) Ok nevermind. I found it. :-D BorgQueen (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear @DYK admins: , I would like to add that with all my comments and suggestions, large parts of the DYK article stayed unsourced all day. What should an editor do if they found, were pinged, adverted of the mistake? Marc Louis Rigaud wasn't sourced and doesn't show up in four of the sources I double checked. Other phrases probably are similarly sourced, or not sourced. This is not what I was taught at DYK by several editors to which I am grateful for their advice. I must say I am disappointed and feel a bit discriminated as I was demanded much more in the past. To TLC my gratitude for the D2 adaptions, lets hope they'll be noticed.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle Rigaud is in the first source cited. You have to click to download the whole article where it says "Detailed description". Cielquiparle (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thats an interesting way to source phrases and should be noted. I do not believe I would have come through with such an article. But I can try... which of course I won't because it would be the worst sourced article I'd have nominated for DYK. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: you mean the article above was never pulled from the main page after your concerns were raised? Ouch, I can only apologise for that, as it's not how things are meant to work. When I commented at 17:26 yesterday I assumed the issue was resolved, hence why I posted a sort of "lessons for the future" sort of post. To be clear, having an article with a low level of referencing like that on the main page isn't acceptable, and I can understand your frustration having reported it. In future, I suggest posting at WP:ERRORS and asking that the hook be pulled from the main page. That's usually where quickest results can be had. Also pinging @DYK admins: might be useful too. Again, apologies for not dealing with this myself. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Well I am not aware of its pulling. But that was also not the goal of the reporting. I assumed good faith, and thought it would be fixed within a few minutes, as it was done when I once also made a mistake on DYK. But it seems that there was too much good faith and the ones involved thought someone else fixed it. I guess it's better to report to errors, as TLC initially suggested and now again Amakuru. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Paradise Chronicle: I appreciated your faith, but unfortunately it's not really realistic for live issues to be fixed on the spot. For one thing, the editors in question may not be online, and even if they are, finding referencing for lots of uncited text isn't something that can generally be done quickly. If it's one or two statements then sure, and someone other than the nominator might be the one to do that. But otherwise, our typical response is to pull the hook. It's regrettable, and the process we follow is supposed to ensure it doesn't get to that point, but sometimes things slip through. Certainly kudos to you for spotting it, and please do notify ERRORS (and even ping me directly if you like) when you spot similar things in the future. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

On the subject of faulty processes, and since the Errors thread has been swept into the memory hole, I think it's worth noting that SS Sir William Siemens hit the Main Page yesterday with an orange-level maintenance tag, three unsourced paragraphs, and a hook fact that was not stated in the article. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi everyone, as the creator of Geneva official chestnut tree, and the person who proposed the hook, I'd like to thank you for improving the article. But I would also like to say that I'm surprised (and, frankly, disappointed) that no one notified me (or, alternatively, used the talk page of the article, which I obviously watch). But thanks to Cielquiparle, who notified me after the discussion took place. I know that I could have sourced about everything in the article if asked, but there is no way I can guess that this discussion is taking place.

With regards to the process, I'm with Sojourner in the earth: I read the rules several times (it was my first DYK hook), and the "one footnote per paragraph" seemed reasonable to me (especially for an article that, by definition, is new and hasn't had time to mature too much). And after nomination and promotion, I did not want to change the article too much, for fear of making it worse at the time of publication (little did I know how wrong I was).

Now, in addition to my own frustration, I'm sorry for you all, since you wasted quite a bit of time on that — I can see you discussing above about unsourced stuff that was indeed sourced, as well as back and forths in the history of the article, removing content just to readd it later. Since I had planned to continue improving the article after publication of the hook, and the history is now quite messy, I would be grateful if you could comment on the talk page of the article, indicating what you have removed or what you had noted as being in urgent need of improving. Schutz (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Small issue in queue 4

Moonraker, Malcolm Gaskill needs a citation for "Fellow of the Royal Historical Society (2006)". SL93 (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

So relieved that it's a small one indeed. :-D If this doesn't get fixed before it hits the Main Page, I'll be removing the section. BorgQueen (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Done, SL93. I couldn’t find the date again, so I took it out. Moonraker (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It’s in this self-published biography, but I can live without the date. Moonraker (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know...

I'm the one who have been filling the queues around the clock for the past few days, but from now on I'll be more focusing on writing articles, so if @RoySmith: or another admin could take over, it'd be great. Thanks. BorgQueen (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @DYK admins: as well. SL93 (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering when you would run out of steam :-) No problem, I'll keep an eye on it. Not that I wouldn't mind somebody else also keeping additional eyes on it. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFRa7Ovym8s -- RoySmith (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I really needed the laugh! BorgQueen (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

BTW, RoySmith and BorgQueen, please add yourselves to {{DYK admins}} if you'd like to be notified when you're needed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Aachen recycled?

