Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 178

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 175 Archive 176 Archive 177 Archive 178 Archive 179 Archive 180 → Archive 185

Prep 4 special occasion hooks

I don't know if there was a discussion I missed, but Nikkimaria removed a special occasion hook from the relevant prep (which had date in hidden comment) without giving a reason - was the special occasion deemed inappropriate? Also ping nominator The C of E . Kingsif (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif: It wasn't that the date was wrong, Nikki thinks that theres a little overlap but I have extended it and I'm not really sure what the problem is either since she hasn't given me any specific details. Personally I think its OK to put back since I have added more content. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I removed it because two of the bolded articles in the hook - Navy and Air Force - were and still are too short to qualify for DYK, since there is content overlap with the Army article. Repeated new content can only go towards the minimum character count on one article. Either these need significant new content, or the hook can be run with the other two only. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Please tell me what amount is needed? I need specific numbers please and these vague "it's too short" aren't helpful. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)
The C of E, each article needs to have enough original material (i.e not something that is a copy of another article) to qualify for DYK. If they're new articles, that's 1500 characters. If they're expanded articles, that's 5x whatever they were before you started your expansion. You need to deduct the shared material numbers (i.e. however many characters that is) from all but one of the articles you've nominated when you're determining the character count. MeegsC (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@MeegsC: I know that, these are new articles as you can see. But I am struggling to see where there is significant overlap. Yes some cover the same areas but they are not the same text. So I need specific numbers to tell me which text i have to disregard and replace. Vague "not long enough"s aren't helpful. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I've expanded them sufficiently now. So please can you put it back? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
You haven't, and I think you're going about this the wrong way with the requests for specific counts. Our goal here isn't to eke out 1501 characters of slightly varied prose - it's to highlight substantive new content. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
It's a bit hard trying to aim for something you cannot see @Nikkimaria:, for someone like me I need more information rather than just a vague "no". OK, can you tell me what specific lines are overlaps because all I can see are maybe the ones about league being banned because of union and the one about covid cancellation? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Kanye problems

In Queue 3:

The article does not say he designed it, nor does it say that it has her name and likeness on it. The source says the item is in his fashion line, but does not say that he is the one who designed it. Furthermore, it says it's a sweatshirt, not a "t-shirt" (doubly wrong, since it would be "T-shirt" if it were correct). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Trillfendi and Valereee: and also note the source itself is only reliable for certain things, and I'm not sure porn star awards are one of them. Kingsif (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
And propose ALT " ... that a shirt depicting the likeness of pornographic actress Kendra Sunderland is included in Kanye West's clothing line?" Kingsif (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Wow, good catch...I don't even remember checking this one, I think I must have skipped over it. Are we sure she's actually notable? —valereee (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@Trillfendi, Valereee, Mandarax, and Kingsif: WP:ONEEVENT is a valid concern here, but others ought to weigh in. If you remove the section about the library incident and its ramifications, you really only have the small Early Life section. And possibly only one sentence in the lead. Is there anything about her life that could help expand this beyond the library incident? — Maile (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, valereee, for removing it from the queue and reopening the nomination. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 05:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
My battery died as I wrote a paragraph last night so I’ll keep it brief. The thing that differentiates this from being one event, in my opinion, is continued significant coverage past said event (and let’s be real, you’d be hard pressed to find an adult actress getting even 10% of the reliable sources she has.). It unquestionably checks the boxes of GNG. Had that not been the case it would’ve remained salted. While Kanye West was the creative director of the first Pornhub Awards, and did in fact sell the merchandise he designed on his own website, the onus is not on him in her article. The sweater had her name, a George Condo/MBDTF-esque painting of her, and award title on it, so that’s literally her likeness. I updated with People to better verify that. Since Wikipedia deprecated PORNBIO and made it so that even awards aren’t “notable” (bizarre to me), it’s merely trivia. Other alt options are available if it’s really a problem. Trillfendi (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The list below includes 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 16. We currently have a total of 263 nominations, of which 126 have been approved, a gap of 137. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Swap two image hooks?

Would someone be willing to swap the image hooks in Template:Did you know/Queue/7 and Template:Did you know/Queue/4 so they'll appear in the appropriate daytime for those bios? I'd do it but the one in Q7 is mine. —valereee (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Speedy special occasion idea

I don't know if it's possible in the next 3 hours, but IMDb tells me it is Chris Colfer's birthday, and I remembered a hook I approved that mentions him recently got promoted - it's in prep 6 right now, and if nominator Pamzeis is interested, could an admin (ping @Amakuru, Maile66, Casliber, Valereee, Cwmhiraeth, ONUnicorn, Wugapodes, and Lee Vilenski:) very speedily swap it out with one of the hooks in queue 4, next to update? Kingsif (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realise it was Colfer's birthday but I would certainly be alright with this change. Pamzeis (talk) 07:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done. I've even made the WP:BOLD decision to swap him out for the picture hook... happy birthday to him!  — Amakuru (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru lol...I'd requested that Meredith Clark hook you swapped into Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Prep_area_1be scheduled in the US daytime (because both she and her area of expertise are US-focussed), could you swap it with the Eye of Horus hook now in Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Prep_area_7? Cwmhiraeth had just moved it into Q4 a couple hours before you swapped in Chris Colfer. :D —valereee (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I forgot -- it's in prep, doesn't require an admin. Anyone who can get to this, I'd appreciate it. —valereee (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks for pointing this out, Valereee. I've put a hidden note, for the unlikely event that it gets moved again!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
hahaha thanks! —valereee (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Similarly, Philipp Harnoncourt - approved, in special occasions - should please please please be pictured on 30 May. Discussion in the nom and on BlueMoonset's talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Queues are full, so an admin will have to do that, too - this to queue 2 I believe? Kingsif (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt, I've made that change because it seemed to be exceptionally important to you, but honestly it's not reasonable to nominate on May 15th and expect the May 30 image slot. This is the kind of urgent request no one person should be making more than once a year, if that often, IMO. Please, if you want a specific date, nominate a lot sooner. You should be nominating hooks for August dates now. —valereee (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I should probably get back to work on my 9/21 draft so I get that done in time. Is early to mid July best? —Kusma (Кузьма · कुस्मा · 𐌺) 12:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kusma, for a 9/21 date, yes, I'd try to nom by mid-July, then ask your reviewer to put it into the special request holding area when they're done with the review. Once some editor other than you has slotted it into the holding area, you can put a hidden comment into the prep when it comes around, to make sure it isn't inadvertently overlooked by prep builders. —valereee (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry. Timeline:
nominated May 15 for 25 May, subject's first anniversary of death
only during further expansion noticed how important the Trinity was for him (not for me)
found an image of him, showing him when his dream came true, which made me hope more strongly for an image slot
thank you --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Gerda, I get it, things developed, but nominating May 15 for a May 25 slot is even tighter lol. In this particular case you had a really good argument for an image slot May 30: the holiday connected with the chapel, plus the photo of him in the chapel getting to experience the result of all of his work really was worth making a special request for. The date of his death? Meh, not so much, not with only a ten-day lead time, unless the hook is somehow about the death. 10 days is just too short for all but the truly special occasions, IMO. If this had been to shoehorn in an unrelated hook just because it was the date the person died, I probably would have passed. —valereee (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Two Queue tweaks

  • In the first hook of Queue 2, a redirect pipes to the object of the redirect. [[Trinity (Christianity)|Trinity]] should be replaced with [[Trinity]].
     Done  — Amakuru (talk) 13:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Queue 3 has no (pictured), and it's a tricky situation since the natural spot for it is in a quote. Here are three possible solutions:
  • ... that John Ruskin wrote that all cut glass (example pictured) "is barbarous; for the cutting conceals its ductility and confuses it with crystal"?
  • ... that John Ruskin wrote that "all cut glass [example pictured] is barbarous; for the cutting conceals its ductility and confuses it with crystal"?
  • ... that John Ruskin wrote that "all cut glass is barbarous; for the cutting conceals its ductility and confuses it with crystal" (cut glass punchbowl pictured)?

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as hook promoter for Q3...is (pictured) so vital as to justify breaking the flow of the hook? I find it quite a poetic quote, and all the renditions to lose something. The caption and, well, logic makes it clear the image is of cut glass. Pinging Johnbod and Casliber respectively, as nom and reviewer. Vaticidalprophet 22:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
  • No problem with moving the (pictured) to the end of the hook if other people think it improves the flow.—valereee (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, not interrupting the hook is best. Or just rely on the caption. Thanks for the ping - not everyone does! Johnbod (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
ditto! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Also fine with IARing and leaving the (pictured) out altogether, and I actually wonder if we should think about whether the (pictured) is kind of silly in many cases and ought to simply be used only when needed. —valereee (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yoninah tribute

Now that RFC to IAR for hook sets of Yoninah's work on the Main Page has passed, we need editors to put this together:

  • (1) Main Page tribute to Yoninah, with one full set of her best hooks, but without mentioning her name on the Main Page.
  • (2) Yoninah service medal (unanimous approval). We need one or more examples of a medal, and some guidelines on how this would be awarded.

Good luck, and thanks to everyone. — Maile (talk) 15:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering if we used File:The Jewish Barnstar.png as a base template as a subtle hint of Yoninah's heritage and I guess "Yoninah DYK Award" over it. The ribbon could be red with a "for DYK service" going vertically on it. Just throwing some ideas out there @Maile66:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Quite frankly, it looks to me like nothing is going to happen. Everybody got caught up in their moment of grief and wanted to do something. But now that we've sifted it all through an RFC and gotten some structure on it, seems like nobody is interested anymore. It was just the heat of the moment, an outpouring of grief. — Maile (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I still think the idea of the barnstar/medal has legs @Maile66:, it just got unceremoniously buried under other issues. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you. I love this idea, and think it is the ideal lasting tribute to someone we could easily call a pillar of the DYK project. So much of what I do today, is based on what I learned from her, as she patiently nudged me one direction or another on individual nominations. We'd probably get consensus, once somebody actually submitted a prototype for approval. But no one has done that. — Maile (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
DYK/Archive 176#Proposed DYK queue for Yoninah
@Maile66, no, just the first three credits are redlinks. —valereee (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: I found one, Gabi the elephant Maybe DYK Make was done differently in past years. — Maile (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Maile. So that one just didn't even include the subpage, maybe as you say that's what was done then. The other two are of similar vintage, so maybe not a problem. —valereee (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: My very first DYK was March 2011, nominated by an admin who is no longer very active. I didn't even know what DYK was, but I followed the link to the talk page here. My memory says that DYK finally ran out of nominations, and this admin grabbed mine off New pages and posted the hook for it directly onto either the next queue, or on the main page template. I think @Gatoclass: was part of DYK at that time, but not sure if any other current people were. It was really different then, and in some ways they were flying by the seat of their pants and trying to keep the project going. So I wouldn't worry too much about the missing credits for the older hooks. — Maile (talk) 01:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The consensus for whether or not to mention the editors name ended with a slight consensus against doing so. However, I'd like to propose replacing the "Archive" link with a "More factoids by this editor" or some similar link for this queue only - and linking to a subpage of DYK where we could have all (or as many as it's feasible to compile) of Yoninah's hooks, as well as a short message at the top thanking Yoninah for their dedication to DYK. Otherwise, I see absolutely no problem with Valereee's queue and I support using it in its current state as soon as possible - or if there's a date coming up with significance (first hook Yoninah made on the main page, anniversary of first edit, or similar) we could hold it until then. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Does anyone have a suggestion for a particular date? If note I'll slot this into the next available open prep. —valereee (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
    Or if anyone else wants to move it, please feel free! Or ping me when you see a prep set open up! We seem to be getting them filled quite smartly. —valereee (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
    Looks like her first edit was July 3, 2005. First DYK appearance was 12 April 2010, so that's past. July 3 might be a good plan. —valereee (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
    July 3rd sounds good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
    Support running this on July 3, as suggested. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Q5 May31b

Template:Did you know nominations/Kid Canfield

@Dumelow

  • ... that Kid Canfield (pictured) is the first known person to die live on radio?

It sounds like he didn't actually die on radio -- he collapsed, was carried to a couch, and died within a minute. Any objection to a tweak to

  • ... that Kid Canfield (pictured) is the first known person to collapse during a live radio broadcast and die?

To me, that sounds more accurate. Sorry if this feels nitpicky, I'm trying to thread the needle here for accuracy. —valereee (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi —valereee, I made a mistake: the paper says he died within a minute of falling to the floor, not of being placed on the couch. The book source states there was a "brief period of confusion" after he collapsed before the station put on a dance record so it's entirely possible they were still broadcasting at the time. The quote form the paper is: "as far as anyone knows, the sudden death of Canfield, while speaking over a radio station, was the first of its kind ever to happen". I've corrected the article to match the sources. I'll have a look (probably tomorrow now) to see what other sources say - Dumelow (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
No worries, we've got a couple days still! —valereee (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I had a look but turned up nothing more from the newspapers. If an issue, go with your proposal or one of the alts from the nomination - Dumelow (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Who Killed Canadian History?

Tkbrett

Hey, Tkbrett! I'm wondering about this quote, as in the article it says "the pinnacle" of the "history wars", which makes me wonder what the full original quote is and whether we should just use the full original quote. —valereee (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong, but I always thought that it was preferable to list the full quote. SL93 (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi valereee and SL93, here's the original quotation from Chapnick: "His (Jack Granatstein's) best-selling book of 1998, Who Killed Canadian History, a polemic on the decline of the teaching and scholarship of national history, marked the pinnacle (or the nadir) of what historian Christopher Dummit has recently called the 'history wars'" For further context, Chapnick calls it the nadir in parenthesis because his review of the book is on the whole negative. Tkbrett (✉) 17:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, that's too long lol. I'm thinking with pinnacle that far away from history wars, we're probably okay. I was more worried that the original quote was something very close to "the pinnacle of the history wars" or something. Sorry for the trouble, @Tkbrett! —valereee (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Given that the quote is "pinnacle (or nadir)" I'd say you couldn't highlight one or the other in a hook per NPOV. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Black Kite, I was trying to avoid POV. Here's what I mean: I originally only quoted "pinnacle" because I thought that in the context of Chapnick's piece it was his way of stating that the book resulted in many responses and arguments in Canadian history journals, whereas the "(or nadir)" comment served to make clear which side of the argument he was on. Tkbrett (✉) 18:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't see "pinnacle of the history wars" as particularly POV myself (same absolute value as a nadir, and can be read either as positive or as similar to "the pinnacle of WP:LAME"). CMD (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
I see your point, though I'm unconvinced. I think "pinncle (or nadir)" is actually more interesting anyway... Black Kite (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting how this worked out

It's interesting how Mary Treglia has just hit the main page for DYK and one of the main local news channels for Sioux City, Iowa KTIV just did a story on her community house today. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Time to go to two sets a day

The total number of approved nominations hit 120 earlier today and is at 122 as I write this, so it is time to increase the number of daily sets to two per day. We should start at midnight, which is two hours from now.

As is always the case when we change set frequency, some special occasion hooks will need to be moved around, though none urgently. There are two in queues that need to be moved soon, which will require an admin; in a couple of hours, after the next queue has been promoted to the main page, we’ll also need an admin to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200.

