::::{{like|icon=fb}} [[User:BorgQueen|BorgQueen]] ([[User talk:BorgQueen|talk]]) 22:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
::::{{like|icon=fb}} [[User:BorgQueen|BorgQueen]] ([[User talk:BorgQueen|talk]]) 22:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::I have replaced the hook with the one proposed above. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 02:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
:::::I have replaced the hook with the one proposed above. [[User:Z1720|Z1720]] ([[User talk:Z1720|talk]]) 02:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suegH9Dbqko "I'M CLEVER WITH THE CRUDITÉS, ESPECIALLY ASPARAGUS"]. And while we're on the subject, an oldie but goodie: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x2SvqhfevE "I am the very model of a Biblical philologist."] [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 06:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
== Older nominations needing DYK reviewers ==
== Older nominations needing DYK reviewers ==
Revision as of 06:23, 13 February 2023
Error reports
Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.
DYK queue status
There are currently 3 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.
Making GAs stand out?
Part II: Idea, thinking outside the box so to speak
If I have the dates correct, DYK has existed at least since March 2005. GA came into being in October 2005. So, on or about the same time. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. I don't know how the various parts of the Main Page came into being. But Featured content takes up the majority of it - FA, FL and FP. While FA is everyday, the others are rotated. Just a thought - why can't one of the Featured slots rotate with GA at least one day a week. It would be a really nice way to showcase GA all by itself beyond a one-line blurb. Is that a reachable goal to negotiate a one-day-a-week appearance for GA to have its own section? Feedback? — Maile (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a lot to what @Schwede66 said. I don't know of any review process IRL which works well when there's only a single reviewer. Even if you assume all reviewers are honest and skilled, different people have different things they focus on. Maybe one person is a stickler for the quality of the sources and somebody else is more into making sure the prose is well written.
Having more than one set of eyes is always a good thing, and that's what GA lacks. Incorporating GA into the DYK acceptance criteria at least ensures some additional review before it hits the main page. If there was some sort of "GA showcase" section, it would need to have some level of additional quality control beyond the initial GA. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a remedy to that. GA has its own regulars, who would select the chosen article. And in doing so, they would put it up for critique before it even made it to the own page. Featured has its own processes where they make Feature quality first, then are put on a request list for main page, and are reviewed and voted on.
Could you please clarify whether that’s in addition or instead of DYK? Schwede66 16:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: thanks for asking. I meant appear on its own slot in addition to the DYK slot. Give the GAs their own spotlight. — Maile (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maile, I have no idea how it might work, and have doubts as to whether it's desirable. However, if you want GAs to have their own spotlight, if they're new GAs, then see what the folks at WT:GAN think, since they'd have to be on board; if they're existing GAs, I don't know whether WT:GA or WT:GAN would be a better venue, but again, it seems like you're need some GA folks working on this. One reason GAs were added to DYK to begin with was because they weren't important (or good?) enough on their own to warrant their own space, so they got shoehorned in with DYK. I don't understand why they should have two sections on the front page for them, unless you're planning on excluding GAs that have appeared via DYK from the new GA section. As a side point to RoySmith above, one reason why DYK requires a different reviewer for a new GA from the GA reviewer who passed it is precisely because any issues not picked up by the original reviewer have a better chance of surfacing with a second pair of eyes, which is why some GAs nominated at DYK are sent back for work on anything from copyvio to citation issues, and sometimes delisted (or even, very occasionally, deleted) due to things found out at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering. Yes, I was wondering what it would be like for GA to be removed from DYK and given its own Main Page spot. Just floating ideas, since Dr. Blofeld sees much good in GA. But re what else you mention, I haven't performed a GA review for any nomination in a long time. My experience in doing those reviews, is that some editors are really good in what they submit. But the GA checklist for a review is kind of lightweight and does not cover as thoroughly as DYK. I have in the past failed a couple of GACs, where the editors just re-submitted without any changes, and they were passed anyway. — Maile (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be opposed to removing GA as a pathway for GA. The reason GAs were added in the first place was because requiring DYKs to be new or 5x expansions meant that many older articles would never have a pathway to being featured on the Main Page, and being a GA at least gave them a pathway. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exploding bullets might be entertaining but would make the section too busy and give it an inconsistent look not matched by ITN, OTD and other sections which use standard bullets. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rule 3b
Cielquiparle mentioned this above, and I've been wondering about it myself. Rule #3b says that the source supporting the hook fact must appear no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. As far as I'm aware, this is not a requirement anywhere else on Wikipedia, and I've observed frequent pushback from editors who are being told (correctly, according to DYK rules) that they need to change their citation style for the duration of the hook's run on the Main Page, even if they change it back again afterwards.
The rule was added in April 2008, following this discussion. The wording was fleshed out during a series of edits by EEng in July 2014, eg. [1], [2], and again by Maile66 in May 2019. The original reason for the rule seems to have been that the hook fact is by definition an extraordinary claim, and that extraordinary claims require extraordinarily prompt citation; but I don't see anything at WP:EXTRAORDINARY or elsewhere that would support either of these premises.
