Wikipedia talk:Did you know

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

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

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

Moving the SOHA

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

Like I said on the previous discussion, if anything helps the reviewers to spot a special occasion hook faster, let it be done. Moving SOHA to the top of the page is fundamentally a good idea. But, in my opinion, it is useful if, and only if we have all the special occasions hooks in the holding area. Otherwise, it doesn't take anything more than pressing that page down key to see that same SOHA at the end of the page. Now, as it is being discuss, can someone help me figure out why do we have a SOHA on awaiting nominations page, when we are not allowed to nominate them in that section? Thanks for starting this discussion! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It's probably a remnant from the time before the Approved hooks had their own page. CMD (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, but in any event I do not support moving anything until Shubinator is contacted and we make sure the move will not break DYKHousekeepingBot's creation of the Count of DYK Hooks table—I also do not support any move until the bot can be updated accordingly. Frankly, that table is far more valuable to DYK as a whole than the placement of the Special occasions section. CMD is correct about it being a remnant, and Maile that I was the one who did it (I'm pretty sure I also set up the Approved page): the stub of the Special occasions section was left on the main nominations page as a pointer to its new location when the Approved page was created to split those nominations off from the main page when it became overloaded and incapable of transcluding all the nominations. The reason you can't nominate the hooks in that section is the same as why you can't nominate ones for April Fools' Day on its page: these are ordinary nominations until they are reviewed and passed, and need to be reviewed without special priority or sequestration along with contemporaneous nominations. The idea of putting nominations in a special section at the bottom either privileges or disadvantages them, and is something I would absolutely oppose. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I wouldn't support nominating special occasion hooks in a separate area either—but I'm not sure why you don't want to move the the SOHA for only the approved hooks, as long as it doesn't break the bot? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

BlueMoonset I agree, and I don't suggest to add SO nomination there, but if it serves no purpose than just pointing to the new location, is it really needed there? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

What's the benefit of it being at the top rather than the bottom? It's always been at the bottom, so prep builders should know where it is, the times when I've built preps, I've always been able to find the SOHO fine. Don't see how it being at the top would mean people check it more than at the bottom- if prep builders are missing it, then it is their error. This just seems like a pointless discussion over nothing, in my opinion. Which seems to be the OP's forte on this talkpage at the moment- trying to "fix" things that aren't broken, "fixing" hooks by cutting content on them for no reason.... Joseph2302 (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Fundamentally its a good idea, but in its current form, it looks to me more like a solution looking for a problem. At the end, its as simple as pressing the page down key to see that same SOHA at the end of the page. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

i really just thought that if it were me, it's easier to remember all the hooks there if i have to pass by them and be reminded by them every time i build a prep set. it sometimes slips my mind otherwise, so i thought it might help. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Just mentioning that I am not a experienced prep builder. If regular prep builders find it a useful suggestion, then let it be done. Thanks! - Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The benefit is that prep builders, who should be starting at the top of the page and working down, will see those SO request first thing. —valereee (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Vibes are happening on this page. Check the time stamp of my post below, with the same message. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep, DYKHousekeepingBot will break if this change is made today. If there's consensus for the change, no worries, we can coordinate to avoid disruptions. Best to also check with the other bot operators for bots touching the noms or approved pages: WugBot and MusikBot. Shubinator (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

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

• Not sure if this is resolved. EEng 04:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

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

Support

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

Neutral

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

Close?

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

@Valereee: If the closer finds that there's consensus to do this, then we have to talk to shubinator first—the DYKHousekeepingBot will break. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron, do you think we need a formal close? There's no formal opposition, just support/neutral. —valereee (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't, but we're the proposers here so that's probably a decision for someone else. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Shubinator could do the honour of closing (and then tweak the bot). :-) Schwede66 09:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Shubinator: I think that's a fine idea, how about you? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there anyone else who can tweak the bot? It looks like @Shubinator might be taking a break. —valereee (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: the bot isn't open-source, so no, we'll have to wait. In the meantime, we should ping @Wugapodes and MusikAnimal to let them know this change is happening sometime soon. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I probably won't get this done until mid-December. This is a non-trivial change that I'd want to test out before letting it loose, and my schedule's filled with meatspace deadlines, grant review, and arb elections. I'll know more next week after I review the code and come up with a game plan. I'll keep you all posted. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe after this is closed, it should be archived to a separate page for adopted, but unfulfilled, proposals? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd want to make sure it didn't get overlooked and forgotten. I'd rather just collapse it and pin it here as a reminder that there are still steps to be taken. —valereee (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Could I get a high-level overview of what exactly is changing? MusikBot only adds new date headings to Template talk:Did you know. Are we simply doing that in a different place now, or just the structure of the page is changing? — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Currently, the "Special occasion holding area" is at the bottom section on Template talk:Did you know/Approved. The approving reviewer moves them there, not the bot. The above discussion was to permanently move the "Special occasion holding area" to the top of that page. What I see, are four editors who support the move, zero editors opposing the move, and three editors who are neutral. — Maile (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. So we're not moving the "Special occasion holding area" section on Template talk:Did you know? If not, no changes are needed to MusikBot. It would be a simple fix anyway, if needed. — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal, we might move the "special occasion holding area" at WP:DYKNA from bottom to top, if there's consensus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I generally check my user talk and I'm not as great with checking notifications. Let me know when the other bot operators are planning to make it happen and I can help with DYKHousekeepingBot. Shubinator (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Good to know! I actually wondered if that might be the case, as I saw BlueMoonset had posted there multiple times, but I didn't like to nag if you were just busy IRL. :) —valereee (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Wugapodes, did you see this from Shub? —valereee (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, my attention was elsewhere so I missed this. I'll work on the changes next week and should have something deployed before the 22nd. I'll keep you all updated if it turns out to be sooner than that. I'll post on Shub's talk page as well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