Here is what needs to change:

In addition, I am returning the following special occasion hooks from prep to the special occasions holding area because they need to be on the main page in June, well after the latest date available to preps when we switch over to two sets per day:

There is a special occasion hook for Philipp Harnoncourt that will need to be promoted to Prep 2 so it runs at 00:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC). BlueMoonset (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging admins Amakuru, Maile, Cas Liber, valereee, Cwmhiraeth, ONUnicorn, Wugapodes, and Lee Vilenski, in the hopes that one of them can change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200 to get us to two sets a day as soon as possible, and definitely before 12:00 UTC. Thank you very much! Then, if any of you have time, moving the Queue 3 and Queue 5 hooks would be appreciated. (I have returned the special occasion hooks from prep as noted above.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Pinging a few more admins just to be sure that Time Between Updates gets changed: Gatoclass, Shubinator, and Materialscientist. Thanks to you all. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done I have changed the DYKUpdateBot and will now make the other alterations suggested above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Queue 2: Margaret Saurin

I know we often overlook this requirement, but this one seems a stretch in terms of "interesting to a broad audience". What is remarkable about an ex-footballer going to coach in the States? @Joseph2302, SL93, and Ykraps: as nom, reviewer, promoter.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

There's not a clear definition of what "interesting to a broad audience" means. There seems to be quite a few hooks in queues/preps that I'd not consider at all interesting to anyone, so not sure why this hook is being singled out? It's reasonably unusual for footballers to go from Ireland to US, and I don't see an obvious "better" hook in the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Joseph2302 and Amakuru, might either of these work? They focus, however, on her pre-pro career.
  • ... that Margaret Saurin set an NCAA record for assists in a season in 2001 as a college football (soccer) player, and then broke that record in 2002?
  • ... that before she turned professional, Margaret Saurin was named most valuable player in the 1996 Dana Cup, one of the world's largest youth football tournaments?
Both of those sound pretty impressive to me! MeegsC (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the fact we let through too many uninteresting hooks is a reason not to at least occasionally question them. To me this does seem a bit mundane...former footballer becomes a coach in another country. Is it maybe more interesting that when she played for the Sirens she was one of five Irish players on the team? Or that when she played for Christian Brothers she appeared 47 times and scored 47 goals? —valereee (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
  • ... that Irish association footballer Margaret Saurin went to the US as a college player, and ended up staying to coach at both the college and professional level for almost two decades? MeegsC (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, these seem like nice alternatives. And apologies if this seemed like singling out, but my job was to look at Queue 2 with my admin eyes on and it just hit me as very mundane, by almost any definition you might put on the "broad audience" requirement. We should either apply the rule, or scrap it.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
    I am not all that familiar with what is considered interesting about coaches. People could ask here every single time that they review or promote something that they don't know much about, but that would make DYK very bothersome. I thought that I was tagged because I missed a factual error or something similar. I feel that while an interesting criterion is needed, it doesn't mean as much as it should to how DYK is currently run. SL93 (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
    SL93, typically people ping the nom/reviewer/promoter to be polite, not because they're trying to bust their balls. If you'd prefer not to be pinged to anything that is an opinion rather than an actual factual error, I'm sure people here will try to remember that. —valereee (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Valereee: I realize that. I never said that. SL93 (talk) 17:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
    Okay, sorry for misunderstanding -- I thought you were sounding like you were unhappy to have been pinged to this discussion. —valereee (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
    It's fine. I only typed what was on my mind at the time. I actually never did think that pinging me for issues was to hurt me in some way, but I didn't explain myself more because people continued to try to read between lines that weren't ever there. SL93 (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Association football is not hugely popular in the US and although there have been many high profile European players going to the states, I can't think of a single female one. I have great difficulty putting myself in the minds of others and, while I found the hook only "mildly interesting", who knows what a 'broad audience' thinks? --Ykraps (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Of course, there were 5 Irish players on the same US team she played for first, so perhaps it's not all that unusual after all! ;-) MeegsC (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone care anymore? The hook goes up in an hour. SL93 (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
The boring hook is now replaced on MainPage with the second hook suggested by MeegsC above. --PFHLai (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I care, but apparently that doesn't matter because I've not been around, as it's the weekend. I don't like a hook pointing to a competition that nobody will have heard of, because those hooks never get many views. But apparently that's what we've got now, so good job all.............. In future, these should either by moved back or a hook properly agreed upon, including with the nominator. I never would have agreed to the hook, as I don't see how being the best player at a tournament mobody has heard of would be hooky and attract views. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
And the hook now running is based on a primary source (a team she works for), rather than a hook based on a secondary source. If people really wanted to change the hook, it should have been moved back and hooks agreed and approved properly. New hooks shouldn't be used without nominator approval in my opinion, and I strongly disagree that this new hook will attract more readers. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Joseph2302, according to your contributions, you were on Wikipedia both the 28th and the 29th, and didn't respond to the pings, so it's not quite correct to say you "weren't around, as it's the weekend". ;) I'm sorry I've messed up your nomination; I certainly didn't expect any of my suggestions to run without your approval. I was just trying to throw some other possibilities out there, since you said you couldn't see any other hooks. As to the hook PFHLai chose being sourced to a primary source, surely if it's good enough for the article, it's good enough for the hook? After all, I just lifted the fact from the article you wrote! MeegsC (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The original, boring Margaret Saurin hook has been restored on MainPage due to complaints on WP:ERRORS that the replacement is "wrong is misleading". This boring hook will stay on MainPage for the rest of the hour and the whole set will be replaced at 12:00 (UTC). --PFHLai (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Joseph2302, I just read through your complaints on the Main Page errors page, and have to confess to being really confused. The Dana Cup is the "world's largest youth tournament". That would suggest that readers from many, many countries would be familiar with it, and it's hardly likely to have been "a competition that nobody will have heard of". And you say Margaret "never played professionally". I realise that most Europeans sneer at American fooball, but I think the semi-pro team she played for in Massachusetts might have some words to say to you about that! MeegsC (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Joseph2302, you were around and you were pinged. I'm not going to feel guilty over that. Consensus was that the hook was boring when the responses to the contrary was based around not knowing what a broad audience refers to. This book from Routledge says that the Dana Cup is prestigious. I do realize how your boring hook being swapped out could upset you, but I don't believe your other arguments are valid or is what is best for Wikipedia as a whole. SL93 (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe there is enough blame to go around - Amakuru, who brought up the concern, stated that the alternatives from MeegsC were nice. Joseph2302, as the "concerned" nominator, didn't follow the discussion while being online and pinged. I brought up the issue on the ERRORS page. PFHLai picked the hook. SL93 (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Fellow Wikipedians, this hook is no longer on MainPage. Let it be. Please be encouraged to spend more time at WP:DYKN/WP:DYKNA/T:DYK/Q and pro-actively help each other craft better hooks before issues get onto MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that what's done is done. I think it would have been better to have pulled the hook so that a new hook could have been agreed upon, which is what normally happens. An admin instead wrote a hook that didn't match any of the proposed hooks, which contained a factual error, this is the thing that really frustrated me about this. If I were online and missed some replies, then I apologise, but if a similar situation arises in the future, it's much safer to just pull the hook before it goes live. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The goal of hook perfection

Per EEng above, DYK's first hook happened in 2004, a hook that didn't even have an article until 3 days after the hook was on the main page. here We have somehow evolved from that, through our own goals and standards, as well as how we reacted to criticism at any point. That's all well and good, but I think in the process we've lost sight of the idea is to encourage editors. We are so concentrated on getting those hooks as interesting and flawless as can be, that we are willing to override the wishes and efforts of the nominator. We proceed with the faith that opinions of the non-involved are more informed, or more correct, than the editor who worked hard on creating the article. Maybe we don't have to be so nitpicking. After all, it's only one person's opinion vs. another. Eh? — Maile (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I am so glad that you raised this issue, and I agree with what you say. It seems to me that the review process on the DYK nomination template for the page constitutes a content discussion (usually just between two editors, the nominator and the reviewer, but sometimes attracting multiple editors), and it involves those who have given the most thought to the page and to its sourcing. Once the nomination is "good to go", there's a sort-of consensus for that version of the preferred hook. A lot of the time, subsequent edits are done on-the-fly, even though they are almost always done in good faith. If they unintentionally introduce something that worsens the hook, that would have been pointed out and discussed in the nomination discussion, that's a net negative. And I think that problem gets compounded once the queue becomes full-protected. I suggest reviewing Wikipedia talk:Protection policy/Archive 13#Admins editing through full protection: proposed addition, even with its mixed opinions. The community generally agrees that there should be limits to admins editing through full protection to make content changes to their own preference, and there's no reason why that should be different for DYKs than for mainspace articles. Correcting obvious errors, BLP violations, and the like, and to enact edit requests that have been discussed and agreed to is fine. But just making an "I think this would be better" edit unilaterally, no matter how much in good faith, can have unexpected repercussions. At least informally (as opposed to an actual rule), I'd like editors and admins who edit hooks after the review to try to check with nominators and reviewers before making changes. And even when that's not practical given time pressures, there's a sort of obligation to consider whether the change would have been agreed-to, if it had been discussed. It's awfully easy to think "I think it's better this way", and to make the edit, but it creates a sort of "last mover advantage". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
On my own hooks, the breaking point was a few years back. I'm not going to open that specific can of fish worms, because it took on the absurd that I don't want to accidentally re-hash here. Eventually, it was rejected on a legitimate issue. But in the process, the whole a lengthy spat developed from someone - not a DYK regular - who was disrupting the process over wanting us to swap out article images with some from Commons they preferred. There was nothing technically wrong with the images in the article, just that this person preferred others to be in the article. The article itself was in the process of being reviewed for one of the other projects, and this individual pretty much shut down that nomination also with disruptions over the images. To my memory, we just withdrew that other nomination rather than waste our time. The only other time I almost quit DYK entirely was because of someone (no longer active here) who was just dogging everybody with their objections. At some point, everybody can reach an apex of (pardon me), "F-it! I don't get paid for this shit!" We can do better. And after my own experiences just mentioned, a little courtesy doesn't hurt. — Maile (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Can of fish? I agree: I don't wanna get canned! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, sardines do come in tins of some sort. — Maile (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Can of worms: that's much better. Sounds yummy! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Everyone has heard of the Diet of Worms, right? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

We are so concentrated on getting those hooks as interesting and flawless as can be, that we are willing to override the wishes and efforts of the nominator

Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more with the thrust of these remarks. The entire Wikipedia project is based upon the "wisdom of crowds" and the notion that more eyes on the job leads to better results, and I strongly concur. Most people are aware of how much more difficult it is to judge one's own work than that of somebody else, so it should be no surprise to find that nominators not infrequently turn out to be indifferent judges of their own hooks. While all things being equal, nominators preferences should be respected, DYK should never be run solely or even chiefly to satisfy "the wishes .. of the nominator" - that is a surefire road to mediocrity and clunky and embarrassing content making it to the main page on a regular basis. BRD applies just as well to hooks as to any other form of content, and in my experience, the vast majority of changes made to hooks on their way to the main page are improvements. If the occasional hook is worsened by the process, that is the price one pays for overall significantly better results. Gatoclass (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I lean toward the idea that more eyes create a better hook. I've seen it go both ways, and in general I tend to open discussion for anything I think might be problematic for the nom, but there's a recent discussion at my own talk of a change I made that, at the time, I didn't think was big enough to open a separate discussion on (because there was already a discussion in progress). The nominator disagreed, and we came to a place of agreement, but it made me think that maybe nearly any change other than obvious typos should get a section opened and ping the nom. Courtesy ping to @EEng. —valereee (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
All I can say, again, is we should stop with the newness fetish and take GAs only, and run only those hooks that come out in the top 50% in a popularity vote for interestingness. EEng 21:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Setting aside what EEng said (whatever that was... [FBDB]), something that I think a couple of the editors here are not taking into account is that no one is saying that there is anything bad about open discussion with more participants. I, for one, don't want to lock anyone out of the consensus process – but I'm saying that's a two-way street. Someone who acts unilaterally when it's too late for anyone else to opine is not engaging in open discussion, and is replacing the "wisdom of crowds" with the "wisdom of me alone". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Reading further what others are saying, I want to add that I understand that, sometimes, other editors have a better understanding of what is needed than the nominator does. And I would not advocate that the wishes of the nominator should be prioritized to such a degree that no one should be able to override them. I get that. And I'm OK with putting a limit on the nominator's wishes during the nomination stage, because there is always dialog at that stage: nominators have to work with WP:Consensus along with everyone else. But there is already another editor, at a minimum, who reviews the nomination, who can say no to unreasonable requests. And even when the reviewer gets it wrong, an admin gets to say yes or no to moving it from the approved page to a prep area. But after that has happened, there's nothing unreasonable about checking back whenever practical (within time constraints) before acting unilaterally, when it's not a matter of correcting a policy violation. I think it's reasonable to expect changes that are made, without discussion, at the prep and queue stages not be matters of "I know that this was already agreed to at the nomination template, but I have a personal preference for doing it this other way." I wonder whether the discussion here is self-selecting for editors who are DYK regulars, who are consequently less likely to see anything wrong with the kinds of edits that they, themselves, do. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, EEng I applaud your enthusiasm for GA nominations. However, if we eliminated all but them, DYK would have the same problem. When I first tried reviewing GA nominations, I was very quickly reminded by BlueMoonset that GA does not have the same criteria (WP:GACR) for eligibility as DYK. The example I give, is GA nomination for Marian Anderson that I reviewed and passed. And then it was nominated for DYK, and the very thorough Yoninah took the reigns (DYK nomination Marian Anderson). The reason the close paraphrasing came up, is because at GAC, I relied on one of the DYK template copyvio tools. Can't remember which one, but nothing stood out when I did it. Yoninah went a different direction. She reallly dug her heels in on this, and she was correct in the long run. But it was a big mess of who copied who first - somewhere in the chain of events, the University had copied verbatim from the Wikipedia article on Marian Anderson, which made it look like we copied from them. There was some notation on the university page about how they got the info, but the university page was updated while DYK review was happening, eliminating the statement they'd copied from us. Or something like that. Back and forth. Either GA would have to restructure its rules - which won't happen in my lifetime - or DYK would have to lower theirs - which is like waiting for a snow blizzard during a San Antonio summer. Total overhaul of rules ain't gonna happen, either direction.— Maile (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
No, if DYK switched to carrying only GAs, we wouldn't have the "same problems". We'd no doubt still have problems (uneven understanding of rules and review procedures, difference of opinion, etc etc) and because of the new focus those problems would tend to manifest themselves in new ways, but at least all the effort would be directed at presenting reasonably good-quality articles instead of new and often inchoate articles. EEng 02:15, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Gatoclass's concerns about how nominator's wishes. While we try to respect them as much as possible, there are times when it's simply not feasible to do so, especially when the hook wording is too clunky or frankly uninteresting. We should try to compromise as much as possible but there are really times when what the nominator wants isn't what is best for our interests, although I agree that especially when it comes to newcomers we should strive to be more forgiving and guiding. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The whole point of DYK is to give new articles a chance to be seen on the main page. While it's nice if it's an "interesting" hook, it shouldn't have to be interesting to everyone. We are not capable of judging what the millions of people who see the main page daily will find that piques their interests - and I haven't seen a single DYK hook that hasn't resulted in at least 1000 extra page views for the page when it runs. That's 1000 people that found the hook interesting enough to click on and go see an article about it. And that's more than enough - maybe one of those viewers sees an error, corrects it in that article, and goes on to become a productive editor - or maybe not, but who cares? If the point of DYK is to reward new content/greatly expanded content, why would we even consider these onerous criteria for "interesting-ness"? Unless it's a completely useless hook like "This person lived and is now dead" or "The <species name> is a species of <animal>", why do we care? Just because you or I don't find something interesting does not mean others won't, and even 1000 extra views on a topic has 1000 potential editors who will see it and potentially edit more too. This all seems like an attempt to make more rules/criteria for something just for the sake of some people feeling special for enforcing them, and honestly, the fact that people are going so far as to propose a literal voting contest really makes me sour about submitting future content to DYK. I guarantee you at least half of my hooks wouldn't have been considered "interesting enough", and even I didn't find some of them interesting to me, but that shouldn't matter if the goal is truly to recognize new/expanded content and provide links people may want to click on the main page. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, because I never stated explicitly, I have no problem with the review process making grammatical or flow improvements to hooks at all. But hooks/articles should not be outright declined just because they are a little bit clunky - the reviewer can certainly suggest improvements but the nominators wishes as to what fact should be presented should be honored whenever possible - even if the hook isn't exactly their proposal. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
      • It really depends, because there are times when even the hook fact itself would be unsuitable for DYK, or is simply not engaging enough. For example, if the nominator's hook fact was an outright attack on a living person and they pushed for this hook, or if the fact was discriminating against a person or a group of people, should their wishes be honored? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
        • Berchanhimez, we get 8 slots a day (16 sometimes) to promote new content. If your hooks are so uninspiring that "even I didn't find some of them interesting to me", then perhaps we should be choosing more interesting hooks from others. After all, we get well more than 8 new hooks submitted on most days. Given our limits, perhaps we shouldn't be running hooks "just because it's new"—we've got more than enough new content to choose from. I haven't submitted DYKs for some of the poorly-known species I have written articles about, because I just couldn't think of anything really compelling to put into a hook. MeegsC (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
There also probably needs to be a change in mentality among us. It's not uncommon for us to nominate an article for DYK for nominating's sake even when there's really no suitable hook fact that can be used or the article really wasn't meant for DYK. Perhaps if we could instead focus on articles that are more deserving of a DYK slot that would help maintain quality, among other things. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with the points being made by Maile and Tryptofish. I have an article going through DYK currently but take little pleasure in it because the approved hook has now been bloated in violation of my wishes. The process is supposed to be that hooks are nominated, reviewed and approved and they should then appear with a minimum of munging and mutilation. The success or failure of the hook is credited to the nominator and those who have edited the article. Others should stay out of this because they are distorting the competitive process. If they want to demonstrate their superior prowess then they should do so by entering their own articles and making reviews. See also: perfect is the enemy of good. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

A more narrow focus

I think that editors have been making good points about the fact that, sometimes, nominators put forth hooks that really should not go through. But I still think that, buried within this discussion, there's something valid to be considered about greater deference to nominators. So I'd like to consider, more narrowly, the process of what happens to a hook after it has been reviewed and passed. I've commented about this in detail just above, so I won't repeat what I said unless someone asks me to. But I think that, once a nomination has been passed by a reviewer, and moved by an administrator from the approved page to a prep area, there should be some caution about further edits to the hook, with a particular caution about not changing the meaning from what was agreed upon at the nomination template. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Promoting an approved hook into the prep area is normally done by an editor with experience at DYK, but not by an administrator. However, moving the prep set into the queue is an administrative task, and that administrator is ultimately responsible for the accuracy of the hook. If nominators provide accurate, well written hooks, referring to facts cited inline in the article, there will be no need for the final changes in the hook that you are objecting to ("the pioneer" rather than "a pioneer" being a case in point). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me about the move into a prep area. Although I became interested in this issue as a result of that hook (obviously), I'm thinking of the issue here in broader terms. However, based on your comment, I have to ask. Do you believe that the change you made to that hook ("a pioneer" rather than "pioneered") was a necessary one, that corrected an error? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes I do. At that late stage in the process, I am not concerned about interest or hookiness, and only make changes that I think are really necessary. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, thank you for your honesty. I, on the other hand, consider myself quite capable of writing "accurate, well written hooks, referring to facts cited inline in the article". And the hook came out of a discussion with the reviewer, MeegsC, who is an experienced DYKer, and was selected from the nomination page and moved into the prep area by valereee, who is both an experienced DYKer and an admin. And neither of them saw a problem with it. So it seems to me that you are overestimating your judgment, if you think that this was something sufficiently necessary that you needed to edit through full protection without checking back with anyone. Now, that said, I'm not actually accusing you of doing anything wrong, and I very much appreciate that you went along with going back to the earlier iteration of the hook, that rendered the issue of "a" versus "the" moot, and that you were overall very responsive and open to accountability. But I think – generally speaking – that this is something where there ought to be, not a strict rule, but an understanding that (1) admins do not have more say about content style than other editors do, and (2) that it's generally a good idea to avoid edits that are not matters of policy, but rather matters of personal preference, at that stage, without checking back whenever practical. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I note what you say. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The system in use at DYK was developed through years of experience and experiment, and has been found to be the best method given existing constraints. The number of complaints raised about hook edits is vanishingly small by comparison with the overall number made - probably a fraction of 1%. That is an extraordinarily good track record. The notion that we should change everything because a tiny fraction of edits may not be optimal is to my mind absurd. No system is perfect, but time has proven this one to be remarkably robust.