So I'd like to discuss whether this rule is really necessary. The important thing, in my view, is that reviewers and readers can quickly and easily verify the hook, and I think this purpose can be served in many cases by a footnote at the end of the paragraph, or at the end of the next-sentence-but-one. If it isn't clear which footnote supports the hook fact, that's a problem; but if it is clear, then the nomination shouldn't be held up on a purely technical point. This is the kind of thing that leads to disputes and turns people away from contributing. I think rule #3b should recommend an immediate citation, but leave reviewers free to take a common-sense approach. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about it earlier, and I do find this rule rather odd. There are some scenarios where I think it's a fairly good idea (while writing up this response, I independently thought of Sojourner in the earth's not-immediately-clear-which-source-verifies example independently; great minds something something?). However, I think that an experienced editor who looks at an article should generally be able to understand why things have been placed where they are without going off on anything other than the article and the sourcing. DYK's 3b requirement runs counter to that intuition, and I'd probably support a modification. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a good thing to keep. Facts in hooks will draw greater than average scrutiny, so making it easier to verify them is a good thing. This is especially true when the hook is based on several facts scattered around the article, which is a real PITA to a reviewer. Do we really have people making edits to satisfy DYK and then backing them out as soon as the hook is no longer on the main page? That strikes me as wp:gameing the system. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a mod just as Leeky does. Bruxton (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not gaming the system, it's necessary to meet DYK. Outside of DYK, running the same source on consecutive sentences is unnecessary visual distraction. CMD (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be against modifying it. For one thing, the reason why the rule exists in the first place is to easily verify the hook fact. This is important, as a hook fact being verifiable is a major criterion. If we moved the footnote/reference elsewhere, it could be somewhat more difficult to know which reference is used as the source for the hook fact sentence. This is especially important if a paragraph is cited to multiple sources but only one source is used to reference the hook fact, or if the hook fact uses a different reference from the rest of the paragraph. The rule may seem counterintuitive especially when it's not required elsewhere, but it exists for a very good reason. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: But isn't there a case to be made that where a dupref is wholly unnecessary, having to do the back-and-forth of requiring it wastes valuable time? Like, every extra ounce of flesh we have to exact out of nominators is also something promoters have to put time and effort to. It clogs the whole system. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases it's a very trivial edit to do, it's as simple as simply adding a "<ref="example"/>" tag to the relevant sentence. As I mentioned earlier, the rule exists to make verification easier, and the work needed to meet it is usually so trivial that it could easily be done as long as the nominator is still active (or if not, the reviewer can make the needed edits themselves). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: I think you and I both know that the tiniest of edits can take weeks to cajole out of people, and closing a nom for inactivity takes forever. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of a nomination that was rejected for non-compliance with rule 3b. This was the only issue with the nom, and it was an easy fix – it would have taken 30 seconds to duplicate the footnote that appears at the end of the paragraph. But nobody did it. Like leeky says, trivial demands can be major blockers. Sometimes it only takes a grain of sand to stop the gears from turning.@RoySmith and Narutolovehinata5: I understand your concerns, but easy verifiability doesn't necessarily mean the footnote must appear at the end of the sentence. How would you feel about a slightly looser rule along the lines of "It must be immediately obvious to the reader which source supports the hook fact"? Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sojourner in the earth As with many things, there's a range of compliance with the letter and/or spirit of the rule. The spirit is certainly, as you say, that it should be obvious to the reader which source supports the fact. I also agree that in the Rhacophorus kio case you pointed out, the insistence on complying with the letter of the rule was excessive. There was only one citation that could possibly apply (the one at the end of the paragraph), it was available on-line at the URL provided, and the fact was stated in the first sentence of the source. At the other end of the spectrum, we get examples where there's a bunch of citations, so you don't know which one to look at. Some may be hard to access; I'm willing to put in some effort, but not if there's a menu of 3 or 4 possibilities, all of which take work to run down. At the far end of the spectrum, we get hooks which are synthesized from several places, and the best hint we get from the nominator is "several".
So, @Chipmunkdavis I'll walk back my comment above about gaming the system. But I do think we need to get tougher on our requirement to provide solid sources, and cited in an obvious way, for all our hook facts. As long as we do that, I'm less worried about the details of how the citation is formatted or where it is placed. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested to hear your experiences of those examples. My experience is edits like this one, where I had neglected to duplicate the cites for DYK and BorgQueen kindly did it for me. In the past I have also been requested to duplicate it myself, and have done so. My expectation would be that an uncited hook would fail, so I don't know how much tougher that could get. CMD (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that DYK can't really accomodate complicated hooks synthesized from several sources, and that it's the nominator's responsibility to make sure the hook is easy to verify. I think modifying the rules along the lines I suggested above would actually get this point across more clearly. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for it is to make the hook fact source(s) easy to verify. I have no problem with complicated hooks from multiple sources, but all of those sources at the end of the hook sentence(s) make the hook easier for both DYK workers and readers to verify. Valereee (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As anecdotal evidence that rule #3b wastes editor time and generates bad feeling, here are some instances from within the last six months of nominators being surprised, confused and/or irritated by the rule: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Another issue that arises is when the nominator is not the main contributor to the article, and the article author fights back against the addition of redundant footnotes: see eg. 1, 2. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article.
I propose modifying this as follows:
Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source. It must be immediately obvious to the reader which source supports each fact; ideally, the citation should appear no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article.
I am against it. Like what was said above, such a rule could cause confusion when it comes to verification, especially if a sentence or paragraph has multiple references and/or the hook is based on multiple sentences. As I mentioned earlier, adding a duplicate footnote is quite trivial to do, so why the need to change the rules instead of just following them? The rule exist for a reason: easy verification, and in fact it is based on previous experiences where reviewers had difficulty verifying facts. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see "Need to close a loop-hole in our Rules" DYK Archive 158 for the above mention of my change. Others in that conversation were @Amakuru, Vanamonde93, Valereee, and Moonraker:, and not all of them agreed that it needed to be changed at that time. — Maile (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am against removing that, too. It puts the burden on the people doing all the heavy lifting here to go figure out which of the possibly multiple sources the thing is sourced to. It's one teeny-tiny burden for each nominator, one giant PITA for someone building a prep or moving one to queue because workers here don't know the sources like the nominator does, and there are 8 hooks per set. Nominators shouldn't be surprised about this more than once, so shouldn't be annoyed by it more than once. Valereee (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can go along with the text now suggested by Sojourner in the earth, a reasonable compromise. I see the last sentence of that is as suggested by me in the previous discussion, so there is sure to be something I agree with in it! Moonraker (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about, "... ideally, the citation should appear no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact, and in no case later than the end of the paragraph." If you've got an entire paragraph cited to a single source, that source applies to the entire paragraph. Putting a duplicate copy of the citation in the middle of the paragraph is busywork. If anything, it makes the paragraph harder to read.