Template:Did you know nominations/Aachen fine cloth was promoted, then pulled from the prep (see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 189) and the nomination withdrawn. Now, the article has been renamed and renominated under Template:Did you know nominations/Textile industry in Aachen. What do we want to do with this? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Barring some rule I'm not aware of (of which I'm sure there's one) I don't see why it shouldn't be able to proceed. I see there's some possibly outstanding minor points before it's approved but I don't think the fact that it was previously nominated and withdrawn should disqualify it, since it's been 5x expanded since that previous nomination. It doesn't run afoul of D1 and if it meets WP:DYKCRIT I don't see why it should be discounted; though it was nominated, it didn't appear on the main page so it's not like it's getting to run twice. - Aoidh (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Arguably the article has not been expanded 5x with new prose. DYK helper counts 14,900 characters of prose and I have identified around 6,479 characters worth of close paraphrasing at Talk:Textile industry in Aachen#Close paraphrasing, based on checking only one source. Some of the paraphrasing may have been present in the 31 December version. TSventon (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Articles that failed a first DYK nomination are still allowed to be renominated for DYK if they are brought up to standards afterwards. It's not actually uncommon for that to happen. For example, an article that was nominated for DYK being deleted, then being recreated then being nominated again for DYK afterwards. Or more commonly, an article that did not meet the newness/expansion requirements then being renominated after being brought to GA status. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

This is an unusual case, but I say we run with it. This would've been fine if, for example, no new nomination page was created and we were just going with the same nompage under a different article title. We give nominators so much time to work out issues, I don't see a reason to draw a bright line here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Bruxton (talk) 01:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Creep

I noticed some changes being made to Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines. Some of these were quite substantial but the edit summaries were quite inadequate such as "so, umm, i did a thing" for a huge 14K change. These changes seem to have been made without specific discussion or consensus and change long-standing wordings.

I reverted the bold changes but theleekycauldron has just edit-warred them back with the summary, "the entire purpose of the supplementary guidelines is that they don't require formal consensus to implement changes..." This seems mistaken because the page says "These rules are meant (as said in G4 below) to describe consensus that has been reached among the DYK community through previous discussions of issues that have come up repeatedly." At least that's what it says currently. But if the page is just a free-for-all in which rules can be amended willy-nilly then who knows what it will say tomorrow.

Now I've been doing DYKs for some time -- my first was in 2009, I reckon. I haven't noticed the guidelines changing much in this time and so I'm used to them being fairly settled with wordings that are familiar from memory. Now, everything seems to be in flux and I oppose such radical change being done in a uncontrolled and undiscussed way. This is not the way things are supposed to be done.

Andrew🐉(talk) 23:47, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The entirety of sections A, B, F, G, and J, as well as C1 through C10, D4 through D13, E1, E2, E4, and E5, were added unilaterally. If there was any discussion, it was minimal and did not represent any kind of formal consensus.

You also reverted my changes of the <span> tags, which were cluttering and a little redundant, to smoother {{Visible anchor}} tags. There was never any discussion to add the span tags in the first place, so I'm not sure what kind of consensus you think needs to exist to modify them.

The "huge 14K change" you're referring to is not a rule at all, it's me adding references to each of the standing rules – because there were no discussions for so many of the rules, I thought it was important to document who added them and when, so that people know the history when starting discussions to change them.

It's not a "free-for-all in which rules can be amended willy-nilly". Changes to the supplementary guidelines should be what they've always been: documenting what the community is doing, where its values lie, in a non-controversial way that doesn't need to be voted on. If you think I'm wrong, if you think something I've added doesn't reflect DYK's unwritten policy or should be overturned, you're free to challenge it at WT:DYK. Narutolovehinata5 did that for WP:DYKSG#C6, and an RfC upheld the rule, and that's how it goes.

The only thing that's worse than written creep is unwritten creep, and if it weren't for the fact that DYK has so much unwritten creep, we would never have had the SGs in the first place. That's why they were written, and they were originally drafted by Art LaPella in his userspace with no formal discussion before implementation. It's been nearly a decade since the guidelines have been given a thorough update to reflect DYK's latest practices, and it's a testament to his foresight and judgement that I didn't find much that needed change. But DYK has changed somewhat, and the supplementary guidelines have a long history. I thought they deserved to be written down. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

As for the quote, you're interpreting G4 to mean the opposite of what it actually means; it says that "These supplementary guidelines are intended to describe the consensus, not to prescribe it." It means that these guidelines can reflect the sum of a user's observations of small, informal discussions (issues that arise at DYK noms, for example.) – if it were only based on formal discussion, that would be a prescription of consensus. G4 was added by Art LaPella in 2008, before there were any kinds of RfCs about that page – to concoct the notion that G4 somehow means "these rules are locked down and can only be changed via the consensus of a single capital-D Discussion" would contravene the reason it was actually written. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Queue 1: Central Post Office (Kyiv)

• ... that Kyiv's Central Post Office was built after Soviet forces deliberately destroyed its predecessor (pictured) less than a year after it was completed?

