Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Usernamekiran (talk | contribs) at 18:33, 5 May 2022 (→‎Venkat TL's nominations: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Support

  • I would support moving SOHA to the top of the approved nominations page. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving it to the top. —valereee (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • I support moving the SOHA to the top; there would appear to be benefits in doing so. Schwede66 10:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Oppose

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Maybe Shubinator could do the honour of closing (and then tweak the bot). :-) Schwede66 09:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shubinator: I think that's a fine idea, how about you? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Wugapodes, did you see this from Shub? —valereee (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks! Wugapodes, how we lookin'? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
fair enough—this can keep, to be sure theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes, how're things with you? It looks like ArbCom has slowed down a bit? valereee (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Promoting nominations with un-discussed hook changes?

This has been mentioned before, but the problem is now becoming more widespread. Some promoters choose to promote nominations with their own un-discussed hook changes, when the creator, nominator and reviewer have not been alerted.

Not everybody can consult their watchlist daily (some of us have to earn our living too). I consult mine daily, but this situation means that I now also have to check every promoted nomination that I've been involved in, on the day of promotion, then I have to check it on the preps and queues page daily until it appears on the main page. Not everyone has time for this, and not everyone realises that it is necessary. The creator is usually the best witness for accuracy of hook facts, but I doubt whether they are always automatically pinged when un-discussed changes are made to the hook.

This has happened to me as creator and as reviewer a number of times now. So far the changes have been mostly acceptable, but on one occasion I had to intervene because the hook-change made the facts incorrect, and therefore left the hook unsupported by citations. So please could we now have some kind of protocol in which creator, nominator and reviewer are always notified as soon as an un-discussed hook change has been made at the moment of promotion?

I'm not just talking about obvious fact-changes. Sometimes a re-phrasing for better syntax might seem OK, but in fact the wording has changed the meaning, and the promoter does not realise that. In my opinion, this should not happen at all at the moment of promotion, other than clear wikifying changes, such as inserting "pictured". So perhaps it should be made clear to promoters when it is better to hold up a promotion for approval of a changed hook, and when it is better to promote it e.g. when the promoter has only made a typo correction. Your opinions, please? Storye book (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Storye book (talk • contribs) 19:44, April 15, 2022 (UTC)

You are talking about only the promotion to prep process, to the point that a promoter changes the wording at that time? I do know that we admins sometimes correct hooks while they are in queue. But just to change something around because the promoting editor feels they can make it a better, or more accurate hook, I don't think I've done that part. I don't normally promote to prep. — Maile (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To my experience, theleekycauldron changes a lot, but notifies in the edit summary, - I like that solution. Most changes are fine, a few get discussions. Did you see the problem above, that the hook stayed, but the article was modified, removing the hook fact (which I only happened to see on my watchlist)? That seemed worse to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did a lot of promoting today, including rewording the hook for Template:Did you know nominations/European Theatre Convention when I promoted it to Prep 3. I left a message in the DYK promotion template, describing which Prep it has been moved to, that changes had been made and why I made those changes. I did not post my rewording in the DYK template because it is my understanding that when someone proposes an ALT, they are highly discouraged from promoting that hook. Since there are limited prep builders, this delays the hook's promotion and reduces my options for building sets. This is coupled with waiting for replies from the two editors about the new ALT, further delaying the process and making it difficult to build preps. If I think I am changing the meaning of the hook in any way, I will propose an ALT and not promote. In the future, I will ping all editors involved in the process if I make any changes to a hook as I promote it. Z1720 (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think one of the problems is that hook changes at the point of promotion are frequently notified only in edit summaries, and what we need is direct notification - it is too easy to miss an edit summary if one has a lot of items on the watchlist. I appreciate that there are lots of innocent and well-meaning promoters out there - you don't need to defend your actions, I am not looking to witch-hunt - I am just looking for ideas for general guidelines which will prevent creators, nominators and reviewers from missing those changes which inadvertently change hook facts and/or diverge from citation content. Storye book (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear: in edit summary with a ping which will call your attention --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Storye book: I have a bot that can detect changes in hooks and record them on the nomination talk page—I haven't started an RfC to get it online, but is that something you'd be interested in? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea, leek. I look forward to seeing that, because at the moment, even when I spot a promotion-hook-change in an edit summary, it is a tedious matter to find the prep or queue that it's now in. Storye book (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Post-promotion hook change recording bot