DYKHousekeepingBot now supports either top or bottom placement of the Special Occasion Holding Area :) Special:Diff/1059709544 Shubinator (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Wugapodes, how we lookin'? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

There's an active arb case right now, Wug's first, and four open amendment requests, which seems like a lot. Maybe people were waiting for the new committee? At any rate, maybe we wait to reping Wug until things slow down over there? There's no particular urgency for making this change, and I don't know how much work Wug has to put in to adjust the bot. —valereee (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

fair enough—this can keep, to be sure theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wugapodes, how're things with you? It looks like ArbCom has slowed down a bit? valereee (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee and Theleekycauldron: Things have been better. In addition to my regular job and joining the arbitration committee, I'm recovering from covid which has limited my throughput. The required change to wugbot isn't massive but it's also not trivial. A lot of requests on my time are getting triaged ahead of it, and with covid fatigue it's hard to get deep into backlogged requests, so progress on an otherwise normal-sized change gets slowed. I'll have it running as soon as I can, but my backlog has generally been growing, not shrinking, since December. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wug, no worries, and I'm sorry to hear you had COVID! That sucks. IMO this is something that can be treated as completely not-urgent -- welcome when it happens, but nothing more than that. valereee (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Post-nominals

I'm asking this because I'm currently reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Christian Herwartz. For the most part, the article itself is being revised based on my comments. However, there is one particular concern I have and that is with the hooks. The nominator prefers that the initials "SJ" be included after the subject's name in the hook (for reference, the subject is a Jesuit priest). However, as far as I can tell, MOS:POSTNOM discourages the use of post-nominals on Wikipedia outside of article lede sections and infoboxes. The nominator is requesting for an IAR exemption, arguing that "SJ" should be allowed because MOST:POSTNOM largely refers to honors (think CBE/OBE and the like) and not to religious orders. However, the guideline also links to Post-nominal letters, which does list "SJ" as an example. I'm taking this here because the post-nominal issue is the only thing currently holding the article back and I would like to request for a second opinion on this matter. For what it's worth, I do not recall ever seeing a DYK hook that had post-nominal letters, so I'm not sure if they're allowed, but based on MOS:POSTNOM, are they to be discouraged in hooks? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:01, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the guideline, which I haven't had time to read, the "SJ" is redundant to the hook fact, which isn't at all dependent on the fact that he is a Jesuit. Gatoclass (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

We have two hooks, one speaking about the open community, in a Jesuit sense, the other about the street exercises based on the Spiritual Exercises of the founder. In both cases, while the hook facts are not dependent on knowing he's a Jesuit, it would help understanding, because both words, community and exercises, ae highly ambiguous. If we can't use SJ, I feel I need extra words to say he's Jesuit. Is that what you want? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

The guideline is quite clear: Post-nominals should not be added except to a biography subject's own lead sentence, in an infobox parameter for post-nominals, when the post-nominals themselves are under discussion in the material, and in other special circumstances such as a list of recipients of an award or other honour. That means no postnoms in the hook. Schwede66 06:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I am new to the guideline MOS:POSTNOM, learning. What you say comes in the last sentence, and I never read so far. I am sorry but it doesn't make sense to me for DYK hooks that should be concise, please see reply above. - should we perhaps change the guideline, because two letters with a link would be preferable to prose explanation? - If not, it would be a good idea to mention this last sentence at the very beginning. I don't think I'm the only one with no time to read guidelines to the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of days ago, so I've created a new list of 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 16. We currently have a total of 229 nominations, of which only 79 have been approved, a gap of 150, up 19 over the past eleven days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than three months old

• December 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Price of the Modi Years
• December 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Chinese dama

More than two months old

• January 6: Template:Did you know nominations/International Habitation Module (ALT1 and ALT4 need checking)
• January 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Phylicia Whitney

More than one month old

• February 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Georgy Dokuchaev
• March 1: Template:Did you know nominations/1917 Baku City Duma election
• March 1: Template:Did you know nominations/James Rumsey Monument

Other nominations

• March 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Decome
• March 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Brian Fawcett
• March 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Hum Log (film)
• March 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Earlonne Woods (two articles)
• March 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Five Per Cent For Nothing (two articles)
• March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Diane Burns
• March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Racial segregation in the United Kingdom
• March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Museum of Sexual Cultures
• March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Eden of Coronet (guitar)
• March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Repatriation tax avoidance
• March 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Zeit (album)
• March 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Cornelius Winder
• March 11: Template:Did you know nominations/McNally v R
• March 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Everything I Didn't Say
• March 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Hugh Gaine
• March 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Nick Schmaltz
• March 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Puhi Kai Iti / Cook Landing Site
• March 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Disney and Florida's "Don't Say Gay" bill
• March 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Xiang Guangda
• March 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Geiger
• March 13: Template:Did you know nominations/LittleBigPlanet (2008 video game)
• March 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Cheshire Hall plantation
• March 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Barbara Maier Gustern
• March 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Wings over Kabul: The First Airlift
• March 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Guy Alfred Wyon
• March 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Dave Thomas (politician)
• March 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Marina Nekrasova
• March 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Avtar Singh Jouhl
• March 16: Template:Did you know nominations/German Tarok
• March 16: Template:Did you know nominations/List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Sora Amamiya

