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 Shubinator (talk | contribs) at 11:27, 29 March 2023 (→‎Are we stuck?: both back online). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Is there a limit on how soon the same article can be nominated to DYK?

Nominated Seongsu Bridge disaster when it was seven days old (set to appear on DYK in 2 days) and its just gotten through GA review...would it be within reason for me to submit another hook or would that be against the spirit of DYK? :3 F4U (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DYKCRIT 1c, "An article is ineligible for DYK if it has previously appeared on the main page as bold link at DYK." Eddie891 Talk Work 19:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oop thank you, I thought I read something about this somewhere before. Slightly embarrassed for asking now. :3 F4U (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! We're all learning here Eddie891 Talk Work 20:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Freedom4U, you could have submitted additional hooks before it had appeared and asked for approval/for people working preps to swap a new hook in, but they'd be considered part of the same nomination/same appearance. No need for even slight embarrassment, we have a lot of policy here. :D Valereee (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh damn... we have a lot of policy here yeah I'm finding that to be true for all of Wikipedia :') :3 F4U (they/it) 20:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia sure does, @Freedom4U: 전 18년이나 여기 있었지만 저도 다 못 외웁니다 ㅎㅎ (You're a native Korean speaker, right?) BorgQueen (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha yeah...I've technically been here since 2014, but I've only really started getting going 2 months ago. (Yeah, was born in the States, and lived a significant portion of my life in Korea - I'm quite shit at typing it though. The only way I can really type quickly in Korean is with those 9-key Korean keyboards) :3 F4U (they/it) 21:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

tools

The tool for promotion does not work for Prep 2. Lightburst (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I do not know what happened but a different hook worked. Lightburst (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst that probably means something is incorrectly formatted. Which hook were you trying to promote? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith I do not recall now, but the hook promoted in another prep area. Lightburst (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith It happened again just now with prep 2. I tried to use the tool to move Nomination in the last slot and it freezes. I am unsure if it is my own issue. Lightburst (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst The most common problem is that something is wrong with the spacing of the Credits. It's always safest if the sequence of Credits aligns exactly with the corresponding sequence of Hooks within the same set (including the "Example" placeholders in the Credits where there is a " ... that ... " in the Hooks). The sequence gets mixed up sometimes – I'm convinced the tool itself sometimes puts the Credits in the wrong place – but of course sometimes it's because of something human promoters have done as well. When I notice that it's out of order, or that the placeholders are in the wrong place, I usually go in and quickly fix it manually. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst I think I just fixed it. Prep 2 was missing the "Example Editor" line corresponding to the final "quirky hook" slot. You can't just have the "Example Nominator" line there; you have to have both. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: Thanks, that worked. Lightburst (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i am not sure what happened, but it looks like a previously promoted hook in the seventh slot had somehow been accidentally overwritten in this diff, which left the credit for the seventh slot untouched by placing the credit for the new hook where the credit for the eighth hook would normally go. i have restored the overwritten hook, but feel free to revert me if i did something wrong. dying (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced the tool itself sometimes puts the Credits in the wrong place diffs or it didn't happen :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@theleekycauldron For sure I'll flag it next time I notice it happening, as it would be interesting to find out why it does that. My hypothesis is that the tool does it in reaction to something else that is out of place. My bigger concern at the moment is the issue flagged by Dying. Does this mean hooks can be overwritten by accident? Cielquiparle (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox proposal

I've been wanting to get back into promoting for a while now, but thankfully, it seems that Cielquiparle and Bruxton are usually on top of it :) that being said, it would be nice if I could promote a hook when i have the energy, without doing the prep work to fill a whole set or wait until one is empty. So, I propose that there be a single faux-prep area of unlimited size (PSHAW can automatically create a new slot in a full set) that anyone can pop by and promote a hook to, without regard for hook placement. This has quite a few benefits:

  • It's always accessible, even when the preps are full.
  • The preps can be full, because there'll always be an emergency place to dump hooks.
  • It allows promoters to decouple the steps of re-checking and scheduling – as a longtime promoter, I found that dealing with one of those at a time was much, much easier than having to balance both in my head while looking for nominations I could verify.
  • Promoters can easily fill multiple sets in the sandbox this way, too; instead of having to deal with U.S. and bio hook problems in each set individually while promoting, that can be worked out at the end.
  • It allows promoters to decide on a hook ahead of time.
  • It gives new promoters a way to dangle their feet in the water without being too worried about consequences.
  • I don't personally like this, but admins frequently take replacement hooks when one is pulled from prep – it would be nice if they could do that without screwing up finished preps.

The only drawback I can think of is that DYKHousekeepingBot might need an update if we allow an arbitrary number of hooks to be promoted at any time, to adjust how we handle two-a-day sets. This good with everyone? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it makes sense to uncouple reviewing from assembling a prep set. Different people might be interested in (and good at) certain aspects, but not others. And as leeky points out, doing a full prep set may be more than somebody can handle in one session. And I certainly agree that stealing a hook from a previously-completed prep set to backfill a hole is sub optimal.
But I'm not sure a variable-length sandbox is the right solution. Why not just do your re-review right on the nomination template? If it passes, add a second tick (or we can come up with some snazzy new icon). Prep builders will be instructed to not promote a hook unless it has two ticks (kind of like Saul Goodman not having enough parking stickers). It's also easy to decide which of several hooks to use; just specify that with your re-tick. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I gave a lot of thought to that myself, but I think there are a couple of speed bumps that pop up with that solution. First off, Prep builders will be instructed to not promote a hook unless it has two ticks very quickly runs into problems, as that just creates more headache for prep builders who want to promote directly – the sandbox is more out-of-the-way. Second, two-ticks makes it more complicated for new promoters to get started – a sandbox, by contrast makes it simpler. Third, it would break any kind of promotion–counting tools someone might be intent on building, since the person who closes the subpage is no longer necessarily the credited promoter. For overall user-friendliness, I think the sandbox is a less bureaucratic and more easily understood solution than "wait, I need another approval before I can see my hook on the Main Page? And a separate closure?"
I'm not entirely opposed to a two-ticks solution: it has a lot of advantages, to be sure, and I'd probably support it if it were the only thing on the table. But I think a sandbox is just a lower-cost way of gettin' it done, and given that I really do want to get back into promoting, I think it's the best pick. It'd truly suck to have a no-consensus-defaults-to-status-quo on this one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i admittedly prefer the sandbox proposal over the two-ticks proposal. the sandbox proposal hides the additional complexity from editors who are still just trying to get used to nominations. in addition, promoters who don't wish to use the sandbox can just ignore it, while implementing the two-ticks proposal appears to necessarily disrupt their current workflow. offhand, the only downside i can think of that hasn't already been mentioned is that if a hook with a preferred run date is promoted to the sandbox, the editor moving the hook from the sandbox to one of the prep areas may not be aware of the date request. (this issue seems easily solvable, though; invisible comments could be one solution.)
what if we tried the sandbox proposal for a month? i assume its implementation is fairly simple, so trying the idea out shouldn't cost us much. we can always revert to our current practice if it turns out that the sandbox causes more problems than it solves.
theleekycauldron, i don't know if you already have a name for the sandbox in mind, but what do you think about calling it prep area 0? i think this would make it more clear that hooks in the sandbox have already gone through an additional review by a promoter, and are simply waiting to be scheduled. (i assume that this will also make it easier to update the code for pshaw.) dying (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@dying: I think calling it "prep area 0" might be a little confusing; how about "preparation area sandbox", or the cheekier "pre-preparation area sandbox"? pshaw probably handles it fine either way (although "0" might still be the code to access it there). @RoySmith: any objection to us going through with a trial period? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mumble. I don't think it's a great solution, but I'm just one opinion. My objection shouldn't be a blocker if there's wider consensus to go ahead. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, the two-ticks proposal sounds interesting, but there seem to be a number of details that have yet to be worked out. (will promoters now be required to add a second tick before directly promoting a hook to the prep areas? if so, will theleekycauldron be able to find the time to implement this in pshaw, or will it have to be done manually? will there be a separate wp:dyknaa page? if so, how would wp:dyknaa differ from the sandbox? will wugbot need to be recoded as well?) i think theleekycauldron's is the better of the two proposals i know of so far, though i am open to other solutions.
theleekycauldron, that sounds good. i think my main worry was that, if the sandbox was simply located at "Template:Did you know/Sandbox", nominators unfamiliar with the promotion process might worry that the sandbox was some sort of indefinite purgatory. calling it "preparation area sandbox" should hopefully make it more clear that hooks in the sandbox were going through the normal promotion process. i wasn't sure if there should be an additional indicator that the sandbox was a step between the initial approval and the current prep areas, but had only suggested using '0' because it comes before the numbers of the other prep areas, and integrating it into existing code would hopefully be fairly simple. your other suggestions are also fine by me, though if we're going to use the word "pre-preparation", i would also suggest dropping "sandbox" as redundant. dying (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
dying, how about we create it under Template:Did you know/Preparation area 0, and label it at WP:DYKQ as "pre-preparation area"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron, that's fine by me. i am assuming the name "preparation area 0" is being used to make the code easier to implement, while the term "pre-preparation area" is being used to refer to it on wp:dykq to make the use of the new page more clear. perhaps a redirect from "Template:Did you know/Pre-preparation area" to "Template:Did you know/Preparation area 0" would also be helpful.
by the way, i just realized that the set of images used for the numbers on {{DYK queue/navigation}} includes an image for '0', so the new page can easily be integrated into the navigation template if desired. dying (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am kind of worried that hooks promoted to the sandbox could linger there for a long time and that this just hides the backlog in yet another place that people have to watch. "Prep sets are always full" seems not a common problem from a five-year perspective, but more a temporary issue. So count me as unconvinced, I guess. (But I'm not very active at DYK these days, mostly because all queues are always full when I want to help...) —Kusma (talk) 20:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it again that we can't have the number of Queues and Preps expanded to, say, 10 each? Is it simply too complex to expand because of the way everything is interconnected and/or physically impossible under the current setup? Cielquiparle (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma, given that 1. it's far easier to take a hook out of the sandbox than it is to do the verification work to promote an entirely new nomination, and 2. the sandbox is pretty noticeably placed in the queues, I'm not sure I see that becoming an issue. Cielquiparle, expanding the number of Ps and Qs isn't technically infeasible, but I think it just kicks the can back down the road. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron So does that mean that anything in the sandbox has already been verified? Or is it a sandbox where you spend time verifying hooks? Cielquiparle (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cielquiparle, it'd be the former – a nomination generally shouldn't be closed unless it's verified. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron Is the sandbox then like a long list? We just put hooks in there as they are verified? And then they don't get assembled into prep sets until they make it out of the sandbox? Cielquiparle (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cielquiparle, the sandbox is optional – no one is required to put hooks there, they can be promoted directly to prep sets as normal. But yes, it is a long list that preppers can use to store emergency hooks and sort through what's available to use. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron Thanks I'm starting to understand a bit better what it is. My question then is what happens when there are multiple "good" hook candidates? I guess the promoter always has the option go open the nomination back up and choose a different hook? Sometimes you choose a different hook based on what is in the set, etc. But sometimes you don't realize the "best" or "only viable" hook was the one that was chosen for a reason. (I'm realizing now that I have to be clearer and more explicit if I'm absolutely ruling out a hook before closing, because otherwise people have questions and/or the wrong one could still get chosen after the fact.) Cielquiparle (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cielquiparle, I'm not sure how that problem applies more here than it does to prep sets as normal. The promoter gets to choose a hook, and that about settles it unless someone takes issue post hoc. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a long list at /Approved. I wouldn't want an additional place where hooks can stay for a long time. Having zero to three more prep sets (maximum 24 additional hooks, ideally fewer) sounds much better to me than an unlimited list. —Kusma (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that issue crops up during the trial period, we can always can the idea, but I'm fairly sure it won't. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:27, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a major technical problem with that (might require a slight update to the bot and a few edits). —Kusma (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would the sandbox count against the "at least ten prep/queue sets" mentioned in WP:DYKROTATE? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, given that the sandbox can't really be "full", and will usually remain near-empty unless the preps get full, I would imagine no... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume an arbitrary number of image hooks could be added, and not necessarily at the top?