Should DYK employ an automated system that records changes made to hooks in the prep sets and on the main page? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Executive summary: It's my understanding that the consensus needed to go to WP:BRFA requires an RfC; if I'm wrong, feel free to remove the RfC tag. This bot would detect changes to any hook in the prep sets, queues, or on the Main Page. When the bot detects a change, it'll leave a note on the talk page of a nomination; for example, for C. J. Cregg (nom), changes will be recorded at Template talk:Did you know nominations/C. J. Cregg. The bot will not (as of now) detect changes made during promotion. Detecting interested parties is a bit too computationally expensive and unreliable, so if you want to know when your hook's being modified, you would have to keep the nomination page on your watchlist until after the hook is taken off the air. Thoughts on implementation? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I think this is an excellent idea. Those of us who work the preps and queues have a tendency to assume it's our job to tweak the hooks we promote, or even just peruse. But that leaves both the nominator and the reviewer with no consultation on whether or not the change was justified. — Maile (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Maile Rlink2 (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Z1720 (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Can't think of any significant downsides. DanCherek (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC) Addendum: I specifically like the fact that this proposal will not be bothersome to nominators who do not want excessive pings or talk page messages. DanCherek (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support This has been an issue for me many times. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but I don't think being reliant on the Template talk thing is the best way to inform editors about hook changes. Many editors don't bother putting the nom page on their watchlist or otherwise don't check it, so it can be easy to miss changes. At the very least, if such changes are to be done, I think they should also either ping the relevant editor(s) or leave them a talk page message. As for relevant editor(s), given the "Detecting interested parties is a bit too computationally expensive and unreliable" part, at the very least I think the nominator should be informed by the bot about any hook changes; if other editors (like co-noms) should be contacted, that should be left to the discretion of this RfC. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems like a no-brainer. NLH5's proposal immediately above of pinging the nom also seems like a good idea, and I assume it's feasible on the technical end, but my support isn't contingent on its implementation. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm unclear why placing comments on the nomination's talk page would bring nominators coming; if they don't currently come to check on their nomination when promoted to prep, and monitor thereafter, it seems unlikely that they'll track the nomination (talk) page post-promotion. Wouldn't it be more effective to post a note to the nominator's talk page? The nominator can easily be parsed from the nomination page. (For that matter, the other people on the nomination line could also be parsed.) I can see that other participants on the nominations page could be problematic. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BlueMoonset: I mean, say you're a nominator, and compare the two scenarios. Currently, you get a watchlist notice that your hook was promoted; depending on the promoter, there won't be a link to the prep set, so you've gotta find the prep set, check on your hook, and (since it's probably been like three weeks since you made the nomination) cross-reference with the original only to find about half the time that no changes were made right then. Then there's the possibility that someone actually modifies it afterward, but by then you're already not paying any more attention until the hook goes live.
    By contrast, by leaving a record of the changes made on the nomination talk page says unambiguously that a change has been made, and lists what it is. I think that encourages nominators to pay attention by leaving it in a clearly accessible place without the pretense of whether it's even been modified. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    theleekycauldron, you've lost me. The one thing I always see is a notification on my own talk page. (My Watchlist is quite long, and it's easy to miss things.) Why wouldn't it be preferable/more useful to have the bot post a note to the nominator's personal talk page informing them that their hook has been changed in Prep X (or Queue Y or the main page) from "... that ABC?" to "... that not ABD?", rather than put that information on the nomination template's talk page where I'm much less likely to notice on my watchlist that an edit has occurred? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @BlueMoonset: you really want a talk page message every time Ravenpuff puts in an {{nbsp}}? I think that's going to get excessive... I can have an opt-in list for both pings and talk page messages, but I'm hesitant to make it the default. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If anything, I'd probably prefer it to be opt-out since I've seen multiple editors in the past complaining about hooks being edited beyond their wishes, and in these cases the editors have even tended to be editors who aren't DYK core regulars. In such cases, if they were opt-in rather than opt-out, it could be easy for them to miss any pings especially if they didn't put the nomination on their watchlist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's that form of Ravenpuff edit, theleekycauldron, then I didn't format my hook properly to begin with, so yes, I'd want to know. Even though I'm the sort to monitor nominations until they hit the main page. I also think that an opt-out is preferable to an opt-in; if people don't want to know about changes, an opt-out in the message would let them stop it after that message (or, of course, they could block the bot from posting to their talk page), but at least then they'll have themselves to blame if a hook change is made that they don't want. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Thanks for this work Theleekycauldron Qn -- how easy is it to modify your bot to post the comment at the nomination page and then also post a message at the nominator's talk page telling them that their attention might be required on the nomination. Support this one, btw. Ktin (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. In my view, the nom talk page is exactly the right location for the bot to leave a note. Anybody who is involved has the chance to (at least temporarily) put that onto their watchlist. This is by no means foolproof (e.g. when a watchlist is not being monitored regularly) but it strikes the right balance between the current situation (which is hit and miss) and bothering involved parties unnecessarily (e.g. through pings) as it gives editors the chance to determine whether they want to be notified (through watchlisting). Schwede66 06:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We've had a number of complaints over time about undiscussed/stealthy hook changes. I think perhaps the talk page of the article(s) bolded in the hook would be better than just the nom, though? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only see article changes, if I have it watched and manually check my watchlist. Is there a different way? But with a talk page notification, since Preferences gives us no choice in this, in that as soon as something shows up on our talk page, we get that glaring notice at the top of our page. — Maile (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Detecting interested parties is a bit too computationally expensive and unreliable, sounds like a talkpage notification might be too difficult. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      One possibility could be to merely ping nominators rather than "detecting interested parties". The ping being limited to the nominator probably shouldn't be too difficult to code. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      yeah, the work required to find the nomination page in the first place brings you most of the way to finding the nominator anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seems pretty intuitive to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're below 60!