Hi there. So I've nominated this article for GA and am just waiting for the review to be completed. I'm thinking of bringing it to DYK if the GAN passes, but I'm a bit of a loss as to what could be used for a hook. Right now the only option that comes to mind is the following:

• ... that Sora Amamiya decided to become a voice actress after being introduced to a video collection of roles by Miyuki Sawashiro?

Is this possible hook niche, especially to those unfamiliar with Sawashiro or Japanese voice acting in general? Would this be a decent, broadly-interesting hook, or should a new hook be found? I'm asking this here before bringing it to DYK because I'd like to workshop the article and potential hook first, in case I'll need to expand the article further in the hope of finding a better hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, the article is little more than a prose list of filmography/discography, followed by table versions, so I am not even sure it would pass GA (broadness and even a bit of notability: if there is no prose information/discussion about the person and aspects of their career, what we have is a NAME Filmography listicle) - but, and this may need some sources mentioning it, the use of question marks and exclamation points in her songs seems somewhat interesting, there might be something to say about that, if you aren't satisfied with "saw some voice acting, decided to be voice actor".
My true thoughts are, though, that not every article will have something that works as a hook and that's ok. Kingsif (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Slipped my mind to respond to this after looking through it—I do agree with Kingsif, not every article has a workable hook. I'm not a fan of the hook suggested above, so if someone has a better one, it could work? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I would build something out of this line, "In 2016, she, along with her co-stars, Rie Takahashi and Ai Kayano performed KonoSuba's ending theme song "Chīsana Bōken-sha" (ちいさな冒険者, lit."Little Adventurer")." --evrik ^(talk) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree that not every article has a workable hook, I was just hoping to bring this one to DYK too since her co-stars in KonoSuba (Takahashi and Kayano) have been featured on DYK too and given that Amamiya is the lead female actress in that series. It would be nice to complete the set in this case. With that said, I will try to look for information regarding her music career, stuff like interviews and the like, and see if anything is usable there. I did try consulting her Japanese Wikipedia article for information but unfortunately it wasn't of much use either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Anyway, I've been looking around for interviews with her (particularly about her music career) and this interview had some information that caught my attention. Granted, any potential hook would be dependent on the information being added to her article, but just in case, would any of the following work as broadly appealing hooks?

• ... that voice actress and singer Sora Amamiya tends to release solo singles in odd-numbered years? (Source: "今まで2017年と2019年の奇数年に歌謡シングルを出させていただいて、2021年にも歌謡シングルを出したいと思っていてリリースすることが決まった1枚なので、そこは「フリイジア」のイメージも出しつつ、ファンの皆さんにも歌謡シングルだというのが伝わるものにしたくて。このヴィンテージ感のあるマイクも作っていただいたんです。")
• ... that the lettering and microphone seen on the cover for Sora Amamiya's single "Freesia" were meant to be reminiscent of retro 7-inch records? (source: "たしかにジャケットの「フリイジア」の文字もレトロな、レコードの7インチシングルを思わせるような。" onwards) (note that the source says "jacket" but I think "cover" is a better word in this context)
• ... that Japanese voice actress and singer Sora Amamiya's song "Jōnetsu no Te Amo" was heavily influenced by Latin music, including the use of a Spanish guitar? (source: [1])
• ... that Japanese voice actress and singer Sora Amamiya's song "Jōnetsu no Te Amo", the B-side to her single "Freesia", was heavily influenced by Latin music? (source: same as the previous hook proposal)

I'll see if I can find more hook options, I just don't want to nominate the article for DYK later on if there's nothing hook-worthy that can be found in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Stability as a DYK requirement

Our current requirement for stability is found in rule D6 of DYK's supplementary guidelines. It reads, simply, The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit-warring. It was suggested in May 2009 by Shubinator, in a dispute that arose from Wehwalt modifying a hook in queue. The language was drafted a week later by Art LaPella, quickly agreed to, and added to DYKSG as rule D5 (it would later become D6 as other rules were added).

I mention all of this to highlight that the rule was quickly conceived, drafted, and ratified by a handful of editors—albeit indisputably competent editors—at a time in DYK's history when rapid and destabilizing changes usually arose from an isolated content dispute. As I write this, we're currently seeing a concerning uptick in nomination that are, while not strictly under active edit-warring, see significant ongoing changes due to their relevancy as a current event or topic. These nominations are:

• 2022 Ukrainian refugee crisis (nom)
• Kyiv Offensive (2022) (nom)
• 2022 Hijab row in Karnataka (nom)

Quite a few of these nominations were already rejected on stability grounds—but it feels awkward to interpret the language this broadly, since active edit-warring is really a pretty narrow term. The third nomination in that bunch, by the way, caused a length discussion here at WT:DYK for pretty much this exact reason—and while consensus was that the nomination's rejection should not be overturned, it does leave a gap between rule language and informal consensus that I'd like to bridge. So, I'd like to hear y'all's input on instead changing the language to:

The article is likely to be rejected for chronic instability due to current events and topics or unresolved edit-warring of any kind.