It gets more confusing when there's a bunch of citations at the end of a paragraph. In fact, I think that's a terrible style, because it means you don't know which one you need to look in. So I would say multiple grouped citations would fail the "immediately obvious" requirement.
That makes the rule more complicated to understand and explain, though. Valereee (talk) 18:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3b was added because DYK was (as it still does, though perhaps to a lesser extent) absolutely plagued by hooks which didn't reflect the source, so anything that helped get more eyes get on the source could not be passed up. I'm not the originator of 3b (I don't think), but I am the guy who stuck the prompt in the nom template that says, "You are urged to quote and cite the hook source" -- a further attempt close the gap between the hook and the source that verifies it.I'm against any change here. Valereee's reasoning (a weakened rule puts the burden on the people doing all the heavy lifting here to go figure out which of the possibly multiple sources the thing is sourced to. It's one teeny-tiny burden for each nominator, one giant PITA for someone building a prep or moving one to queue) is right on. A common problem is that sometimes material gets moved around, but the refs get left behind, or a new ref interposed between the hook and the paragraph-ending ref, etc. A simple, clear rule -- what we have -- is best in this case. EEng 01:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Great and Powerful Oz has spoken, apparently. EEng 21:43, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand the people who push back on requests to clarify the sourcing for their nominations. Forget about any altruistic motivations of improving the encyclopedia or making life easier on the multiple people who need to approve your hook before it goes anywhere. All you need to do is think about your own interests.
In life, you will be faced with many situations where you need to get somebody's stamp of approval. Getting your hook promoted is just a microcosm of this. There's two basic strategies. One is to argue that what's being requested is unreasonable, stupid, busywork, annoying, illegal, immoral, or any of a number of different things. Or you can just suck it up and give Mr or Ms person whose signature you need what they want and be on your way. The later is usually more productive. But, whatever. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's clearly no consensus among the regulars here, and at least a few who think that any change would make their lives harder, so I'm happy to let this drop. I appreciate everyone's input, and I'd still like to plead for a bit of IAR in cases where it's really obvious where the relevant citation is. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Morgan695, PanagiotisZois, and BorgQueen: I know we're supposed to AGF on foreign-language, but the fact that at least one of these sources (used as a secondary) is unironically a no-longer-existing user-gen forum (2channel) makes me... suspicious, to say the least. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to AGF because I speak some Japanese (although my native language is Korean). The term itself is real. But you're suspicious about a specific source(s), we should ask them to replace it with more reliable sources, as usual. BorgQueen (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Arsonal, your opinions will be appreciated. BorgQueen (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been comfortable with our whole AGF on sources thing. For off-line sources, it's easy enough for the author to provide an excerpt from the source which supports the fact. Likewise, for non-english sources, between machine translations and the availability of bi-lingual wikipedians who can assist with human-powered translations, there's no reason we should have to AGF. Given how often I see citations that don't verify in on-line english-language sources, I have to assume our track record is no better for off-line or non-english-language, so AGF seems unjustified.
Yes, I tend to agree with you on that one. BorgQueen (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice.
At this point, the only source for 2chan is the huge classification table in [19], so I will proceed on the assumption that the source here is the one in question.
This classification table in 2chan is exactly the same as the table on page 22 of the reference material. It can be found here as a trial reading the book online.
I added 2chan as a source in the Japanese version of the article to show that the origin of the classification table can be traced back as far as ancient times, but if there is any doubt about its reliability, it can be replaced with page 22 of the book.
My personal opinion is that it would be more convenient for the reader if it were left in the Related Links and Other Items section, but it would not be a problem to delete it.
Since I am no longer the primary author, I would be interested in hearing others' views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 狄の用務員 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the Japanese article, the book is used as the source for its classification table. There was also an objection to using 2chan as a source. It might be safer to replace it with a book (personal opinion).狄の用務員 (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the source were to be changed, I think it would be better to change the headline with it. Kaneda introduces the table as a "list of yaoi hole factions.(やおい穴派閥一覧)".
I just tried to change the source and got an error. Can someone please take over for me? I am not familiar with Sfn tag, Sorry for the hassle. 狄の用務員 (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen: If you're happy with the rest of the sourcing in the article, works for me :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:33, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll go and check every source in it one by one, just in case. BorgQueen (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching this, @BorgQueen. I admit I didn't look at the sources listed outside of the ===Bibliography=== section very closely, so that's probably why I missed 2chan being used as the source. Now that I'm looking at the list of "web" sources again, I see some whose metadata can be improved, so I'll work on that. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 02:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just finished improving the remaining cite templates, so all of the sourcing that I missed in the earlier pass have been vetted. The web sources may be unconventional by western standards, but in my view they meet the reliability conditions of WP:SOURCEDEF. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions about a specific source. Note that page number is missing in the 2典 citation, but a copy of the tree chart described as the source of the inspiration is available here. (Yes, I realize that's a 2channel copy that copied the book's content.) —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 04:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i only meant that they're generally reliable :P no need for spot checks, sorry! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:10, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it seems like nicely done! ありがとう 狄の用務員 (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know much about DYK, so let me ask. Is there a deadline for this work? Is there an approximate release date? Is there any possibility of an extension?狄の用務員 (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@狄の用務員 There's a deadline for nominating an article, yes. But once nominated and passed the reviewing process, featuring the article on the Main Page can be delayed, within reason. BorgQueen (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen I gotcha, I found that there is time to improve the article, thank you. 狄の用務員 (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am new to DYK, but it looks like a very valuable opportunity and I would like to add some text, is that allowed? I am not sure about deadlines.