I'm concerned this falls a little short of a neutral hook, because of the issue that was discussed during the nomination; this wasn't an act of wanton destruction, but a response to an impending Nazi invasion. I suggest adding "during their 1941 retreat from the Nazis" for context, or alternatively dropping the "Soviet forces" to avoid POV connotations. @Dying, Flibirigit, and SL93: Vanamonde (Talk) 00:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I would just drop "Soviet forces" if it avoids a POV issue. I think it would be better than a longer addition for more context. SL93 (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think adding the Nazi context would be good since it provides the needed context and (for me at least) makes it more interesting. "Soviet forces destroyed a building" isn't interesting, military forces do that all the time. "Soviet forces destroyed a building during a retreat" makes me wonder why. Also given the current conflict in that area that context is important (though yes, there aren't Soviet forces now). Dropping Soviet forces would possibly confuse it for the current conflict. - Aoidh (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I was going to suggest ":... that Kyiv's Central Post Office was built after its predecessor (pictured) was destroyed less than a year after it was completed?" I guess I'm fine with either option though. SL93 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

After reading Aoidh's response, I will go with the Nazi context. SL93 (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses; hopefully the nom agrees, I'll wait a little longer before making a change. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree there is a neutrality issue, but welcome other proposed hooks. Flibirigit (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

originally, i had planned the hook so that it would be a puzzle to the reader to figure out what exactly the context was, though i wanted to leave enough clues in the hook so that they would hopefully be able to make an educated guess. i had worded alt0 so that the mention of the soviets occurred after that of the destruction, so that the reader would first wonder whether or not the post office was destroyed in the current conflict, before the word "Soviet" ruled out that possibility. the apparent age of the photo would then hopefully allow the reader to guess that the destruction occurred during world war ii, and since it was the soviets that destroyed the building, this would hint to the reader that it likely happened in the context of a nazi invasion.

i admittedly had not thought the hook violated npov, but i am also familiar with the burning of moscow in 1812, so in retrospect, perhaps i had relied too much on expecting the reader to realize that the post office was not randomly destroyed during peacetime. if possible, i'd prefer to remove the word "Soviet" rather than mention the nazis, to not completely give the puzzle away. what if the clue was partially salvaged by mentioning that they were "military forces" rather than "Soviet forces"? as the photo from world war ii is being featured, i do not think it is necessary to mention the soviets to avoid readers thinking that the destruction occurred during the current conflict, since the photo was clearly not taken during the past year.

alt2: ... that Kyiv's Central Post Office was built after military forces deliberately destroyed its predecessor (pictured) less than a year after it was completed?

by the way, Ravenpuff, i noticed that you had copyedited the caption when it was in prep area 1, but do not know if you were aware that the caption was deliberately worded quirkily, with "post" used twice in quick succession but with completely different meanings. i had mentioned it in the nomination (where one reviewer mentioned liking the quirky caption), though i believe copyeditors are not expected to review nominations before copyediting hooks, so i can certainly understand if you had overlooked it. (also, i do not know if the old post office was called the "Central Post Office" at the time, which is why i simply used "its predecessor" in the hook.)

courtesy pinging Radzy0, who drafted alt1. dying (talk) 06:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'm confused by the article's statement destroyed later that year by Soviet forces in an explosion during the 1941 demolition of Kyiv [uk], once Nazi forces had entered the city following the Red Army's retreat. The claimed timeline is: (1) Red Army retreats, (2) Nazis enter the city, (3) Soviets destroy post office. How can that be right? EEng 07:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  some forces stayed behind. i imagine the 1941 demolition of kyiv shared similarities with stay-behind operations, though i have not read enough sources to determine if it would be categorized as one. also, nkvd troops took part in the demolition, and although they often deployed with the red army, i assume that not all of them took part in the retreat. dying (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• It's one thing to put in a bizarre fact that makes the reader click through; it's another to put in a fact that has an obvious explanation that is incorrect. The original hook is, IMO, likely to leave some readers with the impression that the Soviets engaged in wanton destruction, which isn't something a lot of readers would attempt to probe further, given that it did occur elsewhere. I would still prefer full context, but I think ALT2 is neutral and absent policy concerns it's the nominator's call, so I will substitute that hook shortly. Further comments welcome but not necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  Vanamonde, i actually agree with your first sentence, but i had admittedly simply never considered that soviet forces wantonly destroying prominent buildings during peacetime would be the obvious explanation for some readers. that's an error on my part (and unfortunately makes the puzzle a bit more difficult if one does not presume the destruction occurred during a war), so i am glad that it was pointed out and am happier with the hook now. thanks for raising the issue. dying (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the ping dying. Much appreciated. I hadn't realized the wanton destruction angle. I'm OK with ALT2. Radzy0 (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Users promoting or rejecting articles which they reviewed

According to DYK supplementary rules on preparing updates J1, "it's a no-no to promote a hook you wrote, or a hook for an article you created, nominated, or reviewed." BorgQueen (talk · contribs) was both the reviewer and promoter of Goncharov (meme). This clearly goes against the rules of thumb, and lacks transparency and oversight.

Also, BorgQueen (talk · contribs) was the reviewer and rejecting user of Aerial photograph interpretation (geology). This seems to contradict the spirit of the rules of thumb, and is one user acting as judge, jury and executioner.