It's been said time and again but it bears repeating: set verification is a time-consuming, difficult and unpopular task. One might be able to verify a complete set of hooks in 20 minutes if there are no problems, but usually there are, and then the job can take up to an hour or even more. Expecting administrators and other quality controllers, on top of their existing responsibilities, to notify every user about every change and then have a conversation about it is just totally impractical, given the number of hooks that are featured on a daily basis. We don't have enough quality controllers as it is; adding more bureaucracy to the system is a sure-fire method of discouraging even their participation.

For those users who object to their hooks being edited without consultation, there is a straightforward solution: keep a close eye on your hooks as they make their way to the main page, so that you can raise any objections about hook changes yourself. If you think that too onerous, might I suggest to you that what you are expecting quality controllers to do on your behalf is far more so. Gatoclass (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of unnecessary hyperbole in what you say there. It certainly is not my "notion that we should change everything": there's a big difference between that, and the idea that the "quality controllers" should – as a matter of something to keep in mind, and not as a hard and fast rule – remember that there should already have been quality control at the nomination review stage, and that there are limits to using editing through full protection to enforce personal preference as opposed to policy compliance. In effect, I'm encouraging those who edit at the last stages to be a little more aware of "think before you save the edit", which is hardly changing "everything", nor a discouraging or onerous task. It's not like a proposed rule that one must always "notify every user about every change". As for keeping a close eye on one's hook, I, for one, did exactly that. And when I contacted the administrator, everything worked out fine in the end. What I'm saying is that sometimes, that same discussion could be initiated another way – without someone like me, who is not an admin and cannot correct a fully-protected mistake, being the one to initiate it.
I find it disappointing but illuminating that the reaction here was not something like: "To do that all the time would be impractical, but that's a useful thing to keep in mind informally." Instead, I'm being told that the existing way of doing things is already "the best method given existing constraints", as though it's an affront, and perhaps a threat, to discuss even the possibility of minor adjustments. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Having not commented before, I am unsure what the minor adjustment proposed is. The opening statement here calls for "caution about further edits to the hook", but there's no evidence that such caution is not already applied, or that the admins do not already think before saving edits. I suspect the individual admins probably feel they do think before saving, so that wouldn't be an adjustment to the procedure at all. Could you clarify what the proposed adjustment is, if not notification? CMD (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that's a very fair question, so thank you for raising it with me. First, I'm not asking for a rule or policy change, more like asking DYK regulars to think about what I'm saying and to keep it in mind. And I'm also not asking for any kind of major change in the process. I agree with you that people naturally think that they already are making edits thoughtfully, and, now that you point it out, I realize that it may sound "off" for me to imply otherwise, so my apologies for that. As for notification, I think that it can be a good idea, in the sense of consultation, so it's worth considering (but again, not mandating). So what this boils down to is that I think it can be easy, when doing this over a long time, to get comfortable with just going ahead and making whatever edit one wants to make, and to think that, now, it's going to be the final version in just the way that one likes it. And I'm asking people to check whether that has become a bit too much of a habit, and to re-calibrate where appropriate. Keep in mind that making a change that immediately becomes full-protected is a different kind of edit than what happens in mainspace, where there is WP:BRD – it's more like B without R or D. So, that's fine to enforce policy. But not necessarily to enforce personal preference. And RfA is not intended to give admins a higher status with respect to writing style.
So am I proposing a formal adjustment to procedure? No. I am encouraging a moment of reflection (even when already believing that the edit is well justified) about whether a change after the nomination discussion has already reached a consensus, is really necessary (as opposed to preferable), and whether it might be wise to attempt (within time constraints) a bit of consultation and discussion before making the change. Just think about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
I think just out of courtesy, if a hook is going to be significantly changed while in prep/queue, it is in DYK's interest to inform the nominator in some way (maybe through a ping or a talk-page message). Not all DYK nominators have the time or interest to follow Queues, so some awareness of what is going on should still be provided in any case. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I certainly agree there is a lack of courtesy to nominators when substantial changes are made to hooks in preps and queues. Yes, no need to notify them if its a spelling/grammar/link change. But when its something that does alter the hook beyond that by adding or taking away from it, the nominator (and the reviewer to add to that) has a right to reply to these changes. A case in point I have today was on my Hampden Park square goalposts hook due to run tomorrow. On WP:ERRORS an addition was made to the hook without them pinging or notifying me which I felt diminished the hook. Thankfully this issue was sorted out amicably and the extra addition was removed (full discussion here). But it just goes to show that nominators need to know what's going on and especially if there is going to be a change that they feel is not necessary. My view has always been once a hook is approved, aside of copyediting or link additions, it should be left as approved and not just changed on the whim of users who just feel that it might be nicer if extra parts were added or parts taken away. I would really like us all to extend fair and reasonable courtesy to each other in an area that I know can get fairly heated easily. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, your hook got altered at WP:ERRORS, which is not part of DYK (but it has no obligation to inform nominators either). Secondly, your hook actually got improved there, so I don't think you have a lot to complain about. Gatoclass (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
it has no obligation to inform nominators either: Sure, there's no rule or guideline, but it seems like common sense—if it isn't, maybe it needs to be yet another rule. The best of both worlds is a notification and an unsolicited improvement. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. And the hook wasn't on the Main Page yet. It was not that urgent to not have had time to notify and wait a bit for a response.—Bagumba (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
There is probably a better case for notifying nominators at ERRORS because they are last-minute edits and because one has to start a discussion to post there anyway, but I maintain that it is completely impractical - and unnecessary - to do so for edits in prep and queue at DYK, especially since nominators are perfectly capable of tracking their own nominations as they make their way through the process. Gatoclass (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I have started promoting hooks this week (and completed my first prep area a couple days ago.) I do not notify the nominator when doing minor copyedits to the hook. If my changes would delete text or change the meaning, I did not promote the hook and instead proposed ALT text. I feel this is the appropriate action. This might mean that a hook needs to be unpromoted while discussion is ongoing, but I would rather have that than a person unfamiliar with the topic making changes that could cause an error. Z1720 (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Gatoclass, a ping to the nominator in the edit summary while doing copyedits on hooks would be a good way to prevent some good faith errors. I've had

... that although author Lao She declared it a failure, Cat Country has been translated into at least six languages?

turned into

... that although author Lao She declared her satirical novel Cat Country a failure, it has been translated into at least six languages?

which is not quite as much of an improvement as it looks because Lao She was male. I didn't catch it before it came up at WP:ERRORS. So encouraging pings would perhaps be good practice? —Kusma (t·c) 14:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm pleased that multiple editors are noticing this problem and commenting on it – multiple thanks to you. I notice that the discussion is focusing more on the issue of "notification" than on "discussion" or "consultation". Since, as noted, notification can consist of a ping-by-edit-summary, I have trouble swallowing the assertion that it would be too difficult, time-consuming, and impractical. On the other hand, I'm sympathetic to the concern that it can be impractical to wait for a reply from the nominator or reviewer if those people do not respond promptly. So I'm fine with the idea that there should be some very serious limits to how long the notifier should feel obligated to wait for a reply. But this isn't an issue of "notification as requirement". It's an issue of "consultation as common sense". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's great that we have a new set builder who is willing to notify about any edit he considers to be more than minor. But set building and promotion to the queue are different actions, there are no particular time constraints in prep building. When an administrator promotes a set to the queue, all eight hooks have to be verified as accurate at once, which is a difficult and time-consuming process - you can't just do one or two hooks and then walk away from the job. It also often has to be done quickly, when the queue is near empty. Many previously unnoticed issues can be revealed at this stage, and they all have to be resolved quickly, either through consultation and discussion or by finding and verifying new nominations to replace the problematic ones. As I've previously noted, a single set can take an hour of hard, concentrated work. To expect administrators, on top of this, to also be opening multiple discussions about every change they think needs to be made is a great way to ensure that they will just stop bothering with fixing issues altogether, resulting in suboptimal content making it through to the main page on a regular basis.

So I maintain that the burden of checking that errors have not been inadvertently introduced by quality controllers is best left to nominators. It is surely not much of a burden, after all, to take note of when your hook has been promoted to prep, to track its progress from there and to raise objections yourself if you think a change has been made that is undesirable. Certainly, that is a much better option in my view than expecting overworked set promoters to take on yet more responsibilities in addition to those they already have. Gatoclass (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Gatoclass, it is not reasonable to expect nominators to follow all changes to all preps and queues. It also isn't reasonable to start a discussion for every change. A ping to the nominator may be too much when decisions must be made quickly, but just to say it is good practice should not be too onerous. —Kusma (t·c) 06:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand why there's resistance to even the idea of at least pinging the nominator in some way if a hook will be changed in any significant way. Like what Kusma said, it's probably expecting too much to think that noms can follow every step of the way. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:14, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Nominators do not have to follow their noms "every step of the way". They only need to take note of when their hook is scheduled to make the main page, and to take a look at it, say, 24 hours beforehand to ensure no changes have been made that they might find detrimental. It's far easier for them to do that than it is for copyeditors to be pinging every nominator or starting a discussion for every change they make, and as I've been at pains to point out, the burden on promoting administrators is already very high and should not be gratuitously increased for a vanishingly small benefit, particularly when it is likely to lead to an overall reduction in quality as copyeditors simply stop bothering due to the increased red tape. Gatoclass (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
The problem with assuming that nominators check on their noms is that they have to actively search for where their hooks are. Also, why should they even expect there to be changes after the hook has been approved? Basically, if nominators follow the DYK instructions, then after "promotion", the hooks disappear into The Big DYK machine and then only come out again when the article hits the Main Page. If you want nominators to check, at least they should have a bot notification "your article is scheduled to hit the Main Page the day after tomorrow, please go to WP:ERRORS if there are any issues with the hook". Informal pings whenever a hook is changed could be less annoying for everyone involved, though. —Kusma (t·c) 09:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Kusma, that's a wee bit of hyperbole there. ;) All of the queues and preps are on the same page. A simple search shows you right where your hook is. It's not like it's some onerous task to look for it. And most of us prep builders indicate in our edit summaries which prep your hook is being promoted to. Yes, sometimes they later get moved, but not very often. As a nominator, I always keep an eye on my hooks. As to why hooks change? Because some reviewers don't have a good grasp of English grammar. Because some reviewers know more about a subject than the average reader, and gloss over things that would make no sense to someone who doesn't. Because some reviewers avoid having potentially difficult discussions with nominators over issues that should have been addressed before the hook was approved. Lots of reasons. MeegsC (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
MeegsC, I figured this out only after I encountered a problem with my nom that was introduced by copyediting. The official instructions do not expect the nominator to do anything in terms of hook quality control. As to hyperbole, I am responding to the claim that any improvements to the copyediting process are a terrible "gratuitous increase to the burden on promoting administrators". I think the process is bewildering to new nominators (there is one process to get the hook approved, followed by another process to get a prep built, followed by another process that involves an admin, and only then does the hook hit the main page) and if you expect them to interact with more than the first step, you need to tell them. —Kusma (t·c) 09:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

Okay, given that some users clearly have ongoing concerns about this issue - and admittedly, it's long been a grey area that I myself have struggled with - I think it's probably time we did something to address it. I therefore propose that we reprogram the bot - or have a new bot written if necessary - to activate whenever the queues are rotated, and to send out notifications to all nominators whose hooks are in the queue that is scheduled to reach the main page in 24 hours. This will (a) relieve both nominators and administrators/copyeditors from having to monitor the queues or send out manual notifications, (b) ensure that all nominators have ample time to review their hook in what is likely its final form, and raise questions or objections in a timely manner, and (c) relieve administrators and copyeditors from having to decide when a notification may or may not be appropriate, since all nominators will automatically get one.

I have actually been considering this proposal for some days, but needed some more time to think about it. But the more I think about it, the more it seems like the most obvious and best solution to an admittedly sensitive issue. Comments? Gatoclass (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I like it. MeegsC (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Actually, Gatoclass, thinking further, I wonder if we shouldn't have the bot send out notifications as soon as the admin moves the prep to a queue. My thinking here is that queues seldom change (while preps often do). Sending a notification as soon as the queue was set would give several days (up to a week, at only one set per day) for any issues to be resolved. If we wait until 24 hours before moving to the main page, we run the risk of some nominator not responding in time and then being upset when the hook appears on the main page. MeegsC (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
That was my initial thought, but then I recalled that I often find it necessary to go back later and make additional tweaks, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. So I think the best approach is to have the notification go out as close as possible to the promotion of the set to the main page, while still giving nominators reasonable time to respond. 24 hours seemed to me a good compromise, bearing in mind that there is never going to be an ideal interval, especially given that hooks can be changed right up until the minute before they are promoted to the main page, and indeed afterwards. Gatoclass (talk) 07:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that's enough time. How about notifying the nominator when the hook is promoted to a queue and then suggesting the nominator continue to keep an eye on it until it hits the front page, with instructions on how to do so? MeegsC (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
That's a possibility I guess MeegsC. I'd have to think about that some more. Gatoclass (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that will work, and I hope it doesn't cause other issues. —Kusma (t·c) 14:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I also like this. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I like it too. Thanks very much for this idea. A suggestion: the language written into the bot should specify where to post questions and objections. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with MeegsC about the timing. (I actually misread it the first time, and thought that's what it was, but that's my fault). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I think the bot is a good idea, but I wonder if it should instead work when the hook is promoted to prep, as opposed to the queue thing, in order to give the nominator a lot more time. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Promoting to queue makes more sense as a notification time, as it is generally the final point of likely editing, and there is no specific alert for it. Promotion to prep shows up on watchlists on a per-hook basis. CMD (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
See my response to MeegsC above. Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
As to when nominators should receive the notification, in the interest of simplicity, I would suggest that it should be so late that we are ok with handling all complaints through WP:ERRORS. Probably the moment of moving to queue works. —Kusma (t·c) 10:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree that notifications should go out at the latest practical moment, but "the moment of moving to queue" is generally anything but. When we are on a 24-hour cycle, the moment of queue promotion can be fully seven days away from the set going to the main page; even on a 12-hour cycle, it's 3 1/2 days.
Take a look at the edit history of any of the queue pages, and you will find that a great many copyedits are made after promotion from prep - and that's because hooks generally start attracting more scrutiny once they are locked into the queue, as administrators know that the set will not have any more major changes from this point and is now on a countdown to the main page. The whole point of this proposal is that it provides nominators with a chance to review a hook at the last practical moment after most if not all copyediting has been done. Sending out notification on queue promotion would basically be doing so only halfway through the process, which would be far too early. Gatoclass (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. Nominators may still be too busy to check when their hook is promoted to queue, and as stated by others above, 24 hours may be too short for nominators who are busy or don't edit often. While I would have preferred prep promotion as the trigger for notification, I would also support queue promotion as a compromise, but I think 24 hours before promotion is too late (especially when there's always the risk of having to do emergency pulls). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Well it sounds as if you are essentially endorsing the suggestion of MeegsC above, that notifications go out at a relatively early stage and nominators reminded to keep an eye on them from that point to ensure that no untoward changes are made. My notion was to have the notification as late as possible in the process, at a time when all copyedits had likely been completed, so the nominator could just check that. But Meegs' suggestion is probably a viable alternative approach, if that's what users would prefer. Gatoclass (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that Meegs' suggestion is the better way to go, because there can be a lag between notification and reading the notification, particularly due to different time zones. When I weigh which is more helpful to nominators – giving them a little extra time to respond, or notifying them only after all the revisions have happened – I think that the former is clearly more desirable, and makes no difference in terms of difficulty in the process. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay, it seems that consensus is in favour of the Meegs model. At this point, I think I will have a word with our resident coder, Shubinator, to confirm that it will be possible to make such a bot and that he is available for the job. Once that is confirmed, we can return to this discussion to hash out the wording of the notification and figure out the next steps. In the meantime, my thanks to everyone who contributed. Gatoclass (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
How would the notifications happen? Nominator's talk page? I wonder if it'd be sufficient for the bot to update the DYK nomination subpage at whatever time we decide on, and then people who want to track their hooks for corrections can just keep an eye on their watchlist. For example:

The result was: promoted by DYKPromoter (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Moved to Queue 3 by DYKAdmin (talk) 12:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The hook is in Queue 3 and is scheduled to appear on the Main Page in a few days. You may wish to monitor the queue as the hook may undergo further revisions; please raise any concerns at Wikipedia talk:Did you know.