I don't think it should be called a "sandbox", which is an established name for a place where anybody can play around, doing pretty much anything they want to (as long as it doesn't violate a few rules). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

multi-image implementation would take a bit of extra PSHAW work, but it's doable – probably as a commented-out bit of wikicode after the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7: Nitpicking Edition

I don't know if maybe I'm being too nitpicky but I did notice a couple of minor things when moving/reviewing Prep7 to Queue 7. - Aoidh (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7: Lithophane (nom)

  • @Johnbod, Storye book, and Bruxton: The hook says "... that images on porcelain lithophanes only display properly when lit from behind (example pictured)?" but the source doesn't appear to say that this is the only way that it can be properly displayed. I've seen lithophanes before and I'm pretty sure that's the only way for them to be properly displayed but the source doesn't seem to reflect that. Is there another source that does say this, or can/should the word "only" be removed? - Aoidh (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is the only way. I think the source used in the nom (which was available online to cut and paste) does say this sufficiently clearly, and others do, plus the photos show this very clearly - better than words really. To remove "only" would be both misleading and puzzling to the readers, I feel. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: The source says and shows that it is visible when backlit, but where does it say this is the only way to achieve that? It should not say that it can only be done that way unless a source supports that claim, and the source used does not appear to do so. The source only says Lithophanes ... when back-lit reveal detailed images. It says nothing about it being the only way to reveal the images, so at the moment the hook doesn't appear to be supported by the source. I don't think rewording the hook to say something like ... that images on porcelain lithophanes will display properly when lit from behind (example pictured)? would confuse or mislead any reader. - Aoidh (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update, I have been looking for sources to back up that claim, and I couldn't really find anything saying it was the only way to display it. I did find two sources in [Hyperallergic and The AV Club but both just link to the Wikipedia article when stressing that it's the only way, and I'm concerned that they are just WP:CIRCULAR references (the previous version of the article also said it was the only way in the lede at the time that both articles were written). Sources certainly describe the backlit method as the way to get the art to display, but none say it's the only way and I'm concerned that without a reliable source backing up that assertion that there's some alternative way to technically view the images using some rare process or something that makes the "only" claim inaccurate. Readers should be able to verify the claims made in the hook, and I don't see that particular part of the hook verified in the source provided. - Aoidh (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i don't have any lithophane to test this theory on, but i would assume that the images would similarly show up if the lithophane was lit from the front but viewed from behind. the different shades in the image appear to be based on the varying thickness of the material, which presumably remains the same whether the light passes through from the front or from behind, as nothing in the article makes me believe that the material is unidirectional. if chirality is an issue, one could just place a mirror behind the object to view the image properly from the front. (note that the later lithophanes that use coloured paint may show up differently, since if they are painted on the front, the colors may not show up properly when viewed from behind.) this entire paragraph is obviously original research, though.
i wouldn't give too much weight to hyperallergic's use of the word "only". it also uses the word earlier, in the phrase "only when illuminated by flame in the dark", which seems obviously untrue. dying (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
looking at the cited source, i've tagged the lead lead with an {{fv}}. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have only just seen this discussion. I am sure that the hook must be true, because I possess some Chinese and Japanese porcelain pieces myself, and I can see how that would work: it is indeed translucent only if lit from behind, but opaque if not lit from behind - and some of my porcelain is very thin. So in my opinion the problem is not that the hook is untrue, but that we have not found a citation for the hook fact. I think that if we remove "only" and "properly", the hook remains true and works well with the picture, Thus: "... that images on porcelain lithophanes display when lit from behind?" On its own the hook is not exciting, but together with that marvellous picture, it is a pointer to the glory of lithophanes. Johnbod, would you accept that? Storye book (talk) 10:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not! The whole point of a lithophane is that the image only displays properly when lit from behind. The images look dull/stupid/wierd when lit from the front, and are very hard to read. I don't have a source for that as such, but it is also very clear from the images (and the many more on Commons). Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source I will it insert so that the hook can remain. Bruxton (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for removing only has merit. The hook that Aoidh proposes is still interesting with the image. When looking at the image of the pane lit from behind it becomes obvious like WP:BLUESKY, but the hook proposed works just as well. Bruxton (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - "only" is crucial. The cows image at that link makes the point well - caption: "Here is an illustrative image of a lithophane lit from the front, left, and the same lithophane with illumination from behind to see the photographic image of two animals Monday afternoon, May 9, 2022, at the Hutchinson Public Library" - my highlight. "Only" is appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All sources mention the viewing from behind, but I don't have one that actually says the images don't read otherwise - but this point does need to be conveyed somehow. Savage, George, and Newman, Harold, An Illustrated Dictionary of Ceramics, p. 180, 1985, Thames & Hudson, ISBN 0500273804 says "intended to be viewed by transmitted light, ie , when illuminated from behind", without bothering to say the images just don't work otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or note the "correctly shewn, if viewed..." in this Victorian reference work. Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Only" is appropriate only if sources can verify that claim; the sources in the article and discussed so far do not verify that claim. The sources do say that it displays properly when lit from behind, but none say that it's the only way. The hook can't make a claim that isn't found in a reliable source. An August 2022 study found that In general, participants who were blind or blindfolded used tactile sensing to accurately interpret all five lithophanes so you don't even need to see it at all in order for the lithophane to be displayed properly to an individual. Without a source being unambiguous that backlit is the only way, the hook shouldn't say that it is. As it stands the hook as written fails verification, and also taking the other comments in this discussion into account I'm going to go ahead and change "only" to "will"; if sources can be provided that verify that this is the only way, then reverting it back to "only" can be addressed, but pictures on Commons for example only show that they are visible when backlit, they don't and can't show that this is the only possible way for them to be viewed as intended. - Aoidh (talk) 01:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the hook fails verification. I think we all know very well that it is correct, and if you think that we don't have sources perhaps you could explain why the two sources I've mentioned here are worded the way they are. You asked at the beginning of the section "I don't know if maybe I'm being too nitpicky..." - I think the answer to that would be yes. You say "pictures on Commons for example only show that they are visible when backlit, they don't and can't show that this is the only possible way for them to be viewed as intended", which completely ignores the three pairs of images in the article and many more on Commons showing the same lithophane lit both ways - one displaying "properly" and the other, without backlighting, manifestly not. As to the source you've introduced, please note 2 things:
1) The effect it claims for blind people do not relate to the sort of lithophane covered in the article at all - they are some sort of braille graphics, not images (in the sense of pictures) at all, & I think they have misappropriated the term. They say "Here, we report that graphical data can be three-dimensionally printed into tactile graphics that glow with video-like resolution via the lithophane effect. Lithophane forms of gel electropherograms, micrographs, electronic and mass spectra, and textbook illustrations could be interpreted by touch or eyesight at ≥79% accuracy (n = 360). The lithophane data format enables universal visualization of data by people regardless of their level of eyesight." If, as many museums do, you want blind people to appreciate images you give them a relief or a sculpture to feel.
2) Their description of old-time lithophanes is helpful: "A lithophane is a thin, translucent engraving [er, no dude, it isn't an engraving in any sense], typically <2 mm in thickness (Fig. 1). The surface appears opaque in ambient light or “front” light (Fig. 1A). However, the lithophane glows like a digital image when held in front of any light source (e.g., back lit by a ceiling light in Fig. 1B and sunlight in Fig. 1C)." That sounds like "lithophanes only display properly when lit from behind" to me. Johnbod (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that by adding the word "only", the hook is making a claim that is not verified by a single reliable source. You're conflating "it's displayed when backlit" with "it's only displayed when backlit" and that is WP:OR. The sources in no way make the claim that this is the only way to achieve this. That X happens when Y (which the sources say) does not mean that X is the only way to achieve Y (which the sources do not say). That you don't consider the tactile lithophane study a "true lithophane" is not up to you, and directly contradicts your claim that it being backlit is the only way for it to properly display. There is also software that displays the lithophane's true image, so your hook is factually inaccurate in multiple ways as written. When approving the queue the banner at the top says clearly that "The hooks below have been approved by an administrator". I have not and do not approve the hook as written because it fails basic verification. @Johnbod: There are three solutions, and whichever one you agree to is fine with me, but we can either (1) find a source that unambiguously and directly verifies your "only" wording, (2) reword the hook to make it reflect what the sources provided so far actually say, or (3) I can pull the hook out of that queue and replace it with something approved, and it can be discussed further and added to a new prep set if appropriate. If option 1 is not feasible (which seems to be the case), let me know which of the other two options you'd prefer, but I'm not putting my name on approving a hook that fails verification in this way. Given the discussion so far, I suspect you'd rather not have the hook reworded, so I'm inclined to pull the hook from Queue 7 and remove it from the approved queue because as written it fails verification which is not a small issue, that way it can be discussed and a solution worked out without a countdown looming over it. I would much rather just replace the problematic and unsourced "only" with "will", however. - Aoidh (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I completely disagree about the sources, but of those three choices I will take the third, and think of a new hook, which make take some time, as really the ONLY interesting thing about lithophanes is their odd way of displaying, which I think we all understand perfectly well. Unimpressed. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually after thinking about it, maybe I'm wrong but it seems unfair and inappropriate to make a change that the editor that disagrees with the change can't revert, so I've self-reverted for now. @BorgQueen and RoySmith: would one of you mind weighing in here and let me know the best way to address this? I want the hook to pass close scrutiny, but I also want to make sure it's done appropriately. - Aoidh (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh I haven't been following this whole thread (and there's people who are better versed in DYK rules than I am), but I'll take a shot. I see two different issues here. One is which version of the hook is better. On that, I'd say the one that includes "only" is clearly the winner.