Discussion is welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh ok, I didn't know the rule, sorry. I'll return them to the pre-promoting state now. BorgQueen (talk) 14:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. Notified @RoySmith: and he'll be returning the Goncharov hook to a prep. And hopefully judge if it's ready to be promoted. BorgQueen (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@BorgQueen I'm confused what's happening here. In Special:Diff/1132361652, you swapped Goncharov into Queue6. If it was promoted incorrectly, why should it go back into another prep? Shouldn't it just go back to the unpromoted state, not in any prep? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I needed a hook to replace it so I took one from a prep while you were filling the queue. I was swapping it first and about to return it to the unpromoted, but you filled the queue with the prep I was taking the replacement hook from. BorgQueen (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to unpromote it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Reviews can reject nominations, that is part of the point of a review. CMD (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The reviewer who marks the nomination for closure should not be the same person who closes it. Flibirigit (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency: I just realized I had promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Uncertainty effect, for which I was one of its reviewers. But for this one I had someone else review it again afterward, so I suppose such cases are allowed? BorgQueen (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Grumpy

I just spent 1.5 hours getting Queue 2 in shape for the front page. Had to un-promote 2 hooks for various reasons. By the time stuff gets to be the next prep ready for the queue, it really should be in better shape than this. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm not surprised that not many admins want to get involved in the DYK process. :-D BorgQueen (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

When I submitted an alt hook for Beezer Brothers, it looks like I should have reviewed the article as well. I didn't want to step on the toes of the actual reviewer. SL93 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, but I often make drive-by hook suggestions, and don't usually do a full review in those cases. I expect the initial reviewer will do that, and whoever promotes to prep will do it again. But one way other another, Beezer really slipped through with only a cursory examination. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Btw @SL93: thanks for building preps; please don't forget prep 5 and 7 currently need one hook each. BorgQueen (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I wonder how that happened? BTW, that's another reason these last-minute fixes are a pain. It's not just the time I wasted pulling the hooks and finding replacements, I also made more work for somebody to fill in the gaps I left. Everybody loses. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

They seem to be offline... nevermind, I'll fill them up. BorgQueen (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Done. BorgQueen (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I was eating. It was also always open for anyone to do. SL93 (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I just didn't want to step on your toes! :-D I tend to be cautious when someone else is actively building preps. BorgQueen (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. I misread. SL93 (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

And here I thought that it was all going well. :) Bruxton (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Is there a case to be made for tightening up on the quality of reviews? If all the checks specified in the guidelines have been made then nothing that has been passed should be coming back from the preps or queues. Perhaps the loss of the QPQ for any that is rejected? Though this may be hard to administer as I suspect most QPQs are used almost immediately - Dumelow (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I also noticed some slipshod reviews as of late. Bruxton (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, in my experience of dealing with problematic hooks at WP:ERRORS, in 90% of cases the issues should have been picked up in review. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems there are many new contributors to DYK, and there will be a learning curve for reviews. Flibirigit (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like we've hit a point where we have quite a few newer people at all levels of the process - reviewing, promoting and adminning. That's great, obviously, and I hope these discussions aren't discouraging those people from participating... it's just that it seems to be leading to a few articles that aren't ready at all making it all the way through. FWIW I've been doing admin checks for several years now, and on average I always find issues with 1–2 hooks, so probably it's somewhat par-for-the-course... although I'm a bit of a stickler so sometimes the things I spot are more minor issues than having large swathes of uncited material or orange tags.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work and that even includes when you're being a bit of a stickler. I appreciate your help. SL93 (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I just wanted to acknowledge that I saw this and I apologize since I put together the Prep 2 that was moved into Queue 2. One of the hooks that was pulled was switched into it after I built it, but I saw the comments about pulling Template:Did you know nominations/Beezer Brothers which I apologize for; I saw the Earwig match but skimming through mostly just saw the names and dates matching and didn't look deeper but I obviously should have. I will keep things like this in mind moving forward. - Aoidh (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Issue in prep 7

I was going to add in text attribution in the article Van den Berg–Kesten inequality for "implausibly lucky", but that quote isn't in the next citation. It is in the very next one though. This needs to be fixed. Pinging nominator HTinC23 SL93 (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi SL93, thanks for the comment and I hope I've fixed it now. (I would like to somehow cite the news article but if I put it at the end of the sentence I'm afraid it would seem the cite covers "This inequality was one ingredient", which the news article doesn't say. That's why I'm placing it towards the beginning to limit its scope. But you're of course right that this in turns seems it would cover the quote...) ——HTinC23 (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. SL93 (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Issue in prep 5

The fourth reference at Matilda Lansana Minah V is cited to the unreliable self-publisher Lulu.com. Pinging nominator Lajmmoore. SL93 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the spot @SL93 - I used the automatic citation using a google books link for the article. However I went to properly look and both Waterstones and Amazon list IBP USA as the publisher, which I think is International Business Publications - but I couldn't find much further on the company. Lajmmoore (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

That seems to work. I searched for "Inc, IBP" that the automatic citation showed as the author. I was thinking that IBP, Inc. made no sense. SL93 (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Queue 4

Template:Did you know nominations/Last universal common ancestor

• ... that there might have been an organism from which all life is descended?

• LUCA is the universal ancestor of all current life on earth. Therefore the hook should be

• ... that there might have been an organism from which all current life on Earth is descended?

• Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• Y Done. BorgQueen (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Preparation area 1

Do we have to use so many shocking and vulgar terms in one hook? Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. Fucking Trans Women - erect penises - hard penises - penetrating penises. I know we are not censored but c'mon. Bruxton (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Relevant essay WP:CENSORMAIN Bruxton (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Vulgarity is good for clicks, and clicks seem to be what DYK seems to be what DYK has been reduced to. #see you later --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I don’t care if it’s changed. Either way, the article title still has the word “Fucking”. SL93 (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

How about ALT2?: ... that Fucking Trans Women associates erectile dysfunction with pleasure? BorgQueen (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about all the penises (so to speak), but shouldn't the hook tell us something about what the magazine is about, rather than what it isn't about? I think BorgQueen's hook is more interesting as well. Black Kite (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Y I switched it to ALT2. BorgQueen (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

A ping to Tamzin, with a note on WP:DYKSG#C11 :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realize that page had so many changes and I just noticed a complaint about it above. I'm fine with the changes, but I really should add it to my watchlist now in case I miss something important. SL93 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a direct quote from a scholarly publication can really be called "gratuitous", nor would I consider the word "penis" shocking or vulgar, but I'm fine with the switch. Although if we want the focus to be on what the magazine is about, per BK, ALT0 discusses the thing it's best known for. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin All ages read the main page. We should probably avoid trying to squeeze so much sexually charged language into a hook. I think the essay I linked to above is right - it is worth a read. What is ok for an article is not necessarily ok for the main page where people are surfing around not looking to get shocked. Bruxton (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm all for avoiding gratuitous profanity or graphic sexual/violent/disturbing content on the Main Page. This is none of those. We are an encyclopedia, and one of the topics we cover is human sexuality. The scope of human sexuality includes penises at times being hard or engaging in penetration. Like I said, I'm fine with swapping it out, but let's not go all "think of the children" about one of the most basic facts about human biology. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

So you think we should withdraw the penis hook? EEng 00:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on this particular hook, but while I don't necessarily have an issue with risque material being discussed on the main page, they do need to be treated carefully and not be gratuitous. In the past we had or nearly had hooks that were seemingly meant to provoke readers (for example, the pro-Unionist/anti-Irish nationalist hooks) and we'd really not want a repeat of that regardless of the actual subject. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

So you think the hook about the penis should be withdrawn? EEng 05:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The hook was changed. It now doesn't mention penises three times any more (which I found not shocking, just boring), but "erectile dysfunction", but I don't know for whom that is supposed to be interesting either. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

So the penis hook is not being withdrawn? EEng 16:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Click on the first link in the thread and see, - I can't say yes or no. It's not a penis hook anymore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Prep 1: 2022 Famous Idaho Potato Bowl

• ... that Eastern Michigan's only bowl-game victory before defeating San Jose State in the 2022 Famous Idaho Potato Bowl was against San Jose State in the 1987 California Bowl?

Just a quick query about this... the hook says that the 1987 game was Eastern Michigan's only prior bowl-game win; however, the article doesn't make quite such a strong statement. It says that it was their last bowl win, but the text doesn't say there were none before that. Assuming the hook fact is true, this should be fairly easy to fix hopefully! Pinging @PCN02WPS, BeanieFan11, and Bruxton: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Based on Eastern_Michigan_Eagles_football#Bowl_games, it does seem like the hook fact is correct. Legoktm (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Prep 2

Rudy Nappi - The Paperback Palette (Weebly), The Cover Art of Childrens' Series Books (Blogspot), Mystery Sequels (personal blog), and TheRedArchive (multi-contributor blog) are unreliable sources. Pinging nominator Jengod. SL93 (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Deleted statements referencing those sources. jengod (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. SL93 (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Aesculapian Club - Much of the article is unreferenced. Pinging Iainmacintyre and 97198. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks SL93. I have added a further 2 citations to the article. Pinging 97198 and Markstrachan. Papamac (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Iain! Markstrachan (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Markstrachan "and March 2020 to October 2021 (due to the COVID pandemic).", List of Founder Members, and List of current members and extraordinary members needs to be cited. SL93 (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I pulled the nomination for now. SL93 (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in this article. I have added links to the relevant references at the points you have indicated. Just one thing to add is that the minute books of the meetings are valid primary reference material as they extend all the way back to 1773 in bound form and are available for review in the Library of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh Markstrachan (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Minor semantics - Queue 3 (about to go live)

• ... that the Casablanca Protocol is the only binding instrument of the Arab League addressing the status of Palestinian refugees?

According to the article the protocol has since been revoked (see Reference 5), so the "is" should probably be "was"? Black Kite (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Y Done. BorgQueen (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

There may still be a problem with the 2nd paragraph. It states, in wiki voice, "Although focused on refugees ... this was intended to align the treatment of ...", but the cited source only says, "The change was apparently the result of a realization..." We've upgraded the "apparently" to a unequivocable statement of fact. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, just tell me what to do please :-D BorgQueen (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, as noted recently (Brihony Dawson), we've had problems with superlatives like "first", "most", etc. I'm concerned that "only" might fall into the same category. We've got a source that says this is the "only" binding instrument, but how confident are we that the source is correct. It's hard to prove the non-existence of things, so it's hard to prove there aren't any others. My inclination would be to pull this to give people time to review it more closely. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I'll find a replacement now. BorgQueen (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Pulled Casablanca Protocol. @Onceinawhile:... BorgQueen (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It's in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2 currently. BorgQueen (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I have added the word "apparently" as suggested by RoySmith.