Readout shows 56; too tired to check for spec occs right now, and in any case, nothing can be done for another 12 hours until the new day UTC. I'm goin to sleep. Thanks to all the admins and prep set builders who kept DYK running! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only special occasion hook in queues and preps that I saw is in the next set to be promoted (at midnight), so it will run on April 18 as planned, just for 24 hours rather than 12. There is an unpromoted April 24 special occasion hook that will need to be promoted into an already filled Prep 1, displacing one of the hooks there. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset I took care of it. SL93 (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, SL93! Looks great. As it's now after midnight, pinging @DYK admins: to adjust User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400 right away (and definitely before noon!) so the set currently on the main pages gets its full 24 hours now that we're officially at one set per day. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are currently at 59 approved nominations but also just two queues filled, so I've changed it to one set per day. Schwede66 00:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that switching to one set per day was the right call. The current problem seems more that we have more nominations coming in than noms being reviewed. Can people help with that? (I already have six QPQs saved up for a rainy day, or for the day when we'll require two reviews). —Kusma (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have a gap of 153 unapproved/unreviewed nominations. That is pretty big. SL93 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to see the numbers graphed over time; has anyone ever done that? —Kusma (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DYK's unapproved hook backlog, from 2022 January 1 to 2022 April 18
@Kusma: "can someone please give me a graph"? that's practically pinging me, just so you know. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: that was quick, given the indirect ping :) As the reward for good work is always more work: can you go further back in time? We had 160+ unapproved hooks before, for example in July 2020 but I have no idea how often it gets like that. —Kusma (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DYK's unapproved hook backlog, from 2020 January 1 to 2022 April 18
@Kusma: Done! seems like that 160 was actually coming down from a much bigger high... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woah – it's like the heartbeat of DYK! Yes, I know that's not what an EKG should look like. Does this mean the current backlog isn't a big deal, or just that it's a less big deal than past problems we've had? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 00:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, theleekycauldron. It was the early summer 2021 high watermark that brought about the two QPQs per one nomination RfC proposal that passed for when unapproved levels got too high—presumably the thought was that it might be invoked with levels of around 200 or more, though no number was set in stone. I was interested to note that summer seems to bring about extra reviews, given the steep drops in the July through September periods of 2020 and 2021. If we don't get that drop this year, or the unapproved level rises too much before then, we may need to invoke the two for one regimen. Some of the 2020 spikes were caused partly by the additional DYKs generated by the GA backlog review drives, which sent increased numbers of new GAs over to DYK in April/May and October 2020, and March and July 2021. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This year's GA backlog drive doesn't seem to have had such a huge effect. As most GA-related DYK noms are by people doing QPQs and the articles are usually in pretty good shape, I don't expect them to cause issues for us. I'm more curious what causes the numbers to go down. From the graph, it looks like Northern hemisphere summer?? —Kusma (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally offwiki in the summer, so not creating noms or doing QPQs, but I doubt there are enough people who disappear like me to account for the backlog reduction... ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
my activity also generally decreases when school's out; structure helps me make time for this by procrastinating on other stuff. but like ezlev said, I can't see that being a systemic reason for backlog reduction. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron, could you produce a graph of nomination approvals from from 2020 January 1, averaged over the past 7 days (after your DYK break if you prefer)? My guess is that a reduction in unapproved nominations over the Northern hemisphere summer is likely to be due to a reduction in nominations, rather than an increase in reviews. TSventon (talk) 09:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: here's a Google Sheet with the data; I put the relevant graph (no smoothing, sorry) in the "approved+total" tab. The "uploading SVGs" strategy gets clutter-y, fast. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma, theleekycauldron, thank you for the Google Sheet, looking at the change in the number of unpromoted hooks between 1 August and 1 September 2021, the reduction does seem to be caused by fewer hooks being nominated (and approved) than were promoted in the period. There was a similar reduction around August 2020. I am assuming that the number of hooks promoted was the same as the 496 hooks published at 2 sets a day, which seems reasonable as there was a steady reduction in the number of unpromoted hooks over the period.

  • The total number of unpromoted hooks reduced by 163 (279-116) suggesting that nominations were 33% less than the number of promotions.
  • The number of approved unpromoted hooks reduced by 49 (130-81) suggesting that approvals were 10% less than the number of promotions.
  • The number of unapproved unpromoted hooks reduced by 114 (163-49), 22% of the number of promotions. TSventon (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are nominations in the Template namespace?

While investigating why the [reply] links on Template talk:Did you know do not work (@Piotrus), I was surprised to notice that the discussion pages (e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Celmisia major) are all in the "Template" namespace. May I ask how that came to be? Matma Rex talk 23:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because nominations are transcluded. Originally, the Mediawiki software did not have this functionality; it was provided with the template namespace in 2004. Since then the functionality has been expanded, and any page can now be transcluded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but I don't think that explains it. Even in 2007 (I didn't look further), the nominations were not transcluded. And when templates were introduced, it seems like they supported transcluding from any namespaces from the start (r2769), except for a bug with the main namespace that was fixed in r5507. (Before that, you could only transclude from the "MediaWiki" namespace, using syntax like {{msg:foo}} – maybe this is what you're thinking of?) Matma Rex talk 16:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was actually a successful proposal to move that out of template space, if i recall correctly; no one ever did that, unfortunately. Maybe that's something I could get on? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a good idea if you could find that proposal and link it here. Although Hawkeye says above that now any page can be transcluded, the question is how do individual nominations that transclude only on the article talk page, the nominator talk page, and Wikipedia:Recent additions . I think it's important to have a record of the complete review. My first nominations have no historical records at all, except for the talk page notice that it had been on the main page. I have no idea if they were self-noms, or how they got on the main page. Really and truly, I don't think we want to lose the review history, which should be linked on the article talk page. — Maile (talk) 23:46, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My first nominations are all in the page history of Template talk:Did you know; if you know when your hook hit the Main Page, it is not hard to find the nomination. —Kusma (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is, that I keep a list of my nominations - 10 years of them - with a link to the nomination template - as well as a link to the QPQ I did on someone else's. If I want to see any specifics about either, and I do refer back at times, I just click on the template link I've saved. It is not practical to scroll through a decade of WP:DYKN, even if I know the exact date involved. That's the method used if someone has to provide historical diffs at WP:ANI, and it can be very time consuming. — Maile (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't relate to which namespace nominations reside in, just to having one page per nomination. —Kusma (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we're talking across each other here. What I'm saying is that I can now click on my individual nomination, as well as the nomination that I reviewed for DYK, and instantly know what was on those reviews. I really don't want to have to bring up a long list on my browser, and scroll through a mass of nominations to find the info I want. Also, the more that is on a page, the more likely it can slow down the browser load of that page. To me, what's being proposed here is going backwards. — Maile (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the proposal was to move future nomination subpages into the Wikipedia namespace. This will have no effect on the things you describe. —Kusma (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, the transcluding would work regardless of namespace; it already works that way at AFD, where e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swimming clubs in Kent can be seen transcluded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 April 28#Swimming clubs in Kent. I'm not really proposing specific changes, although it seems to me that it'd be more intuitive to have discussions in the usual discussion namespaces. Matma Rex talk 15:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The [reply] links won't work on WP:DYKN no matter which namespace the subpages are in. The only way they'd work is if we went back to how we did it in the Olden Days, when there were no subpages and all text for all nominations was on that single page. We're definitely not going to do that. You'll have to continue to click on the "Review or comment" links within each nom.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  06:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after reconsideration, I think that those links would work in another namespace. (Personally, I find those links to be an annoyance, and I've disabled them.)  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  14:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the reply tool can handle transcluded subpages (e.g. at AFD). But it looks like just moving the DYK pages wouldn't make them work – there is a second obstacle, because the nomination pages are wrapped in the {{DYKsubpage}} template. Anyway, I'm not trying to change that, the namespace just seemed confusing to me. Matma Rex talk 15:59, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandarax, the reply links would work within the nompage though, yes? because they don't now... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the user perspective, why can't we use the same system we use for deletion discussions? There are subpages, transclusions, and the reply links work there without any issues. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From a user perspective, we probably could. We're where we are because of path dependence. However, I believe after the discussion theleekycauldron mentioned above, I believe some (most?) of the DYK tools were retooled to work in the Wikipedia space in preparation for such a move. CMD (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still a purging problem