The other is how much power does the nominator have to veto hook changes? This seems to be a question which has never been answered in a fully satisfactory way. My take on it is, "The nominator doesn't have absolute control, but we generally defer to them unless there's a strong reason not to." There's been some protracted fights about what makes a good hook, with nominators and reviewers defending opposing positions for months. That's a bad scene. I think your self-revert was a good move. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record; I'm with User:Aoidh on this. No verification means no main page exposure. Schwede66 06:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am as well. To answer @RoySmith's question, we let the nominator veto any change in deference to the fact that they can withdraw the nomination entirely at any time. But if they can't come up with a viable alternative, the nomination closes, so most don't do that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would people feel about ALT1: ... that images on porcelain lithophanes are intended to be viewed when lit from behind? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no issue with that hook, since it's verifiable, accurate, and still interesting. - Aoidh (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's much weaker, but possible. Perhaps Aoidh could explain how this differs from the previous one, except in being more vague and weaselly? Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone explain to me how Lithophane is even eligible? It ran on DYK in Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/May (under 19 May 2008). I thought articles were only allowed one DYK. The fact that the versions that ran have been deleted as likely copyvio should be irrelevant to that. And the nomination lists it as a 5x expansion but again, that's only if you fail to compare against the likely-copyvio-deleted versions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein: I was wondering the same myself – I assumed this was a DC rewrite, but I didn't see a talk page template for DYK and didn't think to look further than that. This is currently technically ineligible under DYK rules, but if DYK wants to carve out exemptions for recreated Coldwell/Hathorn articles, that's definitely something it can do. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was unaware it had run before, because the article had been deleted, and the deleter refused to let me see the old one. The new article is completely different, and if an exemption needs carving out, I think we should do that. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I wasn't aware it had already run on DYK, but per the above discussion I've pulled the hook from the queue and reopened the nom discussion. I have no opinion on its eligibility but I did note that concern on the nomination page. - Aoidh (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm strongly in favor of changing the rules to allow articles to re-run as DYK if the articles in question have been deleted as copyvios, whether DC, Hathorn, or some other user-- they shouldn't have been run in the first place, and since the article has been deleted because the text was copyvio it will by definition have to be a new article from the ground-up. I think the intent behind no DYK re-runs doesn't apply here. Besides, there was no consensus several months ago about allowing the re-running of any dyk after a certain time span, so it doesn't seem there would be a strong consensus against this change. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Theleekycauldron and Eddie891: as noted, there was no consensus to allow re-runs. That means this re-run should also not be allowed. The fact that it was deleted and rewritten is irrelevant. Either allow re-runs or don't, this halfway house is not fair on other editors who put good work into articles.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru: While I agree that there was no consensus in the discussion, I disagree with the rest of your point-- it's entirely relevant that the article was deleted as a copyvio because it shouldn't have been run on DYK in the first place, and its being deleted means the rewritten article is an entirely new article, though it is on the same topic. I am also not sure how this is a 'halfway house'. It doesn't penalize people who do other good work (more than any other dyk criteria), but rewards people who rewrite articles that have been deleted as copyvio, something that we should be encouraging. It's also worth noting that this discussion has been continued below at #Follow-up question on DYK re-eligibility, where all participants seem to share this view. Though it is admittedly not a formal RFC, it is not an insignificant group either. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean, "it shouldn't have run in the first place"? It did run in the first place. It has been featured on the main page. The rules are clear, no repeat DYKs are allowed. If you want to change that, then file an RFC to do so.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be "clear" to you that that's what the rules mean, but when you have people below (in this case, CMD) explicitly interpreting them as meaning something else My supposition is that if it is a new article, ipso facto its DYK cannot be a rerun, it is certainly not "clear" to everyone. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But your point is taken that there is (no longer) unanimous agreement on this point. RFC opened. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid that I'm with Amakuru on this one. Either we allow reruns or we don't. As for ... rewards people who rewrite articles that have been deleted as copyvio, something that we should be encouraging -- well, then we should be rewarding and encouraging those work on many problematic old DYK articles too, and believe me, there are a lot of terrible DYKs if you go back to pre-2010 or so. Yet we refuse to rerun them even if they get improved to the GA status, only because they have run just once, more than 10 years ago. BorgQueen (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7: David DeJulius (nom)

  • @TonyTheTiger, Lanternofdiogenes, and BennyOnTheLoose: (also Bruxton but I don't want to keep pinging you) The hook says "... that David DeJulius donates his student athlete compensation from jersey proceeds to provide books to inner city youth?" but the source only says he made an announcement that he would do this; neither the source nor the article say he does or has done this, only that he intends to. Has this changed since the October 2022 announcement, or should the hook be reworded to reflect that it's a future intention and not something that's already happened? - Aoidh (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
David DeJulius made this pledge in October 2022. There is no RS follow up. I can only find one March 7 2023 source which reiterates the pledge. I think we should look for a new hook or modify the hook,
The natural next question a reader might ask is, did he donate the proceeds? I will see what others think. Bruxton (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being remiss in the original review. I think ALT1 is fine; I suspect it may be difficult to find an independent, reliable source to confirm that any donation has been made. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I started to add a comma so that it read that in 2022, David DeJulius pledged but decided against it since the MOS doesn't seem to specify, and from what I'm seeing with and without a comma are fine in American English. I'm fine if someone wants to come behind me and change that for whatever reason as appropriate. - Aoidh (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both are fine. I'd keep the comma out for consistency with another hook in that queue (or change both). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where do we get to his retraction. I see the pledge and the reiteration of the pledge.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I misread what "but decided against it" meant. I thought that was part of an alternate hook.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: You would have to get an administrator to move the article (if needed) because it is in a queue. Bruxton (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen: Since you handled Queue 1, would you have any objection to swapping David DeJulius from Queue 7 with one of the hooks in Queue 1? If you didn't have an issue with it I thought it would make sense to swap it with Justin Schultz since they're both North American sports bios. - Aoidh (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh No problem at all. BorgQueen (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a sensible swap.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Aoidh (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh, well done! While you're at it, could you please double-check the hooks in Q1? Just in case. BorgQueen (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, I'll take a look here in a little while (kids just got home). - Aoidh (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen: Checked and Queue 1 is good to go. Had a small hiccup with Parkville, Colorado's hook because the source verifying the information used "Capitol" instead of "Capital" so I didn't see it initially when I used Ctrl+F, but it and all the other articles and their hooks check out. - Aoidh (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks! BorgQueen (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moving un-approved nominations out of /Approved

As discussed about a week ago, I've got most of the work done to find nominations which are in WP:DYKNA, but are no longer approved. You can see a list at https://dyk-tools.toolforge.org/unapproved. Warning: it takes the better part of a minute to run, so be patient. Please take a look and let me know if you see any issues with nominations that I've mis-identified, or ones that I've missed. The one I see that I'm not sure about is Template:Did you know nominations/Jen Zee, which @Bruxton marked as "on hold". I guess that counts as being unapproved? Assuming people are good with this, I'll package it up as a bot that actually does the move and once again bravely wade into the WP:BRFA waters.