The draft is here, the text is messy right now and the source is not attached yet, but I think I can make it into a decipherable text in about 5-10 days.
Should I ask this here or should I discuss it on the talk page of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 狄の用務員 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@狄の用務員, this is best discussed in the article's talk page, since this particular thread is about the article's DYK nomination. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 19:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@狄の用務員 I don't think it's a valid reason to delay it as the current article is fine. BorgQueen (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also please note that, if you rewrite a significant portion of the article, it will have to go through a reviewing process again. BorgQueen (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Arsonal@BorgQueenThanks. I was not very familiar with DYK. It's a bit pity, but to avoid unnecessary burden and confusion of redoing the peer review process, I'll pass on it this time and contribute some other time. I appreciate advices. 狄の用務員 (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talkpage notification for failed nominations
Currently, our instructions are to use {{subst:DYKproblem|First Republic of Armenia|header=yes|sig=yes}} to post a notification on a nominator's talkpage if their nomination has failed. This is the same message as is recommended for nominations which only have small problems to fix, and merely states that there are "some issues with it may need to be clarified". It seems a bit misleading to post that message and then have them follow the click through and see that "some issues" means "ineligible". Would there be support for a different notification, along the lines of "Unfortunately your nomination for DYK has failed. Further comments are available on your nomination page"? CMD (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the idea makes sense, but I think more clarification is needed here. By "failed nomination", do you mean a nomination that has been given a yellow tick, or a nomination that has been closed? If it's the latter, I think that could require its own talkpage. If it's the former, the wording you suggested would need to be revised to make it clear that the nomination has been marked for closure, but actually hasn't failed yet. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about a yellow tick, I'm talking about the red cross. The wording was purely off the cuff, new wording can be created if people agree the current notification is unhelpful. CMD (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The x is officially considered orange, but I don't want to start a repeat of the dress. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Sorry for causing trouble; I was unaware that it’s an ENGVAR issue. Schwede66 15:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info BorgQueen and Schwede66. Sorry, wasn't meant as a dig at anyone; I am grateful for the tireless work being done by all to keep DYK going. Would be interested to know why the new modification log didn't pick it up though. The FWW/WWI distinction is just another of those odd things to be mindful of when preparing queues and preps I suppose. Incidentally I got the capitalisation in my earlier ngram link wrong, the correct link is this one; the proportion of usage of the two terms is almost exactly reversed in American English and broadly 50/50 across all varieties - Dumelow (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, also to all the hook reviewers and everyone vetting behind the scenes.
Just to confirm: Does Ertuğrul Gazi get an automatic pass on number of characters because it only goes over due to the metric-to-imperial conversion? Cielquiparle (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At 219 characters, it’s way too long. Doesn’t matter why it’s too long. Schwede66 06:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66 It was at exactly 200 characters before the imperial conversion was added. Could we just have the imperial conversion removed then? Cielquiparle (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As the main page is for an international audience, having unit conversion is not just appropriate but necessary. Schwede66 08:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude, Krimuk2.0, Novem Linguae, Thriley, MyCatIsAChonk, and Cielquiparle:WP:DYK#gen4a says that Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. While the former hook is up for consideration, and the latter has already been promoted to prep, both could conceivably fall afoul of the policy. The trouble is, for me (as exemplified by the disagreement in the discussion), it seems very unclear what exactly this rule is meant to communicate.
When we say "unduly", what do we mean? Does "unduly" literally mean "compliance with WP:DUE"? We write 200-character hooks, it would be very difficult to follow this unless we either 1. exactly match the tone of the whole article, positive and negative or 2. find that the whole article is duly negative, so the whole hook can be duly negative. Does it mean "strict compliance with reliable sourcing and notoriety requirements", making exceptions for what probably wouldn't overall be DUE but is so widely covered as to render BLP considerations near-moot?
And when we say "negative", what do we mean? Does "negative" mean "anything unflattering"? Does the fact that Justin Roiland was fired from a major network television show suffice for negativity, or would we have to explain why he was fired to fall afoul of the rule? Is being heavily associated with someone under criminal charges negative? Do we adjust for whether the hook is intended to communicate something negative, or what the effect is overall?
And if a hook makes an attempt to omit certain names or facts for BLP reasons, but then directs them to a part of the article that spells it out, does that matter if the article complies with DUE? That doesn't make much sense to me; most people are gonna look for that part of the article, read it, and leave.