I have moved Prep 1 to Queue 1, cleared Prep 1 and updated the counter, and none of these actions produces a visible result. Until this purging problem is sorted, I do not intend to promote any further prep sets. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001, is there a way to embed lua in T:DYK/Q that forces a server-side cache purge every time the page is loaded? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
or embed it in T:DYK/Q1 if it needs to be a transcluded page... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
or maybe a client side javascript program? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way to use lua to purge pages. However, it can be done periodically by adding an entry to User:ProcBot/PurgeList, or with clientside javascript. – SD0001 (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a general problem. When I create an article, the link used to turn blue immediately. Now, it remains red (but works), for some time, and I haven't found out what changes to blue eventually. Beginning a new window and even closing Firefox don't change it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not already done so, go to your Preferences settings for your account, then Gadgets. Scroll down to Appearance, then select "Add a "Purge" option to the top of the page, which purges the page's cache" and Save. I have Modern skin, and the Purge asterisk appears at the top. One or two clicks should turn the red to blue. — Maile (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try. How about - just observed - that a deleted page remains blue? - same? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tried and worked. Would that solve the preps problems as well. Nice side effect: seeing that I just passed 300k edits ;) - I would never know without you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Been offline, and just saw this. Re the preps problem, I would say it's the same issue. Use the Purge option and see if that resolves it. — Maile (talk) 16:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66 and Cwmhiraeth and anyone else interested: you'll want to add the following code to your common.js page:
window.autoPurgePages = ["Template:Did you know/Queue"]; importScript("User:Eizen/AutoPurge.js"); // Backlink: [[User:Eizen/AutoPurge.js]] theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does this extra coding do? 01:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
If Eizen's code works (and, as far as I can tell, it does), it'll purge the page while you load it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added the code suggested by @Theleekycauldron: to my common.js page and this morning I moved Prep 3 to Queue 3 without encountering any purging problems. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just now added the code suggested by @Theleekycauldron:, so we'll see how it goes. — Maile (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron and Cwmhiraeth: I have now removed the code from my common.js. Immediately after loading it, I noticed my Firefox browser slowed when loading a page, and not just on Wikipedia. And as a page was loading, my watch list appeared faint, gradually getting normal line by line. It happened enough that it became unproductive to sit here and watch the several-second delay. Having removed it, my pages are back to loading normally. But thanks for suggesting - it was worth a try. — Maile (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron and Cwmhiraeth: It's me again. It wasn't the script, because English Wikipedia is starting to slow down again. I've been testing. I do not have this issue with Commons or Wikisource or Wikidata, nor do I have it on Meta Wikimedia. Therefore, it's just English Wikipedia, and apparently ye olde caching. — Maile (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JobQueue lag and our purge issue

Please see VP Caching issue. I don't pretend to know all the technical jargon and particulars. But I do know everything is processed on what is called the Job queue. We have an ongoing issue - see phab:T300914. It doesn't look like the solution is just around the corner. So, until the tech bunch figure out how to resolve this, we deal with it. I vaguely remember something similar (not necessarily at DYK) when I was a fairly new editor. We're all in the same boat right now, admins and non-admins alike. — Maile (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this might be a similar issue to what is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Cache issue?? FAR has a manual button to purge the cache there, and that seems to have worked so far. I swear everything about Wikipedia has been breaking this year; it's time for the WMF to hire some more coders I guess. Hog Farm Talk 17:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need a fundraiser for Wikipedia. Unlike the WMF, Wikipedia actually needs more money for code and technology. —Kusma (talk) 08:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting a lot worse, if you ask me. See my latest comments right above. We can add to the rest of it, that during certain parts of the day, when my Watchlist loads .... very slowly ... it also looks too faded out to read, loading the normal look one line at a time on the watchlist ... slowly, very slowly. — Maile (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5

Based on the DYK errors page, it seems that the $6.50 in the Julie Jensen McDonald hook should be US$6.50. I can't change it since I'm the nominator. SL93 (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Schwede66 20:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Check my work?

I just filled out Prep 5 from the few hooks that were already there. This is my first foray into prep-building – feedback is appreciated! See Prep 5 ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the circus, ezlev! i'll leave notes here :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would've asked that Munkatsher Humorist include a lead section for WP:DYKSG#D7, but that's subjective.
  • Hokuseihō Osamu has a MOS:SEAOFBLUE problem
  • An ALT0a hook was suggested at Template:Did you know nominations/As It Was for accuracy—was there a reason for not putting it through?
  • "Foul-mouthed" seems to be lifted from the source, although it's not a quote; that could be minimal enough to avoid copyright or not, but you may want to change to vulgar to be on the safe side
That's all—nice work! thanks for helping out :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My brain did one thing and my hands did another on As It Was – thanks for the catch! As for the other three (and I think Munkatsher has a SEAOFBLUE problem also), how should I go about tweaking them, leek? Should I ping the nominator in the edit summary? (If so, I'll need a reminder of which ping method works in edit summaries) ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For now, ping the nominator (you'll want to link to their username directly, no pipe trick allowed) any time you modify a hook; as you start to do this 5, 10, 2,000 times (yeesh), you'll get a feel for what needs a ping and what doesn't. If someone ever closes the damn RfC up top so I can start building my bot, then you won't have to anymore. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By "no pipe trick", i mean [[user:ezlev|]] doesn't work, you have to use [[user:ezlev|ezlev]] if you want it to display without the user: tag. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make it explicitly clear: [[User:Username|]] does work to ping a user in an edit summary, although there's no reason to use the "|" since it doesn't do anything. (You could add a space after the "|" to perform a hidden ping, since it would be piped to a space.) I think the "which ping method works in edit summaries" query may have been about plain wikilinks, which do work, vs templates such as {{U}} or {{Ping}}, which don't work.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  17:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I forgot to ping you, ezlev theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the tips! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, ezlev, one more thing! arguably the most difficult thing about prep building is balancing nationalities and bio/non-bios. In general:
  • no biographical hooks next to each other
  • no hooks from the same country next to each other
  • no more than one or two hooks from a non-U.S. country in the same set (based on the number of hooks from that country in DYKNA)
In this case, As It Was is next to Book of Common Prayer, both of which are English, and Osamu is next to Julie Jensen McDonald, both biographical. You'll want to separate them; I usually refer to this as a mechitzaing, although that maaay not be your cup of tea. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
nicely enough, you can kill two birds with one stone by swapping Osamu with "As It Was". I'm going to remove the link to sumo as overlink, but that's usually something that slips my mind anyway (and Ravenpuff takes care of it). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Ezlev: good work! The editors in this DYK section of the project are so helpful: And as @Z1720: told me, if you mess it up another editor will help fix it. Bruxton (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not just that, my weeklong vacation is up and I'm feeling a lot better! I think I'm ready to come back and help :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat TL's nominations

