Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 171

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 165 ← Archive 169 Archive 170 Archive 171 Archive 172 Archive 173 → Archive 175

Prep 1:Spaceflight

  • ... that the 3 November 1966 test flight of a Gemini B spacecraft for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory project (pictured) was the first time an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice?
@Hawkeye7:@Gulbenk:@SL93:
Sorry, I find the hook confusing. Did the test flight include two flights? Also, if it was the first time, why does it say had flown instead of flew? Yoninah (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
"Had flown" lets the reader that two flights were involved; the ambiguity you are referencing to would only be there if it had said "flew". To use "flew" we would have to say "flew in space a second time". But while grammatically correct, it would construct a weird first time/second time dichotomy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, so should the beginning of the hook say test flights? Yoninah (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Didn't the spacecraft in question (as in the vessel itself) fly in space once before its MOL test? I think that is supposed to be the intent of the hook but the wording doesn't really make this clear since the wording is rather ambiguous (it's not clear that it was simply referring to a specific vessel as opposed to the Gemini in general). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The spacecraft flew in space on the Gemini 2 mission on 19 January 1965, and again on OPS 0855 on 3 November 1966. It was the first time that an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice, albeit uncrewed both times. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
On the topic of this DYK item, the caption for the image accompanying this hook currently reads Titan IIIC rocket lifts off to test a Gemini B spacecraft as part of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program. This seems too prolix for a caption meant to be brief, especially considering the space constraints associated with a minuscule image and the space available in the DYK section. I suggest rewording this to something like "Manned Orbiting Laboratory Gemini B test launch" – this keeps the essential details without repeating too much of the hook; the type of rocket is tangential information that probably doesn't need to be touched upon here. Would this work? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah Maybe the hook should be replaced in prep for now? SL93 (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@SL93: well, since the hook wording and the caption are up in the air, and since this set is about to be promoted to the queue, yes, it would be a good idea to return it to WP:DYKN to iron out the issues. Yoninah (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Done. SL93 (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Two points here:

  1. There is no requirement in the DYK rules for the caption to be brief. Or any requirement regarding the caption at all.
  2. Ambiguous DYK hooks are common.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Forget that we're DYK editors. If we don't understand it, how will other readers of the main page? I'm looking in the article to suggest an alt, and see that you wrote the same thing there. Yoninah (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of minutes ago with only six entries remaining, so here is an updated list with the 37 oldest nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through August 4. We currently have a total of 202 nominations, of which 83 have been approved, a gap of 119; none are over a month old. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Using a crop of the article image

Has this question come up before? At Template:Did you know nominations/Khalili Collection of Swedish Textiles there is talk of cropping an image from the article for the nom, as these are rather wide, and some are the same motif repeated twice. Is there precedent on this? Would the same crop have to be used in the article? Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

There's precedent for using it as an infrequent measure to make sure images were legible when in a small thumbnail — see Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_64#Where_does_the_image_link_take_the_reader? — and since a couple of different reviewers have suggested it to me recently for my DYK noms I interpret that it's still done. Since that discussion was a long time ago, maybe one of the regulars can weigh in on whether this is still accepted. It would seem odd to require contributors to either use a cropped image in the article about an artwork or use an uncropped image in a DYK thumbnail. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, a crop is fine, as long as the crop comes from the image that appears in the article (sometimes there's a series of the same images at Commons). Yoninah (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/1946 Londonderry Borough Council election

Before I promote this hook from The C of E, does anyone have any objection to it?

Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 14:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That post is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. ;-) --evrik (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Last time I checked, there was no restrictions on Northern Irish political topics (or anything else in terms of subject matter thanks to WP:NOTCENSORED for that matter). The hook is factual and what is in the article and cited. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • NOTCENSORED applies to material within articles and is irrelevant as to whether a hook should be promoted to the front page.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yoninah Unless you have an issue with this hook, not sure why it's being posted here. Posting here and asking "does anyone have an issue with this?" seems like you're asking people to disagree with this hook. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No, I don't have an issue with it, but I also don't understand Northern Irish politics. After that huge brouhaha we had over a different Londonderry hook, I thought I'd save myself the trouble of reviewing and promoting it if someone else has an issue with it. Yoninah (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Which by the way, had nothing editorially wrong with the content of the article or hook. Just the day it was due to run had the objection, despite it being held in the holding area for a number of weeks. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what this DYK means ... does it mean a candidate in the election declared himself a bigot? That doesn't seem that interesting in the greater scheme of things. Anyway, in order to give a full answer to the question, I'd like to be able to read the citation, which is page 18 of Contemporary Irish Studies by Tom Gallagher, could someone supply it? The book is on googlebooks, but that page is not available for me. Mujinga (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