Thanks for coming to my shpiel. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Just "The article is likely to be rejected for chronic instability" would prevent this being re-discussed in a decade ;) Adding "for example..." may improve the suggested text. Kingsif (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  an example might help; if we take out the "unresolved edit-warring", what happens if there's a short and bright spot of edit warring, just because two editors are in a content dispute? not necessarily chronic the way current events updates are, but it should still cause a hold... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• I like the rule as it is. The common thread on the articles cited above is the quickly evolving nature of the subject. Maybe DYK can't be available to current news topics. --evrik ^(talk) 04:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be unfair if DYK banned ongoing events. Article instability isn't necessarily an issue for most recent topics (in fact, many articles about new topics are stable), and when instability happens, it ends to be more to do with the contentiousness of the topic itself rather than being a current event per se. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK articles are new by their nature, and therefore frequently subject to update, expansion and instability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Not necessarily, usually most of the expansion and updating has already occurred by the time it's nominated for DYK. If instability happens again afterwards, it's usually because issues were raised during a review and edits are being done to resolve them. There's a difference between an article being unstable due to improvements as a result of a review, and instability for reasons outside Wikipedia's control. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

but we also have quite a few other criteria that are affected by updates, expansions, and instability; from the moment an article is ticked by the reviewer, it's a ballpark average of 2-3 weeks until it's on the main page. usually, it's on the prep set builder to check the validity of any new additions between approval and promotion; but for unstable articles, even the 1-2 weeks between promotion and its main-page run can cause too much change for the DYK process to reasonably guarantee that an article meets DYK criteria when it hits the main page. For particularly controversial topics (not just current), we're also exposing the page to a flurry of outside controversial editing, which is not good for an already unstable article.

Also, most new articles brought to DYK are the handiwork of one or maybe a handful of editors; those generally are stable due to their new placement on the map and probably not super-widely known. We're only seeing this stability problem with a few articles, but I'm hesitant to run any of 'em due to just the volume of editing. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

QPQ freebies

While we're on the subject of rule changes and clarifications, Venkat TL recently pointed out that our free pass for new nominators on the QPQ requirement extends to nominators with five DYK credits, instead of those with five DYK nominations—see WP:DYK#gen5 and WP:DYKSG#H4. Does anyone have an objection to changing the language from DYK credits to nominations? I'd argue that a rejected nomination can provide just as much or even more interface with the DYK process (see Venkat TL's failed nominations), so I don't see a reason to not count those towards the limit. Plus, our current rule counts any DYK credit—including from an article creator/expander totally uninvolved in the nomination process—towards the rule, which I fail to understand. If someone else comes along and nominates an article I write with only a passing notification, that's counted as me gaining enough experience with the DYK process to know how to conduct a full review? I think this rule needs some updating. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• No objections. Kingsif (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think one of the issues with the current wording is that, theoretically, an editor could nominate as many as 20 nominations without ever having to do a single QPQ, as long as at least 16 of those nominations are unsuccessful or have yet to be approved. In practice, such a form of gaming is unlikely, but the fact that it is possible does sound unfair. In addition, if an editor had more than five DYK credits but none of them were their own nominations, it would probably be a bit unfair for them to do a QPQ since it's possible they had little-to-no exposure to the DYK process before.