Venkat TL has retired from Wikipedia. In addition, he is currently the subject of an ANI discussion where a DYK topic ban has been proposed; although it has not been closed yet, discussion appears to be leaning towards a topic ban being implemented. In the meantime, he currently has three open nominations: Template:Did you know nominations/Tek Fog, Template:Did you know nominations/Attack on Delhi Chief Minister's house, and Template:Did you know nominations/Aakar Patel. The first two have ongoing issues while the third is unreviewed. Would any editor here be willing to adopt the nominations and address any concerns raised in his absence? Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should. The ultimate irony. The ANI issues are because he's refusing to provide a QPQ for his nominations. So, if we review the nominations and pass them in his absence, he gets what he wanted without providing the QPQ. — Maile (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of the noms above have QPQs. —Kusma (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the topic ban proposal at ANI had more to do with his behavior and attitude (described by other editors as "battleground behavior") rather than the QPQ thing itself. The QPQ thing was a symptom of his overall issues rather than it being the main issue itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Venkat TL is at ANI because of uncivil and disruptive behaviour. In my view, anything that has unresolved issued should be parked and ultimately rejected as we should not accommodate such editor behaviour. But if an individual here would like to steer those nominations through then so be it. Schwede66 10:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe in geographic balance on the hooks. These should go forward. The "Attack" nomination seems to be done. The Tek Fog nomination is waiting for a GOCE edit. I will take the third. --evrik (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Evrik: Bruxton (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Venkat TL has been indefinitely topic banned from everything related to DYK. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7 Doug (tuber)

... that Doug was nominated to Guinness World Records as the world's largest potato before genetic testing confirmed it was actually a tuber?

If testing had confirmed only that Doug was a tuber, Doug would be in the Guinness book, because a potato (that you eat) is a tuber of the potato plant. The potato article begins: "The potato is a starchy tuber of the plant Solanum tuberosum ..." The best reference quote is from reference 4: "'Sadly the specimen is not a potato and is, in fact, the tuber of a type of gourd,' the email from a Guinness World Records spokesperson read." I think the article is OK, but I think the correct statement for DYK would be: "... it was actually a tuber of a gourd?" (emphasis added) Art LaPella (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging nominator Jurta. SL93 (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Art LaPella. I've made the suggested change.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  21:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting May 7 DYK

I have another time-sensitive one at Template:Did you know nominations/Free Comic Book Day. May 7 is the 20th anniversary/edition of the event (they skipped one year due to Covid). It just passed GAN today and the hook is straight-forward. Much thanks if someone can take this! – Reidgreg (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally against promoting this for May 7 - "The nomination should be made between at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance." It is now 5 days away in Wikipedia time. IAR could be the consensus, but I'm against it. SL93 (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Reidgreg can fix the problems while the relevant prep is still available to the prep builders, I don't think it's that big of an issue. But if the nomination is rushed, or it has to be rushed into the queue about to air, I don't think that's worth it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more concerned that the prep is filled and any hook kicked out of that set will go to the very last prep. It doesn't seem right to me. SL93 (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering why such a rule exists when it seems like IAR is used for every case. SL93 (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think of it as something to point to for extreme cases; if we get too many at once, or when one nomination is too big to be rushed, that's when we start to need more time. Other times, a one-off valid request every other two weeks, while they start to add up in our memories, aren't egregious enough to enforce a rule against them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like Comic Book day and support putting it in on May 7. --evrik (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the prep set is not closed by an admin, I think we should run it on the 7th.Bruxton (talk) 01:12, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been approved. It would go in either Q1 or Q7. --evrik (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to be for prep 7 since we're at one set a day. SL93 (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prep 7 is next for moving to queue. We have one queue filled currently. SL93 (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and this is why we leave the bottom prep set open; I've bumped one nom, and depromoted Ty Erickson. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. The bottom prep set is almost full and I didn't use it. SL93 (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
right; I wouldn't've had to depromote Erickson if we'd left space in the bottom prep. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm even more confused. You filled most of that prep. SL93 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I excel at self-deprecation :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:09, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an automatic prep set promotion tool!

And it's not terrible? Hi everyone! I said a couple of weeks ago that I was working on a prep set promotion tool. I stopped working on it for a while because I decided to pay attention to my schoolwork for once gave up and forgot. But now it's done, and it's ready for a test flight! I know Narutolovehinata5 was interested, so I'll ping them; and if Z1720, Bruxton, Rlink2, or anyone else is curious, feel free to install.

but leeky, I hear you ask, does it work?

and, umm...

probably.

Most likely?

I have no idea, but it seems fine.