@Wugapodes Alternatively, if you'd rather make this part of wugbot, I'll be happy to let you run with it. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Zee is at AfD at the moment. Waiting for the end. Bruxton (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith I like this very much, as it feels like the actual number of Approved hooks is always overstated (unless we have exceeded the transclusion threshold), and the un-Approved ones clutter DYKNA. (Just trying to think of every possible scenario: Is it possible that automatically sending temporarily unapproved hooks from DYKNA back to DYKN will cause DYKN to overflow more quickly and break transclusion there?) Cielquiparle (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Q3 March24a

Template:Did you know nominations/Powis Castle

  • ... that Elisabeth Whittle, a garden historian, considers the gardens at Powis Castle (pictured) to be the most important and magnificent in Wales?

@KJP1 @Onegreatjoke @Paul2520

This hook contains the name of a person with no article. I definitely believe that that sometimes it's a good choice, like when we included the name of the kid for the hook about the photograph Hair Like Mine. But in this case, why do we care what some apparently non-notable person even thinks about it in the first place? I don't see that it was discussed. Can we find a different ALT? Valereee (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee - I had nothing to do with the nomination but, for information, Elisabeth Whittle is a published author on garden history, was for over 20 years Cadw's Inspector of Historic Parks, Gardens and Landscapes, and is now the president of the Welsh Historic Gardens Trust.[1] I've done that article, could it be weaved in, e.g. "... that Elisabeth Whittle, president of the Welsh Historic Gardens Trust, considers the gardens at Powis..." KJP1 (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would improve it, certainly...do you think it's possible we could put at least a stub together on her in the next couple days? That would be even better, if she's actually notable. Valereee (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1, oops, sorry, hadn't seen the ping. Valereee (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee - No apology necessary! I think she's notable, as a published academic, and for her governmental/quasi-governmental roles, but others may disagree. The problem with a stub is that she has virtually no on-line presence, beyond the one I've given and her LinkedIn page. But I could give it a go. KJP1 (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1, yeah, I looked too. It's thin. FWIW, if any two of her books are notable, that's a very strong argument that she is, too. Valereee (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I might try a stub anyways, but for now, would "... Cadw considers Powis Castle has the "finest surviving baroque garden terraces in the United Kingdom", do?[1] KJP1 (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Totally! Unless OGJ or P2520 has an objection, we can swap that out! I actually like it better -- baroque is much more interesting than important and magnificent! Valereee (talk) 12:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, if you also want a picture, Commons has some good images of the terraces, which are very lovely! KJP1 (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would need to be one that is both 1. used in the article and 2. clear at size (140x140 if square, it gets adjusted for non square images) This one is probably the best candidate, does show the terraces, but I'm not sure it's a great illustration of a 'baroque terrace'? Valereee (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice, but there are others. We could put any one we liked into the article. This perhaps? They are not easy to "get" for amateurs. KJP1 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe with a tighter crop?
Valereee (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly started a Draft:Elisabeth Whittle but I am not yet sure she is notable. Maybe someone has access to other RS? Bruxton (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a great deal out there that I could find, I added a little. It's a bit thin but actually just squeaks over 1,500 characters - Dumelow (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Grand job! I think we could make this one stick. KJP1 (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to move it to main, we can give it a try...the risk is that it gets AfD'd before or during main page appearance. Pinging @DYK admins: for opinions. Valereee (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I moved it to main, some other editors worked on t and we probably have WP:BASIC. Bruxton (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cadw. "Powis Castle (PGW(Po)35(POW))". National Historic Assets of Wales. Retrieved 6 February 2023.

no no

I was just in the supplementary guide and noticed slang that we should consider rewording: DYKSG J1. it's a no-no to promote a hook you wrote Bruxton (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see a problem with it... BorgQueen (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thought is we should probably avoid using colloquial language. We do not allow it in hooks or articles. We have to remember that these rules are also read by people who speak English as a second language. Bruxton (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, English is a second language for me. BorgQueen (talk) 18:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was reviewing this after our discussion on your talk page. Bruxton (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So...? I don't see how it can be confusing to non-native English speakers. If anything, it conveys the intended meaning pretty well. BorgQueen (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, @Bruxton, I wasn't promoting a hook I wrote, if that's what you're trying to imply. What I was doing was entirely something else. BorgQueen (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not implying anything. I was reading about promoting and came across this slang. I understood exactly what we were discussing on your talk page. Bruxton (talk) 19:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm relieved to hear that. Anyway, I don't think no-no is particularly obscure or gibberish. I'm a non-native English speaker myself and I don't see how it could confuse anyone except perhaps some could interpret it as a double negative, but then I still think it's a bit of stretch. BorgQueen (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If people are really concerned, do a link to [2], but I think that's probably excessive. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those of us ESLers who might get confused by "no-no" should not do any Main Page work. —Kusma (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Lol. BorgQueen (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I figure if we're gonna have a tangled mess of shifting guidelines, we might as well make them human-readable – but most of it's not set by consensus, rewrite it how ya want. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually surprised as I thought my suggestion was being helpful. To simply state it professionally or businesslike seemed logical, practical and accessible. Now I am beating a dead horse. Bruxton (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dead horse? The supplementary guidelines to DYK will never die. CMD (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a BOLD change, as there doesn't seem to be any reason not to make the statement less twee. Anyone should feel free to revert if you prefer tweeness. :D Valereee (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that if it's going to change, it needed to be more definitive—to me, "no no" means "don't do", not "avoid doing", which allows considerable leeway. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up question on DYK re-eligibility