I would love to hear others' spread of thoughts on how to approach a guideline that seems to be deliberately broader than BLP itself. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is broader than BLP and I think that is reasonably appropriate: hooks are presented on the main page, and contextless. Like a headline vs a newspaper article that weighs a debate. However, I think the kind of summary that would appear in a WP article lede should be fine for a DYK hook. I do not think the use of "unduly" refers to DUE, nor should it. Of course, I don't think either of the hooks mentioned here are particularly negative, let alone unduly. Sure, factual statements can be negative, but in such short snippets it's often more down to tone than the contents. The first hook does not say why Roiland was removed from the show, nor does it focus on that (more sentence weight on the recasting). The second hook says that some guy was some crypto guy's top advisor in an aggressive lobbying campaign (I do know the Bankman-Fried case, but the purposes of this explanation) - while crypto and [aggressive] lobbying are viewed negatively by many people, those same people are generally aware that they're things pretty much every major US company engages with. Both hook facts fall under neutral to me. So while I, like everyone here probably, has thoughts on the "don't be unduly negative" thing, 1. I don't think it really applied to either of these, 2. it's almost certainly something that after 2 weeks of discussion we'll decide should be case-by-case anyway. Not worth the bytes? Kingsif (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, as a non-fan of Rick and Morty but as someone who knows about the series, I'm not a fan of the proposed hooks not just because of the possible BLP concerns, but because I feel that such a popular and long-running series deserves a different hook. It also feels like a case of recentism when I'm sure there are many events from the series' history that could also work as hooks too. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well interestingness is a whole other concern... Kingsif (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Find another hook angle for Rick and Morty, also per WP:NOTNEWS. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly would NOTNEWS apply? ––FormalDude(talk) 11:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For such a long-running and popular series, a hook about a recent event about it seems rather undue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude It's still an unfolding news item – it's still unknown who will be cast in Justin Rolland's place – and it's the topic of much speculation. (The best of the current lot is ALT1 which reads: "... that Adult Swim will recast all of co-creator Justin Roiland's voice roles in Rick and Morty?" which is also still in future tense.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude What about a hook focusing on all the roles that Justin Rolland has voiced instead? Past tense, impressive, worth acknowledging, lots of sources. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: Really not a fan of trying to make a hook involving Roiland. Surely a completely different angle can be suggested that doesn't involve him or his roles? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that, and also that it's the spirit of @Theleekycauldron's initial question – are we genuinely steering clear of the negative if we just try to "spin" something problematic in a positive light. Anyway, enough ink. Let's solve it. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ALT5: ... that McDonald's returned Szechuan Sauce to their menu twenty years after being discontinued because of it's numerous references in Rick and Morty?
I think #1 and #5 are the best, #4 is solid. Discard the other two - digital images and animation being made in digital imaging and animating software? Not hooky. And the three comparisons are all of the same flavour - I had a hook like that myself a few years ago, but it was a TV show getting compared to Sharknado and an Oscar-winner, the giant difference in referents being what made it hooky IMO. Kingsif (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re ALT5:
It's its not it's
As written, it says that McDonald's was discontinued, not the sauce.
Thanks @FormalDude. Should have closed the loop here that this discussion had been moved back to the DYK nom template. Cielquiparle (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that variation shows that the original A5 above is incorrect in its clear implication that the discontinuance was due to the references, not its return. What a mess. I'm in a bold mood so I rewrote it in T:DYK/P4. EEng 18:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude wants Rick and Morty toward the beginning of the hook. @EEng doesn't like using the words "restaurant" and "product". I don't like "restaurant" and "product" either, but I also don't like the passive voice in the current version. How about:
I don't dislike those two words per se, but WP:ELEVAR is bad enough in articles, way bad in a hook, and absolutely intolerable in a hook twice. 5c is fine with me. EEng 06:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. Thus changed. Belated props as well to @MyCatIsAChonk for jumping in to propose ALT hooks earlier and @Narutolovehinata5 for moving the discussion along in the nom template. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was trying to progress review of Charles Grobe and noticed that Abraham Lincoln quickstep hook was already approved by @Narutolovehinata5 (pretty straightforward and interesting). @BorgQueen Would it be possible to swap that hook in for the February 12 set, which is Lincoln's birthday? Cielquiparle (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Btw @Cielquiparle, next time just tell me the Queue number instead of the date. It's a lot easier for me. BorgQueen (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the cited source, I cannot verify where it says that the song was the first Bob Dylan song to be remixed. Can someone quote from the source where it says this? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As of 17 October 2007 per Pop Matters: In fact, the only previously unreleased track — the only remix ever to be approved by Dylan, Mark Ronson’s remix of “Most Likely You Go Your Way (And I’ll Go Mine) — is only available through the digital version of the album being sold through iTunes.Cielquiparle (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: and others: I am a bit concerned with the use of "officially", as it's a little bit of an unclear word (what makes a song official? I assume that it is the fact that Dylan authorized it. I think that's where I struggled to verify the information.) Perhaps one of the alts below might be better:
Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I promoted the prep set (as everything else was fine) but any admin can make changes (or not change the hook) per this conversation. Z1720 (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure a change is necessary; it seems clear to me that "officially" means it was done with Dylan's approval.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced the change is needed, but would be happy with ALT2 (I think the song and remix years should be mentioned.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone back and forth, as several readings are possible for all these hooks, but currently leaning toward the original hook ("to be officially remixed"), especially after reading this Rolling Stone news brief (you have to read the whole paragraph in context). ALT2 sounds kind of funny in that it sounds like Bob Dylan was approving his own track to be remixed ("remix this one"), when in fact the above-mentioned article and this Rolling Stone interview with Mark Ronson make it clear, Ronson "auditioned" to be allowed to remix, by sending him a demo remix of that particular song. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nbsp in category names???