If you're interested, you can install a copy from user:theleekycauldron/DYK promoter. Let me know which inevitable bugs crop up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see it shows up as "close DYK nomination" in my menu, but it only gives the option of set promotion rather than also giving the option to reject noms. I guess that can be worked on, at least. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oh, true, I guess I could add a rejection option. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all you do! Also I saw I missed the process when you were up for a position here on wikipedia. I will learn how to participate in the next one. Bruxton (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a suggestion for page text, how about reminding users to go to their User:USER/common.js page and add importScript('user:theleekycauldron/DYK promoter.js'); // Backlink: [[user:theleekycauldron/DYK promoter.js]] to a new line? Kingsif (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks for the suggestion! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Maybe it's just me, but File:Where is the install button?.png Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it either. SL93 (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif and SL93: ... no idea! Pops up my browser, so I don't know; sorry about that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this is for promoting hooks to prep sets? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
indeed it would be! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm doing something wrong, but the tool appears to be frozen for me - "Promoting hook to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4... Closing Template:Did you know nominations/Snow removal in Montreal..." SL93 (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: went fine for me—next time that happens to you, can you open up your javascript console and relay any error message you might have gotten? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron
index.php?title=user:theleekycauldron/DYK_promoter.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:232
Uncaught ReferenceError: api is not defined
at evaluate (index.php?title=user:theleekycauldron/DYK_promoter.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:232:3)
at HTMLInputElement.l (index.php?title=user:theleekycauldron/DYK_promoter.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:170:24) SL93 (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
oh, not a difficult fix; I'll get into it later today. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron, thanks for this. I will see if i can integrate this in my browserscript.
I have been on a semi wikibreak but 2 weeks from now I should be returning to my full activites, including promoting DYK hooks. Rlink2 (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93: attempted a fix. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It works now. SL93 (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just gave it a shot and so far it seems to work fine, albeit with some strange bugs. I have another few suggestions:
  • If you load a prep after you've already loaded a prep, it will load options below that rather than refreshing the tool. For example, if I'm loading Prep 1, then I load Prep 2 afterwards, instead of Prep 1 clearing, I see the "Hook to Promote: File:" thing twice.
  • The tool doesn't seem to work well if there's already a hook on slot two (which for some reason is showing as slot one on the tool). For example, I was trying to promote Template:Did you know nominations/Arnaud Balard to Prep 5, but Bungay Castle (novel) was on the second slot but for some reason the tool was showing it on the lead slot. Luckily Prep 6 was free so I promoted it there instead.
  • Once promotion is done, the page should refresh (similar to what Twinkle does) instead of being stuck where it is.
  • If you're trying to promote a nomination that you created or reviewed, it should show a warning.
  • If a nomination is already closed, the tool should show a message saying that the nomination has already been closed and no further action can be done.
I understand that these are a lot and some suggestions could take a lot of coding (I imagine the "detect if you're promoting a hook you reviewed" thing could be tricky to code), but these are what came to mind based on my initial tests. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the bug reports, @Narutolovehinata5 and Kavyansh.Singh! I'll get into it later tonight. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 and Kavyansh.Singh: okey dokey! new functions:
  • Options to mark the nomination as rejected/unsuccessful
  • A few safeguards, to make sure a misclick/omission doesn't screw something up
  • It'll give an alert (although it won't self-abort) if you've edited the nomination page before
  • The "undefined" bug with the images is fixed
  • Edit summaries and other minor aesthetic stuff
I'll check to make sure promotions still work; cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Another suggestion: it may be also worth adding a warning if you're trying to promote a nomination that doesn't have any of the DYK approved tick icons. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please change DYK hook

I didn't realize my DYK hook for Royal Theater (St. Petersburg, Florida) would not / could not run with the original wording. The compelling element of the hook is now gone. Would it be possible to either restore the hook, or could we send this DYK nomination back for review, so we can propose some alternate hooks? Cielquiparle (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Ravenpuff to see if they want to reverse; if not, I'll depromote. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the outside reader, this is at Prep 5. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: I've reverted the hook to the original wording. My (slight) concern with the hook was that "St. Petersburg" might be a little misleading since there's a Russian city more closely associated with that name, but of course that doesn't falsify the hook. Would you be happy with linking "St. Petersburg" here? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenpuff Could we revert it to how it originally appeared when the hook was approved? Like this: Royal Theater in St. Petersburg (Looks like you changed it in two steps.)
You are correct that this hook intentionally plays upon the fact that there is another (more famous) city called St. Petersburg, in a country where dance (ballet) is very important.
At the same time, it isn’t complete misdirection – the word “Royal” is a clue that it’s probably not Russian (i.e., not the St Petersburg Ballet Theatre), and people who know who Angela Bassett is will know that it’s likely in the US.
Part of the thinking in embedding the wikilink across the whole phrase Royal Theater in St. Petersburg was that 1) it is closer to the actual article name; 2) “Royal Theater” is an overly generic name for a theater with a rather long disambiguation page, not unlike referring to a “Palace Theatre” (or for that matter, a “Vue Cinema”) in the UK; 3) historically there were dozens of cinemas called “Royal Theatre” within the state of Florida alone, but if you search the Internet for “Royal Theater” and “St. Petersburg”, you always find this one; and 4) I would prefer not to direct people to the St. Petersburg, Florida page inside the hook – they can always read more about the city once they read about the historically African American theater building that now houses an arts-oriented youth club which Angela Bassett attended as a child. (Or, maybe they’ll just end up going to the Angela Bassett page, but that’s OK, too.) Anyway, it’s a short hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: Sure, I'd be fine with that. Since the hook's now in the queue, however, we'll need an admin to revert it. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Ravenpuff. Pinging @DYK admins to change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Queue/5 accordingly if still possible Royal Theater in St. Petersburg. Thanks in advance. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Maile (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queue will be on main page in less than an hour, leaving one filled queue

What the title says. @DYK admins: SL93 (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the next queue won't be on the Main Page unless someone takes care of the image. I had reported it on WP:ERRORS, but it hasn't been handled yet.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  23:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had also notified Krinkle on Commons, and the bot is now back, and the image is protected.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  23:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Amakuru and‎ ‎Cwmhiraeth for each promoting a queue. There are now three filled queues.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  14:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Kathleen Freeman (classicist)