As to proving the "only", the source is recent (from 2020) and is the gold standard on the subject: Prof. Marjoleine Zieck "Rather than merely an update of the first edition, this second edition of Palestinian Refugees in International Law is an expanded, all-encompassing overview and legal analysis of the complex plight of the Palestinian refugees from 1948 to the present." and Dr. Anis Kasim "It is at present the most thorough and most comprehensive treatise on this subject, and it will be unwise to address the Palestinian refugee issue without consulting it. It will no doubt stand as the bible on the Palestinian refugee question under international law for many years to come." Onceinawhile (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Prep 2: Robert Rattenbury

• ... that Robert Rattenbury mistakenly said to his student Geoffrey Kirk: "Good Heavens! Well, I don't suppose I shall be seeing you again"?

Two issues with this... firstly, regarding the hook, I'm not sure the word mistakenly can be inferred from either what's in the article or in the source. The quote is obviously accurate, but the article and the source don't actually say whether the two men ever met again. I suppose it's very likely, given they both worked at Cambridge, but we'd need it to be explicit. Secondly, the assertion in the article that "Kirk's career was more successful than Rattenbury's" seems a bit subjective, and again not something that's directly said in the source. How does one define success? Not sure how you guys want to deal with these issues, but I'll leave it in prep for now rather than reopening, as perhaps there's a quick fix available. Pinging @Moonraker, Lajmmoore, and Bruxton: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

• (1) While "won't be seeing you again" may have turned out to be an untrue prediction, that isn't the same as saying it was said "mistakenly" -- mistakenly would be e.g. if he thought be was talking to A when in fact he was talking to B. (2) All the material related to Kirk is completely extraneous and doesn't belong in the article anyway. EEng 00:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, fair enough, Amakuru, let’s strike out the word “mistakenly”. Kirk did return to Cambridge after the war to finish his degree and stayed there. It isn’t really possible that they never met again, but we can live without “mistakenly”, which is a wet blanket in the hook anyway. On your other point, I have edited the sentence to read “In the event, Kirk returned to Cambridge at the end of the war and went on to become Regius Professor of Greek there.” Moonraker (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Y Done. BorgQueen (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggested change to WP:PSHAW (DYKbotdo)

@Theleekycauldron I think a good change would be when PSHAW moves a prep to a queue, it leaves the {{DYKbotdo}} commented out, like I did in Special:Diff/1132360751. Then the workflow would be:

1. Use PSHAW to do all the fiddly stuff, including incrementing the counter (which I apparently forgot to do the last time)
2. Spend some time reviewing all the hooks
3. When you're convinced everything is good, uncomment the {{DYKbotdo}}

What I've been doing in the past is reviewing all the hooks before I moved, but the problem there is two admins could be working on it at the same time and not realize they're stepping on each other. So the last time, I did it the manual way, and did the reviewing after. Which was good from the "not getting stepped on" point of view, but a bunch more fiddly-work (and as mentioned above, I forgot a step). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thanks for the feedback! I've added it to my to-do list at WP:PSHAW :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

PS, I'm guessing other people have other workflows, so maybe a checkbox so people can elect if they want this way or the current way. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Way ahead of ya :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I second this suggestion: I, too, started checking hooks in queue rather than in prep after an edit-conflict. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Queue 7

Ruby Tandoh had two "unreliable source?" tags before the article was promoted. Pinging nominator GRuban. SL93 (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I also think the use of quotes is excessive, if creator/nom are still working on it. Kingsif (talk) 05:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@SL93 and Kingsif: I agree it has way too many quotes. That's not very encyclopedic. BorgQueen (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@SL93, Kingsif, and BorgQueen: Asking placer of tags to remove them. I could probably find other sources for those two sentences as it's not at all debated that it occurred exactly as stated, but I want to fight back against the contextless unreliable source tagging of perfectly fine reliable sources like this; the source, the Evening Standard, is used repeatedly in Wikipedia:Featured articles and other high visibility articles, as I've shown. Working on reducing quotes. Can the three of you be specific, please, whether you want to reduce:

• just the multiple word quotes from the subject and other individuals, or also
• the quotes from reviews of the subject's books (I didn't put those in, so wanted to leave other people's work, but can, I guess if required), and
• the single word quotes of what might otherwise be highly debatable words, such as the subject calling the entire UK food industry "elitist"?

Is there a specific policy or guideline that I need to meet here about these quotes, or it is a general feeling of "too many"? --GRuban (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I only mentioned the tags so I'm not sure. SL93 (talk) 14:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The tags have been removed, thank you User:George Ho! Some of the quotes are unavoidable and I will fight to the death for, for example, she called Piers Morgan a "sentient ham", which drew all sorts of attention, I hope you will agree there is just no way to rephrase that! I can remove some more of the others, if you two (minus SL93 as above) will specify your requests a bit more. --GRuban (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any rules regarding excessive quotes but I've recently returned from a 12-year hiatus, and Wikipedia is a very different place now, so I'm probably not the best person to ask about rules lol. I just feel having so many quotes hurts readability and it's best if you incorporate them into prose. But then we're not doing FAC here so I won't stand on your way if others say it's not a huge problem. BorgQueen (talk) 14:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

BorgQueen This might help - WP:OVERQUOTING. It's an essay though. SL93 (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