Closed nomination templates have (for example) [[Category:Passed DYK nominations from February 2023]] in them. Note the between "nominations" and "from". Somehow it seems to work; the nomination gets put in the right category. But why is it there? Is this intentional? -- RoySmith(talk) 23:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily for us, the person who added the nbsps in 2013 is still around – John Cline, what was the thought? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's some editing tool or script that seems to turn spaces into nbsp at random times -- you see it happening now and then on talk pages. I predicts that's what's happened here. Luckily, for some reason the wiki software apparently substitutes regular space for nbsp before going to fetch the article or whathaveyou. EEng 02:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for notifying me of this discussion, I appreciate the opportunity to respond. I think the sentiments in Roy's question are completely valid and I agree with everything he said; namely: the purpose and placement of the non-breaking-space is not self apparent while its usage seems extraneous, static (serving no appreciable end), and unnecessary. And: the history of its use has not had an adverse effect on the DYK project's goals, expectations, or needs. Unfortunately, I can not add much to those truths as my memory is insufficient for the task and I'm almost certain that reviewing my contributions will be insufficient as well (the overwhelming majority of testing I perform when editing templates is conducted at Special:ExpandTemplates where matters can be exhaustively vetted and answers: confidently derived, but, unfortunately, nothing is stored in one's editing history to demonstrate diligence or show how decisions were developed or choices were made. What I do remember and can say and show, is: we had recently merged project desires and goals and the functionality of a former template (I do not recall its name) into {{NewDYKnomination}}. As much as possible, where nothing contrary occured, I would copy coding and follow the former template's lead (to lesson the likelihood of generating breaks in logic established by the former). In this case, you can see that every nomination in Category:Passed DYK nominations from July 2011 was categorized with the nbsp in identical fashion, which I merely mimicked in 2013. I'm sorry that I couldn't give a more definitive answer and I wish you "all the best" going forward; I am particularly fond of the DYK endeavor, proud to have been involved, and hopeful to one day, again, be active within the DYK project. Sincerely. --John Cline (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let me suggest you cut back on caffeinated drinks. EEng 18:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two things Oscar Wilde may not have known: Everything does not include everything, and: a single thing about moderation. Aside these, he was pretty well versed. I stopped drinking caffeine years ago; around the time I discovered giant Hershey's Kisses.--John Cline (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
B-Class vs. DYK
There's a discussion at WP:VPR#Project-independent quality assessments regarding B-Class assessment vs DYK criteria which people may be interested in following. Look for the exchange between Hawkeye7 and myself. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since DYK only explicitly excludes stubs, and has long accepted Start- and C-class articles, I see little chance of a separate B-class requirement being approved for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citing lists of works
For DYK, is it obligatory for a list of works in an article (e.g. an actor's filmography, or in the specific case of Template:Did you know nominations/Bernie Wrightson, a list of comics the subject has published) to be cited, or is the implication that the work itself is the source sufficient? Morgan695 (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, that’s not good enough. I’ve replied on the nomination page. Schwede66 16:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: At 140x140px, it looks like a piece of some old, partially torn black-and-white textile to me. 😆 Was it really the best pic you could find for the set...? 🤔 BorgQueen (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I see an aerial photograph of a neighbourhood with a train station-sized hole in the middle of it, and immediately want to click to enlarge and read the story. I thought it was in striking contrast to all the same-old train station images we regularly run, and the hook sort of relies on the image. (The theme for that set is "Transport & Education"...loosely defined.) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lost my words... ok, maybe it's just me (and my mobile). But I won't move it to the queue; I'm sure someone else, perhaps RoySmith, could do it. BorgQueen (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we found a hook that fits the bill. -- RoySmith(talk) 02:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith the thing is that there are several Tree of Life images and the hook is talking about a specific 1866 one. And I've corrected my previous choice of the image according to the hook. BorgQueen (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: Getting one's image, or an image one likes, on MP is a privilege, not a right; I hope people don't take it for granted. Especially if the image happens to be an aerial photo (!). You can't possibly expect that it'd show up well at 140x140px, when a large segment of readers will be seeing it on a tiny teeny mobile screen. BorgQueen (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen I honestly thought the aerial photograph was fine, and I didn't realise people other than DYK team members looked at the main page on their mobile phones, since Wikipedia seems so keen to push the mobile app, which remains "safe from DYK". Cielquiparle (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BorgQueen, Cielquiparle, RoySmith, fortunately the photo is quite OK in quality so I was able to crop it into this and crop it even more here. Alternatively I can look at the city archives again for another picture. ~StyyxTalk? 08:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Styyx could you crop it just a bit more? The top and the bottom part, specifically. BorgQueen (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No wait. I'll crop it myself. BorgQueen (talk) 09:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm
Now it's better. What do you think @Styyx? BorgQueen (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sharpening does make it better at a small size so for the use on the MP it's the best (I guess). Looks meh on the article itself so I guess I will swap it to cropped 2 once DYK is over. ~StyyxTalk? 09:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't have to be in the article as it's a crop. Don't worry... 😀 BorgQueen (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to say it, but the cropped/sharpened one is rather low quality for the main page. But I see it has already been swapped out, so we're in good shape. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Prep 2 actually... BorgQueen (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. That needs to get replaced. The quality is really unsuitable for the main page. As a minor point, the image used for the hook and the image in the article are not the same; I don't know if that's acceptable or not. But the real point is that it's just not main-page quality in a small size. Cropping and (over) sharpening a poor image doesn't make it better. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you say so, please feel free to replace it. Sorry @Cielquiparle. 😀 BorgQueen (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Styyx rather. On another note: Have you considered POTD? They are always looking for high-quality image submissions. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle, that article is really good and full of great images. I think we could use this one in particular. What say you? BorgQueen (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced, per the above thread. BorgQueen (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen I like the 19th-century trees of life diagrams in principle, but don't think they render particularly well as thumbnails, either. Also, the image captioned "Hello babes" (?) from 1875 is better than the 1866 one now in Prep 1 (which is tied to the hook, which is why you swapped it).
One way to fix might be to swap the Tree of life hook with the ALT1 (which the reviewer preferred anyway for "broad appeal") and see if it works with the 1875 image or another one from that page? But it definitely would need a new caption. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the gag, again. 😆 I just thought the caption was sweet Sure, if you have a better alternative, I'm all ears. BorgQueen (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just proposed a possible alternative (using ALT1). But I just re-read the article and don't think it works. Will hunt for another image or hook for that set. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen On second thought, could you please swap Prep 1 and Prep 2? Those two are not tied to "special occasion" dates, so swapping them each other shouldn't mess up the order. We need more time to sort out Prep 1, as it seems @Dying is trying to steal one of those hooks for April Fool's Day (for a mashup, no less).