—DanCherek (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
The point was that noms would have to be notified in such a way that they would be likely to actually see the notification. Not all editors regularly check their watchlist and those that do may not watch all of their DYK noms, so having a more prominent notification (such as a ping of some kind or perhaps more preferably a talk page notification) would be more optimal. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I, too, think that notification by a message on the user talk page is the best, as long as a bot is doing the "work". And I think the third paragraph of that draft is a good model for what the message could say. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that the notification should go to the nominator's talk page and yes, I too like the third paragraph of DanCherek's proposed text. My main suggested change to that would be that the notification should give the exact time the hook set is scheduled for the main page rather than the vague "in a few days". Gatoclass (talk) 08:40, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd rather it goes to a bell notification. (as most well know), I cannot stand canned messaged cluttering up talk pages aside of the formal credits and that will get annoying I feel. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Shubinator suggested an opt-out and I think that's a good idea. Gatoclass (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Something occurs to me about the use of pings. First of all, I think using them instead of talk page messages is fine, as is allowing opt-out. But what occurs to me is that, given that we have long used talk page messages instead of pings to notify nominators that nominations have been reviewed, is there really a valid reason to say that talk page messaging would be excessive in one case and not excessive in the other? In other words, why not use pings for all of this?

(A secondary point: given the ability to opt-out of various types of pings, some editors may have already set their user preferences to opt-out, and not receive the pings even if they wanted them in this case. It would be helpful to mention this in the DYK instructions if pings end up being what we use.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

For one thing, not all editors have pings enabled, and secondly talk page messages have a more visible notification which would suggest to an editor that it's more important. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Talk page posts can also be pointed to, pings are transient leaving no record even when they do work. CMD (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Canada Day July 1

There has been some interest expressed on the Wikiproject:Canada discussion board in running a Canadian hook set (or two, if DYK is running 2-a-day at that time) for July 1, which is Canada Day. John Mercer Johnson, Canadian Idiot and Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Nova Scotia have already requested July 1 placement. Is there consensus among DYK editors to pursue a Canada Day hook set or two for July 1? Thanks, your input is appreciated. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I like this idea. I'm not sure if my hook for Who Killed Canadian History? has been scheduled yet, but it's another one that could be moved to 1 July. Tkbrett (✉) 15:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tkbrett: Who Killed Canadian History is in Queue 5, so it might be too late to move it for July 1. However, we've got over a month to get hooks set up, so there will be more opportunities to get hooks in for Canada Day. Z1720 (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Seems a good idea to me. Perhaps an admin can pull the Queue 5 hook. There's also Template:Did you know nominations/Bernie Willock in Prep 3 (@Joseph2302:). CMD (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't want Bernie Willock to be moved to 1 July, as I don't like the idea of a whole day of DYK hooks from the same country, as in my opinion DYK works best when we have a large variety of topics and countries in each set. And we have never suggested doing it for other countries (e.g. US on 4 July, England on 23 April), so I don't see a benefit to doing it for 1 or 2 sets of all-Canadian hooks. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I highly agree with Joseph2302. We don't do this for other countries. SL93 (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: The precedent would be how DYK handles the July 4th American Independence Day. Last year, we had List of New York City Designated Landmarks in Manhattan on smaller islands as the lead hook, with an imagge of the Statue of Liberty. But nothing else. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps a solution is to keep four articles in the Canada Day special occasions holding area (John Mercer Johnson, Flag of Nova Scotia, Canadian Idiot, and either Walter Bean Grand River Trail or Murray Dowey) so two can run in the first DYK set, and two in the second? This wouldn't overload the sets with Canada topics but honours topics that honour the occasion. If DYK is only running one set, we can discuss closer to the date which ones we want to keep for July 1. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I suspect DYK doesn't take such actions regarding other countries as it isn't often proposed. While 154th isn't the most exciting anniversary, as there isn't any occasion currently competing I would support the special occasion holding in whatever format that best encourages article creation. CMD (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
I would consider running 2 or 3 Canadian hooks per set on 1 July as fine, just as long as it's not all of the set. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Queue 1

I thought that a bit clunky, so I have changed the hook as below. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

A gain

I will once a gain reiterate I love the DYK section. I will once a gain note the quality often sucks. Look at Uriah F. Abshier. It has existed for 3 weeks. In that time no one reading the article has actually read the article, a gain.

What is "a gain warehouse" ? What are "gain sacks" ? What is a "gain shipping business" ? These have existed since the initial creation.

If y'all aren't reading the text, what are you paying attention to? Shenme (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project. It would be more helpful if you fixed errors when you find them instead of complaining that other volunteers aren't doing their "jobs" well enough. MB 02:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia has always been a project of unpaid human volunteers, including the admins, who do this for the love of adding something informative and/or positive to the world. And every area of Wikipedia has always had the Armchair Critics who hang to the rear on everything, and then criticize those who do the work. We all have choices to make. I choose to be one of the unpaid volunteers, and I don't get even a penny to haul around the admin mop and bucket to help out. — Maile (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Marie-Adolphine

I went to promote this one this afternoon, but am wondering about the 1500 word requirement with regard to similar content in multiple entries. I know we had another nom recently fall foul of this, and don't want to open a can of worms by promoting this without similar discussion. These are all very short entries, and a significant amount of the material is virtually the same in all four. Pinging PamD as writer, Victuallers as nominator and Floydian as reviewer, and looking for help from the community as to what is acceptable. Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, these aren't long enough currently. The "On 5 July 1900, the Boxer Rebellion..." paragraph is present in each of them, and the "On 27 June 1900 the level of threat..." information is present in most of them. These should only count towards one article, and with the articles hovering just above 1500 characters, further expansion will be needed. DanCherek (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I've never personally handled a multi-article DYK before, so I was not aware that there was a condition regarding duplication of content in the target articles. I'll defer to the users with more experience in this type of matter. - Floydian τ ¢ 02:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Those articles have clear overcitation in their leads, which while good to cut down (catholic.org seems particularly useless), shows there may be room for expansion. Looking at Marie-Adolphine, this source seems to have some information that isn't in the article yet. The articles should also separate out "Legacy" sections from the "Life" sections, which may help make clear what additional information could be included. CMD (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I've put the nom on hold, with a note explaining why. Hopefully, PamD will be able to provide some more text. MeegsC (talk) 09:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Possibly although its not PamD who volunteered her articles... @MeegsC: I had a re-look at them and did a bit of expansion/ paraphrasing. There are four articles there which are now 1700 plus-ish. If still not big enough them I suggest you unbold or delete some of the names in the hook if you feel that some of the articles fail the rules. I would do it but not sure how. I was not aware of the duplication rule and its obviously going to happen where four people did the same thing. Victuallers (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC) (wrt "Particularly useless"? fix it?)
I've taken the articles as far as I'm interested in doing - and not a DYK geek - so i'll just observe with interest! PamD 12:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Without time to look specifically: when there are similar articles, bold one as new, and mention the others. They will collect as many views with and without bolding, my experience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Only two queues filled; all preps are filled

We need to get more queues filled, and we can't move any hooks to make room for two special occasions hooks that belong in Prep 7 until we get a prep or two cleared. Pinging admins Pinging admins Amakuru, Maile, Cas Liber, valereee, Cwmhiraeth, ONUnicorn, Wugapodes, Gatoclass and Lee Vilenski, in the hopes that some of you are available to do some prep to queue promotions. If you get as far as Prep 7, please be sure the special occasion hooks for 5 June have been placed there before moving it to Queue 7. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

On it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Videos in hooks

Can a hook have an associated video in place of image, and does it comply with the DYK rules? Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Well good news for you! Under WP:DYKIMG, yes it can providing the video is appropriately licenced of course. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@The C of E Thanks for your quick reply! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Prep 1 7 - missing special occasion requests

I've just looked at Prep 1 (due to run on 5 June) and it seems to have missed the 2 special occasion requests with one of them being a picture one that was in there but removed due to going to 12 hours. Can we please switch Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Serbia and Montenegro and Template:Did you know nominations/British Forces Rugby League in please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Should be Prep 7, not Prep 1. Prep 7 runs from 02:00 to 14:00 on 5 June, Serbian and Montenegran time, and 01:00 to 13:00 British Summer Time, so it's more appropriate for these hooks. While someone is at it, the Hughie Miller hook for 6 June will need to go into Prep 3, which runs 07:00 to 19:00 local time in St. Louis, where Miller was born and lived much of his life. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
It's gone into queue now @BlueMoonset:. We'll need an admin to do the switch if possible please. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Striking miners

I can't be the only one who's noticed that today's DYK has two hooks regarding striking miners: Mother Blizzard and Gravel Place, Pennsylvania. Not a complaint against the promoting administrator (Amakuru?), just an observation Sdrqaz (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The Great Margaret would be furious! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@The C of E: well she enjoyed crushing miners' strikes didn't she, so I'm sure she'd be overjoyed to get two for the price of one... As for the issue of there being two of them, I don't really consider such things very much when I'm assessing the hook sets - as long as the language used and the articles are up to scratch, and the hooks don't have errors in them, then I'm happy. Issues of balance and suchlike is in the hands of the set builders.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Philip Ewell

Hi all. I came across a relatively new article today (created May 21) by another editor that I think deserves attention. I went ahead and nominated it. Is it still eligible, even though I technically nominated late? It's not my article, and it was written by an editor not active at DYK. As you can see by their talk page comments at User talk:SyLvRuUz, the editor is new to DYK. I hope we can overlook the lateness this once to encourage an editor on their first DYK nom. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: It was moved to mainspace today so it should be valid, no IAR needed. DanCherek (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Perfect. Thanks, I will move the article to the correct date then on the nomination page.4meter4 (talk) 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Special occasion hooks

Some special occasion hooks need to go in for June 5 - June 8. It may require a move around I will check later. Desertarun (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

All done. Desertarun (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please avoid entries so obscure that they do not make any sense to the average reader

In today's list, I see

  • ... that the UFC's Dana White said that EliteXC: Heat was "fucking illegal" over allegations of fight tampering in the main event involving Kimbo Slice?

I'm reasonably well-read, and I have no idea what this means. What is the UFC? Who is Dana White? What is EliteXC? What is EliteXC: Heat? What is Kimbo Slice? Is this about entertainment, sports, gaming, TV?? Who in the world will be familiar with the activity, whatever it is, that this item is about?

Please bear in mind that this is an encyclopaedia read by many kinds of people all around the world. The main page is supposed to make sense to all of them. Rp (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@The C of E:. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Hooks should be accessible, but I think this complaint is misguided. Hooks should not be restricted to names that everyone will know. From reading the hook alone, it seems reasonably clear that Dana White and Kimbo Slice are both names, and both are wikilinked for those curious (I remember seeing this in the preps and clicking through myself at some point). EliteXC: Heat is clearly some sort of fighting event, which is probably a decent enough summary for 200 characters. UFC could perhaps be wikilinked. In my reading the biggest potential issue with this hook is that the quote doesn't really fit in grammatically with the rest of the sentence structure, but that isn't an issue with obscurity. Surely with en.wiki being as advanced as it is, the majority of new articles are likely to be obscure? CMD (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I think it's a valid complaint. We don't have to limit ourselves to things everyone knows, but the hook-y part should be comprehensible. The main issue here is that it's so wordy, the hook-y part is completely obscured. I think it's X said Y was "fucking illegal" because Z. With things that are not very well-known, and Viriditas is wrong that everything mentioned in that hook is "extremely" well known - especially globally where UFC isn't mainstream in the slightest - it is better to keep things simple so that the hook-y part (which isn't very hook-y here either) gets across and the potential "who the hell is that" just adds more intrigue rather than more confusion. The "punch" of the hook is also dragged out here by needing "allegations of fight tampering in the main event" to be written out, so front-loading that would have helped, e.g. "... that following allegations of fight tampering, Dana White said that EliteXC: Heat was "fucking illegal"?" - of course, it's hookier still without that, simply "... that Dana White said that EliteXC: Heat was "fucking illegal"?" is more eye-catching with its shock and simplicity. Kingsif (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'd be OK with that if you'd like to change it @Kingsif:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The complaint was about the obscurity of the names, not the comprehensibility. I agree that the names in this hook are not well known, as I mentioned I had to look them up, but obscurity isn't a DYK disqualifier. The grammar seems better if the context is better known, as it may have been to the nominator. Consider the hook "... that the IOC's Thomas Bach said that Russia at the 2016 Summer Olympics was "fucking illegal" over allegations of drugs tampering in the event involving Athlete Athleteson?" CMD (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I took the last part of the complaint to be referring to the hook as a whole, with hyperbole used to emphasize that the non-household names don't help it. Your Olympics example does make more sense, on that note, though I still think it could just as easily end at "illegal" - that is, unless Kimbo Slice is well known for not fixing fights, which would make the hook even more interesting for people who do know about UFC. @Chipmunkdavis and The C of E: Kingsif (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
My Olympic example actually makes less sense, because unlike the original hook it does not indicate the context of what the bolded event is (lost the "fight" word). Sure the hook could perhaps be more hooky, but that applies to most entries and it got through three gates as SL93 notes. Personally, I clicked on Kimbo Slice because I was hooked to see what the origin of the name was, but I agree concision is generally better. CMD (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
(The C of E here) Plus it's also a bit of a "meme" too so you'll have that interest too. The Royal C (talk) 14:10, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
It's not a good hook, but the UFC, Dana White, and Kimbo Slice are extremely well known in popular culture. We're talking tens of millions of people know these things, possibly 100 million or more. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
You could always just add MMA to the hook if you feel it's needed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's worth changing after being on the main page for 13 hours. I have no opinion on what hook wording might be better, but it did go through the prep, queue, and the main page for half a day before this potential issue was brought up. SL93 (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The UFC is a reasonably well known term. We shouldn't be just including terms that people "know"- how would this even be properly defined? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd suggest the UFC is only "well-known" to a young men of a certain age from the US and maybe the UK; beyond that cohort, I'd suggest that it's not particularly well-known. Linking or writing out UFC would probably have helped. My two cents! ;) MeegsC (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
As the promoter of this hook to the prep, I want to let the community know that I am following this discussion and hope to incorporate this feedback into future reviews and prep-building. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the discussion. Z1720 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
MeegsC, I appreciate your suggestion, but it's been estimated that MMA has one billion fans, so the notion that UFC is only known by a small group of people is absurd. I should also point out, that women UFC fighters are a thing, and this is no longer considered a male-only sport, and hasn't been for some time. An old 2018 report published by Nielsen Sports DNA, concluded that "MMA is the world's third most popular sport, behind soccer and basketball [with] 451 million people interested in MMA". There are reasons to consider this a lowball number. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with CMD, I think the hook is OK. Even without knowing the names of the characters, or what the UFC is, t's obvious it's about a fight, and that there was some suggestion of foul play going on with respect to that fight. That's enough info for a hook to convey, and readers can click through for the rest.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
My problem with it is that not enough context was provided for the item to make sense to those unfamiliar with these names. That pointlessly annoys readers. This could have been avoided by mentioning the context (e.g. just by starting with something like "In the MMA league, ") Rp (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you, as the hook was deeply flawed, but all of these topics have been part of popular culture for many years and are widely known by millions of people. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
No doubt. When it comes to "popular culture", cricket is bigger than WWA, yet I doubt the proposed of this hook would accept a hook quoting a cricket player without saying it's about cricket. The subject is not the issue, the lack of context is. Plus the fact that this doesn't really teach us anything except that on occasion, some people badmouth other people, which is not something I need to learn from an encyclopaedia. Rp (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Please define criteria for "average reader"