This is quite a concerning comment... depending on the context, quotes can help, of course, and sometimes they are necessary... but I honestly think the whole twitter fights section is excessive and in parts unencyclopedic, I just don't have the subject knowledge to condense it into a summary of notable parts. You mention Piers Morgan and that you would fight to the death to keep a quote there in, when realistically it could actually be better to say "Piers Morgan is among the people Tandoh has notoriously decried on social media" or something of the sort. It does not need to be a tweet-by-tweet run-down, which it borders on. As said, I'm not familiar with the person or the twitter fights, and I don't really want to dedicate time to it, but it's not particularly suitable coverage and I encourage revision. Replacing storytelling content the likes of "Tandoh said [quote] when [thing], then said [quote] when [other thing]", for explanation of what and why those things happened, would be the first step (before, then, condensing) to improvement. Kingsif (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah "kill your darlings", yes, you may well be right, I may have gotten too attached to the "bons mots", the article as a whole may well be better off without them, though it hurts to pull them out. However this isn't an FA or even a GA review, brilliant prose isn't one of the DYK requirements. What is the actual requirement we're trying to meet here, please? Also, can you please get back to my first question, by "quotes" do you only mean the statements by the subject, or also the ones from the book reviews, or also the singling out of individual words? I really do want to meet you halfway, if you say there are too many quotes, then I want to reduce quotes, I just want to make sure I'm reducing the right ones. --GRuban (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

• Interesting article! Two quibbles: Tandoh's often strident online criticisms of and conflicts with fellow chefs, often via Twitter tweets, have drawn extensive news coverage, enough so that even reviews of her books refer to them. [4] [5] seems like impermissible synthesis, unless there's secondary sources reaching that "enough so that" conclusion. And the operative verb in admitting that she had past boyfriends may have unwanted implications, especially due to stereotypes about bisexual women. acknowledging would maybe work, but simply saying wold probably be best per MOS:SAID. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Thank you, both done. --GRuban (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Queue 3 problems

@SL93 @Daniel Case @BorgQueen @Cbl62 In Killing of Sara-Nicole Morales, I see sources for her waiving a gun, her assailant not being charged, and that it was after an incident of road rage. I can't, however, find anything that says the gun waiving happened on her front lawn. I see I raised an objection to this article during the initial review phase, and the general opinion was that it's OK. I would still recommend that somebody give it one last look-over w/r/t WP:CRIME. Regardless of that, we still need better sourcing on the front lawn question.

Winton W. Marshall pegs earwig [6] Most of it is a big block quote that's appropriately cited, but there's still a bunch of smaller things. I've mostly convinced myself that they're fine (titles of military units and the like) but I'd also appreciate if that also got a 2O from somebody on whether we're too deep into close paraphrasing territory.

Other than those 2 things, Q3 is ready to go. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

For the Killing of Sara-Nicole Morales article, I would just remove the front lawn bit from the hook. I barely edit crime articles, so I'm not good for a lookover. For Winton W. Marshall, I thought that it was fine. Pinging Nikkimaria to see if they want to take a look. SL93 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Most of the content in the Marshall article is copied from USAF source, but that's a PD source and is properly attributed, and the article was promoted on the basis of its GA status rather than expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It's this source, currently in the article as footnote 18. I'll put it up near the first bit in the text that mentions the front lawn, and have it say "front yard" Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Should be OK. Daniel Case (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. SL93 (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Prep 2 - Last universal common ancestor

• ... that there might have been an organism from which all current life on Earth is descended?

A query about this one - what is the rationale for using the word might in this hook? Looking at the article, I see text such as "the detailed biochemical similarity of all current life confirms its existence" and later, in the section discussing alternative hypotheses, the text nonetheless says, in WP:WIKIVOICE, "Basic biochemical principles make it overwhelmingly likely that all organisms do have a single common ancestor". Assuming this is correct, with scientific consensus being for the LUCA's existence, and only a few dissenters representing a minority view, then if seems a WP:FALSEBALANCE to qualify it with "might". I'm not familiar enough with this topic to be certain though. @Chiswick Chap, Onegreatjoke, Flibirigit, and BorgQueen: please could you cast some light on this. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

So it should be there was then. BorgQueen (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy to be definite here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Y So fixed. BorgQueen (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Max Wenner

Prep 1: "that Max Wenner ... was described as an international man of mystery?"

"International" is not in the article, which actually says "In the neighbourhood he had the reputation of a man of mystery". I would have fixed this myself, but I'm also not sure that Wenner's being known as a local man of mystery is hookworthy. I feel like the fact that this man fell out of a plane should be the focus of the hook, rather than a parenthetical remark. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Sounds a bit like Austin Powers too. :-D BorgQueen (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Jengod. "... that Max Wenner fell, jumped, or was pushed out of an airliner over Belgium in 1937?" SL93 (talk) 12:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. jengod (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

i actually liked the "man of mystery" angle, though i agree that the focus should have been on the flight. would either of these alternatives work?

alt1: ... that exactly how Max Wenner, described as a man of mystery, had fallen from an airliner flying over Belgium in 1937 remains a mystery?

alt1b: ... that exactly how "man of mystery" Max Wenner had fallen from an airliner flying over Belgium in 1937 remains a mystery?

i think alt1b flows better, but don't know if the quotation marks would be interpreted as scare quotes. jengod, sorry for just missing you. dying (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Both of those are fine. Thank you for working on this, dying. :) jengod (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Y So fixed, sans the year. I think it works better without it. BorgQueen (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Dying and BorgQueen: Shouldn't that just be fell, not had fallen? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Urm, yes. Gonna fix it. Lol. BorgQueen (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

not sure how that tense had crept in. thanks, Tamzin and BorgQueen. dying (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

When to switch back to 1-per-day

Please see #Posing the question above and voice your opinion there. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Queue 5 (about to go live)

• ... that Nasser Abu Hamid had four brothers serving life sentences in addition to him?