(Personally I don't like it but could warm up to it, as long as the original DYK nominator is OK with the mashup; I understand DYK team decisions usually override what the nominators say, but in this case I think it's only fair. Or, allow the "victim" of the unexpected mashup to run twice in DYK, once on April Fool's.) Cielquiparle (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can do the swapping. BorgQueen (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle I got a good idea: "... that Ernst Haeckel's 1879 tree of life (pictured) traces all life forms to the Monera?" BorgQueen (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the hook to Prep 5 btw, since you don't want to use it for Prep 2. BorgQueen (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Cc: @Chiswick Chap and @Onegreatjoke re: alternate hook proposed. (BTW – Reactions to the Charles Darwin hook are varied – he definitely ticks the "familiar name" box, but it also makes the hook almost too "obvious" and unsurprising.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 is pretty plain, but it is interesting, and in a way the Darwin mention is the key bit, so I suggest you use it as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it does. Btw I altered the hook to match the article's (and Darwin's) British English: conceptualize to conceptualise. BorgQueen (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rite/use
@Pbritti: I've slightly tweaked the wording of this hook (in Prep 4) to "the use to use", since the pronoun "one" (singular) clashes with "they" (conventionally plural). I know that "they" is often used singularly, but rarely juxtaposed with "one" in the same sentence. I'd be happy to revert the change if you don't think it's worthwhile. At any rate, well done on a pleasantly quirky hook! — RAVENPVFF·talk· 00:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Good call! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
making people a little more likely to respect the {{DYKsubpage}}
When you subst out {{DYKsubpage}}, it creates a pale blue background with a small black border. What if we implemented the small black border, without the blue background, for non-closed nominations (doesn't transclude)? that way, it'd be apparent to someone who makes an edit outside of the template that they've screwed it up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, whatever. Still seems like a good plan. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this is an interesting idea. i would hesitate to use a solid border, though, as i believe this is generally used to indicate to editors that a discussion has been closed. how about using a dotted or a dashed border instead? i also think it might be useful to include such a border in transclusions of the template in article talk pages, so that editors unfamiliar with dyk but wishing to participate in the conversation will have a more visual clue that comments left directly on article talk pages may not be seen by editors who are viewing the nomination template directly. dying (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this hook and want to keep it, but I have some formatting questions for the DYK community. For context, the bolded phrase is a New York Times headline about the event, which read "Bush Encounters the Supermarket, Amazed".
Should the bolded phrase be in present tense to align with the original headline (Encounters), reflect the change to the headline (Encounter[ed]), or be kept as it currently appears (Encountered)?
Should the bolded phrase be in quotation marks, since it is quoting the NYT headline?
Should the bolded phrase be in italics, since the phrase is from a headline?
Thanks for your thoughts. I have already promoted to queue, so an admin will have to make any changes that reach consensus. Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest keeping as is, with its use of past tense within artistic license since the point is to replicate the effect of the headline rather than to indicate it's a quote of something. If put in quotation marks to mimic the citation of the NYT article title (which would be the convention instead of italics), then I could see using square brackets to indicate the past tense, but I don't think all of that is necessary. Courtesy-pinging @Onegreatjoke, who is the actual nominator. czar 17:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most fundamental rule of DYK is that a hook must present a verifiable fact. Instead, this hook states, in Wikipedia's voice, something which is probably not true. Bush was not in a supermarket. The chairman of the New York Times admitted it was being "naughty", and other news outlets reported that Bush was unamazed, and Time reported all eyewitness accounts as refuting the New York Times story. This hook should definitely not run in its current form. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 In that case, could we please replace with ALT5...?
The previous list was archived a couple of days ago, so I've created a new list of the first 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 28. We have a total of 228 nominations, of which 98 have been approved, a gap of 130 nominations that has decreased by 17 in the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset how do you generate this list? Do you do this manually, and if so, would it make more sense for a bot to be doing it? -- RoySmith(talk) 17:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, I do it manually. As I construct a new one (based on my previous one), I look at every nomination in the "Older nomations" section of the nominations page from the oldest until I have accumulated about three dozen (or run out of noms), and invariably find ones that need the "again" icon and add it myself—a bot would miss those—plus I do other bits of cleanup along the way. When I get tired of doing this, a bot might be a good idea if no one wants to take over, though I've been doing it for years now. If a bot comes along anyway, I'll probably just stop, which would mean those nearly weekly checks wouldn't be made any longer. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sounds good. I'm just looking for ways I can make the process work better, but I'm not looking to put you out of a job that you enjoy doing (and do well). And thank you for doing it. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The hook says "top advisor" but the article and the WaPo source both say, "top Washington advisor". There might be other types of advisors, so the hook should say "Washington" just like the article and the source.
In a difficult-to-express way, I don't think "top Washington advisor" is DYK-lingo. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it's what the source says. Given a choice between non-lingo and non-sourced, I vote for non-lingo. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron Excellent catch. @RoySmith The fix is simple but important. Could you please change "the" to "a" so that it reads "a top advisor"? Cielquiparle (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(OK I see now the initial catch was from @RoySmith. Maybe you could sign the individual sub-sections in the future, so it's clearer to those who are jumping in and out to respond to specific items in the list?) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle I've updated the hook. And that's a good point about individual signings, I will do so in the future, thanks for the idea. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a footnote for 2013 in the lead section of Battle of Chios (1912) as a quick fix for compliance with DYK Rule #3b: Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article. The spirit of DYK Rule #3b is that readers shouldn't struggle to verify that the fact stated in the hook is backed up by a reliable source cited in the article, so it's a bad sign if a DYK admin can't find it (even if technically the fact appears in the narrative later).