On the other hand, if consensus does decide to change the wording from "credits" to "nominations", the QPQ check tool will probably need to be changed to account for this. For example, perhaps it can count DYK credits and nominations separately, if that's technically feasible. That is, you can check how many nominations an editor created separately from how many DYK credits they've gotten. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: if it helps, I'd be happy to cobble together a tool listing all DYK nominations from a given user. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• No objection. --evrik ^(talk) 04:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'd object. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  care to elaborate on said objection, then? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Sure. The point of the QPQ seems to me as a way to encourage editors who frequently nominate DYK articles to actually review them. If people get a lot of failed reviews to start, then it might make more sense to have users succeed at submitting good DYKs before they are compelled to go out and judge other DYKs as good enough or not. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Mhawk10: fair point—i'm not sure i 100% agree, but I hear that. In any case, we should still probably stipulate that we're talking about successful nominations, and not just any expansion credit, right? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Well, if we're talking only about counting successful nominations, then we're actually expanding the QPQ exemption beyond your initial proposal. There's nothing wrong with this in my view, since it isn't the non-nominators focused on expanding articles who are taking up DYK review resources. At the same time, this feels like an uncommon edge case. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. Poor reviews can cause problems further down the line. Let's not ask people who don't fully understand the criteria to participate in reviewing. —Kusma (talk) 05:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Credits aren't issued if it's an unsuccessful nom, so that won't happen. Indeed, I think it's a neat little bonus that (with this outlined in the instructions) such a rule change could rather discourage editors with failing noms from reviewing others. Though I'd also hope that if someone gets five failed noms in a row, they would reach out for help at the talkpage... or a regular would notice and offer... Kingsif (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Kingsif your last comment is not making any sense to me. Currently the rule is that you need to have 5 "Successful nominations" aka "DYK Credits". The badly written Original Proposal is to modify it to "Nominations" that as I understand includes "unsuccessful nominations too. I agree with Kusma. Venkat TL (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Venkat TL: Well let me explain what you're missing, then. DYK credits are awarded from a semi-automatic system, when a hook goes on the main page. When an article is nominated, the template automatically generates credits for the nominator as well as creator of the article, and updaters or anyone else involved and named in the nomination. When the hook goes into a prep, the prep builder moves the credits to the hook set, and when the hook set goes to the main page, the admin awards all the credits on it - the DYK QPQ tool only checks those credits. So, only successful nominations BUT this includes creators and other editors, not just the nominator. The proposal here is only proposing to change the QPQ counter - or just change the credits automatically generated by the nom template, however leeky does it - to only be for the user who created the nom template. This still requires that the hook goes live, but won't award credit to users who have been involved with the article but not the DYK process. Because at the moment, theoretically, someone can get 5+ DYK credits just from creating articles that other people nominate, and have no knowledge of the system before needing to do a QPQ. Kingsif (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  Wow, that is an extreme stretch. You are reading into stuff that just isn't there. @Theleekycauldron can comment if this is what she meant. I will be surprised if she did. @Kingsif you may need to propose this as a separate proposal. Not piggy back your opinions on something else. Venkat TL (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  I outlined the current process of awarding DYK credits, how on earth is that my opinion; it preceded my involvement here. And how else, besides amending the credits or counter, would the proposal as it very much actually is be implemented, huh. Kingsif (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Kingsif, I will try an example of what TLC wants. TLC wants a user X with 5 unsuccessful DYK Noms to start reviewing DYKs that others have submitted. Implementation is not the problem, the idea is problematic, in my opinion. Venkat TL (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  I don't have a problem with exempting a user who makes, like, five totally spam nominations of non-new articles (on a case-by-case basis). I do have a problem with users who are clearly experienced with the DYK process—users who have received a crash course in sourcing, neutrality, stability, and any other DYK requirement over the course of five nominations of varying viability—still claiming a free pass due to inexperience. I did propose kingsif's idea to mhawk10 as a compromise, so it's not out of the blue. I'd be happy to implement either one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposal should have been shorter and there was no need to name me. The requirement of 5 "DYK Credit" is not the same as 5 nomination. This proposal is essentially watering down the requirement without considering the ill effects. In my humble opinion, nominating a DYK is just clicking buttons and it does not give sufficient experience to the nominator. Getting the DYK through the finish line does. The reviewer need to be experienced, which is what the current rule demands. Venkat TL (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Venkat TL: My first DYK nomination was SLAPP Suits (nom), over a year ago. As you can see from the nom page, it was approved by the C of E, ran on the main page, and that was that. I didn't gain much experience with the DYK process from that; i saw that it was approved and didn't think much of it.

  By contrast, failed nominations such as 2022 Karnataka hijab row (nom), Russia (nom), and Curd of Bogra (nom) can actually provide a good introduction to some of the rules that give DYK its rigor—yes, the nominators were unable to address the problems presented, but they'll hopefully know for next time that an article with this problem won't fly. When I build prep sets, I don't learn from the 1,500th hook I promoted correctly; I learn from the mistakes I make, and I'm a better promoter for next time.

  My point is, not all successful reviews are substantial; not all failed reviews are open-and-shut. Why count one, but not the other? And why count credits, when not every credited user is a nominator? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Object to current language, as "nominations" implies only the DYKs where you nominated it. So if someone nominated an article with you as an updater, then that should count as 1 of the 5, regardless of whether the DYK was successful or not in my opinion. Whether a DYK passes or fails, it's still taking user's time to do the review of it, and so once someone has done 5 nominations, they should be reviewing others' work. The more free passes we give, the larger the backlog will become on average. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  I'm struggling with your logic a bit here; if I create an article, and someone else nominates it successfully, that should count towards one of my five freebies? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Yes it should. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I would be opposed to such an interpretation. As far as the spirit of the QPQ requirement goes, I think it's meant to really be for the nominator rather than for the contributor or expander (assuming they're two separate people). If, for example, an editor had five or more DYK credits but none of them were their own nominations, then they decide to finally nominate on their own, it would be unfair to require them to do a QPQ if they had no exposure to the DYK process beforehand. On the other hand, if an editor has had five or more nominations, by that point they should already be expected to know how DYK works and thus should be better equipped to do reviews. No whether or not such reviews would be adequate ones is another discussion entirely, but the point is, personally, it would be more fair for the requirement to apply to nominators than to non-nominating editors. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, but credits were given to both nominator and creator/expander at DYK for many years, once the loophole that allowed a nominator to nominate for a creator and neither of them had to do a QPQ was closed. The spirit was for everyone involved to take credit and responsibility: one would certainly hope that a creator whose work was being nominated again and again would pay some attention to DYK and be ready if it came to them nominating one of their own, and for the very few this affected, they generally found their way or someone volunteered to donate a QPQ while they got up to speed. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• My understanding was that back when we had the RfC that set up the mechanism for having experienced nominators doing two QPQs per nomination in times when the unreviewed backlog got out of hand, we changed "five credits" to "five nominations". So regardless of what various pages may say—doubtless because they were never updated after the RfC—it is currently five nominations. The assumption has been that this means five successful nominations, each of which resulted in promotion to the main page—in part, I imagine, because those are the only ones that are easy to track. Nominators are expected to be the point person for a nomination, making sure necessary fixes are made, and they get credits for all articles they nominate that are promoted to the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  @BlueMoonset The badly written proposal intends to replace "successful nominations" as explained in your comment to just "nominations" that includes failed nominations. Which in my opinion is problematic and watering down of quality of DYK review process. Venkat TL (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  Venkat TL, I've personally long felt that failed nominations should count, because they typically take up as much or more reviewer time trying to get the nominator to make important improvements to the article. It has always bothered me that a QPQ submitted for a nomination that failed can then be reused on a subsequent nomination, possibly more than once, before a nomination finally succeeds. But the standard has been successful nominations, and there seems to be enough pushback here to "all nominations" (and even to nominations instead of credits, though at this point it would require an RfC to change back to credits) that it's unlikely to change. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  In my opinion quality trumps quantity. I personally would not want folks with less than 5 "Successful DYKs" reviewing my noms. Hence I have opposed this proposal. Venkat TL (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