• The article says he had five brothers serving life sentences, although the first four are sourced, with the fifth (who was sentenced later) being unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Shall I pull it? BorgQueen (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Source for five brothers serving life sentences. Hang on, I'll rewrite it. Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Found a better source as well (Haaretz), included those, and changed the hook to "five". Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Black Kite, I was sweating them in the nom and I had to do an Easter Egg Hunt for it, but I thought I had the article and hook matched. Bruxton (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Charles Woolley-Dod

Not sure where to post this but I think Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Wolley-Dod needs a second reviewer? I approved it but in doing so got very emotionally involved and ended make a lot of edits resulting in spinoff articles Max Wenner Violet B. Wenner John Vincent Cain Kjarra River and Italian Court Building. Anyway I think it's fine and ready to go but I can't find it in Approved so someone else probably needs to wade in. TY. jengod (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I will review. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Prep 4: Will Arbery

• ... that Will Arbery's view that the US media shallowly examined supporters of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential election campaign crystallized his desire to write a play?

The article says that the idea crystallized "after he was personally dissatisfied with the media's coverage of Trump supporters after the 2016 presidential election", which doesn't mention anything be "shallow", or really give a reason for his dissatisfaction at all. For all we know based on what's written, he might have thought they covered it too deeply. Secondly (and it looks like this was raised in the DYK) the article says after the election while the hook merely says supporters of the election, which would be more suggestive of something during the campaign itself. Pinging @Thriley, Sdkb, Outfortrout, EmphasisMine, and BorgQueen: who were involved with the nom. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

That's right. Needs to be reworded. BorgQueen (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Queue 5: "Sheesh!" hook

• ... that "Sheesh!" has been used in advertising campaigns by both Toyota and Pizza Hut?

I have been deeply uncomfortable with this hook from the start, because IMO, DYK is not a place to showcase corporate advertising campaigns, unless we have something interesting to say about them (that is more specific than "they paid to use this song"). (In fact, when you go to YouTube, all the comments say, "Oh I just love this song from X commercial!" It's the least non-obvious fact about the song you could point to.) I tried to intercept with ALT hooks when it was at Approved, but it got promoted to Prep before I could, and I had meant to voice my objection again, but it's now been promoted to Queue. As at least two admins have now approved it with no objections, I am willing to back down, but I know I am not the only one (@Theleekycauldron), and I would fully expect that we will receive a bunch of complaints when it hits the main page. It's also a shame because there are so many other angles to the "Sheesh!" story that are interesting – TikTok roots/samples, "hooky grandeur and speedy-smooth lines", etc., etc. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok I'll look into it. BorgQueen (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, @Cielquiparle: please do suggest your ALT hooks. BorgQueen (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, yes, this one slipped my mind when I was involved in this – kept meaning to bring it up, but it kept slipping my mind. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The above hook does not read as promotional to me. It makes no claims about the quality of any product, just says that a particular song has been used to advertise a couple of companies, how is that promotional? Gatoclass (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

(I don't necessarily object to featuring commercials, as long as there is something interesting to say about the commercials themselves. In this case it's kind of "blah" to say SONG was used in COMMERCIALS for A and B. Was the point of the original hook that you were supposed to wonder if "Sheesh!" was referring to the song or the original meme itself? If so, I think it's too subtle.)

Some ALT hooks to start; ALT4 would require edits to the original article. I'm sure others are possible.

• ALT0a: ... that the song "Sheesh!", sampling a TikTok meme, has been used in advertising campaigns by both Toyota and Pizza Hut?
• ALT4: ... that "Sheesh!" was said to have “struck gold” by combining the TikTok tone with the “hooky grandeur and speedy-smooth lines” of singer Tai Verdes? Source: Austin Chronicle

Cielquiparle (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Another option would be to keep the existing hook ALT0 but position it as the quirky hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• ALT0q: ... that both Toyota and Pizza Hut have had ads saying "Sheesh!"? Cielquiparle (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Ah ok. That sounds good too. BorgQueen (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

  Y So fixed. BorgQueen (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I like ALT4 better. BorgQueen (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

R. K. Padmanabha in Prep 7

R. K. Padmanabha has a few clarify tags. @DaxServer: Can you please look into them? BorgQueen (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@BorgQueen I've put those tags as I'm not aware of those terms, I wouldn't be able to resolve them — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, that's an interesting case. @SL93 and Cielquiparle: What do you think? BorgQueen (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@BorgQueen It doesn't have a "final" green tick mark. It might be one of the ones that got promoted by mistake when @Aoidh and I were just starting out (trial by fire! speaking of which, the directions for newbies need to spell out go to WP:DYKNA if they don't already). I think we should just unpromote it and send it back to WP:DYKN, and then the review can continue. The original author will do a better job at resolving the outstanding tags. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Y Done. BorgQueen (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)