Per an above discussion, should DYK articles that have since been deleted for copyright reasons (particularly re: Hathorn and Coldwell articles) be eligible for a rerun if they are created again? There was no consensus on whether DYKs should be rerun at the last RfC, and this could incentivize users to help work through an agonizing backlog of these articles – on the flip side, we have been pretty anti-reruns in the past. Thoughts welcome. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @David Eppstein, Johnbod, Eddie891, and Aoidh, as participants in the previous discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong opinion on way or the other, but if DYK eligibility incentivizes work on recreating these articles then that's certainly not a bad thing. I do think that with this copyvio/recreation situation there's a difference between renominating an article originally that ran on DYK in 2008 to one that ran in 2022 or something. - Aoidh (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense to me. Just stipulate a time period, like five years. If it ran as a DYK on the main page within the last 2-3 years, it certainly does not deserve to run again, because the DYK review process really should have caught the copyvio in the first place. We shouldn't be rewarding sloppy reviews. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand who is being 'rewarded' for their sloppy review in this scenario, besides the person who puts the time and effort into rewriting the article, who, in my mind should be rewarded. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for the fixers being rewarded. I guess it's just the QPQ reviewers who get away with a hand wave as to the copyvio yes/no question. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is unfortunate. But I think they're getting away with it regardless of whether the article runs again or not Eddie891 Talk Work 12:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes-- per my comment above. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a rule saying that copyvios are an exception to the amount of existing material to consider for 5x expansion, so if an article ran on DYK before but the article turned out to be a copyvio, I don't think that should be a hindrance to the article running again. It's a very limited exception and I don't think it would happen very often, so I don't see how still enforcing the "no re-runs around" thing would be a net benefit in this case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because of Coldwell and Hathorn, we have hundreds of articles this could apply to, if people get around to it – poke around in the 2010 archives, you'll see it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The DYK of 2010 is different from the DYK of 2023, and those runs were so long ago I very much doubt people even remember that they ran on DYK at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron I know about Coldwell, but who is Hathorn? Hathorn is a user with 0 edits. There must be some interesting story about that. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Billy Hathorn Eddie891 Talk Work 01:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes-- per my comment in the other discussion, & comments above. Thanks for starting this discussion, theleekycauldron Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have a general guideline on deleted articles? Creating a new article at the same title feels like Theseus buying an entirely new ship, and I'm not sure there's much harm in this new ship getting a DYK. Don't think gaming through AfDs is a concern we need to worry about. CMD (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chipmunkdavis: I think standard practice is that recreated articles do count as new, it's just that reruns are an entirely separate issue. Reruns also prevent, for instance, running an article from new and running it again from GA. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Case in point, Minori Suzuki. When I first created it, I nominated it for DYK, but the nomination failed because the article was deleted. Over a year later, when the article was recreated, I nominated it for DYK again, and this time it passed and run. So you're right that if recreated articles still count as new articles for the purpose of DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 when I asked in 2021 (linked below) If an article that was featured in the dyk section was deleted, is a recreation eligible for DYK again or not?, you responded that (with a few exceptions) articles previously featured on DYK cannot run again, so I would disagree with your point that they definitely do count as new articles, and think it worth clarifying this exception, if we want to make it. The difference with your example here is that Suzuki never ran on the MP at its first nomination Eddie891 Talk Work 10:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not making it clear, but I was referring to Leeky's standard practice is that recreated articles do count as new quote, as opposed to deleted articles that ran being allowed to run again after recreation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My supposition is that if it is a new article, ipso facto its DYK cannot be a rerun. CMD (talk) 05:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you here, but I think this is something worth codifying. For instance, when I asked in 2021, the response was that recreated articles could not run again, period. Eddie891 Talk Work 10:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Allowing re-created articles that already appeared on DYK once before being deleted to rerun on DYK again, almost creates a perverse incentive to seek deletion for articles that one considers sub-standard, if you are desperate to re-run a DYK. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cielquiparle, The exception we are talking about here is specifically for articles deleted as copyvio, most of which will have already been deleted by the point they are rewritten Eddie891 Talk Work 10:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the exception is for all deletions, good luck trying to get an article deleted because it is of low quality. It's a nonexistent incentive, whether or not its perverse. CMD (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the case that the original article was deleted for copyright violation and it's a new, copyvio free article, then it should be allowed to run. Notwithstanding that the copyvio shouldn't have run in the first place, this is consistent with other DYK rules e.g. on the 5x expansion calculations, that have specific exceptions for copyvios. For other deleted articles that are re-created, this is less clear, but correcting copyvios with new articles should be encouraged, not discouraged, at DYK. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think if it's going to be allowed, we should have the WMF lawyers look at the policy, as running the DYK for a second time could be interpreted as a clear admission of prior copyright violation, where the actual verdict may have been ambiguous. (Maybe it could be addressed sufficiently with careful wording.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, why not just allow any previously deleted article that has been newly recreated to re-run at DYK? There could be many reasons this is OK (e.g. because of current events), and it would stop generating a huge digital trail of "previous copyvio yes/no". A newly re-created article is a newly created article, regardless of what happened during its prior life. Start over, start fresh. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support allowing articles deleted for copyvio and then recreated without infringement to run at DYK a second time. Many of Coldwell's DYKs were of questionable accuracy or outright fabrications, and we should give these articles a chance to have proper hooks. I'd even support allowing articles stubbified to remove copyvio and then expanded again to be allowed another DYK run. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings The DYK hooks themselves were of questionable accuracy or outright fabrications, or the articles contained accuracy problems and fabrications? (Not good either way, just trying to understand.) Cielquiparle (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cielquiparle: Both, unfortunately. Give Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/February 2023 a read (including archive 1) for some of our damage assessments. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings Thanks so much for the link. I still need to read it more carefully, but it's starting to dawn on me why there is currently a DYK nomination at WP:DYKN that says, As long as the hooks are duly cited, and other criteria is met, and the rest isn't complete BS, that is what DYK is for. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we're talking about re-running DYKs, I've always been curious about why Dorothy Olsen ran twice (26 August 2019 and 30 September 2019). Anybody know what happened there? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: I believe this would be the reason – your hook was recycled for Main Page balance, extending the length of the set. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith, Cartographers (board game) ran twice too: Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2022/January#4_January_2022 and Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2023/January#4_January_2023, for the same reason. Some articles just get lucky! BorgQueen (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, sometimes if a hook gets pulled because of an issue raised at ERRORs, admins will cycle one in from the year before Eddie891 Talk Work 21:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which the archives don't really keep track of, so I'd discourage it... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is really different whether it is for main page balance or swapping a hook in, is there? Fundamentally the hooks are being added for MP balance in both circumstances. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, no, for sure, I'm discouraging both – in my opinion, it's really not catastrophic to leave a set at 7 hooks, especially when DYK already over-extends OTD... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering all the disagreements and lack of consensus on whether or not re-runs on DYK should be allowed, I'm staring to wonder if we shouldn't have a strong rule allowing or forbidding them and just evaluate them on a case-to-case basis, usually via discussion here at WT:DYK (not the nomination page where there may not be many eyes). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I might be missing something, but who in this discussion disagrees with permitting re running recreations of articles deleted as copyvios? Eddie891 Talk Work 02:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I know, there doesn't seem to be anyone yet explicitly disagreeing with the idea (except maybe Cielquiparle in some specific case mentioned above), but I was thinking more of a general sense. After all, in the previous RfC, there was consensus to allow former TFA/ITN/OTD entries to run on DYK after at least a year after their appearance, but no consensus about former DYK articles. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, no other specific opposition I can see. I think Cielquiparle's objection is highly remote, & I don't think many recreations will appear here at all. Lithophane is once again running at c. 70 views a day btw. Few Coldwell articles got anything like that, & I doubt that many will ever be recreated, Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my position in the end is that any deleted article that is re-created should be treated as "new" for DYK eligibility purposes, and that the specific reason behind the initial deletion should be irrelevant. (It could still be rejected on other grounds, as with any other DYK.) Cielquiparle (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with that. I would also opine that we actually have a standing consensus against rerunning the same article [ie. not a deleted article] on DYK, which is different from allowing former TFA/ITN/OTD articles to run. CMD (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Coli Saco

@Bruxton and Oltrepier: I'm a little concerned that this BLP hook is about the person's COVID-19 history. Are we OK featuring it on Main Page? I was about to promote it yesterday and decided to discuss first, just to be sure. BorgQueen (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked at the nom template for additional ALTs, to give promoters some options, although as I said at BQ's talk, I can understand why Oltrepier came up with this one, as it does seem like the only thing in the article that would be interesting to someone who wasn't particularly interested in football. Valereee (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen Thank you for mentioning me in this discussion.
I guarantee that I submitted this nomination with good intentions, but indeed, as @Valereee pointed out, that event is the only really notable thing about Saco...
I do have an idea to make that work, though, and I'll discuss it at the nom template right now! Oltrepier (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Oltrepier, I don't think anyone thought there were any bad intentions on your part! Valereee (talk) 10:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee Sorry, my reply had a grumpier tone than I originally intended...
No worries, anyway! : D Oltrepier (talk) 10:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think you sounded grumpy. I just wanted to make sure it was clear that concerns about the hook being too negative for the main page weren't a comment on your choice of that hook. It's the only one I saw, too. Valereee (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Main page Pete Sutherland

The image renders well, thanks to RoySmith for cleaning it up. Nomination Bruxton (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just hope nobody who really cares about these things notices that the image in the hook isn't actually in the article ;-) -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a zoom/crop/tone adjust and it is excellent. Bruxton (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've always thought that cropping images so that they look better on the MP should be encouraged. No rule broken, AFAIC. Schwede66 01:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and when someone is deceased I often add a fair use image. WP suffers from a lack of images. Bruxton (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update to rules regarding image crops

Per the discussion immediately above, I have boldly updated WP:DYKIMG to explicitly allow crops if needed to improve image quality at small size (diff). Feel free to revert if you disagree. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's fine. Here and there in the past, I've cropped images in queue, either because it was requested here at talk, or because it improves how or what the public sees. — Maile (talk) 03:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Current DYK eligibility question

Could someone please comment on whether The Mafeje Affair actually is eligible for DYK (given that it was created from content forked from another relatively new article by the same editor)?

Template:Did you know nominations/The Mafeje Affair

Please comment directly inside the nomination template. Thanks. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I never got back to the original ping. As I posted there, I'm afraid it isn't eligible; according to the reviewer, over half of the article was copied in February from an article that had the material since late December. The copied material would need to be expanded fivefold, which isn't the case here and isn't feasible. It could be renominated should it become a GA. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we say "Template"?

In Template talk:Did you know and Template talk:Did you know/Approved, why do we explicitly include the "Template:" namespace on transclusions? We do:

{{Template:Did you know nominations/Alchymic Quartet}}

when

{{Did you know nominations/Alchymic Quartet}}

would do exactly the same thing, since "Template" is the default namespace for transclusions? Is there some interesting historical reason, or did somebody just do the first one that way by accident and everybody's been cargo culting ever since? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's as simple as taking the full name at the top of the nomination page, copying it, and putting it between braces for some. The full name is also when pasting into the Wikipedia search box, since it finds the page immediately that way. It's been both ways (with and without "Template") over the years, and I'd vaguely noticed that after a long time out of favor, "Template" had started appearing more frequently. I think it's because the automated processes use it when creating the transclusions; back when the typical placement was manual, the example within the instructions was without the "Template:" in front. (You do have to include Template when posting on this page if you want the wikilink to work.) BlueMoonset (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been around for long enough that I did most of my nominations the manual way. As "Template" is superfluous between curly brackets, I leave it off whenever I do something manual with nominations. Having the "Template" part of the transclusion doesn't cause any problems, however, and hence it's inconsequential to include it. Schwede66 01:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It only caught my attention as I started writing code to parse the nomination lists. Being able to accept either style is just one more little detail. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith Consider my mind blown. I had no idea it would work without the prefix. Do all templates work that way? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Per Help:Transclusion, If the template's page name does not begin with a namespace, it is assumed to be in the Template namespace. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Writing the pagename including Template: makes some sense as a preparation for a move to Wikipedia: namespace (was a reasonably popular idea here a while ago but lost steam). —Kusma (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to WP makes sense to me. The morass of namespaces our infrastructure lives in (Template talk???) is bewildering. Probably more effort than it's worth at this point, however. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst you don't need this, you can transclude any item, which is probably why we include the full title. {{:World Snooker Championship}} would transclude an article for example. You can use this to transclude items from userspace too (just don't do it into mainspace). Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think BlueMoonset is right, when I copy a Wikipedia page title I do it by double clicking. By default that highlights the whole thing, including "Template:". CMD (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4 (March 24)