  @BlueMoonset: I can't find that change in the RfC you mentioned, where might it be?

  Also, you can't re-use a QPQ from a failed nomination, can you? WP:DYK#gen5 says "for every nomination"... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  theleekycauldron, the change from credits to nominations in determining QPQ status is effected right at the top: At the time of nomination ... (a) if the nominator has previously nominated fewer than 5 articles (self-nominations or otherwise), no QPQ is required. That makes it unambiguously nominations with the passage of that RfC and not credits. There was discussion over this precise point during the RfC, and nomination was deliberately used. As for the QPQ reuse, I don't remember if gen5 has always been worded that way, but nominators would frequently reuse QPQ reviews if their original nomination was withdrawn when faced with failure (and I think sometimes even if failed), and I don't recall anyone ever being called out for doing so. I'd be perfectly happy if gen5 were used to prevent reuse going forward. I don't know how many reviewers take the step of checking whether the submitted QPQ has been used before... BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

To answer your specific query, I check most of the time whether a QPQ has links to more than one nomination template. Schwede66 04:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I do the same; and I remember getting called out because I absent-mindedly used the same QPQ twice. So, I know users are on the lookout for it, at least... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: The wording doesn't seem to be clear. By "nominated fewer than 5 articles", does that mean they must do their QPQ beginning with their fifth nomination, or after their fifth nomination? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: that's pretty much analogous to the rule in WP:DYK#gen5 anyway, so it'd suggest that anyone with five nominations/credits loses their immunity to the QPQ requirement. "five is not fewer than five" is a funny phrase to say out loud theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5, "previously" is key here: if you've previously nominated five articles, then you're subject to QPQ; if you've previously nominated fewer than five, you aren't. So if you've had two previous nominations that made it to the main page (with no failures) and have three in process, a new nomination will require a QPQ because you've made five previous nominations. If, on the other hand, you've had four on the main page and no failures, you're not subject to QPQ with your new, fifth nomination, because you only have four previous noms. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: So basically, Venkat must provide QPQs for his currently open nominations? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Relax. WP:RFC is that way. Any sneaky attempts to sidestep or avoid wider community consensus will be reverted. Things are working well, if you plan to break it, have an RfC first. Venkat TL (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

• TLDR Theleekycauldron through this proposal, wants a user with 5 'unsuccessful' DYK Noms to compulsorily judge DYKs that others have submitted. This is a significant watering down of the current WP:DYKRULES that require 5 'successful DYKs before they can review. I believe an RfC will be needed to adopt such a major change. Venkat TL (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm currently a bit too worked up to make a proper response, but I will say that's not at all what i want. Summarizing can be dangerous, in its tendency to omit nuance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

    @TLC, your proposal (if adopted), will allow this to happen. Yes/No? Venkat TL (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

    Hmm, it's not that simple.

    To start, I say in the diff that you linked to that such a situation would be less than ideal, and that (given its rarity) we could exempt on a case-by-case basis if the reviewer feels that the nominator is still too inexperienced for a competent review.

    That said, it's highly unlikely that such a scenario would arise—think about it. That would have to mean that on four separate occasions, a user made a DYK nomination without even reading the rejection message from the previous nomination. I would be astonished to find that more than a handful of users exist in that category—and even more astonished if one of them suddenly made a sixth nomination that was completely viable, save for a QPQ they were too incompetent to carry out.

    In addition, I also say in the diff you linked that I would support kingsif's idea, as i'd already proposed it to Mhawk10 as a compromise. Kingsif's idea was that a user must make five successful nominations (merely being a creator or expander doesn't count)—this removes the clause where someone can nominate five of my articles, blowing through my freebies without me ever gaining any experience with the DYK process. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