However, @Cplakidas and @Onegreatjoke, you may want to take a look at the article to see if there is a better way to address this requirement. In fact, if you can add a citation for the "nearly 350 years of Ottoman rule", maybe we could go with ALT0 instead. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith and Cielquiparle: I confess I am surprised here. The last parts of 'Fight for Chios' cover the final conquest of the island: "The last Ottoman forces at Pityous followed suit on the morning of 3 January 1913 [O.S. 21 December 1912]" is directly cited already. As for the 350 years, the Ottoman capture in 1566 is also cited, and the rest is merely subtraction and rounding. IMO that falls under WP:OBV. Constantine ✍ 12:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Constantine Please understand that when I'm processing a prep set promotion, I'm doing 8 hooks in a batch, so I don't have the time to read each article completely; I'm mostly skimming and/or doing keyword searches. If I can't find it that way, I'm going to make a query. Yes, I found the citation for 1566 and did the mental math to come up with "about 350 years". That part was fine. But for the capture in 1913, I found a lot of things that were cited to happen in 1913, but none of them were obviously the island being "captured". I found a few things that sort of sounded like they might be describing a capture, but I'm not looking for "sort of sounded like", I'm looking for "It says captured, right here, cited to a WP:RS". -- RoySmith(talk) 13:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: fair enough, but that is the nature of hooks that summarize entire articles. I nevertheless hope I have addressed your query, or is there still a problem? Constantine ✍ 15:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're good now, thanks. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, WP:DYKNOT defines hooks as interesting facts taken from Wikipedia's newest content. I get that people like to summarize the entire article, but that's pushing the envelope a bit; that's a "summary", not a "fact", so don't be surprised if you get pushback from a reviewer who is having a hard time verifying the facts. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure why, but the DYK that just ran yesterday (11 February) is being recorded in the history as if it ran today (12 February) in WP:Recent Additions. This is a pattern that goes back a while, and I'm not sure the root cause. Does anybody have any suggestions for how to fix this going forward? — Red-tailed hawk(nest) 01:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: It's... a perennial thing, but DYK nominations are logged by the date of removal from the Main Page. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:46, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Red-tailed hawk, this issue is actually regularly reported on this page. it was discussed more in depth here, where i also proposed a solution that received some support, but it was never implemented. i would still support its implementation, though i currently don't have the time to offer to normalize the archives. dying (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to let you know, I've tagged the article for being too magazine-like in tone, but I think this could be a relatively quick fix to revise to be more encyclopedic. (It comes in part from relying so heavily on interviews with Greg Noire, etc.; it might help if you can find additional secondary sources.) I'm happy to help with revising if needed, so let me know; I don't think we need to pull the hook if we could sort it out within the next couple of days. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: Those were basically all the secondary sources that existed, at least ones that were reliable, although I can look again. Could you help give specific points on how to revise the article? I think what you're getting at is that the article relies too much on attributed opinion and quotes from Noire? Thanks — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@PerfectSoundWhatever Yes, way too many direct quotes of the subject, relative to the rest of the article, plus the way his methods, style, and emotions are described, largely from his own perspective. Some unnecessary level of detail that we wouldn't expect to see in an encyclopedia article – e.g. the fact he emailed a music festival in order to get a gig. Some of the phrasing is too informal and magazine-like: "Noire's favorite photographer..." Cielquiparle (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle I've lately been seeing the term "magazine-like" being used a bunch. What does that mean? -- RoySmith(talk) 03:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That it reads like... a magazine article, I suppose. BorgQueen (talk) 03:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Special occasion holding area: February 22
There's an item in the holding area for February 22 that appears to have been overlooked; the preps that will run on that day are already full. Schwede66 09:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: feel free to do a swap. can move one to the last prep. Bruxton (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: I changed it. see if it is in the right spot. Bruxton (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it is. It sometimes requires judgement to pick the right one depending on time zones and where the item is physically located. Schwede66 21:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Altering promoted entries to preps
It has been mentioned at WP:ERRORS (here), that hooks are being copy edited in Prep without being discussed anywhere. I assume these are good faith edits, discussion is good. As with the hook for Kalle Rovanperä was changed from a correct wording to incorrect, just by changing one word from "in" to "at". Comments, anyone? — Maile (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The change was logged on the talk page of the nomination. Unfortunately, it was old enough that there was no notice it'd be logged there, but new noms have advertising on them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're referring to just one hook, something else. What I was referring to, is that a good-faith editor has been going through the preps, many, and changing wording without any discussions. — Maile (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I would like them to continue doing so. The prep set process is the last bit of flexibility DYK has – regulars who know the DYK format and style and punch, have dealt with thousands of hooks, and are qualified to act with a bit of leeway do still make mistakes. But they are a net positive for the project. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This thread reads like one of those weird phishing emails I get all the time, which at first glance appears to be talking about something important but when you read it more closely, it doesn't actually say anything specific. Can somebody fill me in, please? Which prep are we talking about? Which hook(s)? Which editor? What diffs? -- RoySmith(talk) 23:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The log at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Kalle Rovanperä is confusing. It looks like it is saying the hook was changed to unlink some years. It is only if you go view the diffs that you see that there was another change as well. Maybe it would be helpful for these logs to include the original hook inline, to make it more obvious what has changed? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I will say that both versions logged at the template talk use "at", so they could have noticed it, but you're correct that there's a bug in GalliumBot's temporal range. It is supposed to include the original for reference. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I verify that the page 22 of the book does have the table. BorgQueen (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