hmm ok after 9 days, I'll take it to the talkpage Mujinga (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The dropbox link named Londonderry 1946 is broken and provides no further information about what it was supposed to contain. Londonderry Sentinel - Saturday 19 October 1946 p.4 doesn't name the article or author. Why is Congressional Record: Proceedings of the 81st Congress used for Irish history? We need better sourcing for a hook that is going to be a lighting rod. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed dropbox and expanded the source originally in there before expansion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm leaving the decisions on if this should run or not to more knowledgeable people, but given all the controversies about Northern Ireland politics discussed here before, any Northern Ireland hook that mentions religion or nationality may not be a good idea. For similar reasons, someone should take a close look at Template:Did you know nominations/Rosemary Barton (politician) (ALT1 looks fine to me, but ALT0 is sounding my alarm bells). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5 How is ALT0 of that hook questionable? it's talking about sports fans, which so far as I can see isn't politically-motivated. Honestly, this whole thread just seems like a kangaroo court to me. Whilst I had concerns about the 12th July issue/hook, I don't see why these two articles are being singled out, as they're nowhere near that controversial. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Seeing the words "Unionist" and "intimidation from Gaelic football fans" in the same hook gives me deep reservations. In fact, simply "intimidation from Gaelic football fans" was enough to give me pause, and while I know that "Gaelic football" refers to the sport and not the people, knowing the tensions involved, it just doesn't sound like a good idea. As for this particular hook, the issue seems to be how it mentions both "Catholic" and "Londonderry", which as far as I can understand could lead to problems even if they were not intentional. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The C of E is simply trying to get the word "Londonderry" on the Main Page through any means necessary (as per the previous DYK). Also, most of the "Campaigns" section appears to be unsourced. Black Kite (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
    • That is a grossly baseless remark and completely untrue. I have already explained that this is a by-product of the destubathon and it just so happened to be about a Londonderry council election (before the council changed its name) that had nothing going for it and I gave it new life. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Sorry, my good faith on that front evaporated when you tried to get the last one scheduled for the 12th July (and it turned out it wasn't the first time as well). Black Kite (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: so the first mention of the mayor in the lead of this article should be unpiped from [[Mayor of Derry|Mayor of Londonderry]]? Yoninah (talk) 10:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Because it's in reference to the city, rather than the county, it should be the unpiped Derry, per MOS:DERRY. ——Serial 10:47, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Though of course he would have been Mayor of Londonderry in 1946, which is why these DYKs are all pre-1984 when the name was changed. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Also, apart from the citation needed tag, the results in the first table - which is incomplete - don't tally with ones in the tables underneath. Black Kite (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Which has been removed and a question for clarification asked on the nomination page. In other news, Gerry Mullan (politician) ran yesterday without any comment, which I find interestingly had no comments about it despite also being a Northern Irish political hook. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Just to note I have reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Fermanagh County Council, and I am not happy about the hook for all the same reasons The C of E has been mentioned in threads on this page. You can deny you have a pro-Loyalist POV, but as long as you keep trying to plug Londonderry and the Royal Ulster Constabulary on the main page, nobody will believe you. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The only time I recall I mentioned the Royal Ulster Constabulary in a hook was in Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (Which was about the act that technically abolished and replaced them). I haven't mentioned it in the Fermanagh one (Which also does not mention Londonderry in any form). Likewise if I had a pro-Loyalist POV, why did I run a hook for Gerry Mullan (politician), an SDLP politician (by the way, that was a more political hook and wasn't even the favoured one by the reviewer yet I saw no objections to that)? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Aaargh

This already happened, but I just want to note that in the mysterious interstitial zone between approval and mainpage, "that Het Nieuwe Instituut (pictured) has over 18 kilometres of architectural archives?" became "that the archive at the Het Nieuwe Instituut (pictured) contains more than 18 km (11 mi) of architectural resources?" - nobody noticed, but we ended up mainpaging a version that said "the the" because "het" is "the" in Dutch. As nominator, I find that quite disappointing and I don't think I need to keep an eagle eye on the nom after approval, people should AGF it's good as is. Mujinga (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

At least it wasn't "that the architectural archive at the Het Niewe Instituut institute has over 18 km (over 11 mi) of architectural archives"? But anyway yes, I agree, this practice of post-approval changes to hooks without any notification of the nominator (who might as in this case be more knowledgeable about the subject matter and have good reason for objecting to certain changes) has been problematic for a long time. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Newbie reviewer questions

Hi :) I'm a relative newbie to DYK and there were a couple of things I wanted to check before I review anyone else's nominations. Not that I have any credits yet, but I have nominated a couple of articles, and QPQ seems like a good idea. My questions are:

  1. Is it strictly nominations from the last 7 days that should be reviewed? I notice some older nominations have conversations which are continuing, so is it the case that the review simply needs to start within 7 days, but can continue afterwards?
    No, they all need reviewing and either approving or rejecting at some point, these are just the "freshest" ones; typically one article, one (main) reviewer - though sometimes, with the older ones, they are still knocking around because there is some kind of issue, and sometimes the initial reviewer is so involved they ask for someone else to have a look
  2. What is the process for articles moving from WP:DYKN to WP:DYKNA?
    It seems to happen of its own accord - certainly no need to do anything special once you have approved an article
  3. What makes a hook hooky? This seems subjective to me.
    Please find/suggest something (?beyond basic sums?) that is not; I think the idea is to have something that's interesting/fun in its own right and makes people wish to read on
  4. Should I note I am new to reviewing nominations?
    If you so wish you can, but the old hands may notice anyway, plus the idea is that those picking up the approved hooks and making them into a queue etc do further review, also that the approver has done theirs - the review instructions/template is fairly comprehensive, so hopefully that helps; feel free to ask if there's something specific; formatting is important too, but there are some sharp eyes who always remedy my oversights; often I find the review involves slight copy editing / additional linking etc in the article you're reviewing too, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if these are obvious questions, but I did not see an answer in the rules, and I'm hoping someone can clarify them. --CSJJ104 (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome, CSJJ104! Here are some responses:
  1. The 7-day rule refers to the nomination itself—it must have been created or attained GA status within 7 days of nomination. As for you, you can choose any hook that looks interesting from the whole list at WP:DYKN. We have hundreds of unapproved nominations, and there's no time limit on when the review should start. As it's your first review, I suggest you choose something that no one else has reviewed yet. Those ongoing reviews are often held up by specific criteria which you will get more familiar with as you do more reviews.
  2. A bot moves the approved hooks to the Approved page. When you complete your review, you add an approval icon and the bot does the rest.
  3. Yes, it is subjective. But as the reviewer, you can decide if the hook is dry or wordy or geocentric, and work with the nominator to come up with something you think will appeal to a broad audience.
  4. Yes, you could note that on your review. But the editor who comes along to promote it to the prep set will also double-check all the criteria to make sure it's ready.
I'm happy to answer any other questions that you may have on my talk page. Best, Yoninah (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

New eyes requested for 2 noms

New eyes could be used at the nomination template:Did you know nominations/Acanthurus polyzona and Template:Did you know nominations/Pentacentron.--Kevmin § 22:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 6

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Resolved. — Maile (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • ... that Irish factotum Aonghus McAnally has been a radio producer, television presenter, guitarist, singer, billiards champion, actor, stand-up comedian, and magician?
@Bogger, Yoninah, and Narutolovehinata5: Can someone link the word "factorum" to something? It's not used in the article itself, or anywhere else except in the hook. It's not a commonly used word in all countries, and I have no idea what is meant. The dab Factotum brings up several options. Please clarify in the hook. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I also grappled with the language when I was promoting this. In the interests of not having run-on links, I suggest dropping it altogether:
  • ALT1: ... that Aonghus McAnally has been a radio producer, television presenter, guitarist, singer, Irish billiards champion, actor, stand-up comedian, and magician? Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • ALT1 fine by me. otherwise:
    • ALT2... that the multi-talented Aonghus McAnally has been a radio producer, television presenter, guitarist, singer, Irish billiards champion, actor, stand-up comedian, and magician? Bogger (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, both of you. I substituted ALT2 in the prep. — Maile (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Urgent request

I have just approved this nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Ōzushima, and it was requested to appear today, which would mean slotting it into Queue 6 before 12:00 UTC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:43, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth Maybe pinging other active DYK admins will help get it promoted to the queue. SL93 (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
There should be no expectation that a request made barely 64 hours before the hook needs to be on the main page can be granted. Special requests are supposed to be made a full seven days in advance; this is hardly a third of that. Since it didn't make that deadline, the hook can be promoted eventually in the usual way. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I didn't ping anyone because I thought it was unreasonably short notice. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth I only suggested pinging someone because you said it was an urgent request. You made no indication that you thought such a request was unreasonably short notice. If you think that, what was the urgent request about? SL93 (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
SL93 It was urgent because time was short, but it was not important. It needed to be done then and there if it was to be done at all. Your suggestion was helpful but I did not think the matter was important enough to ping other people about. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

23 August

In a week, it's a birthday, see Template:Did you know nominations/Ludwig Hoelscher. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Reviewed and moved to Special Occasions holding area. Yoninah (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Synagogue of Deal