    You are failing to admit, but the short answer to my Yes/No question is Yes. Your proposal will allow this to happen. There is nothing in your proposal to stop this from happening. It is not possible to check and permit every DYK reviewer. People have to read the rules and make their judgement based on what is written in the WP:DYKRULES. The creator vs nominator issue is separate from your proposal and you better not muddy up the water by mixing it here. Venkat TL (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This sneaky attempt to push the proposal without going for an RfC for this major change has been reverted. Please do not add this without generating a wider consensus for this change of WP:DYKRULES Venkat TL (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Venkat TL: this RfC on proposal to require a second QPQ from "senior" DYK editors (those with 20+ DYK credits) when there's a backlog of unreviewed nominations also provides for the switch from credits to nominations. Take care! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:22, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Theleekycauldron thank you for the link of the 8 months old RfC. I read the page. I see that the RfC statement, used the word "DYK nominations" and used it to mean "DYK CREDITS", Now you are changing the meaning of the word and including unsuccessful nominations too. I still suggest you initiate a fresh RfC with neutral wording to state this clearly that unsuccessful nominations too would be counted as DYK CREDITs. Currently they are not counted as DYK CREDITS, and this is still a major departure from the existing rules, Hence my objections to your modification of the WP:DYKRULE. Venkat TL (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Venkat TL: That wasn't quite my understanding. I see that the RfC statement, used the word "DYK nominations" and used it to mean "DYK CREDITS". Well, there were two proposals in the RfC—the first one (which correlates with the title of the RfC that says "DYK credits") does count DYK credits. However, the proposal explicitly changed its wording from "DYK credits" to "nominations" in the second take of the proposal (found at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 182#Take 2 -- Everyone please vote again on revised proposal) to prevent some confusions about when the requirement kicks in. Rest assured, the two terms are not used interchangeably in the RfC, and you're welcome to ask the creators of the proposal to confirm. One of those creators is BlueMoonset, who said earlier in this discussion that my understanding was that back when we had the RfC that set up the mechanism for having experienced nominators doing two QPQs per nomination in times when the unreviewed backlog got out of hand, we changed "five credits" to "five nominations". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:45, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

  I think I disagree with summary you are suggesting. The RfC proposal seems to have not considered unsuccessful nominations. Instead the main thrust of the RfC was on "Pending nominations" and the 20 nom rule for 2 QPQ. In any case 6 months have passed and we should have a fresh RfC for this change. If the community consensus wants to ask failed DYK noms to start reviewing, I will agree. Please propose the neutral draft for RfC. Venkat TL (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

QPQs and User:Venkat TL

I wondered why Venkat TL, as a relative DYK-newbie, is expressing such strong opinions on matters QPQ. I've looked into this and found:

• QPQ check shows four credits: Our Hindu Rashtra, To Kill a Democracy, 2021 Chandigarh Municipal Corporation election, and Stray cow
• There are currently five DYK nominations pending:

• Price of the Modi Years
• Tek Fog
• Mann ministry
• Attack on Delhi Chief Minister's house
• Aakar Patel

• What the five current nominations have in common is that they were all nominated with "Reviewed: Exempt" for the QPQ requirement.
• In addition, there is one are (at least) three failed nominations (amended based on Narutolovehinata5's input below):

• The Concept of Active Defence in China's Military Strategy
• Bulli Bai case
• 2022 Hijab row in Karnataka

• As an aside, what the nominations have in common once a review starts is that there is a lengthy back-and-forth going on. To review this user's nominations appears to be "hard work".

Clearly, the next time one of those open DYK nominations makes it to the front page, the remaining nominations require QPQ. Claiming to be "Exempt" in all five cases is not a good look. And do not attempt to WP:GAME this, Venkat TL, because the moment we get the impression that you do, we promote one of those nominations and let the other four sit there until you meet the QPQ requirement. I therefore suggest that you start adding QPQs to at least four of those nominations. Schwede66 22:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

He also has at least two other failed DYK nominations: Template:Did you know nominations/Bulli Bai case and Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Hijab row in Karnataka. That would mean twelve nominations without a single QPQ. There is some confusion as to when wording of when QPQs kick in, but personally, having that many nominations without doing a single QPQ is at the very least, odd. I'm still not sure if it's allowed or not, but in my almost six years on DYK, I have never seen a similar case to this before. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Schwede66: re-ping due to a typo in my previous ping. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5 On top of that, Venkat TL said on your talk page that you were editing DYK based on your ego when this was brought up there. Venkat TL then started an argument on theleekycauldron's talk page when their comment was redacted as a personal attack. I'm not sure if its gaming the system, but it is very much being uncivil and assuming bad faith. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

three times, actually: here, here, and here. I tried to strike the second one, leading to the aforementioned discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@Schwede66: you forgot to add Template:Did you know nominations/Jumbo Brown into this list? how could you miss this? How convenient?

To answer the most BURNING question in your mind, why I am being so vocal against this harebrained proposal? I have already explained every aspect of my opposition in my comments if you would have cared enough to read them. It is not that hard to understand. My vocal opposition is because I will be impacted by this proposal, and not in a good way as far as I can foresee. My DYKs have already been suffering because of bad quality of reviewing or hostile reviewers far more concerned about striking line-items on this page than improving Wikipedia. I dont see the situation improving if we start allowing people with failed DYKs reviewing DYKs by others. So here I am speaking for myself. You have a problem with that?

I find this extremely concerning that this admin named Schwede66, "a relative DYK expert", is making extreme bad faith arguments against me and plotting schemes. He seems to have checked my entire DYK history and with all those failed nominations (failed deliberately and inappropriately in most cases citing WP:BUREAUCRACY) And yet failed to notice, that 3 hours before he made this extremely Assume bad faith post, I had already reviewed my first ever DYK. (Yes, go ahead, and check the time stamps.)