Our Main Page had 6, 475, 024 views yesterday . Is there some Wikipedia global poll that answers who the "average reader" is, and what "The main page is supposed to make sense to all of them" means? We don't know who is out there reading us, what language or intellectual level they fall under, what country they are operating from, or even the gender. I think we are going by our own knowledge and background to assume we know what is best for the rest of the world. And at the end of the argument - that's what the links are for. If they're curious, they'll click on the link. — Maile (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I kind of answered what (I assume) most people mean when they chime in "average reader", in the top section (diff). In short: it's not any one person, and we don't want to be catching the "average", really, we want to be catching the lowest common denominator. We can only assume people using English Wikipedia can read English, and have basic general knowledge. I prefer hooks that are either self-evident or where they hookiness comes from something that doesn't need you to know what anything mentioned is. I almost think we should call the "average reader" clause when a hook requires any background knowledge, because we cannot guarantee they know anything, but to be generous we might as well assume that the LCD has the general knowledge of a 10 year old and proceed from there: knowledge of farm animals expected, wild animals not. Knowledge of common and mediatized professions expected, complex professional jobs not. This doesn't mean simplify everything, because interesting - certainly interesting (and not confusing; intrigue, don't confuse) enough to click - is the main hook criteria from my perspective. I don't want to lick my own ass and say "check out some of my hooks", but there is a list of them in my userspace if anyone wants to see what I think hooks should be. Kingsif (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
"I think we are going by our own knowledge and background to assume we know what is best for the rest of the world." - That is my thought during most of these discussions. No matter how well someone explains why they think a hook should be changed, especially in this case with the hook being on the main page for hours, I feel that is typically what they are doing. We don't even know when the lowest common denominator or average reader is viewing the main page anyway. It's just educated guesswork. SL93 (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Eh, I think (here we go with my opinions again) that DYK contributors fall into two main categories: the regulars and the non-regulars. You know who they are. The non-regulars are more like readers than the regulars, and so they are good representatives of the views of "the average reader" or "the rest of the world". And the regulars, well, I don't know about you but I have certainly looked through the stats page, DYK talk history, and DYK at ERRORS. So regulars honestly might know what is best for the rest of the world, in the sense that with the level of hook-study, we have seen what works more - an example of this in practice is why we have the quirky slot. DYK has too much IAR to be "perfect" but it functions pretty well with non-regulars bringing up an issue and regulars debating how to make it work better. I'll repeat what I said a few weeks ago: we can't ask all the MP readers what hooks they want to read, so what's wrong with the people who contribute to the functioning of DYK being the ones who come together to suggest improvements? Multiple voices, wherever they come from, will probably give a better "average" view than just the nominator (who possibly knows too much about the subject to judge?) Kingsif (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Multiple voices are normally fine, but there are times where I don't understand a decision being made when it isn't that many voices which happens frequently at DYK. Two editors or even one editor can easily change a hook and I don't think that is right. SL93 (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Maile66 and SL93: If you really think we need more than anecdotal evidence, I'm sure we could suggest the WMF do a study on its MP readers: build a survey, put it at the top of the page. It should be quite easy. Kingsif (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Basically, what we should aim for are hooks that are funny or interesting even to someone who is unfamiliar with the subject or bolded links. Some background knowledge would be acceptable, but not to the extent that hookiness should be solely reliant on it. For example, if a hook is really only going to appeal to a niche audience (or even pretty much solely to the nominator) it's really not going to work out for our purposes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion

Indeed, it's pretty clear that the initial complaint lacked mostly any kind of substance. If we can provide hooks which are in English and get our readers to engage with Wikipedia, by clicking on bold target articles etc, it's job done for DYK. This "complaint" is pointless. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 00:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

DYKnom template tweak

I've just noticed that while Template:DYKmake has provisions for a |subpage=parameter, which provides a "View nom subpage" link to the nomination page in the preps/queues, Template:DYKnom does not. DYKnom also doesn't display the relevant article title outside of the code. If there's no particular reason for this discrepancy, then changing DYKnom to match DYKmake would be a nice QoL improvement for when a hook is pulled/shuffled around. CMD (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Since there should never be a DYKnom without a matching DYKmake in that set, there will always be a link to the relevant nomination page in the prep or queue set. I don't see why this change would be a true QoL improvement to anyone who knows what they're doing. We can always ask Shubinator, whose bots process both DYKmake and DYKnom, whether there are any issues with the proposed change, if it's deemed a useful change. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The subpage parameter is perhaps not as important as the DYKnom template not displaying what article the DYKnom is for. I can't see why that wouldn't be useful. Take current Prep 4. I assume the two nom templates for Casliber are duplicates, but I can't know this unless I also check the code. CMD (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd be in favor of adding subpage to Template:DYKnom. This wouldn't affect the article talk tags, but would ensure the nominator credits in user talk have the right DYK nomination page. DYKUpdateBot will pick up the subpage parameter automatically - the code was already written for DYKmake. And even better if we can rename the subpage parameter to nompage to match everything else, though please give me a heads up as I'll need to tweak DYKUpdateBot for the rename.
As for displaying the title, the DYKnom template should be just below its corresponding DYKmake, so no need to look at the code to figure out the article. For the Prep 4 example above, the two Casliber nom credits are for the two different tanager articles, as visually indicated by the DYKmake between them. If double-checking, the article is also visible by hovering over the "give" hyperlink. Shubinator (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The list below includes 34 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 16. We currently have a total of 267 nominations, of which 110 have been approved, a gap of 157 that has increase by 20 in the past nine days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding altblurb to passed DYK nom?

After my DYK nomination for Robin Ransom was approved, a story was published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch containing an interesting tidbit which I thought could make for a DYK as well:

... that Robin Ransom bowled a perfect game about two months before she became the first African-American woman on the Supreme Court of Missouri?

Given that the nomination has now passed, and says not to edit the page, I'm asking for advice here. To be clear, I have no issue with the prior hooks, but I think this one could be interesting too and should be considered. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Note: it's currently in Queue 1, which is scheduled to hit the Main Page at 12:00 UTC on June 5 (about 15 hours from now). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Prep2

The picture hook here, Schools at War, is running overnight in the US. Could this be swapped to some other set that runs in the opposite 12 hours? I think Prep5 would work. MB 22:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. I'll do it tomorrow unless someone objects or has already done it. Desertarun (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
OK, done. Desertarun (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
How is swapping those 2 hooks fair at all? We're now running a European hook in the middle of the night in Prep 2, which means that will get fewer views than in the slot it was assigned to. Swapping hooks to maximise views on US hooks whilst having a detrimental effect on non-US hooks is not appropriate. I have reverted for this reason. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
If you want to swap it, swap it into an empty slot. Because swapping that US hook into prep 5 also meant there were too many US hooks in that set, when many other sets have only 1 or 2 US hooks. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
As there has been an objection I'm not making any further alterations to those sets. Desertarun (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think we should make a habit of moving US-specific hooks into particular UTC morning or afternoon slots to suit time zones. Valereee made a particular request last week with regard to the Meredith Clark hook (see section "#Speedy special occasion idea" above), which was OK as a one-off, but in general IMHO the hooks should just land where they land, without particular reference to WP:TIES or morning/afternoon. After all, the purpose of DYK is to produce material that is interesting to "a broad audience", which should mean that the US-centric hooks are of interest to me or an African/Indian/Chinese/Australian etc just as much as an American.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
    Hm, good point. Since we expect 3-4 of most sets to be US-specific, I think this should be a rare request for US hooks. I'm not sure it's not reasonable for most other country-centric hooks though. The reason I requested US daytime for Clark was that it was shame for a hook about an African-American being called an expert on Black Twitter by NPR was so US-oriented...I don't know. Hm. I do see your point. But maybe it would be reasonable to consider such requests for other countries, and maybe for occasional US hooks -- like, maybe 1 in 8 is a reasonable number to request, and of course still leaving it up to the promoter's discretion? —valereee (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
    Re: this particular case. I think Schools at War, while it's certainly a US-hook, is also a WWII hook. Is that a hook that is possibly more globally interesting than Meredith Clark? —valereee (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
    In my opinion, unless a hook is in the special occasions holding area, preppers should not consider the timezone in which a hook is running. DYK hooks are supposed to be interesting to a global audience and limiting hooks from certain countries into 12-hour blocks will make it harder to build global hook sets. Special occasion hooks are the exception because a hook needs to run on the correct date, and 8 am in Australia is very different from 8 am in California. Z1720 (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
    If a non-US hook can be slotted into the time zone where the highest interest is, why shouldn't we do that? Yoninah used to swap hooks all the time for time zones. It was a kindness to the nom. With US hooks, we need a stronger argument, but for almost everything else, it's easy to swap without causing any problems with building a globally-balanced hook. —valereee (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
    I think I've changed my mind, and I'm OK with preppers keeping time zones in mind for countries that have less visibility on DYK. However, I am concerned that hooks from high-frequency counties (like US, UK and Canada) will have editors who request the UTC 12:00 prep sets, and there will be less selection for the 0:00 UTC sets. I'm also concerned that editors who are familiar with DYK and know about this talk page's existence will get their hooks moved to their prefered time zones. This might cause new, inexperienced editors to have their hooks run at inopportune times, putting their articles at a visibility disadvantage. I don't know what the solution is, but I hope my concerns will be considered. Z1720 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

P2 June9b

@Drmies, @Uncle G

I'm wondering if the image at Template:Did you know nominations/1935 New York anti-lynching exhibitions is clear enough at this size? —valereee (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

  • —valereee, good point. As a thumbnail, of course, no--I think I'm counting on people to want to click on it. Uncle, any thoughts? Drmies (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
    Is there another image we could use? Although I almost hate to suggest we use a lynching image that's clearer. —valereee (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Pulled hook - Main Page right now

@Floquenbeam: Per this edit removing a hook from queue, with less than a minute before the bot rotates the main page set. If anyone needs to remove a hook from Queue, you also need to remove the DYK Make on the template. Otherwise, the bot goes looking for the hook to match the DYK Makes it sees. [1]. Other than that, I'm a little dismayed this was a last second pull, and that it all happened on Errors page, instead of being discussed here. — Maile (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

This hook was pulled literally at the last minute, so never hit the Main Page, but the credits still went out to the nominator User:The C of E and the talk pages of the articles in question say that it was featured as a DYK. Not sure what the procedure is in such cases, but presumably Template:Did you know nominations/British Forces Rugby League will need to be reopened. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
(e/c) Thanks for the note about the DYKmakes down at the bottom of the template. I'll try to remember that if I run into a similar situation again. I assume the problem isn't the bot posting to the error page, but the fact that the nominator got 4 incorrect DYK credits on their talk page? I'll leave a note there. It was a last second pull only because I noticed it 20 minutes before 0:00 UTC. If I'd had more time, I'd have discussed possible fixes more before pulling it, but I do not think it was in a condition to put on the main page, and there was no time to change the hook. Once it's in a queue I don't see why ERRORS is a bad place to discuss it, but I'm sorry that dismayed you. Any advice on how to reopen the DYK nom page (and where to relist it as active again) would be appreciated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
IIRC the procedure for such cases is to also revert the credits giving as well as the talk page stuff. I've taken the liberty of reopening the nomination and returning it to prep. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I've reverted the bot on the article talk pages. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
(e/c) @Narutolovehinata5: Thank you. I've left a note for The C of E, and will remove the article talk page stuff. (too slow) --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
To clarify. I didn't say that that ERRORS is a bad place to discuss it. It's just that possibly those who were involved in the article, nomination and review, were more likely to be reading this talk page than errors. And, then maybe the rest of the process just never happens if some here missed the pull. Yes, I think @Narutolovehinata5: has done the constructive process for this situation. — Maile (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, I did ping the nom, reviewer, and promoter to ERRORS, and one of them was able to comment before the pull. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I have since proposed a new alt that removes the part that caused this discussion. Hopefully we can get that passed and quickly put in the next set as it was a special occasion hook for today. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the steps to reopen a nomination (revert the close, put back in nominations, right?) could be somewhere visible to admins who have to perform it? I agree that ERRORS is the right spot to discuss for the last two days before appearing, but a short notice here when something happens would help wider attention than pinging only those immediately concerned. - I like to perform urgent reviews but just received an urgent recent death, - hope someone will do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Submitting an article for DYK?

Hello. A Wikipedian suggested Big Time Wrestling (Boston) might be a good candidate for WP:DYK. I wrote the article last year but it was recently approved via WP:AFC. Here's a few hooks that I thought were interesting:

  1. Was one the first "outlaw" wrestling promotions according to Jim Cornette
  2. Influenced by booker Jack Pfeffer, it was notorious for using parody "soundalike" wrestlers of the National Wrestling Alliance and World Wide Wrestling Federation
  3. Bearcat Wright won the promotion's heavyweight championship from Killer Kowalski in 1961, becoming one of the first African-Americans to win a major singles title during the Territory-era
  4. They had a promotional war with the World Wide Wrestling Federation over the New England wrestling territory during the 1960s
  5. They opened one of the first wrestling schools in the country which produced Les Thatcher and Rufus R. Jones among others
  6. It was considered a "safe" territory for GLBT wrestlers and Ron Dupree was able to live openly with his partner [2]
  7. The promotion featured a wrestling bear called Black Ozzie which later escaped shortly after being sold by Tony Santos. The promoter joined in a police search and was able to subdue the bear by putting sugar in its mouth.
  8. One of the company's first major attractions was a series of wrestling bouts between Black Ozzie and BTW Women's Champion Alma Mills
  9. John F. Kennedy, then a Massachusetts Senator, and his wife Jackie attended the promotion's shows in West Yarmouth, Massachusetts
  10. While napping in the locker room, Jack Pfefer was once thrown out of the Boston Arena by a rookie wrestler who mistook him for a homeless man who had wandered in off the street
  11. Frankie Scarpa, then a longtime regional star, competed with the up-and-coming Bruno Sammartino for the Italian-American fans in Boston during the 1960s
  12. The promotion closed after its main star Frankie Scarpa died in the ring in 1969.

Thanks. 173.162.220.17 (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@173.162.220.17: The nomination page is at WP:DYKN. There's a template that will create the nomination for you after you fill it out. There will also be an opportunity for others to review it, tweak it, and give you feedback on it; you're invited to participate in every aspect of that process. Thanks for working on this article! --Jayron32 15:56, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jayron32: 173 can't create the nomination because anonymous editors cannot create templates. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I have created the nomination page at Template:Did you know nominations/Big Time Wrestling (Boston). Please add the sources that support each hook. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's eligible, as it was moved to mainspace on 26 May, more than 7 days ago. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
It it not at all unusual to offer a little extra time to new DYK nominators who aren't familiar with the process, such as this situation. With such a well-developed article and submitted nine days after its move to mainspace rather than seven, this should certainly be considered for an exception. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Help getting that nomination ship-shape would be appreciated. I believe I've shortened one of the hooks and added links and made general formatting changes (bold text, question marks etc), but it's certainly not perfect and not all of the proposed hooks would be ready for the Main Page. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Nazi

Little time, but just saw this in prep7:

  1. Do we need 2 links to the Nazis in one hook?
  2. Do we mention Third Reich - a euphemism, no? - instead of plain Nazi Germany?
  3. Does a party destroy a paper?

How about something like

  • I'm fine with this change. It doesn't really matter to me. SilverserenC 18:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

ERRORS

I left a note at the Main page errors about a better link for Wo Menschen sich vergessen. Help? Next set, about an hour to go. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I left you a message on Errors. This late, just pick one and we can swap it out. — Maile (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Preps full

Pinging admins Amakuru, Maile, Cas Liber, valereee, Cwmhiraeth, ONUnicorn, Wugapodes, Gatoclass and Lee Vilenski, in the hopes that some of you are available to do some prep to queue promotions. MeegsC (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please fix a hook currently on the main page?

Resolved

The hook for Hercules was modified while in the prep area and now does not make sense. More details at Talk:Main_Page#Errors in "Did you know ...". Could someone please fix the text so this hook can spend its last few hours on the main page as it was meant to be displayed? Thanks. Armadillopteryx 20:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

This has been taken care of. Armadillopteryx 22:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Q4 Maria Calegari

Should be corrected to

That was a mistake on my part, sorry about that. I should note that the hook was promoted before the reviewer approved it. Corachow (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Corachow and Maile66, I changed it to:

... because the original hook ambiguously suggests that she performed every role ever performed by the New York City Ballet in a single weekend. Gatoclass (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Autistic Pride Day

18 June is Autistic Pride Day. It should be highlighted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RIT RAJARSHI (talk • contribs)

RIT RAJARSHI That article doesn't meet any of the DYK criteria for inclusion. DYK only lists articles if they're new, or have been 5x expanded or reached GA in the last 7 days. Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries for the "On this day" section of the front page is probably a better bet to ask there. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Can't close a promoted dyk

Hi, i've just promoted an article to prep 3. It is SS Ira H. Owen. However I can't close the template. It looks like there was a prior nomination and things have got muddled up. Can someone please close Template:Did you know nominations/SS Ira H. Owen (2). Also I think it may be problematic for the bot to archive the nomination properly and it will stay on the Nominations page. Can someone take a look? Desertarun (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Desertarun: I've fixed it and marked it as promoted [3]. The original nomination was missing some standard templates and "(2)" needed to be added to {{DYK nompage links}}. DanCherek (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Desertarun (talk) 15:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Relevant discussion on the village pump

People interested in DYK may be interested in participating in this village pump discussion about radical reform of DYK. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Would an article be eligible in this situation?