This hook just went live on the main page and one of the creators received a DYK credit on their talk page, but the second one (me) didn't. Yoninah (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I added one to your talk page. It looks like just an oversight that your DYKMake credit, which was present on the nomination template, didn't make it up to Queue. — Maile (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 4:Philippine pesos

Does anyone know how to add a US dollar equivalent to this figure? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The sources cited for the billion figure (8 and 9), as far as I can tell, give the valuations in millions of American dollars and UK pounds, at least as of February 2016 when the billion figure was mentioned; the "billion pesos" seems to be from source 7, which needs to cited with that text if the number is to be used (unless the Telegraph source, which I can't access beyond the lede, also gives the billion figure). The hook should perhaps specify the 2016 appraisal, as it's very different from the 1986 date given in the hook. Also, if this nom isn't to be pulled, the bare URL source 2 needs to be filled out per DYK rules. I also have a big question: were the jewels ever auctioned? Why doesn't the article give the current status on the jewels? It's been over four years since the valuation, and over three years since the Philippine Supreme Court upheld the Sandiganbayan decision confiscating the jewels. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
If the ₱1 billion is adequately sourced and you want a conversion to US$, it is about $20.5 million at the present 2020 exchange rate, per google finance which is linked from Philippine peso#Current exchange rate. MB 23:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, MB. BlueMoonset, I feel I rushed this hook to the prep because of the special occasion request, which is actually for a Philippine holiday, Ninoy Aquino Day, that has nothing to do with the Marcos jewels. I first did a copyedit, but I see there are more problems with it, so I'm returning it to WP:DYKN. Yoninah (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I think out of an abundance of caution that it might be best not to run a Marcos family hook on Ninoy Aquino Day. CMD (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I've just addressed the bare references, as well as some issues in the auctions section. After this message, I will add a paragraph that states that the jewels had not been auctioned as of April 2017, with a reference to support it. But none of the references I've looked for actually say 'why' they haven't been auctioned, so I won't mention that. The conversion thing is still making my head spin, to be honest, so I'll try to address that when I'm in a better headspace. Anyway, if this isn't ready by August 21, I'm okay with it not being up on that specific date. Lemme see what I can do to further improve the page. - Chieharumachi (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Q1 Aug20a

Template:Did you know nominations/Maria Ovsiankina

SL93, I was confused until I read both the target article and the Zeigarnik effect. How would you feel about:

That would be fine. SL93 (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
ALT1 is 210 characters. It will need to be trimmed, but I can't see a way to do so offhand. valereee? SL93? BlueMoonset (talk) 22:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, ugh, how did I miscount that? Hm...
ALT1a ... that Maria Ovsiankina studied the Zeigarnik effect, showing people remember unfinished tasks more than finished, and described the Ovsiankina effect, showing they're likely to resume those tasks? —valereee (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
A try:
... that Maria Ovsiankina studied the Zeigarnik effect of how people remember unfinished tasks more than completed ones, and described the Ovsiankina effect of how likely they are to resume those tasks? Yoninah (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I prefer Yoninah's hook. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I had the same problem with forming a hook based on the 200 characters when I nominated the article. I seriously appreciate the help to form a better hook. SL93 (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Valereee Would that hook work to replace in the queue? SL93 (talk) 15:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
SL93, totally! I'll got make the change! —valereee (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 5: Church

@Gerda Arendt:@Binksternet:@Amkgp:
Is there something special about Bad Camberg that the hook is trying to tell me? Otherwise this isn't much of a hook. The only thing I could see doing with these facts is:
ALT1: ... that the Kreuzkapelle (pictured) in Bad Camberg, a pilgrimage chapel dedicated to the Holy Cross, has a floor plan of a Greek cross? Yoninah (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Why say less, and less precise? What I think is special is the "overlook" aspect, while "in Bad Camberg" suggests "in town". It's far away from any building of the town, and the last climb really adds to hardness when you come by foot. I won't fight much, but am not convinced the ALT is better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that the Kreuzkapelle (pictured), overlooking Bad Camberg and the last station of the Cross in a path beginning in the town, itself has the floor plan of a Greek cross?
Is it "the Kreuzkapelle" or could we just use "Kreuzkapelle"? CMD (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd give "the", because it's a rather generic "name", in English Chapel of the Holy Cross. I guess you'd "the Chapel ..." not just "Chapel ...". ALT2 reads somewhat difficult, also I'm not sure if the stations 1 to 14 aren't all "outside" the building ( most not extant anyway). It's quite normal to have the stations leading to any pilgrimage church, therefore I'd not emphasize it here. Playing with ALT1:
ALT3: ... that the Kreuzkapelle (pictured) above Bad Camberg, a pilgrimage chapel dedicated to the Holy Cross, has a floor plan of a Greek cross? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Alt1 is the best. --evrik (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

... after I explained why not, and made ALT3 which differs in one word, and the one word is more precise ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I like ALT3. Yoninah (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This is now in Queue 5, so ping an admin whatever it needs to be. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Maile, since the nominator is in agreement on ALT3, please use that. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

RFC for special occasion hooks

Should the subject's birthday be considered a valid reason for a special occasion request?