I am reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Kathleen Freeman (classicist), which is for a new Good Article. It is my sixth review. I asked some questions on 25 April, 8 days ago, and posted a reminder on the nominator, Srsval's talk page yesterday. The nominator has only made one edit since I posted the questions. How much time should I allow before asking if somebody else will adopt the nomination? TSventon (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In such cases it may be worth waiting at least two weeks from the initial reminder before marking for closure, meaning you can probably wait another week. Just to be sure I'd suggest you given them another reminder now, ideally on the talk page for better visibility. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, thank you, I hadn't found that written down anywhere. I have reminded Srsval again on their talk page. TSventon (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ladislaja Harnoncourt

Template:Did you know nominations/Ladislaja Harnoncourt - the article was created for women's month, and by now it may be too late for Mother's Day even. Please check. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Elias Ziade: please look at it. @Gerda Arendt: your hook quibbling is the cause of the delay. ;-) --evrik (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My original hook was approved on 28 March. What you call quibbling (a new word!) happened later and was not caused by me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hook delay not caused by Gerda, that's a first. ;-) I'm glad to see it moved forward. --evrik (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about 50 minutes ago, so I've created a new list of 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 17. We currently have a total of 270 nominations, of which only 95 have been approved, a gap of 175, up 14 over the past nine days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than two months old

More than one month old

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) 02:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time to start a drive to reduce the backlog of nominations needing reviews?

In the above thread, BlueMoonset (talk · contribs) has noted that the gap between approved nominations and total nominations has continued to grow. I think a short-term drive to reduce the gap would be beneficial, and I recall that DYK has previously considered giving our awards such as barnstars for helping. It may also be time to ask for double the QPQs. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know how this delta compares to past levels? We have briefly mentioned doubling the QPQs in the past. If that is easy to implement e.g. updates to template, the QPQ credit tool etc., I would support that move tp doubling the QPQs as a stop-gap measure.
One other way to see the problem is if every nomination requires one QPQ, the only way we can get a delta is due to some of the nominations not requiring QPQ. In this case, that would be due to the first five submissions not needing a QPQ. If that is indeed the cause for the delta, it maybe worth temporarily suspending that rule? Ktin (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Flibirigit (talk · contribs), Ktin (talk · contribs), the past history was discussed above, at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#We're_below_60!, Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs) attached a chart showing that the number of unapproved hook nominations tends to increase for most of the year then reduce again over the northern hemisphere summer. I looked at August 2021 and found that nominations in the month were 33% less than promotions (2 sets a day), while approvals were 10% less than promotions, resulting in a reduction of 114 in the number of unapproved nominations over the month. So the situation should improve in August, if it doesn't get too bad by then. TSventon (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It was decided last year in an RfC that rather than doing a drive, when the gap grew large enough, those editors with 20 or more nomination credits would be responsible for doing an additional QPQ per nomination. (Ktin, it was a very long, involved process, hardly a brief mention.) What wasn't decided was what that triggering gap size would be. I'd like to suggest that 200 is a reasonable point at which to start; we're at 178 as I type this. (Picking a point to swap back is another unknown; I'd suggest continuing until the gap was only 40 or 50, but perhaps people won't want to go beyond 75 or 100.) Requiring complete DYK novices to attempt QPQ reviews from their first nomination isn't something I'd recommend at all, and I think changing that would need its own RfC. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Why don't we boost the visibility of the oldest articles needing a review?--evrik (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One issue may be a result of giving an editor 5 nominations without a QPQ. I think after just 2 nominations they would get it - maybe someone could check their work on their first QPQ? The math in practice: if 10 new editors create five new nominations that would add 50 nominations to the backlog. Bruxton (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton (talk · contribs), the agreed approach was that, when the gap grew large enough, those editors with 20 or more nomination credits would be responsible for doing an additional QPQ per nomination, so that should be tried first. BlueMoonset (talk · contribs), could you post a link to the RfC? TSventon (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So many backrooms on the project. I had no idea there was an RFC making plans. Bruxton (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: if you go to the archives box at the top of the page, there's a link to a table of past RfCs held at DYK. you'll want EEng's proposal from August 2021. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon and Theleekycauldron: -- would the proposal of 'senior nominators' i.e. folks who have nominated / landed 20+ DYK noms having to QPQ two nominations, require any updates to the templates, tools etc? If so, how easy is it to get going? If it is easy enough, I would recommend a new thread to seek supports (you have mine) as a temporary measure with a clear exit guideline i.e. return back to 1 nomination review when the backlog gets to xx. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relevant discussions: 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 and RfC Discussion: Details of implementing EEng's propsal "Unreviewed backlog mode" Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re BlueMoonset's comments about timing: I want to avoid the back-and-forth switching that happens with the one-to-two sets a day. It will be difficult to let editors know about the 2 QPQ requirements when they happen and to let the reviewers know when the 2 QPQ requirements are in place. I suggest that we set the bar higher, that the 2 QPQ will always last for one month, and that there is a set date that the trigger is checked. For example, if the trigger is 300, and the date we decide is the 15th of every month, then on May 15 we check to see if the trigger is hit. If there is a gap of 300 on May 15, then for the month of June the 2 QPQ will be required for those with more than 20 DYKs. If the trigger is not reached on May 15, then there will not be the requirement for June. This will give us a few weeks to advertise the one-month rule change. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I like that idea! Gives us some time to organize the troops. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like it. Having a specific date each month is too restrictive. If we hit a specific target, we should start working on lowering it. I can see waiting a set time so people are aware of it, like a few days, but there won't be back-and-forth switching for this process: it takes a long time to get up to (for example) 200 unreviewed nominations because the regular QPQ is always there. As long as the switch back from the extra QPQs to the regular level is set low enough, these will be few and far between, perhaps once a year or very large fraction thereof. I'm also not fond of the one-month duration: if we don't need a month to get from 200 to 50, say, then keeping it going for the full month could mean having too few nominations available for QPQ reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't we boost the visibility of the oldest articles needing a review? We can create a subpage. We can link to it from several places. --evrik (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that'll be very effective—the oldest nominations needing review generally have one or more issues making it inaccessible to less experienced users: length, quality, controversy, source accessibility, prior review/disputes... anyone with the experience and desire to get through a nomination near the top of the backlog already knows how to check the top of WP:DYKN and BlueMoonset's weekly listings. New reviewers should start closer to the bottom. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a way to move all the articles that have had an initial review and still have "fixes" and discussions in progress to another page – e.g., after a week or ten days following the initial review? It would clear out lots of clutter visually for reviewers looking for something "new", and also help keep an eye on the ones where people are still waiting on responses for whatever reason? (BTW, just spotted that the DYK for the baseball player can probably be moved to the Approved page already.) Cielquiparle (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cielquiparle: The technical feasibility would be up to Wugapodes and Shubinator, since their bots patrol WP:DYKN and WP:DYKNA.
    As for whether we should... I'm not entirely sold on the idea. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my point of view, we could win a lot of free time (that could go into reviewing!) if we would accept more suggestions as they are even if not super-interesting and not super-attractive. I have seen hooks approved, and then questioned and discussed for more than a month, absorbing the time of all who comment. - When I review I usually accept, but ask the nominator if the hook could be improved, and then it's up to them to invest more time or not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This raises quite a few questions for me. How do we encourage people to write better, catchier hooks if we agree just about anything they come up with? How do we convince our readership (the whole point of this project) to keep coming back to DYK if we don't hold ourselves and our nominators to a higher standard? If our audience feels like the vast majority of DYK is too boring or too niche or too self-absorbed, some people aren't gonna keep coming back to look for interesting ones, and then all of our hooks go underappreciated. How much quality are we willing to sacrifice in the name of backlog reduction?
    Ending squabbling is good (believe me, as someone who's read through many, many noms, approving shorter ones is much less taxing). Faster approval is good. But should it really be our top priority? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's rather abstract, and suggests that quality is sacrificed (which hurts a bit), while my point is that often we spend hours, in a process lasting several weeks, on achieving a 5% increase in interest. To be less abstract, look at the following and discuss what you see, perhaps even approve some:
    1. Template:Did you know nominations/2022 AFL Women's Grand Final (recent)
    2. Template:Did you know nominations/Serhiy Kot
    3. Template:Did you know nominations/Ladislaja Harnoncourt (in prep, finally, but a good example for a 15% increase in interest, discussed from 28 March until a few days ago)
    I believe in good faith that the nominator is the one to know a subject best, and to pass that best knowledge is my concern, not fast process for its own sake. - I will happily attend to RL until Monday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is that this amounts to dropping the need for "interesting", which would encourage even more people to nominate every article they create for DYK. Instead, we should probably have more editors nominating only their most interesting new creations. (I must admit that I have nominated most of my own recent creations and expansions at DYK, but I hope they have been reasonably diverse). —Kusma (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Directly asking for a nomination to be approved