Now I am not going to believe that this admin, with more than 200,000 edits, who has crawled my entire contributions history, and assisted by minions above, failed to notice that I had already reviewed a DYK without anyone lecturing me about it, so that leaves me with other reason that there are some sinister intentions against me. So Admin Schwede66, tell me what 'evil, no good plans' you have in mind for me? Another fascinating point that I noted, 3 more "relative DYK experts", commented as reply to the original bad faith post by Schwede66, (namely SL93, narutolovehinata5 and Theleekycauldron) and yet at the time of this writing, none of these 3 noticed my DYK review or cared to point it out on this thread.) Is this some kind of deliberate group blindness? --Venkat TL (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Missed special occasion

I had an ALT0 hook for WBAA that was contingent on running April 4—and the reviewer liked it over a non-date-specific ALT1. It looks like it got missed, which is a shame because I happen to have another hook running in this slot right now (WOPR (Michigan)). Can/should something be done? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@DYK admins: is a swap possible? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I think a swap would be good. It technically wasn't missed by a promoter because it was never moved to special occasions. SL93 (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

On it stuck the anniversary one on now..otherwise it will miss the day. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

ah-

that's a rough swap for a couple of reasons. Don't rush to revert, but I will say that it was substituted into the quirky slot, despite not being a quirky hook—and that with five hours left, neither hook will receive the exposure they should in a 24-hour cycle. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

There are 18 hours left. —Kusma (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

yes, sorry, i keep confusing midnight and noon. common mistake. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem. When I lived in the US, I also had difficulties with the difference between wikitime and local time. Much easier from England. —Kusma (talk) 07:26, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry this wound up like this. I'll be more diligent with checking SOHA for hooks like these in the future. Perhaps WOPR can end up on a 12-hour set later if needed to make up for the missed time, though I certainly understand I have a lot of pages in the pipeline right now. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Sammi Brie, WOPR should get full time in a main-page set since it wasn't pulled because its own hook had issues, whether it runs 12 hours or 24—I've just inserted it into Prep 2, since it's the only set with available space, but it could be moved if set preparers feel it fits better in another set, whether later or earlier. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Prep builders

We are close to 120 approved nominations which will move us to two sets day. I plan on taking at least a long break from building preps due to burn-out. I'm pretty sure that theleekycauldron doesn't want to build every set. Help is really needed. SL93 (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I haven't built any sets in, like, a week- I'm sorry it's fallen nearly squarely to you, but I've been a little burnt out myself. I'll fill the remaining preps, but a number of things going on at DYKNA and DYKN have just been sapping my energy. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:38, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't blame you, but I do blame the long-standing process of so many people being active at DYK and barely anyone wanting to help the nominations move along to the preps. SL93 (talk) 06:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• If I have time I may consider helping build out some sets, but I've done it in the past and it's easy to feel burn-out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'll also see what I can do. Kingsif (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I have been helping and will continue to help. Rlink2 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. SL93 (talk) 23:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I've been slowly returning to prep-building, but real life prevents me from being as active as some of the people above. If you are reading this, have experience in reviewing DYK hooks, and are interested in trying something new (and, in my opinion, fun) then feel free to try promoting a hook or finishing the prep of a set. If you post below, experienced prep builders and DYK admin will give feedback on your work. Many hands make light work, and many preppers will prevent burnout from the community. Feel free to ping me if we are low on preps. Z1720 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• I think some kind of prep-building script would really help eliminate much of the burnout and time issues. Maybe someone with the coding experience can try to make such a script? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Narutolovehinata5: coincidentally, I spent around three hours developing that exact script yesterday... god knows when it'll work, but it's coming along! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

  @Theleekycauldron @Narutolovehinata5

  I already tried creating a browserscript (actual browserscript that works in the browser directly).

  The one that closes the nom after prep promotion is basically perfect, the other one that copies the script from the nom set to the prep set is mostly good (for 95% of the time; the other 5% is when the hook is not at the top and is instead at the bottom and some other edge cases). At the very least, it does a good job of placing the DYK credits at the bottom. Obviously the script will never be able to detect bio hook rule violations, human supervision will always be required. But it has the potential to speed up the process.

  I haven't used it outside of testing, maybe I should bring it out of the woodworks. Rlink2 (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Switch to two sets per day

There are now 121 approved DYK nominations. The switch to two sets per day should be done after midnight today. Flibirigit (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

• NOTE: Prep 4 has a special occasion hook for April 10 which will need to be moved. Flibirigit (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

  I have swapped the Prep 4 special occasion lead hook with the hook that had been lead in Prep 1 so the former will run on the proper date in the U.S., assuming the switch to two-sets-per-day is done after midnight as planned. I have also swapped the Nelson W. Aldrich Jr. hook from Prep 5 to Prep 3 so it runs as a special occasion on April 11 in the U.S. as requested, though it wasn't labeled as such in prep when promoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done I've swapped it to the 12-hour cycle. Schwede66 00:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Thanks for catching that, and sorry that I did not mark it as such when I promoted that hook. I will do so in the future so that it will be easier to identify special occasion hooks. Z1720 (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Extension

In this nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/The Devil Never Sleeps, @Mujinga: has correctly noted that the nomination was made outside the seven day window. Given that I found it and fixed it so it was actually an informative article while it was still relatively new, can we go ahead and waive the timeliness requirement? Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 13:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I suggest other editors put their comments directly on the nomination template, as I have done. Personally, I don't have a problem extending the deadline here, but the article needs work. — Maile (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)