The criteria at WP:DYK#Date requests says nothing about what a "special occasion" is. Past discussion says that it's up to the reviewer to honor the date request. But nominators are constantly asking us to promote hooks to mark a subject's birthday, or even the birthday of an actor who plays a certain character. It's my understanding that a "special occasion" refers to an anniversary, such as the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II, or the annual staging of a sports event, or some other significant date. Beethoven's 250th birthday would obviously meet this criteria. But a random birthday is not significant and we should not be expected to scramble sets to accommodate it. Yoninah (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment on this RFC, can we also include whether subject's death date is a valid reason for a special occasion request. There have been a number of requests for articles to run on day someone died, and it seems sufficiently similar to the subject's birth date. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: I come from TFA where we try to establish some day connection, not only round anniversaries. I'd say why not suggest, but someone who doesn't approve can just ignore it. Someone created an article with a 23 September birthday (probably without even thinking of this day), I nominated it for the day, why not? Why not run it that day rather than two before or one after, once we are this close, as a little token of memorial? If it causes you, prep builder, trouble, just let someone else promote that hook. We ran Monteverdi on his birthday for TFA, although it was no round birthday. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    Gerda: Trouble? Are you aware of how many times you post at WT:DYK asking for an emergency review so it can run on the subject's birthday? This requires that someone reshuffle the finished preps or queues to accommodate the birthday request. Yoninah (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think I did it recently, - and if I do, you could just avoid looking or acting, I hope. - I see the problem that preps tend to be full well in advance. Also, knowing it bothers you, I'll be more careful. However, the recent example is quite typical: unplanned and cute, and thank you for placing it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: if there's time and the preps/queues haven't yet been set for that day I don't think there's any harm? If the hook is approved late and it would be disruptive to rejig the preps/queues to accommodate it then don't bother, the onus is on the nominator to prepare the article suitably in advance for it to feature on the proposed day - Dumelow (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes and No: Include death anniversary in the decision here. It is unfair to other nominators whose approved hooks have to wait in line for weeks, to have another nominator go straight to head of the line, because they wrote an article about a subject who coincidentally has a birthday - or death anniversary - in the near future. Especially if a prolific nominator does this semi-often. Allow birthday requests - or death anniversary - only if the subject has had an international impact on world culture or history. Birthday requests - or death anniversary - have become one way, whether we admit it or not, of moving one's nomination to the head of the line, so it will not linger in the "Approved" backlog for long periods. On the other hand - and this has happened, if I recall - that after the nomination is made, or after it is approved, the nominator realizes the subject has a birthday in the near future, so they request we promote it for that date. Or any combination thereof. An example of parsing this would be that Paul McCartney would be eligible of such a request, but his various children have not affected world culture, so any article on them would not get special promotion dates. — Maile (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No: I don't think a birthday or a death date is a special occasion. Everyone has a birthday and everyone dies. Actually, it seems messed up to have someone's death be considered a special occasion. SL93 (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: What started this was a request for the birthday of a fictional character. In the event that birthdays are considered special enough, it's important to make clear that fictional character birthdays are not. (I'm highly dubious about the birthday of an actor who played a character when they aren't even mentioned in the hook.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
    This sounds correct to me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes: The subject's birthday in a biography should be considered a special occasion request as long as the nomination was submitted at least two to three weeks in advance. However, the birthdate of an actor which plays a role is not a special occasion for the role itself. Flibirigit (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes: I'm saying yes because this looks a little like WP:RULECREEP here. We never had any conditions for holding for special occasions aside of AFD, so why are we suddenly needing some now? If the nominator thinks its appropriate, unless consensus decides otherwise, we should be willing to facilitate such a request. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes: Yes, to special date requests ...made with sufficient notice. --evrik (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - Limiting special occasion requests to only the most "special" occasions would be very unfair to editors who created or expanded an article with a specific date in mind, and while I can understand declining silly requests like "please have the hook on (Date) because it's my birthday", not allowing an actual date with some significance to the subject (such as for example birth and death dates, anniversaries, related holidays, etc.) feels very much like WP:CREEP, not to mention we'd just have endless arguing on if a subject or the date is "significant" or "special" enough. I think as long as the reason for the occasion isn't "silly" and does have a connection to the subject, and has been made long in advance and reviewers have been made aware of this, I don't see any problem with most special occasion requests. In fact, we may all be overthinking the meaning of "special occasion" in the first place when in reality most requests are simply about dates that are linked to the subject, and the value of how "special" the date is can be subjective depending on editors and the occasion itself.Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes – as long as it follows the "at least one week prior … not more than six weeks in advance" rule and DR1–3, then birthdays should be permitted. I'd lean no for birthdays of fictional characters and (of course) editors. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps a useful change would be shifting the expected timeline submissions back, to eight weeks in advance and at least two weeks prior. One week is too fast to expect both a timely review and putting the hook into the right prep and queue. Some hooks go a month or more without review. As for eight weeks, I'm not familiar with why there is a six week limit, but more space given to nominators on that side would hopefully lead to more potential lead time for prep queues. CMD (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't have a strong opinion about whether or not birthdays (of real people) are special enough occasions, although I did find the request for a fictional character's birthday rather ridiculous. As others have mentioned above, I think the bigger problem is with editors making special occasion requests without sufficient notice, and I think we are sometimes too kind in accommodating these last-minute requests. 97198 (talk) 10:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes - I think a birthdate or similar can be used to justify a special occasion hook request, but whether it is accepted or not depends on the circumstances. I doubt we need a rule on the subject because I do not think anyone is abusing the system. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
    • My purpose in opening this RFC is also to clarify the language in WP:DYK#Date requests. Right now we have a long-winded paragraph that does not give a clear idea of what a special occasion is, and leaves wiggle room for nominators to push their hooks through on their schedule, not ours:

Articles intended to be held for special occasion dates should be nominated within seven days of creation, start of expansion, or promotion to Good Article status. The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers. The timeline limitations, including the six week maximum, may be waived by consensus, if a request is made at WT:DYK, but requests are not always successful.

    • If I ever rejected a special occasion hook, I don't think I'd hear the end of it. Yoninah (talk) 11:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes- as long as raised sufficiently far in advance (1-6 weeks is the guideline at the moment). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 4:Literacy exam

  • ... that Karthyayani Amma scored 98 out of 100 on her literacy exam at the age of 96?
@Mujinga:@Maury Markowitz:@Amkgp:
Sorry, I can't figure out what's hooky about this. You would think a 96-year-old woman would be literate. Perhaps the hook needs to say that she was illiterate beforehand. Or else a different hook fact should be used. Yoninah (talk) 12:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • ... that Karthyayani Amma became a national celebrity after passing a literacy examination with top marks at the age of 96? --evrik (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that is a good one. But to Yoninah - "You would think a 96-year-old woman would be literate" - not in very large sections of the planet. Going back to become literate has become something of a hot topic, there's even a full-length movie about a similar story. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I hazard a guess that those large sections of the planet are less likely to be readers of Wikipedia's front page. I think a clarification that she was previously illiterate, on top of evrik's improvements, would be both informative and add hookiness. CMD (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The hook I supplied was "... that Karthyayani Amma scored 98 out of 100 on her exam at the age of 96?", so someone must have added "literary" after approval and I don't think it helps, the (hoped for) humour was in the idea of a 96 year-old getting a high mark in an unspecified exam, which would then induce people to click through to find out more. There's also two other approved ALTs to choose from. Personally I prefer ALT0. Mujinga (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I was the one who added "literacy" to exam because I had no idea what the hook was talking about. Ambiguity doesn't always work. Yoninah (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with your preference for ALT0, Mujinga, especially for the quirky slot. I was actually going to promote that one before another editor built the set. So I'll switch it now in prep. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

69k+ views and no stats?

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Statistics has a discussion (look for Calculate) about an article that garnered 69k+ views but will not make the stats because of our formula. Can we make an exception in a rather unusual case of external interest? Please discuss there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think that formula is flawed because it assumes that one day's views will be the same as any other day, especially when a subject may be in the news the day before the DYK runs which might lead to spikes. I'd say there is nothing wrong with that being added to stats. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I think we should hold the discussion over there, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

2 prep sets are ready to be promoted to the queue

Pinging @Casliber:@Amakuru:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Guerillero:@Valereee:@Wugapodes:@Lee Vilenski:. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I've done preps 6 and 7. Obviously 1 and 2 still to do, but it sounds like they may not yet be ready, and I also don't have time to check more than two! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
3 queues are waiting to be filled. Pinging @Casliber:@Amakuru:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Guerillero:@Valereee:@Wugapodes:@Lee Vilenski:. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
3 queues are waiting to be filled. Pinging @Casliber:@Amakuru:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Guerillero:@Valereee:@Wugapodes:@Lee Vilenski:. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Niacin