-- RoySmith (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Yuan" is more or less generic for "currency" in Chinese, you can say "3 yuan" and mean either 3 Hong Kong dollars, 3 Euros, 3 renminbi, ... Usually the currency is clear from context. Kind of like a lot of currencies are just called "dollars" in English. —Kusma (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources and article say "yuan", that's what the hook should say. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In modern English-language sources (like those cited in the article), unqualified "yuan" means renminbi. The other currencies used in Chinese-speaking areas are usually referred to by other names in English ("dollar" or "pataca"). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In English, yes, there is no doubt that yuan=renminbi. —Kusma (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the hook to read "yuan" to match the usage in the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As for the SZA hook, the relevant source is actually at the end of the paragraph: "... the only song that features the stern but kind voice of Norma, SZA’s late grandmother who we became so familiar with through CTRL. (...) one can’t help but feel Norma’s presence linger on the track as someone to which SZA is also directing and expressing her intense devotion. When her grandmother passed in 2020, the event, SZA said, sent her into a deep, deep depression." BorgQueen (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source should be at the end of the sentence, per DYK requirements. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. BorgQueen (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. On a side note, SZA and CTRL showed up in a crossword puzzle the other day, and had me totally stumped because I had never heard of either of them. Had I only reviewed this nom a few days earlier :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SZA is certainly an interesting name. At first I wasn't even sure how to pronounce it. BorgQueen (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've created a new list of all 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 17. We have a total of 212 nominations, of which 79 have been approved, a gap of 133 nominations that has increased by 11 in the eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

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) 04:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Myat Phaya Gyi

I did the review and it solely lacked a QPQ but just realized the nominator is blocked for socking issues. What should be done? --Mhhossein talk 07:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a decent article, and in line at least with the English sources it cites. Somehow the article lacks "The plaque on her tomb beside her father’s memorial was fixed upside down as her relatives could not read Burmese", which could support another great DYK hook. I say we run it through, it's an interesting article that it would be a shame to drop. CMD (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lithophane - Nom

I do not know where we stand with the nomination. I see a new hook, but was there any determination on the eligibility? Bruxton (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the comments in #Queue 7: Nitpicking Edition and #Follow-up question on DYK re-eligibility, I'd say there's clear consensus that the article is eligible. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, three separate discussions had me confused. Bruxton (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Saint John's Island

Hey, @Paul2520 and @Cielquiparle, this is from ten days ago, just saw it while paging through the stats page, but for future reference, the review was marked as NA for image, and I don't think this image was clear at scale. You have to click on the image to see it full-size to even see the quarantine station we've described as being pictured, and even at full size it's a few tiny building with no detail. At scale, you could barely even tell there was an island in the image. Valereee (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee What does that mean, "NA for image"? I'm not seeing where it was "marked"? (On the day it ran, we received feedback that "(pictured)" appeared in the wrong place, but that was fixed.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle, I don't know if you use a review template, but there are lines that ask about each aspect of review. For the pic it asks "picfree=" and this was marked NA, which is what you are supposed to insert if there is no suggested image. If there is a pic, you mark y, and it asks you a few more questions about the pic -- like whether it's clear at at scale and used in the article. If you open the edit box you'll see what I'm talking about. Valereee (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what it renders, look at the code.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Thanks for this, Rabbitson2001! paul2520 💬 02:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee and Cielquiparle: I'm baffled how this happened! I follow the template, and must have been distracted I guess.
Thanks for flagging. I will be cautious of this happening again! = paul2520 💬 13:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Switch back to 24-hour cycles?

It seems like we're very close to the threshold, considering there are only 69 Approved hooks with 6 Queues and 5 filled Preps? Also, April Fool's Day is coming up, so it would be great if we know exactly where to put those April 1 hooks. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to switching a little early to avoid extra work filling the last two preps. Valereee (talk) 11:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cielquiparle, I don't think we are that close to the threshold, WP:DYKNA counts 65 hooks, however the source text has 81 hooks, plus 1 special occasion. That suggests that 16 hooks have not been transcluded as they would exceed the maximum page size. TSventon (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon I think the 16 hooks might include the hooks that have been marked as problematic or rejected? Cielquiparle (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cielquiparle, I think you are right, there does not seem to be a transclusion problem at the moment. TSventon (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're at 52 approved hooks at the moment (we're definitely below 60, and switchovers should happen once we go below that number); there seem to have been a number of preps filled today, since we were at 78 a few hours after midnight. I also moved about a dozen no-longer-approved hooks back from the Approved to the Nomination page, and the latter page is now not transcluding all the nominations, probably because there are 140 nominations trying to be transcluded there, and some of them have large text review sections. I think it makes sense to go back to one set per day a few hours from now, after midnight UTC. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7 (March 26)

-- RoySmith (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good flag. Proposing instead (as on closer inspection, the article text doesn't use the word "assassinated"):
... that Abbas ibn Abi al-Futuh deposed his stepfather, and was overthrown after the murder of caliph al-Zafir?
(I think there is an issue here with ordering the murders vs. carrying them out, and the words used to describe those actions.) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "... that the vizier Abbas ibn Abi al-Futuh ordered the assassination of both his stepfather and predecessor, and of caliph al-Zafir? " Constantine ✍ 16:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea, but the sentence structure is confusing. It initially reads like "both" means "He ordered the assassination of this stepfather, and also ordered the assassination of his predecessor". -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, all right, let's get rid of 'stepfather' then? Constantine ✍ 16:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April Fool's Day

If we switch to 24-hour cycles at midnight GMT, then would the April Fool's Day set run as Queue 7? And if so, can we just build it, say, in Prep 7 and then have the whole set slotted in to Queue 7 after the fact? Cielquiparle (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton We have to put the April Fool's Day prep set somewhere. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moved Bruxton (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the April Fool's rules, but Harold H. Piffard (nom) may be appropriate, has a quirky hook. Thanks for checking, Zeete (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeete: I enjoy that hook and promoted it. I left a question in the nomination about an image caption. Bruxton (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly read the caption wrong. Nevermind. Bruxton (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will review it now. Bruxton (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For another April Fool's Day candidate, I am liking Twelves the monkey...it would probably need a different hook but if you read the article there is SO MUCH POTENTIAL. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is low hanging fruit. I reviewed it and proposed hooks. The article needs a bit more copyediting as well. Bruxton (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just reviewed another which is a possibility: The Beautiful Letdown (NOM). Bruxton (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton I was thinking of proposing a football + baseball mashup (rabbit + Castellanos). I could easily be talked out of it though as the mashup thing is very hard. I will go propose it in the newer nom. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: It is up to you, I have to leave the last of the prep to you since I reviewed the candidates. I can check out a hook that you may propose. Bruxton (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: the hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Charles III, Count of Alençon would seem to be a very good candidate for April Fool's Day. In fact, I would be far less inclined to support the "deliberately misleading" wording of those hooks if they were run on any other day. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: I may want to move the Wikipedia related quirky hook to another set, what do you think about moving it out @Cielquiparle:? Bruxton (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: I will probably leave the rest of the set to another promotor. Looks like you stopped that nomination for cause. Coming down to the wire. Bruxton (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: oh yeah I did stop it... Silly me, because I imagine the points I raised are rather trivial to fix. Would be good to revive it IMHO, unless there are better candidates for AFDay.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton Sure... The Wikipedia Covid-19 one is genuinely positive and not a joke – in fact it's a very serious topic – so I'm fine with moving it (and probably coming up with a different hook for it). On another note... Maybe we should ask the DYK admins to leave room for swapping in April Fool's Day set from Prep 7 once we're actually done...? Hopefully tomorrow? Cielquiparle (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC) 22:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am with you @Cielquiparle:. I will move that hook to another set! Bruxton (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru That April Fool's Day hook probably only makes sense to British people. But anyway I've pinged the nominator and asked if the issues you flagged can be addressed ASAP. Let's see. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edge case breaking PSHAW