What if I created an article that was from a draft that was created by me asking an administrator to restore a page that was previously deleted via a prod in draft space? Link20XX (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Should be eligible. For articles moved from draft or userspace, the 7 day nomination clock starts from when it was moved to mainspace. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Ronald Greene

The originally approved hook was:

  • ... that after police beat, choked, pepper-sprayed, and dragged Ronald Greene face down while shackled, saying "that shit hurts, doesn't it?", courtesy rules were listed as something that was violated?

Ravenpuff changed it to:

  • ... that after police beat, choked, pepper-sprayed, and dragged Ronald Greene face down while shackled, saying "that shit hurts, doesn't it?", a trooper was reprimanded for violating courtesy rules?

- which I think is an improvement, as the original hook IMO is clunky. However, neither hook mentions that the victim actually died, which seems to me an essential piece of information, so I've tweaked the hook again, to:

  • ... that following the death of Ronald Greene, who was beaten, choked, pepper-sprayed, dragged face down while shackled and taunted with "that shit hurts, doesn't it?", one of the involved police was reprimanded for violating courtesy rules?

- The end result is a hook in excess of 200 characters, but given that the nominator insisted on including the "that shit hurts, doesn't it" clause, it's hard to see how to include all the relevant information within the usual limit. Pinging Tryptofish and EEng for comment. Gatoclass (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, I appreciate it (although you'll be glad to know that I also have the Prep page watchlisted). One of the problems that you introduced by making this change is that the police officer is also being fired, which misleads readers if we imply that he was merely reprimanded. It sounds cute, but it's misleading. Also, strictly speaking, the source material is unclear about whether the issue of courtesy was raised in a "letter of reprimand" or in a "letter of counseling". On the other hand, there is no question in my mind that your revision is written in a better style. I'll doubly ping EEng, the nominator, since he cares about the hook more than I do. Frankly, at this point, I just want to wash my hands of the review that I did, because it has proved to be more trouble than it was worth. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • There's no official determination of why Greene died (which is why the article's titled Death of, not Killing of) so I'd argue it's actually inappropriate to link the fact that he died to the officer actions listed.
  • The scolding about courtesy was, in fact, the only disciplinary action taken for two years after the incident, and would have remained so had not public attention forced more, so I think the juxtaposition is appropriate.
  • Unlike Tfish, I'm not worried about whether the courtesy violation was raised in the "counseling" letter vs. the "reprimand" letter. For all intensive purposes they're the same thing.

So, as mentioned, I don't think the death needs to be included so that would eliminate Gatoclass' hook. I'd be OK with Rpuff's hook, but on the whole I think it's best if we stay with the original, approved hook though its wording is a bit odd. EEng 22:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

After saying that I'm washing my hands of this, I've changed my mind, and based on the comments here, maybe we can go past 200 characters. If so, I'd support modifying Ravenpuff's version by adding the word "initially":

  • ... that after police beat, choked, pepper-sprayed, and dragged Ronald Greene face down while shackled, saying "that shit hurts, doesn't it?", a trooper was initially reprimanded for violating courtesy rules?

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If we leave out beat we'll be under the length limit. I think the reader will surmise, without being told, that beating was involved. EEng 23:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
OK with me either way. (As you know, I'd rather leave out the quote, but we've beat that issue enough.) Anyway, I'm beat. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject DYK tagging

Hey, I tried finding this answer on one of the DYK pages, but couldn't. Should nominations (such as Template:Did you know nominations/Daredevil (season 2)) be tagged with the relevant WikiProject or left untouched? Gonnym (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Generally we don't make talk pages for DYK nominations -- I can't actually think of any case of it happening, even for long-discussed ones. I don't see any particular reason to tag them. Vaticidalprophet 21:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
And excellent reasons not to, so please don't! Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Probationary period coming to an end

Hello all. As some of you may recall, I had some sanctions alleviated at the turn of the year relating to my involvement in the DYK project. My mini-timer tells me the probationary period granted at the time now has three weeks of its original six months left to run. Since the judgement, my contributions to the process have been captured here. I guess this is me ensuring you all have an opportunity to call out anything that may require the sanctions to be re-imposed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you're a fantastic asset, myself. Vaticidalprophet 19:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I need to check, you said "asset", right? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Emphasis on the last two letters, yes :D Vaticidalprophet 19:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
You're an ass, E.T. Kingsif (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Yoninah DYK medal design

Sample design

Since the RFC was closed with unanimous consensus to implement a DYK service medal or award in honor of Yoninah, not too much progress has been made on this front. I put together some initial ideas for the design, shown here. This is just a starting point, and I'm hoping to spark some good discussion. I am not at all committed to these and am happy for someone else to try their hand at designing something.

I think the folks at WP:MILHIST have a good system for selecting their annual military historian of the year awards. In short, anyone can nominate anyone else with a brief statement, and after nominations are closed each person can vote in support of up to three candidates. The top three are awarded and other nominees receive a barnstar. I think that would be a great system to base this on, with tweaks as necessary. (Again, just throwing things out there, we should absolutely discuss alternatives, including non-competitive processes, as well.)

In terms of what this award is about, I would support nominations based on anyone who helps with an organizational aspect of DYK, including prep building, promotion to queues, thoughtful input to internal discussions, technical assistance, etc. I believe general consensus was that these should be emphasized, rather than awards based on quantity and/or quality of DYK submissions. Eager to hear everyone's thoughts and to get this started. DanCherek (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Using the MILHIST process as a model is a good idea. That would distinguish it from Template:The DYK Medal (not the prettiest award itself mind). Such a process is also generally is a nice way to acknowledge contributions to the project management, even to those who do not receive the final award. Given the number of times there are notices on this page saying preps are full recently, there's some good work going on. On the design, I would be interested if someone who knew Yoninah well might opine about whether or not the username should be directly in the image. Otherwise I'm not a strong design person, but I like the inclusion of DYK within the question mark. CMD (talk) 04:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@DanCherek: I like what you have done. I wonder if we might have it say in smaller letters somewhere, that this is a service medal. Or not ... maybe that's not necessary. I'm just so happy to see this design. Hope others chime in here. — Maile (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Great work, looks good! I just want to note that the "DYK" in the circle at bottom isn't terribly legible due to size, using an outline font, and low colour contrast. But I understand if you're going for that embossed look and don't want it to stand out too much. I feel that the stylized DYK question mark identifies it, at least for those familiar with such things. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Could Yoninah be written in solid black to add some much needed contrast? ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 15:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, everyone. I will have a try at incorporating them in the next few days. (Posting this to stop the archiving bot from doing its thing...) DanCherek (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Anyone have any better hook suggestions?

This particular discussion seems to have run its course. A new review has been requested on Template:Did you know nominations/Sasaki Tōichi. A discussion relating to "interesting to a broad audience" is currently ongoing at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Radical reform of DYK, for those who may further wish to discuss it. CMD (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Sasaki Tōichi and I said that the hook isn't interesting to a broad audience. The nominator RGloucester took it the wrong way. I'm seeing if someone can suggest a better hook. I would have just left the withdraw be, but it seems like there is a possiblity of something being workable due to it being a Good Article. SL93 (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't fret. RGloucester takes everything the wrong way. EEng 14:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm about ready to approve whatever hook comes through DYK, even if it's total shit (not saying that the proposed hook in this case is). SL93 (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
To expand on this, some nominators don't care about that rule and they get angry when it's brought up. SL93 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
It's very nice of you all to discuss me without any form of notification. It is a nonsense to say I don't care about the rules. I agree that a hook should be interesting to a broad audience, as specified in the relevant guidelines. What I disagree with is your application of this rule in this specific instance. I don't know who has made you the appointed representative of this 'broad audience', but personally, I think you are way off the mark in this case. RGloucester — ☎ 22:20, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
RGloucester I clearly pinged you earlier. I never thought of myself as being appointed to it. I gave my thoughts and anyone is welcome to discuss their opposite thoughts. SL93 (talk) 22:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
My thought is that, in future, you might refrain from referring to other people's work as 'boring' (and as far as I am concerned, there is nothing boring about it), and consider offering constructive criticism rather than mere value judgement. You might consider that just because something is 'boring' to you does not mean it would be boring to anyone else. I would also appreciate it if you refrained from using profanities in what should be a professional environment. But, that's it for me. Thank you for sinking my ship for the day. Adieu. RGloucester — ☎ 22:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you would be offended just as much if I reworded "boring to a broad audience" to "not interesting to a broad audience". No matter how I started the discussion, I went here shortly after which gained opinions of other editors at the nomination page. We could have gotten somewhere if you didn't withdraw the nomination especially because a possible rewording of the hook could work. I will use the word shit as much as I want. If you want to be offended, there is nothing that I can do for you. SL93 (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I have no interest in 'getting somewhere' because I simply do not trust your judgement. In the first instance, you labelled the proposed hook as boring, without any hint at how it could be made less boring. You suggested that the 'general audience' would have no idea what the hook meant. Now, more recently, you have proposed a revised version of that hook that is basically the same. I do not see how the supposed 'boringness' problem could possibly be solved by such a small change, and so can't help but believe that you have been treating this process in a flippant manner. And indeed, your statement above that you would approve even a poor hook indicates that this is the case. In such a situation how can I be expected to continue to contribute in good faith? RGloucester — ☎ 22:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
RGloucester I'm not the only person who added to the discussion. I was going to explain why I worded the alt hooks the way I did, but you made it clear at the nomination page that you weren't interested in any further discussion. You are still continuing the discussion here though. I never said I would approve even a poor hook, I said that I was about to. I was being sarcastic anyway, whether or not that was clear. You sunk your own boat because despite my reasonings, your fact could still be approved in one form or the other. SL93 (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I do not want it approved, given the sorry state of this process. I was expecting a collaborative discourse, and what I got was a strange appeal to the vague notion of a 'broad audience', your personal experience of 'boringness' and continual flippancy. I simply do not see how you are fit to participate in this process. RGloucester — ☎ 22:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@RGloucester: Great. The feeling is mutual. I don't see how you're fit to participate in this process if you become offended just because your exact wording might not be used. You received the collaborative discourse once other editors participated in the discussion. I'm not sorry that you don't see that. SL93 (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I do not care what wording is used, which I think I have already made clear. I only object to the flippancy and inconsistency with which you have treated this process. RGloucester — ☎ 23:12, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

RGloucester Great, so you're basically just being petty. It's interesting that you think I'm being flippant with part of that opinion being based on my alt hooks, but you clearly stated that you weren't interested in my reasoning. SL93 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

What is this reasoning, then? RGloucester — ☎ 23:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
So you finally want it despite calling me flippant repeatedly without knowing it. My opinion that the hook would be workable in another format is based on a comment from EEng at the nomination page - "Huh. I wonder what sensei means, such that a Japanese expert on China would be chastised for using it in reference to Sun?". I figured that EEng had a good point that I didn't think of, but that the hook could use a rewording. I didn't state as much because I wrongfully assumed that you wouldn't make a fuss if your fact was still used. I also didn't think that you would be so hyper-focused on how the discussion began. I added "Father of the Nation" before Sun Yat-sen to try to raise more interest because that term has been used in multiple countries. It also gives people more interest to click on the nominated article due to them at least knowing somewhat of who the man is that the subject commented on. Me not linking sensei was an accidental oversight. SL93 (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
So, in other words, you admit to having been wrong. Bravo! If only you had stated as much, and apologised for your behaviour, perhaps things could've been different. RGloucester — ☎ 23:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
RGloucester I thought that simply rewording the hook would make it obvious that I changed my mind, but you took it the wrong way and automatically assumed the worst of me. It would have been different if you used the assume good faith policy. SL93 (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The rewording of the hook only made your initial flippancy more apparent, and yet, you provided no apology. It is impossible to assume good faith when confronted with such an overt disregard for the process itself. RGloucester — ☎ 23:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
RGloucester Your assumption of me being flippant is assuming bad faith. I was trying to be constructive by rewording the hook and not believing me about that is also assuming bad faith. Stating that I have a disregard for the process, while also making it clear that you didn't want anymore discussion about the issue, is also assuming bad faith. SL93 (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
What do you expect from a guy who murders princes in towers? EEng 02:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Fun fact: "Richard III", as he became known, is often used as rhyming slang for "turd". nagualdesign 03:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Comment In reading through this my sympathies are entirely with RGloucester. The altered hooks are pretty much identical in meaning, but more importantly the language being used by the reviewers is hostile in tone to the point that I am inclined to remind EEng and SL93 to follow WP:CIVIL and ask nicely, don't be a jerk. You can review and work towards improving hooks without being rude and getting nasty with nominators and swearing in your posts. Drop the attitudes.4meter4 (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: I don't know what continuing a heated discussion that has been over will do other than start another one. I used that language after the multiple false assumptions. SL93 (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Consider this a caution to apply to future reviews then. If you use escalating language like swear words, you only create enemies and conflict and, if anything, cause the community at large to immediately take a hardline against whatever opinion you are arguing for. My reaction to swear words in posts make me immediately dislike whatever the person using them is trying to say. I am not abnormal. Keep it clean and calm if you want to persuade and work with others productively.4meter4 (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
4meter4 I don't understand the double standard. Me saying shit was after the conflict that was started at the nomination page. I only said shit because I was frustrated. SL93 (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I will just make a list.
"I don't really see how every hook must appeal to every person, that everyone must immediately understand the full meaning of what's being said." - I never said that or thought that.
"Moreover, it is clear there is a double standard when it comes to 'interest to a broad audience'." - What double standard?
Why is it that this topic has been singled out for its so-called 'boringness'?" I was not singling the nomination out.
Even after the first thing was said, I went so far as to apologize (not sure why the nominator said that I didn't) - "I'm sorry that you feel that you wasted your time". Then this discussion started after it was claimed by the nominator that I never notified them of the discussion
SL93 (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Don't be a jerk page

4meter4 "Telling someone "don't be a jerk" is generally wrong – especially if it's true." - You just did that.

"Focus on behaviour, not on individuals." - Making bad faith suggestions like the nominator did goes against that.
"Assume good faith to the maximum extent possible." That was never done by the nominator.
"Remember that your perception can be wrong." - The nominator only had false perceptions.

SL93 (talk) 03:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's move this to your talk page.4meter4 (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
4meter4 I will revert it. You ignored the bad faith assumptions and then called me a jerk. You don't like someone saying swear words, but I don't like it when people call me a jerk. That is the same concept. Maybe just end this? It was done with anyway. SL93 (talk) 04:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, this is going swimmingly, isn't this? EEng 04:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I left a hopefully productive message at SL93's talk page, and hopefully we can continue the conversation there. Best.4meter4 (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Really, give the preaching a rest. EEng 04:28, 10 June 2021 (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.