Template:Did you know nominations/Niacin has been approved by the reviewer, but is still in the to-be-reviewed list. Is this because the reviewer left a red X at the Adequately sourced line? David notMD (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  • @David notMD: it gets moved to the approved queue, and then eventually a promoter will add the a prep list. --evrik (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 6: Avrodh: The Siege Within

@DiplomatTesterMan, Maury Markowitz, and Amkgp: The hook currently uses the subtitle "The Siege Within" to refer to the series, which isn't reflected in the article or in reliable sources. Would it be too much to change the bolded link to the full "Avrodh: The Siege Within" instead? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Ravenpuff, using the full name as you are suggesting is alright with me. I had just left out the first word because it was not English. I guess I shouldn't have done that for a title, and with nothing to back it up. DTM (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
If there are no other disagreements, I think that we can proceed with this – could an admin kindly help make the change in Queue 6? Thanks. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 3 special occasion hook

We need someone to add Template:Did you know nominations/Rachael Heyhoe-Flint Trophy as a special occasion hook for August 29 to this set. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Negative hooks for non-living people

I recently wrote a page for a nineteenth-century college president, Frank La Du Ferguson. His short tenure is widely considered a failure — the main interesting facts about him in my view are that he (a) evidently used his office to illegally make disastrous personal real estate investments, (b) was hated by students in part because he tried to censor the student newspaper, and (c) was caught plagiarizing a baccalaureate address he gave. He was fired by the board of trustees after only three years, so there's not much else to draw from.

The rules at WP:Did you know#Content currently state Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided, which I assumed was safe to ignore because he's been dead for about 65 years. However, concerns have been raised during the review that the hooks are too negative, giving me the impression that the de facto rules here are to avoid negative hooks, period, even for non-living people whose biographies are mostly negative.

So I'd like to receive some clarification: should we modify that line to include negative hooks about non-living people, bringing it in line with what seems like de facto practice, or is this more a case of misinterpretation of rules that are fine as they are? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

is this more a case of misinterpretation of rules that are fine as they are? It would be nice if you familiarized yourself with WP:AGF. Perhaps you don't realize how snide your remarks come across here and on the review. Yoninah (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, I do not doubt your good faith at all. You gave a good faith review, and I tried to engage constructively with you during it, but you and I seem to have different interpretations of how to apply the DYK rules, which is why I'm coming here to seek clarification. My question above is a genuine question, not some sort of veiled attack on your good faith. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:56, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I just went and read Template:Did you know nominations/Franklin La Du Ferguson. I am reminded of the phrase, "do not speak ill of the dead." --evrik (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    • The thing is, Sdkb is correct, the rule clearly states "living individuals" (presumably to comply with BLP). We are talking about events that happened over a century ago. And the reviewer said the article was neutrally written.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, what I've seen in similar cases in the past is it depends on just how "negative" the hook is and whether or not the negativity is part of what would make the hook "hooky". With regards to BDPs, slightly negative hooks or hooks that highlighted negative aspects and events have been allowed in the past, but other times when the hook makes the person seem very bad then objections were raised, even when the person is deceased. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Back to one set per day

Note: A permalink to the original discussion can be found at the bottom of the Archive Box to the right on this page. There you will find this link: RFC LT Solutions 2020. — Maile (talk) 19:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

We are now at 55 approved nominations. I recall that below 60 approved nominations would trigger a revert to one set per day. Flibirigit (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