Per the discussion above, @dying, I believe PSHAW doesn't like upside down. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

haha, yeah, Cielquiparle, i wasn't sure how pshaw would handle that. apologies for making you do it manually. (normally, i'd offer to help, but in this case, i'm not allowed to promote my own hook.) thankfully, i believe DYKUpdateBot simply copies everything between the comments to the main page, so hopefully there shouldn't be any issues there. dying (talk) 19:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@dying It doesn't seem to like it even when you do it manually (just tried and looked at it in Preview) – it flips the image and sends it far left for some reason. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
strange, Cielquiparle, previewing seems to work for me. are you copying both the line above and the line below the line with the {{main page image}} template? the line above begins with "<div class", and the line below is "</div>". dying (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@dying @Mandarax This was my very first time promoting a DYK hook manually, ever. Could you please check to make sure everything is ok now? Thanks in advance.
As a side note: I momentarily managed to turn three whole prep sets upside down on T:DYK/Q, but I've fixed it now. I accomplished this by using PSHAW to try to slot in a hook above the Mondrian one (because it has added a few extra slots within the tool). Cielquiparle (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh, sorry for causing such havoc, Cielquiparle! it looks like pshaw wasn't expecting the closing div tag. thanks for fixing that.
i only found one minor issue with the closing of the nomination, which i have taken the liberty to correct. (i assume fixing such technical issues isn't considered a conflict of interest, but feel free to revert me if otherwise.) my assumption is that you were emulating how recently closed nominations looked, and weren't aware that you can simply substitute the {{DYKsubpage}} template. (for future reference, the manual instructions are here, though it seems everyone ignores step 2 when closing a nomination nowadays.) the credits in the set of hooks also seemed out of order, so i have sorted them, but please revert me if that was deliberate and pshaw doesn't work properly otherwise.
anyway, everything else looks good. thanks, Cielquiparle! dying (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to promote to 7 with PSHAW, so i did so manually. I enjoy the caption on the image, so I am ok with manually promoting. Bruxton (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, Bruxton. dying (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Link to dab page in queue

In Queue 4, yuan is a disambiguation page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. —Kusma (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Letting @RoySmith know. BorgQueen (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick fix. I just noticed another issue:
In the seventh hook of Queue 6, please replace '" with {{'"}} to add a sliver of spacing between the apostrophe and quotation mark. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please check... BorgQueen (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Thanks. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to bold changes to hook currently in Queue 5

I'm a bit at odds with the bold change from then-Sistine Chapel Choir intern J.J. Wright to J.J. Wright, then a Sistine Chapel Choir intern,. The bold change, which occurred after promotion makes the hook more choppy; I strongly prefer the hook that was promoted verbatim due better flow, and I think that a better flowing hook would be able to draw more views than a very choppy hook. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the second one flows better and has the interesting part (Gregorian chant+Jazz) first. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I also feel ALT-N+1 is the winner. Agree with what Narutolovehinata5 said, plus it's a double hook that invites you to click the first proper noun and the last proper noun in the question. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I've changed it in the queue. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Letting Ravenpuff know because they made the change. Bruxton (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second one works for me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5: Panzer Dragoon II Zwei (nom)

  • I think this very confusing to read:
... that Panzer Dragoon II Zwei features visuals inspired by the work of Jean Giraud, a villain inspired by Dune's Baron Harkonnen, and a fictional language?
Is this a list of three things which inspired the visuals: 1) the work of Jean Giraud, 2) a villain inspired by Dune's Baron Harkonnen, and 3) a fictional language? Or is Jean Giraud himself a villain inspired by Baron Harkonnen? This needs some copyediting, but until I understand what it's supposed to say, I can't venture any suggestions for how to improve it.

-- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @RoySmith. I've switched the list around to read 2), 1), and 3) – which I believe eliminates the problem. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about something shorter: * ... that Panzer Dragoon II Zwei features a villain inspired by Dune, visuals inspired by Jean Giraud, and a fictional language? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copying in @Bryanrutherford0, @ProtoDrake, and @Epicgenius to weigh in. But personally, it's "Baron Harkonnen" that makes me want to click more than just Dune. If it were up to me, I would cut Jean Giraud from the hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be better to say something else, as it looks rather messy either way. Maybe change it to its short development cycle? --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like Cielquiparle's version. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up RFC: Should recreations of articles deleted as copyright violations be allowed to re-run on DYK?

Following up on #Queue 7: Nitpicking Edition and #Follow-up question on DYK re-eligibility, should an exception to DYK eligibility criterion 1c (namely "An article is ineligible for DYK if it has previously appeared on the main page as a bold link at DYK.") be added which permits articles previously featured on DYK to be re-eligible if they have been deleted as a copyright violation and recreated? It has been pointed out that discussion above does not indicate a formal consenus, and as such this RfC seeks to more formally assess whether or not there is consensus to modify the criterion. Note that this is only discussing copyright violations and recreations, not broader re-runs, which a different RFC could address. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants in the prior discussions: David Eppstein, Johnbod, Aoidh, Chipmunkdavis, Amakuru, theleekycauldron, Narutolovehinata5, Joseph2302, RoySmith, Cielquiparle. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
missed ping: Trainsandotherthings. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Yes per my reasoning above, namely: since the article has been deleted and completely rewritten in this case, it should be considered a new article and we want to be encouraging such re-writing. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, provided some time has passed and it's not the same creator. Different article, by a different author, and long enough ago that few people will remember the topic running before. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per my comments above, there should be a general understanding that all article that have been deleted were deleted, and new article are not the same article and thus cannot have a DYK rerun. Articles are not their title. CMD (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's rubbish. If the DYK is on the same topic then it's a repeat. The same would apply if an article was moved, so your "title" argument isn't what we're discussing here.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A moved article is the same article with the same history. A new article is not. CMD (talk) 01:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. This was argued at great length in the RFC earlier this year, and certainly I agree that we should be "encouraging re-writing", but that applies to any article which is 5x expanded from an earlier DYK or promoted to GA with substantial new content. But the community rejected that, and we remained with the strict rule that DYKs can not be re-run. Either we stick to that, or we revisit and allow re-runs across a wide spectrum, making it fair for all content creators. There shouldn't be niche exceptions like this.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru: Do you have a link to this RfC? I apologize if it's already been linked, I can't find a link on this talk page nor can I find the RfC itself, unless it's this one from late last year. - Aoidh (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru and Aoidh: The RfC can be found at Follow-up RfC: for articles previously featured as bolded links on the Main Page, how long should it be before they are eligible for DYK?. I do want to point out that it's incorrect to say that the community rejected the possibility of repeat DYKs: as I remark in my close, there was no consensus on the proposal. Being against niche exceptions is valid, but I would myself say that a viable compromise in a narrower field is a good way to deal with a lack of consensus on a broader question. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. If somebody re-creates an article from scratch after that article was deleted due to pervasive copyright violations in the deleted version, it would only make sense for them to be able to DYK it. Using DYK as something that serves as an encouragement to re-create articles deleted for copyright violations seems like a way to encourage people to write encyclopedic content. And, isn't that the whole point of DYK? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Amakuru. If the point was to encourage people to write encyclopedic content, we should allow reruns for those old (pre-2010), awfully written, short DYK articles too as they certainly have room for expansion and improvements. BorgQueen (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm on the fence in this one, but I think it should be done on a case-by-case basis. The example scenario being done here is a bit of an edge case and, apart from Doug's articles, are theoretically very rare, and I don't know if it would be worth it to ban them entirely considering how rare they are. On the other hand, as much as I am sympathetic towards DYK reruns, it really depends on the circumstances and I don't think we should encourage reruns too soon after their initial run. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, with the caveat that attempts to game this will be frowned upon (though it would be quite hard to game, I'd imagine). I'd also like it to be a rule that you can't use the same hook as the original DYK. I realize the impetus for this is likely the Coldwelling, and this is an egregious example where most of the DYKs he ran were garbage or outright fabrications, but unfortunately I'm certain this will come up again in the future. If someone is rewriting an article from scratch after it was deleted for copyvio, I cannot see any reason to exclude that from DYK. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was pinged, so I guess I should respond. I kind of feel that we've got enough good submissions that we don't need to be carving out exceptions to allow more, but I don't really have any strong opinion either way. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Specifically, I'd support adding something to Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines along the lines of: "D15 (copyvio recreations): As an exception to eligibility criterion 1c, articles that have been recreated after having been deleted for copyvio are eligible, even if they had run as a bold link at DYK before deletion. DYK participants are less likely to support using this exception if the last DYK run was recent or if the nominator is the same as the previous run." I don't think this is going to be a common enough exception that it'd be worth cluttering up DYKCRIT. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per my comments in the previous discussion. I don't think this will happen very often, & I don't think gaming is a risk. In the Lithophane case the "gap" would be 15 years - if it were say 2 I can understand there might be objections. It should always be said in the nom (when known - I didn't know about Lithophane, as the page was deleted) & probably brought here. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for the moment. I wasn't clear on what you were referring to ... until the names Billy Hathorn and Coldwell were mentioned. I haven't followed the Coldwell chronicles in detail, but I sure have vivid memories of Hathorn - he was unique. I see Hathron was blocked from Wikipedia in 2015, but was still active at Commons into 2019. With Billy Hathorn as an example, I probably wouldn't object if an article of his was completely re-written and nominated. We probably shouldn't dismiss a subject matter revived and done correctly ... as long as it has nothing to do with who messed up on the original. — Maile (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, why not. RoySmith makes a good point on repeats not really being needed for DYK's output, and I do hear Amakuru's point that maybe this gets a bit too much into the rules creep. For me, I think the encouragement to clean up these messes outweighs those concerns – I don't think it cheapens the value of a DYK credit to encourage more work. I'm also pretty okay with an exception not being made, but I am strongly opposed to any mandate for case-by-case handling, as that's bound to just cause unnecessary clutter. A clear guideline is more important than getting every single case right. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It doesn't matter why a past DYK article was deleted. If an article got deleted, presumably for a valid reason, and later gets recreated and resubmitted for DYK, it should be treated as a new article. I imagine this will happen very rarely, so it's not worth overengineering a complicated set of rules; nor does it make sense to enforce the "no DYK repeats" rule with such rigidity that it requires hundreds of hours of editor time wasted on verifying whether or not each and every "new" article submitted for DYK might have had a past life, not to mention the uneven playing field for non-admins and non-DYK regulars who may not be privy to such information. (Imagine you are a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, create a new article or take it to GA, then submit it to DYK, only to learn through the DYK process that it was in fact a previously deleted article that had appeared as a DYK ten years prior.) Keep the rules simple and easy to follow; don't waste editor time on unproductive "enforcement". Cielquiparle (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes if an article is deleted as a copyvio and a new article written, that article is new and meets all the new article criteria. And exceptions for copyvios are consistent with how we calculate 5x expansions on DYK. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Trainsandotherthings left me a note on my talk page about this RFC. In all honesty, I was going to go the exact route Maile66 pictured, and rewrite some of the Hathorn articles that were presumptively deleted, especially since I'm involved at CCI and I clean up a lot of this...questionable content. (Half the challenge is finding something that has RS and is clearly notable in that trainwreck of a CCI). @Narutolovehinata5: The Doug Coldwell ones in particular are the most recent. Much of the "ran at DYK" articles were created or expanded before 2020 I would say, so there's not a super large risk of one running in <3 years of its first DYK unless it's DC. Rewrites on the CCIs with massive amounts of presumptive deletions are almost always done by people not involved in the CCI, because most of the subjects are blocked as well. Sennecaster (Chat) 19:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of Matar judíos hook