Discussion at Radical reform of DYK at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

Did I miss a courtesy notice? Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Radical_reform_of_DYK Pardon me, but @Sdkb: should have left a message here. Everybody here should read this thread, which proposes to overhaul a "fundamentally broken" without any discussion here, or any notice that this was happening. I am offended. — Maile (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

WT:DYK#Relevant discussion on the village pump, although I suppose it might be easy to miss. I like Sdkb, but they do have a tendency to propose super-overhauls of processes without advertising them well, which I don't think tends to go smoothly for either them or the processes. I've glanced at that current VPIL discussion a couple of times and not found it likely enough to close with any change to participate at this time, as it looks rather messy. Vaticidalprophet 20:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Don't be "offended", what a waste of energy. Just contribute there, contribute here. I'm certain no offence was meant by Sdkb failing to send out the proper notifications. What has been really instructive has been a pre-emptive debate without the DYK regulars getting involved. Anyway, I fail to see why you personally should be offended by something which discusses DYK in general. If someone had criticised you personally, I'd get it. But no. So get on with making this a better project. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
There have been efforts in the past to rid the main page of DYK. We now include GA nominations for that reason, because there had been an effort to replace DYK with 100% GA in that slot. I realize the main page is something akin to a gold mine, in the fact that it's valuable to those who want their particular interest there....but ... — Maile (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Still no reason to take this personally. DYK is a habitual discussion point. It has always needed to up its game. It's doing okay lately, quality has been better than ever before, and it's certainly more interesting than a lot of the rest of the main page. But my point was not to get indignant about it, just react properly and positively to the discussion at the Pump. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Reply from Sdkb: (edit conflict) @Maile66, there's an invitation a few threads above here. It is from another user, not me, though, so I do feel I owe you some explanation.
I certainly haven't been shy about expressing my concerns about DYK here and working to see if some of the regulars here are interested in brainstorming solutions (for instance, most recently in this discussion), so I hope you don't feel like I'm trying to push reforms behind your back or anything. For this particular discussion, I took it very intentionally to the idea lab, which is explicitly not a place to make proposals and does not allow !votes (I chided the one editor who has done so anyways there). The discussion at this point has sprawled much larger than what I anticipated when I dashed it off just before I fell asleep a few days ago, but if you look just at my first message, my goal was not to open a big debate but rather to just assess how open the community would be to reform in a more formal proposal. For that narrow purpose, I intentionally chose not to leave an invitation here, as I wanted to see how the broad swath of editors would react rather than hear from a chorus of DYK regulars whose views might not be representative of the larger community. As the discussion grew way beyond that, I did decide to leave an invitation here, but I saw ONUnicorn had already done so by that point. And of course, I would absolutely leave an invitation here if I did decide to go forward with a formal proposal. I hope that explanation helps my perspective make some sense. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. — Maile (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, I think we all know by now that's not really how Wikipedia works, but it's good that the "voting" was closed down, albeit the only serious "vote" was to oppose any transformation of the current process! I think it's better to get pro-active than to get indignant about these kinds of things. DYK is an island and it needs to be shaken up from time to time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The radical reform idea was based on a false premise – that DYK is broken. This is the reverse of the truth because it is clear that DYK is highly successful. My last DYK was only on the main page for 12 hours because the pace had been increased to two sets per day. Having such abundance and variety is a sign of success. Failure would look like FA where, as I understand it, the rate of production is less than one per day and so they are having to scrape the barrel and run repeats. Or failure would look like OTD which, as I understand it, is mostly the work of one editor who is now rather burnt out. Or failure would look like ITN whose processes are so contentious that little gets through – less than one new blurb per day. Or it would look like FP which has no formal review process for its blurbs and so they are often found wanting.
But being so successful naturally causes some growing pains for which remedies may be needed, such as the nomination queue split, which seems to have worked reasonably well. When you have such a high volume then more mechanical aids should be considered to help us cope with the flow. I'd like to see some automation of WP:DYKSTATS which currently seems to be a manual process. For example, Mr. Dick did well enough for an entry, I reckon. I wondered whether some gnome would take care of this but it seems that I'll have to do it myself.
What would be quite useful and interesting would be an archive database which listed all the hooks and their stats. This would provide the evidence which seems needed to settle the perennial debates about whether hooks are interesting or not. If editors can see more clearly how their hooks are performing then this will provide a natural competition which will encourage everyone to raise and maintain their game.
Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
"Interesting" is entirely subjective anyway. I've had hooks I thought were interesting get low views, and those I felt were mundane get lots of views. So obviously we can't tell what people want to read. And no actual evidence was presented that DYK is broken, it was just asserted like a fact. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The discussion was at the "idea lab", where people should be able to discuss their ideas without everything being shot down immediately by the regulars. I don't think it is news that some people think DYK is broken. Whether you agree with that kind of depends on what you think DYK should do. DYK currently mostly works for me as it has encouraged me to aim for more quality in my new articles. It also encourages me to look through the recent work of other Wikipedians, either as a reviewer or just for fun. I find it a bit process-heavy but I find that the article quality control generally works. (This is in contrast to the very light processes of 15 years ago). The hookiness quality control is where I'm not sure whether we're doing a great job, but what is interesting and to how wide an audience is very difficult to measure so going by the gut feeling of reviewers and then prep builders choosing the best of the approved hooks is our substitute for that. Whether we can improve things is a fair question, and deserves to be asked outside the circle of involved people. —Kusma (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Kusma What I would say is that your comment here, with a specific idea for what could be improved (hookiness quality control) is much more helpful in my opinion than simply stating that "DYK is fundamentally broken", without even attempting to provide justification (as far as I can see, it's just their opinion of the matter). The idea of putting random articles on the front page instead of using a proper process like DYK is ridiculous in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    The discussion at the idea lab did state that they were trying to take a reader's perspective. I'm not sure that readers' short time interest in excitement is worth a radical change, but perhaps we should manage reader expectations better. Did you know that Wikipedia's Did you Know section is not Ripley's Believe it or Not, but a showcase for new and recently improved articles? Our readers are not told that, so they might have the wrong expectations and be disappointed. —Kusma (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK incubator?

I'm wondering if we should have a DYK incubator section where people without much experience of DYK could get more help. The helpers would get a nomination credit. Maybe this has already been tried? Desertarun (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but I'm not sure how workable it is with an all-volunteer crew. Maybe yes, maybe no. — Maile (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
In practice, this talk page serves as an incubator. It is not uncommon for editors who are either unsure, or unwilling to go through the system, to post here requesting assistance (eg. #Submitting an article for DYK? above). Happily, one volunteer or another tends to step in in these situations. The question is then if it is worth splitting an incubator into a separate page, or perhaps making it more explicit at the top of this page that editors who are less familiar with the system can ask for help here? CMD (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd imagine it was a new section at the top of the current new nominations page. Would it be possible to add a tick box to the new nominations box which said "New user"? The words "New user" would then show up on the nomination to allow sorting. Desertarun (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Clean up of "Willing to help"

Please be advised that I did a clean up of two lists (admin and non-admin editors who are listed as willing to help), on the WT:DYK page. in some cases, these editors haven't been on Wikipedia at all for years. In others, they have edited infrequently. Since this is a list of volunteers, I don't see how it could be kept up to date. And based on what I removed, I'm not sure how valuable this is. i.e., if someone has only edited a handful of times in the last 12 months, they probably should not be listed. My removals are below. — Maile (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Admins

  • Bencherlite
  • Frank
  • Mentoz86 - "no such user"
  • MichaelQSchmidt
  • NativeForeigner
  • Rjanag

Non-admin participants

  • Adityavagarwal
  • Arius1998
  • Ceradon
  • Human3015
  • Jolly Janner
  • Kierano
  • Miyagawa
  • Ruby2010
  • SkyGazer 512
  • Krishna Chaitanya Velaga - "no such user"

28bytes is listed as an admin willing to help, but they are no longer an admin. Should they be removed from this list? Z1720 (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

@28bytes: Do you wish to have your name moved to the non-admin list, or removed altogether? Please advise. — Maile (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
You can put me on the non-admin list. I’m not around every day but I do check in occasionally. 28bytes (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 Done — Maile (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Flightless (Record Label)

This nomination's nominator is a student editor who hasn't edited since last month, and their instructor hasn't edited since early June. Would another editor be willing to adopt this nomination and address any issues in their absence? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:40, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Double word

The first hook of Queue 3 has an "an an". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of most recent 4-5 days of entries

Just a heads up that a recent edit deleted the most recent 4-5 days of entries and restored a bunch of old ones. The bot then duly archived 59 closed nominations. I've reverted to a previous version of the page and don't think anything has been lost but it's probably worth someone else having a quick look. User:S2102sa, not sure what you were attempting to do with your original edit? I appreciate that you are new and it was probably unintentional; if you need a hand to do anything, let us know here - Dumelow (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Dumelow: Sorry about that, I was trying to reply to the feedback for my nomination and think I must have accidentally done something. Apologies again.S2102sa (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi S2102sa; don't worry, no harm done. I know the DYK page is fairly confusing! - Dumelow (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I think Template:Did you know nominations/China-Pakistan Free Trade Agreement is the nomination you were looking for? If you click that link and then edit you will be able to reply. From the main DYK listings page you have to click the "Review or comment" link under each entry header - Dumelow (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

KrinkleBot is down

FYI, the DYKUpdate bot has posted a message that it cannot update the next main page rotation, because the image is not protected:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADYKUpdateBot%2FErrors&type=revision&diff=1027603456&oldid=1026917317

I checked the last run of Krinkle.bot at Commons, which is what protects the images, and adds them here:

Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection

The bot has not run for 15 hours. I've left a mesage at the owner's Commons page.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKrinkle&type=revision&diff=568012889&oldid=555447012

— Maile (talk) 22:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I added the image here:

Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection

Let's see if that works. — Maile (talk) 23:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee, Gatoclass, BlueMoonset, and Cwmhiraeth: any ideas here on what to do? No answers here or at Commons. We don't even know if the Krinkle bot's owner is still active these days. I feel like I'm walking down an empty hallway, hearing echoes of my footsteps and nothing else - everybody else left the building and forgot to tell me. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I think a Commons admin will need to manually add c:File:Madame Jacques-Louis Leblanc (Françoise Poncelle, 1788–1839) MET DT1926.jpg to c:Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en to enable the cascading protection. I've asked on the #commons Discord channel but haven't gotten a response yet. If anyone knows an active Commons admins who could be quickly pinged or contacted another way, that would be helpful. DanCherek (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
There's a list of them here: Commons:List of administrators by language. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
The file can just be copied to en.wikipedia, where it will be protected. No Commons admin needed. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Maile66 and Mandarax: I tried uploading it here: File:Madame Jacques-Louis Leblanc (Françoise Poncelle, 1788–1839) MET DT1926 for DYK.jpg — is that sufficient? There were some Commons templates I couldn't copy over... DanCherek (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
(ec) I've uploaded the file on English Wikipedia with the same filename. This is preferred as it keeps links intact when the temporary file is later deleted from English Wikipedia. Shubinator (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Shubinator: Thanks, will delete my version. DanCherek (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I should also note, last I checked, only admins can override Commons files by uploading a file to English Wikipedia with the same filename. Shubinator (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Indeed ... thanks to Shubinator. I can see that it needed specific info on the Summary, which I would have never known to do. Hopefully, this will do the trick. — Maile (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
If possible, it would be good to manually protect the next few images in advance, since the issue of KrinkleBot being down has not been resolved. DanCherek (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
(ec) Cool the bot was triggered! Thanks for the visual imagery there Maile, I'm trying not to laugh :) For future reference, the steps are:
  1. On Commons, download the file to your computer.
  2. Back at English Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload and upload the image with the same filename. For the description add {{c-uploaded}} and the source and license information.
  3. Profit! Note it may take a few minutes for the cascading protection to kick in - null editing the page with cascading protection the image is transcluded on (usually one of the future Main Pages, eg Wikipedia:Main Page/1) will force it.
  4. After the image comes off the Main Page, it's best to go back and delete the temporary file. DYKUpdateBot used to do this automatically for images tagged with {{c-uploaded}}, I'll work on re-adding this functionality now that Krinkle Bot is out of commission.
Shubinator (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Shubinator, I've copied your instructions over to Did you know/Admin instructions. If anybody thinks being a DYK Admin is easy, they should see how much we have to check for the process here. — Maile (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

KrinkleBot is still down

@Valereee, Gatoclass, BlueMoonset, Cwmhiraeth, and Shubinator:

FYI - KrinkleBot is still not updating anything, and the bot owner is not responding to posts about it. Looking at the bot's history, it previously updated multiple times a day. As of right now, it hasn't updated since 04:41, 8 June 2021. — Maile (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Hm. So we need to start uploading to wikipedia those images so they'll be protected? —valereee (talk) 12:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I just tried to do it, and it told me the file already existed, but I still don't see it at KrinkleBot, even after I purged the page. —valereee (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
One way or another, we need a backup plan here. — Maile (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
It's not much use pinging me, this is well above my pay grade! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Did we forget to tell you that the Admin status comes with a learner's permit for "jack of all trades"? Feel free to fumble through with the rest of us  :-) — Maile (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
It's above my pay grade, too. :D I just muddle along as best I can and hope not too many people are watching as I try to fix what I've done incorrectly the first time. —valereee (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Not an active Commons user, but would commons admins' noticeboard or their village pump technical be a good place for someone to post and see if Commons can get someone to fix it? Those are the places I'd expect to find someone to fix it on en.wiki. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I have posted a message at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard&action=submit — Maile (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
So Shubinator's instructions say to null edit Wikipedia:Main Page/1 to force cascading protection to kick in. That's terrifying. :D If I remove or insert a space into a hidden comment, that can't break anything, right? —valereee (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
That's a dummy edit, not a null edit, see WP:NULL. Just click "edit", then click "save", nothing bad will happen. Also, Wikipedia:Main Page/1 isn't a particularly visible page, so even if you do edit the page, nothing will break. —Kusma (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@valereee which image did you try? A few hours ago I took care of the images in (at the time) queues 2 and 3. Would be great if someone could tackle the images in queues 4, 5, and 6, and I can double-check their work :) As for the backup plan, the "default" is to go back to what we were doing before Krinkle Bot - the admin promoting the set to the queue takes care of protecting the image. Shubinator (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Shubinator, I was trying the image currently on the main page, File:The_Law_is_Too_Slow_MET_2835-180.jpg . It wasn't showing up at [4] so I downloaded and uploaded, and it said it was already here on enwiki, but I didn't know how to tell whether it was protected. The instructions seem to say that as soon as it's uploaded here, it's protected, but they also say to make a null edit to force the protection to kick in. Basically I just don't know what I'm doing lol... —valereee (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@valereee Ah, so commons:Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en is KrinkleBot's thing, if KrinkleBot is down it's probably best to look at the protection state of the image itself. So how do we figure out if an image is protected? On the image's enwiki page, at the top (where "Edit" often is), click on the "View on Commons" button if it exists. This will take you to the Commons filepage for files hosted at Commons. If the button doesn't exist, stay put on the enwiki filepage. Now click on "Edit". If an editnotice appears saying something like "This page is protected so that only users with administrative rights can make edits" or "This page has been protected so that only administrators can edit it" or "This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators", it's protected! If not, it's not protected.
Try temporarily uploading the queue 4 image to enwiki :) Shubinator (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I got an answer of sorts over at the Commons Admin Noticeboard. There are two other bot operators besides Krinkle who have access to the bot: C:User:Legoktm and C:User:Steinsplitter. Legoktm has already been pinged, so cross your fingers. — Maile (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks like KrinkleBot is back in action. Shubinator (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Ugh, somehow I completely screwed that up. Why is this so hard? Can't we just have a button lol... —valereee (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Aaaaand I can't figure out how to undo. WTF did I do? —valereee (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Looks like the image was inadvertently uploaded with a different filename over at File:Temp protect.jpg. More -> Delete will do the trick to delete it :) From the edit summary it seems the file was uploaded with File Upload Wizard, try Special:Upload instead :) Shubinator (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@valereee best to delete File:Temp protect.jpg if there's no further use for it. Shubinator (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 Done, thanks! —valereee (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Clearer instructions

(Removing the ambiguity around null edits etc) Instructions on protected files hosted at Commons that aren't yet protected:

  1. Double-check the image hasn't already been vandalized.
  2. On Commons, download the file to your computer.
  3. Back at English Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload and upload the image with the same filename. For the description add {{c-uploaded}} and the source and license information. After clicking "Upload file", you'll get a warning the image already exists, and will need to confirm by clicking "Ignore warning and save file anyway".
  4. Check if cascading protection kicked in: On the English Wikipedia filepage, click on "Edit". If an editnotice appears saying something like "This page is protected so that only users with administrative rights can make edits" or "This page has been protected so that only administrators can edit it" or "This page is currently protected, and can be edited only by administrators", it's protected! If not, please protect the image manually - set protection expiry to after the image is slated to leave the Main Page.
  5. Profit!
  6. After the image comes off the Main Page, it's best to go back and delete the temporary file. DYKUpdateBot used to do this automatically for images tagged with {{c-uploaded}}, I'll work on re-adding this functionality now that Krinkle Bot is out of commission.

Generally the above instructions are for the admin promoting a DYK set into the queue, or (less common) swapping an image into the queue. Shubinator (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The list below includes 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 1. We currently have a total of 235 nominations, of which 75 have been approved, a gap of 160. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Giovanni Ross (anarchist)

It appears the image used in this now-promoted nomination was deleted from commons Link20XX (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the article made it to DYK's section of the Main Page last month, and wasn't the lead hook. Changes to the article / image after it's on the Main Page generally don't matter to us. It can help to tweak the DYK archives if the now deleted image was linked there, in this case the image wasn't used on DYK though and therefore wouldn't be linked from DYK archives. Is there something else I'm missing? Shubinator (talk) 03:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
No, just wanted to bring it up since I noticed it after browsing the archives. Link20XX (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
A knock on effect of image being deleted was that it was causing a Lua error on that nomination- I commented out the image which looks to have fixed it (otherwise it'll show up in Lua error categories). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Time to go back to one set a day

The number of approved nominations has dropped below 60 (it's at 55 as I write this), which means it's time to go from two DYK sets a day to one. We always make the switchover at midnight, which is now about two hours away, so once the next queue, Queue 2, is promoted to the main page, it will be time to make the switch. Fortunately, there are no special occasion nominations in the current set of queues and preps, so no hooks will need to be moved as a result of the change.

Pinging admins Amakuru, Maile, Cas Liber, valereee, and Cwmhiraeth, in the hopes that one of them can change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400 after the new set is moved to the main page, which sets us to a single daily set. The change needs to happen between 00:05 and 12:00 UTC. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I can probably get to it tonight after 00.05 but if not definitely tomorrow before 12.00 UTC if no one else has. —valereee (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 Done —valereee (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, valereee! Looks great. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Five empty Queues - promoters needed

I don't have time right now, but only two Queues are filled. Prep 1 is partially filled, but all the other preps are full. — Maile (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Queue 4: Toma Kamijo

  • that Toma Kamijo ranked first in a survey asking people which fictional character after whom they would name their potential son?