Just to clarify: for example, if a DYK nomination has stalled and the nominator or another editor in the discussion asks for a specific other editor to approve the nomination, would that be considered canvassing? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing specifics, if I ask explicitly another editor to approve my nomination by overriding the objections of another reviewer? yes, that is canvassing. Neutrally asking an editor with a record of friendly opinions to weigh in is... borderline, but probably not actionable without wider consensus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really depends on the motivation, and it's usually quite obvious. Like, there's a whole load of reviews I did a few years ago without actively looking to review, I'd just kind of made myself available and so if a nom was waiting a long time, I was one of the users specifically pinged to review/new review/second opinion, and that was just to make sure that noms actually got attention. That situation still falls under what's been described, but was clearly not canvassing or even dubious. Kingsif (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: oh, totally; DYK regulars do often get pinged for clarification or re-review. I was thinking more if, say, my nomination was flailing, and I go to a editor I know will be friendly and ask them to "take a look". Context is king here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it depends. I recently wrote about a topic that isn't my area of expertise but squarely falls into Gerda's core interests. So I pinged her as part of the nomination, inviting her to have a look. And as expected, she added some value. I was after someone's expertise rather than canvassing for an easy tick. Schwede66 01:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, we are humans, so even if all these examples have matching parameters, we are able to judge what seems squarely wrong. Kingsif (talk) 03:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable special occasion

This is about my nom for Craig Braun - from googling while writing the article, it looks sure that his birthday is June 1, so it's in time for a special occasion slot, but there isn't an RS (unless IMDb self-authored bios are, I forget where we fall on that at the moment) that supports this. Is it good to ask for a SO birthday hook when the birthday isn't mentioned in the article? Kingsif (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we aren't sure about the birthday, it cannot be the basis for a special occasion. That's at least my 2C. Schwede66 04:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
hmm... the date should be verifiable, shouldn't it? At least, verifiable enough to place on a BLP... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon Prime gives his birthday but I don't know if it would be good enough for this particular case (note that Amazon owns IMDb so it's possible the former got it from the latter, but that's just my theory). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A problem with the review structure

Something I've noticed throughout conducting reviews and promotions at DYK is that suggesting new hooks is... cumbersome. It's easier if you're the promoter, since you can get the original reviewer to come back and give a new tick, and just let another promoter decide. However, if you're the reviewer, you then have to propose the hook, get the nominator to agree to it, and then (after having done all the work of reviewing) leave a marker, which delays the nomination by several days until someone gives the final tick. I think we should be encouraging outside suggestion and workshopping of hooks, and this system feels a little broken. Can we brainstorm some ways to streamline this process? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's think from the fundamentals. A DYK review is supposed to do several things: check the article, fact check the hook and assess its hookiness. If we want to prevent nonsense on the Main Page, fact checking is important. In theory, the article author is best placed to fact check any newly proposed hooks, but they may be tempted to agree to anything just to move things along (and sometimes the nominator isn't really involved n the article).
A modified process could try to separate article approval from hook approval a bit, and have extra ticks for every hook, plus a system to flag additional hooks still in need of approval. —Kusma (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does it say the nominator has to agree with the revised hook? --evrik (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Perhaps we are tolerating too much WP:OWNership of hooks/noms here. —Kusma (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1086358802"