Matar judíos means "killing Jews" – this is explained in the article – but can we really run it like this in the hook? Thoughts and suggestions welcome, preferably directly in the nomination template: Template:Did you know nominations/Matar judíos Cielquiparle (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I passed it over because it may be too provocative. Bruxton (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've marked it as requiring more work and/or discussion on the hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking military history fan...

...to please read the latest version of Buchanan's Station. Perhaps @Hawkeye7 or @Hog Farm could take a fresh look (as the article has changed significantly since you first looked at it), or perhaps we have another military history or American history buff in the house who could please take a look and then review/approve the DYK nom? I promise it is worth a read. Thanks in advance. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look on my lunch break. Hog Farm Talk 13:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a quick glance at the article, checking neutrality only. I am concerned at the repetition of "Indian(s)", outside the context of quotations or article titles. In many cases, that word could be replaced by "warrior" or tribal names, or something else which may be considered acceptable. There is also the phrase "Native American". As an outsider myself, I would not presume to use those terms, so could you please either change those terms in the article, or let me know your grounds for using those terms in a WP article? This is not a complaint or political activism on my part, it just looks to me as if the article gives a voice to the white pioneers only, and that the warrior tribes do not have enough of a balancing voice in this? What initially hit me in this article, was the phrase "successfully repelled" (instead of just "repelled") in the lead: That expression sounds like the voice of the white-hat pioneer hero in the old black and white films. In those films, we never heard the voice of those hundreds of incredibly skilled riders and stuntmen who rode bareback and barefoot. Those are the actors I remember. Are we re-writing history by leaving out their voices? If we at least name their nations considerately, that would be a start. Storye book (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Storye book: - I don't think there's any major concerns with "Native Americans" given that's what American schoolchildren are generally taught to use, although I'd advise against using "Indians" in articles, except for specific terms like "Indian Territory" or "Indian agent". And as to the names of the warriors, that frankly often isn't recorded in existing sources. Keep in mind the Cherokee syllabary didn't exist at the time of the battle. The sourcing is by nature going to be limited in some areas for these topics. Hog Farm Talk 16:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Storye book Regarding how to refer to Native Americans: It's very complicated and I could fill up pages, but basically there is no simple answer to any of this, nor any single term that will make everyone happy. One of the best concise explanations I have seen was written by @Kevin1776 and is available here: Talk:Tecumseh#Rewrite in progress
Regarding the wording you suggested, we even argue about the appropriateness of the term "warrior" which conjures Western stereotypes of Native Americans. (Why not just call everyone "soldier"?) That said, I would just ask that you actually sit down and take the time to read the entire article very carefully. I spent a ton of time and took great pains to try to make this a balanced article explaining the complexity of relationships between all the different actors and interests, because I wasn't entirely convinced or comfortable with the previous version. I will also try to look at it "fresh" to see if there is more than I can fix.
(Your feedback about the hook is noted. Maybe it's a good argument for throwing out that hook.)
I generally try very hard not to use the word "Indian" but in this case, there were a few instances where "Native American" was going to be an awkward substitute, and this was a complicated story involving three different tribal affiliations, and sometimes you did not know which one was where. As Kevin1776 points out, in those instances, there is a school that says to go ahead with "Natives" but I think that has plenty of potential to offend as well. Meanwhile there are also communities of Native Americans that claim "Indian" as an identity preferable to NA – e.g. Indian Country Today, etc. But I will have another look and see if there are places where I can remove it without confusing things. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict. I had written:} OK, though I'd better make clear that I wasn't asking for the names of the warriors - just the names of their nations. Presumably there was a limited number of nations involved in this bit of history? I accept that the sources are limited, but when paraphrasing we must interpret the wordage of those sources in a manner respectful to all. You say that you advise against using "Indians" as a single word, so could we please have examples of that usage removed and replaced? Thank you. (Update after edit conflict): Thank you, for your answers. You know best. Good luck. Storye book (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig

Appears to be down, as I cannot check this nomination. Bruxton (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was some routine maintenance earlier today which apparently had some unexpected consequences. Lots of tools are down. It's being discussed on IRC #wikimedia-cloud. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it looks like it just got fixed a few minutes ago. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to be back up, I got Violation Unlikely 8.3%. My question was more with the sourcing, specifically with the niche blogs given that it's a BLP (Jews in the City etc.) but am leaning toward it's probably ok...? Cielquiparle (talk) 16:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added several other references to the article before promotion. Bruxton (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton Thanks so much for doing that. I meant I was concerned from a WP:BLPSPS standpoint but I guess Jew in the City for example isn't "self published" in the sense that there's a rather large nonprofit organization with staff behind it. (So yes, technically it's a blog, and it's not exactly a news organization, but it's also not self-published in the sense of a lone ranger publishing whatever with no oversight.) Cielquiparle (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting a nomination

I can't easily see how to correct a nomination after posting. Could someone kindly look at Template:Did you know nominations/Testimonies (novel) for me, please? There should be one hook, with the source text included. I think it needs to be edited above the words "Please do not edit above this line". Many thanks. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, not sure what happened there, but I'll fix it up. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like some kind of copy-paste snafu. Not to worry, these things happen. Thanks for your submission. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are we stuck?

Prep area says: Last updated: 25 hours ago... Bruxton (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Shubinator, DYKUpdateBot appears to be down. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging the DYK admins for a manual update. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that twice already this year lol. I'll leave it to someone else... BorgQueen (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering about that. I'm happy to manually do so, but if I'm going to be the one doing it (I've obviously never done it before) I'd need the "how to" broken down barney style for me. - Aoidh (talk) 02:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh It's the "Manually posting the new update (if the bot is down)" section at the bottom of every queue template. Every time I've looked at it, I've run away screaming in the other direction. Have fun! -- RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Please feel free to double-check what I did, but I followed the instructions exactly and everything should be handled now. - Aoidh (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're a better man than I -- RoySmith (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being Johnny on the spot. @Aoidh: Bruxton (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both bots are back online :) From the logs, both were unable to access Wikipedia's API (unclear if the issue was on the bot side, with Toolserver, or with Wikipedia), and after 22 minutes of retries, both bots gave up. Thanks BlueMoonset for the talk page ping, and Aoidh for the manual update. Overall the manual update looks solid! It was missing the article talk page credits though (when updating manually, it's the "tag" button on the credit template), I've gone ahead and issued the article talk page credits by script. Everything should be back to normal :) Shubinator (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7 April Fool's Day edition

We now have a complete April Fool's Day set in Prep 7. (Famous last words.) Thanks to everyone who provided hooks. Quite frankly, I was surprised we didn't have more hooks "banked" for this year – but we did what we could and all the suggestions were very helpful. Hopefully if it looks ok, it can get promoted to Queue 7 after midnight? Cielquiparle (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So it needs to go where Queue 7 currently sits, correct? That's what I'm seeing on Template:Did you know/Queue#Local update times. What's the best way to shuffle around those Queues, because the April Fool's Day set needs to replace what's currently in Queue 7. I could bump everything down by one queue so that what's currently at Queue 7 would go to Queue 1, and 1 to 2 and so on. Is that the best way to handle that? The only issue I see is that every set would have to be shifted down one, even the preps. There's got to be a better way to do that? - Aoidh (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh I was thinking you wait until midnight (1 am BST) until Queue 5 is free, then move the current Queue 7 to Queue 5, and slot in Prep 7 to Queue 7. Of course, I'm not an admin, but that's what I would do if I had a fox, a chicken, and a bag of grain. (Or, does it not actually work that way, and you can only shift things by one?) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: I don't know, because if I just move 7 to 5, we'd have a Queue 5 and also a Prep 5, and I'm not sure if that would mess things up (like with PSHAW for example); up to this point every time I've moved a prep to queue it's been the prep number to the corresponding queue number. I'm sure I'm overthinking this and there's an easier way to do it though. Maybe I could just shift Queue 7 to 5, and then Prep 5 to 3 or something I'm not sure. - Aoidh (talk) 08:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh Or simply drop Queue 7 to Prep 3? Pinging @BorgQueen for input. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1147192113"