Two things here. Firstly the survey didn't ask about all fictional characters, according to the source is was only regarding "anime or game" characters. So I will certainly be amending the hook to clarify that, as that's simply an inaccuracy. On the second point, this "survey" was actually conducted on an online gaming site (Dengeki Online), which the source makes clear is a "self-selected pool of respondents". I'm wondering if there's a risk that it might be interpreted as being a survey of the general public? I've clarified the article to make this clear, and perhaps in the interests of "hookiness" it could be kept as is? Putting it out here for opinions anyway. Pinging @Vaticidalprophet, Narutolovehinata5, and Link20XX: as nom/reviewer/promoter.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The hook is vague enough that it probably doesn't need an explanation of exactly what the respondents were so I don't see an issue with the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:00, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
OK then.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Could we have a more grammatically correct hook while we are about it? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
We could go back to the one I originally wrote with a slight modification (...that Toma Kamijo ranked first in a survey asking people which fictional character they would name their potential son after?). Link20XX (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Q5 June18a

Template:Did you know nominations/Culture of Ladakh

@LearnIndology @Kavyansh.Singh @Desertarun

I'm concerned that this hook is sourced to something called Jagranjosh.com.[1] I don't see any evidence that's a reliable source? —valereee (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Valereee: Well, if it is not a reliable source, the hook can be cited to (1), which is official website of Union Territory of Ladakh. It states "The biggest and most famous of the monastic festivals, frequented by tourists and locals alike is that of Hemis.....", and also about the other festival. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh, that would be an affiliated source, which shouldn't be used to support assertions like "most famous." We could change the hook to "throughout the year, including Hemis Tsechu and Losar?" from that source, if you'll add it to the article. —valereee (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Done: The change is made in the article in this edit. You can change the hook as required. (ping - @Valereee) Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, @Kavyansh.Singh! I'll give Learnindology a bit more time to chime in before I change the hook, in case they would prefer to find an RS for "most famous". —valereee (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
There are multiple instances of Losar being an important and big festival in reliable media, see [5]. Hemis festival was already sourced to the LA times as a major festival. I support switching this to use the word "including" to be on the safe side. Desertarun (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Losar, the biggest Tibetan Buddhist Festival, began in Ladakh region". Jagranjosh.com. 2015-12-14. Retrieved 2021-05-19.

Bots active at DYK

From the namespace discussion above I put together a list of bots active at DYK. Feel free to edit it, and happy to move it to a more official location if it's useful.

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

The following is a list of user scripts, programs, and bots used in the regular maintenance and updating of DYK. These scripts and bots assist with creating, reviewing, and moving DYK nominations, as well as updating the Main Page and other important tasks.

Scripts and programs

Nominating

Reviewing

Prep and queue work

Bots

DYK currently updates once every 24 hours.

Active

Bot Maintainer Interval Task BRfA
AAlertBot
1 day Updates WikiProject article alerts with lists of open DYK nominations 1st
DeadbeefBot 0xDeadbeef 1 day Merges {{DYK talk}} with {{Article history}} on article talk pages 2nd
DYKHousekeepingBot Shubinator 30 minutes Updates DYK hook count 2nd
1 day Notifies nominators when their nomination is not transcluded to Template talk:Did you know or Template talk:Did you know/Approved 3rd
DYKToolsBot RoySmith 1 hour? Classifies DYK nominations, for example as biographies 1st
DYKUpdateBot Shubinator DYK Updates Template:Did you know, which transcludes to the Main Page. Logs errors at User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors 1st
Distributes {{UpdatedDYK}} credits to nominators and creators
Adds {{DYK talk}} to article talk pages
Archives sets to Wikipedia:Recent additions
FACBot Hawkeye7 12 hours Merges {{DYK talk}} with {{Article history}} on article talk pages 6th
GalliumBot theleekycauldron 3 hours darn: Logs modifications of promoted hooks on nomination talk pages 1st
1 day vandyke: Maintains Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics and notifies nominators when their hooks "score" above a certain threshold 2nd
1 hour proctor: Maintains Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYK promotions 3rd
JL-Bot JLaTondre 1 week Updates WikiProjects with lists of articles that have appeared at DYK 5th
KrinkleBot
10 minutes Protects DYK images hosted at Commons before they reach the Main Page 2nd
MajavahBot Taavi One-time run? Fills in missing DYK hooks on article talk tags 4th
MilHistBot Hawkeye7 1 day Updates Template:WPMILHIST Announcements with open MILHIST DYK nominations 1st
MusikBot MusikAnimal 1 day Adds new date headers at Template talk:Did you know 6th
SDZeroBot SD0001 When a DYK is nominated Updates list of users by most DYK nominations None
WugBot Wugapodes 2 hours Moves approved nominations from Template talk:Did you know to Template talk:Did you know/Approved 2nd
1 day Transcludes DYK nominations on article talk 3rd

Inactive

Bot Maintainer Interval Task Final edit BRfA
DYKBot Nixeagle DYK Companion for DYKadminBot, but did not maintain Template:Did you know 2008-12-31 1st
DYKadminBot Nixeagle DYK Predecessor to DYKUpdateBot 2010-02-15 1st
DYKReviewBot Intelligentsium Inconsistent Reviewed new DYK nominations on a fixed subset of the criteria 2016-10-30 1st
DYKToolsAdminBot RoySmith N/A Companion for DYKToolsBot Not started N/A
EnterpriseyBot Enterprisey 1 day Notified an editor if an article they had created/expanded was nominated for DYK by someone else 2022-02-22 2nd
GimmeBot Gimmetrow Inconsistent Predecessor to FACBot's DYK task 2013-01-31 1st
WikiStatsBOT ThaddeusB 30 minutes Updated DYK hook count 2010-10-14 1st

Shubinator (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a most handy list to have. It might be better where you have the list, as you are more likely to keep it updated. However, I have transcluded it over at DYK Admin instructions. — Maile (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
In addition, there's User:FACBot that may sometimes edit {{Article history}} to add DYK info per this BRFA. – SD0001 (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes, thank you - GimmeBot used to do this, and I was wondering if I'd missed its replacement. Added to the list :) Shubinator (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Shubinator: Sorry about asking for more work, but would it be worth also adding two columns noting explicitly what page(s) each bot reads, and what pages each writes to? This would help better capture the breadth of tasks carried out, which is not really conveyed in the current descriptions, and would help with seeing how changes to any particular page might ripple through the bot network.
For example, your DYKUpdateBot reads Template:Did you know/Queue/Next, the various Queue pages, and Template:Did you know/Next update/Time, and writes to Template:Did you know/Queue/Next, the various Queue pages, Template:Did you know/Next update/Time, Template:Did you know, Wikipedia:Recent additions, User talk pages, Article talk pages, and image file pages. (DYKUpdateBot of course has a helpful manual, but not all do.) CMD (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Interesting idea, yeah this would be handy for mapping out ripple effects. For both this ask and SD0001's below, it's best if we can get the bot operators to chip in, as they'd know best. For the ripple effects, since large overhauls are relatively rare & this info could make the original table tough to consume, might make sense to create a separate table. Shubinator (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Also, it might be good to verify that all these bots and tasks are registered on Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. – SD0001 (talk) 07:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hook variety within a set

Prep 1 has two articles about a building/institution in a German city, Berlin and Hanover. - Move one, perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

... or move 2, because another hook in the set mentions the fall of the Berlin Wall? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I think we obsess over this variety stuff a bit too much. EEng 03:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    I said "perhaps" and meant it, - why "obsess"? If I'm the only one perhaps not. I'll manage to change three hooks for Portal:Germany. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    Didn't mean to single you out. EEng 15:07, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    Fine, - I may overreact to being called obsessed when I think I just follow common sense ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    I AM NOT BEING DEFENSIVE! STOP SAYING THAT! I HATE IT WHEN PEOPLE SAY THAT! I AM NOT A DEFENSIVE PERSON! EEng 16:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, no idea what you mean. Same on my talk, someone else or two, - some days English seems harder than others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
    It's a joke. See, someone defensively insisting they're not defensive. EEng 15:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why it matters. They are two different types of buildings and there are only two German hooks in the set. SL93 (talk) 04:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Whatever, the two have been separated, thanks to whoever did it! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Queue 3 seems short

Most of the hooks on Queue 3 are short. With so many short hooks together, with a narrow image, they leave quite a bit of blank space on the left side of MainPage. Perhaps one or two wordy hooks from another set can be swapped in? Or add one or two short hooks to the existing eight? It would be best if we can be consistent with the length of hook sets in DYK. A left-right imbalance on MainPage makes the project look sloppy. May I remind hook set builders to use the preview feature in the prep templates to check how the set would look on MainPage, please? Thank you. --PFHLai (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I have swapped in a longer hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

yoninah set

Prep builders: The July 3 set gets User:Valereee/Yoninah —valereee (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm so glad it'll get a full day. —valereee (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: thank you for all the time you put into building this set for Yoninah. You're pretty special yourself. — Maile (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
@Maile66, I only tweaked. Other editors at the original discussion did much of the work! But thank you, the kind words are much appreciated. —valereee (talk) 00:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I haven't been following this greatly, but while there wasn't a consensus to mention the editors' name or similar in the DYK set, was there a consensus against perhaps changing the archive link (or adding another bottom link) to link to a list of all Yoninah hooks? Not sure how easy that would be to accumulate, but it'd be interesting to me at least and I think it'd be a good way to allow people to browse hooks we know are good quality and writing. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Anyone able to proffer some alt hooks?

Reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Modern Paganism and New Age, which is a topic both myself and the nominator are quite close to, and I think we need some alt hooks but don't trust my ability to get what a general audience with no particular understanding of either movement will find interesting. Anyone good with hooks is encouraged to give suggestions. Vaticidalprophet 00:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Admin needed: hook needs to be removed from Queue 6

The seventh hook, for Saint George Killing the Dragon, needs to be removed from Queue 6: the submitted QPQ had previously been used for Template:Did you know nominations/Portrait of Madame Jacques-Louis Leblanc, which ran on the main page back on June 9. Indeed, JeBonSer does not seem to have understood that a QPQ review can only be used on a single nomination, since the same QPQ review has been used since their first QPQ, the one that ran on June 9; I have posted a note on their talk page explaining how QPQs are supposed to work.

Requesting an admin to remove the hook from Queue 6 (and replace it with another from prep), and reopen Template:Did you know nominations/Saint George Killing the Dragon on the Nominations page. I have already pulled Template:Did you know nominations/The Angel with Golden Hair from Prep 5 since it used the same QPQ, and noted the issue on the other current nominations.

I am also concerned about the article's sourcing and use thereof. What makes the Google Arts & Culture site reliable (I've found basic fact issues with their articles before), and, for that matter, the Web Gallery of Art, which seems to have been created by a retired physicist and a computer scientist. (That WGoA entry reads as if it were taken, uncredited, from a book of paintings.) While I have no quarrel with the Art Institute of Chicago, I am concerned with how the material is being used: the article states, in Wikipedia's voice, The artist also littered skulls and bones on the ground with lizards to make it look gritty. This claim of artistic intent comes somehow from the source's Martorell also treated the ground, littered with bones and crawling with lizards, in a lively manner, giving it a gritty texture.

Once the article is pulled for the needed replacement QPQ, I recommend that it be given a closer examination before being passed again. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Admin also needed to fix the penultimate hook in Queue 5, which only has a two-dot ellipsis to start rather than the required three... Pinging Amakuru, valereee, and Cwmhiraeth, in the hopes that one of them will take care of this hook and replace the one mentioned above. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Done both. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Cheating in baseball (prep area 4)

Regarding the "Cheating in baseball" item in prep area 4: I feel that the alternate hook 3 I wrote, ... that pitchers are cheating in baseball with a glue invented for strongmen to hold Atlas balls?, would be more effective at drawing interest with its unlikely juxtaposition. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

All three hooks were approved, so I have swapped the one you want into Prep 4. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:DYK/Pages/Template

Hello, DYK folk,

This category showed up on the daily empty category list. The standard practice is to tag these categories for speedy deletion, CSD C1. If the category is still empty a week later, it is deleted but categories deleted simply for being empty can always be recreated if it is needed in the future. So, it is not a permanent form of deletion.

So, I thought I'd ask before it was tagged whether this is a category you regularly use that for some reason is suddenly empty or is this an abandoned category that you don't anticipate needing again? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: maybe you could hold off on this. See all that elongated dialogue above. They're discussing making structural changes that might have resulted in this. I don't know who is doing what behind the scenes, but it seems to me this might be related. I don't know what all they're doing. Maybe @Shubinator: has a clue on this.— Maile (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hm I'm not familiar with that category. I flipped through the changes made so far as part of the namespace conversation, and none of them look related. Shubinator (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, there is a way to stall this but, ultimately, I'd like to know whether or not y'all need this category. I'll circle back and check in a couple of weeks. Liz Read! Talk! 04:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Liz You may want to use User:Nardog/CatChangesViewer if you work with empty cats a lot. The tool shows that this cat was emptied yesterday by Gonnym. This doesn't have anything to do with the namespace transition plan, and I think it can be deleted. – SD0001 (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that category had only /testcases, /sandbox, and /doc pages which we don't categorize in such categories. Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I just installed that tool, SD0001 but if it could show the history of a now empty category, that would be a game changer. We are constantly running into categories that have been emptied out-of-process instead of going through the prescribed CFD route for deletion or renaming. Categories not having a history of their contents makes it difficult to track down what has happened and can make it impossible to repopulate them unless one is familiar with the subject matter. I'll try it out. Liz Read! Talk! 16:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

dyk help tree button

This is via Levivich: DYK help Needs some tweaking, but I thought posting it at the top of various pages might provide a less-daunting entry into the process for newer editors? —valereee (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Bertie Prowse

Hi all, I've just nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Bertie Prowse. It would be great if this could be reviewed in time to feature on 1 July, the 105th anniversary of his death at the first day on the Somme. It would need to go into Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6, which has already been part-filled. Apologies for short notice, I only just noticed the upcoming anniversary and wrote the article as quick as I could - Dumelow (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I've just passed it. Someone else will need to prep it. Desertarun (talk) 11:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Thankyou both, glad we were able to make the anniversary - Dumelow (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Quick question: multiple images in a nomination?

I swear I've seen before nominations that have multiple images, such that the promoter can select their preferred, and for if different hooks pair with different images. I can't...actually figure out how to do this in a nomination, though. Is this possible, and if so how? Vaticidalprophet 09:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes, different pics go to different hooks. There's no way when you create the template, by you can change anytime. Just copy the coding for the image already there to where you want it (new pic name, new caption). If you decide you want a pic where there was none, copy from a template that has one - at least that's what I do. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Vaticidalprophet, I added two pix to Template:Did you know nominations/Casque (anatomy) if you want an example to follow. MeegsC (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
MeegsC, it works, but not prettily. Possibly you did something else before that got substed -- it's pretty difficult to backfill what substed DYK templates looked like before sometimes. {{Did you know nominations/Prehistoric religion}} works well enough to know what I meant, but it's not going to win a beauty contest. If that's the best three wider-than-they're-long images can get, I'm fine with it; if anyone sees a better way, feel free to act on your vision. Vaticidalprophet 09:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Ah, give me a minute -- literally the most recent hook does this, so I've figured it out. Vaticidalprophet 09:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
There we go, perfectly attractive images. Thanks to all. Vaticidalprophet 09:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
(ec) The MeegsC example shows exactly what I described. If you don't like the looks - but who cares about beauty in a nomination to be forgotten? - simply place an ALT further below. It's actually not a good idea to place later-added ALTs where the original ones are, for clarity of a discussion. (Example: there are two ALTs that I comment as a reviewer, and later 3 more ALTs get added, - making it look as if I didn't see those.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

July 5 special occasion picture hooks

I've requested that the Flag of the Cayman Islands and Coat of arms of the British Virgin Islands be used as the picture hooks for July 5 and 6, respectively. The user who assembled Prep area 3 stated he thought the two "would be too similar … and I couldn't promote it as a picture". WP:DYKNN N4 only advises variation for hooks in the same set, not over consecutive sets. Thoughts? —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I prepared prep 3. I've no particular opinion other than they look similar, someone else can make any changes necessary. Desertarun (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Desertarun, one way or another, at least one and perhaps two of the hooks would need to be placed in Prep 3, so I don't understand why the set was filled with no slots left for the special occasion hooks. Bloom6132, under the circumstances, giving you two special occasion lead hooks in a row seems excessive, especially as one of the hooks would only run for a few hours at the end of the day in question. I'll let someone else decide whether one of the hooks is suitable for a lead slot, but would be opposed to both of them being used separately; they both should appear in Prep 3. (You also have a flag hook in Prep 6's lead spot four days earlier; we do try to vary the types of lead hooks over time.) If someone starts moving hooks around, just remember that Prep 2, currently the only open prep available to receive hooks, will need at least one slot reserved for the special occasion July 4 hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I misread the timezones so I thought they were running in later preps. Desertarun (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: in that case, I'm fine with either being used as the picture hook on July 5. My personal preference would be for the Coat of arms of the British Virgin Islands, which would also be appropriate given my flag of Nova Scotia hook four days earlier that you alluded to. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_178&oldid=1085471961"