This is a somewhat distorted position. At the moment six queues (48 hooks) are filled and seven prep sets (56 hooks). Add these to the 51 currently approved hooks and you get 155 hooks, all ready to go. The greatest need, in my opinion, is a reduction in the number of unapproved hooks, currently standing at 113. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I also noticed what Cwmhiraeth is saying. Let's try to finish up 50 to 60 more reviews, and then we can go to once a day. Yoninah (talk) 11:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm very sorry, but this is not an optional or fungible number. Cwmhiraeth, Yoninah, while I understand and even sympathize with the arguments, the RfC set the number of approved and unpromoted nominations as the guidepost we use. We've dropped below 60 and it's been noticed, so we go back to one set daily effective midnight tonight (UTC), which means changing the time between sets after the midnight set is promoted. Since July 11, when we switched over to two a day, the number of unapproved nominations has dropped from 219 to 113, which is pretty good progress; we've also cut the number of total nominations by more than half, from 339 to 168. I'm sure the admin promoters will welcome a respite from two promotions a day until we build back to 100 120 approved. I'll take a look and see what special occasion hooks need to be swapped between sets for the one-a-day schedule. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support change the RFC was clear: when up to 120, go to 2 sets per day, and when down to 60, go to 1 set per day. We've applied the 2 sets per day rule without exception, so should apply the 1 set per day rule likewise. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait – given that there are now 66 approved noms and all prep areas are filled. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, does anyone have the RfC link? When I first noticed there being two hooks per day, it occurred to me that one fairly radical way of putting the reader first would be to keep the hooks at one per day but just reject the less interesting ones. I doubt that'll ever happen since editor-over-reader bias and status quo bias are both potent forces, and there would be valid concerns over editors getting mad enough at their rejected DYK that it damages editor retention. But I do think we need to do something to address the number of just plain uninteresting DYK hooks that get through, and this would be one way to do it. (Remember that readers don't know DYKs are drawn from a very limited set of pages, so when they see uninteresting ones, their reaction is "out of all the possible fun facts on Wikipedia, this is the one you chose?!") {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    What's interesting to some, may be not interesting to others, and the wider the variety, the better you serve a wide range of readers. I'm afraid the first hooks rejected would be niche articles, - so exactly those which have some rarity value. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
    Gerda Arendt, that could be a concern. To get a little more concrete about the problem I see, take for example the second hook live right now, ... that Helen Ballard was a hellebore horticulturist?. That's literally just stating her occupation, with nothing else hooky about it. Perhaps there's something more interesting in the article itself or perhaps not, but either way, we have a problem on our hands when hooks like that are passing on a regular basis. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:29, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not sure if boring hooks regularly get through, but that hook really is incredibly boring. SL93 (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    Hey ... different strokes for different folks. As an editor totally uninvolved with the Helen Ballard hook ... I thought it was really cute. Border line alliteration was how I perceived the intent of the wording of that hook. Bet you can't say it ten times real fast. — Maile (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    More alliteration would certainly liven up DYK. Anyway, in my mind DYK is still six hooks four times a day. The current situation in comparison gives each hook a much longer life. CMD (talk) 02:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    The best way to counter "boring" hooks would be to go and review. I have been criticized for opera singers' hooks that are not interesting. Look at today's (which would have been yesterday's with 12 hour sets, but yes, in principle I prefer all day) about Bernard Ładysz, who recently died, mentioning Krzysztof Penderecki, same, - people who have never heard those names may find it boring, for others it's a memorial. Today's featured list is also about opera, DYK? That one is a tribute to Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Admin changes needed

The following special occasion hooks and their credits will need to be moved:

  • Queue 4: "The Delectable Negro" hook needs to move to Queue 2 (August 21)
  • Prep 1: "Ludwig Hoelscher" hook needs to move to Queue 4 (August 23)—it could go in the spot vacated by "The Delectable Negro")
  • Since we need to displace a hook in Queue 2, it could be put in the spot vacated in Prep 1, making this a three-way shift

So far as I could see, these are the only two special occasion hooks currently promoted. If anyone notices another that wasn't tagged with a "special" comment in a queue or prep, it will also need shifting.

After the midnight promotion of Queue 1 to the main page (and not before!): please change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400 (this sets the promotion interval to daily from twice a day)

Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I will be happy to make these changes in about 11 hours time unless anyone else has done them first. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Wugapodes, and thanks to Cwmhiraeth for offering. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 7:Swedish textiles

@MartinPoulter:@Chipmunkdavis:@Vincent60030:
A lot of good hooks were suggested during the review, but this one has to be the most uninspiring lead hook IMO. "Flatweaves" isn't even linked. If this is really the choice, I would move it out of the image slot. The Squirrel Conspiracy's ALT1 and ALT2 were far better for a lead image:
ALT1 ... that many of the works in the Khalili Collection of Swedish Textiles (example pictured) were created by women, who wove in symbolic decorations to demonstrate their skills ahead of marriage?
ALT2 ... that Nasser Khalili assembled the Khalili Collection of Swedish Textiles (example pictured) because he felt art historians undervalued works by anonymous creators?
Yoninah (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Ah I may have been unfamiliar with the promotion process as I do not know that we may opt for another hook instead of what the reviewer suggested. This is definitely a difficult pick between 1 and 2. Let's go with ALT2. Thank you for bringing this up. :D VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 17:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
No, usually the promoter does promote the approved hook, but if he feels it's not hooky enough he should reopen the discussion. In other cases, as this one, the hook is posted and then other editors comment on its hookiness here at WT:DYK. Let's not rush to change it; let's wait for the nominator to weigh in. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I'd prefer that it remains in the image slot because I like to encourage GLAM/WIR efforts, but as I proposed the alternate hooks, I don't want to get further "involved". The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
AGFing on offline sources, all of the hooks suggested within the discussion seemed accurate to the article. I noted ALT4 as the nominator preference, and don't see it as significantly less hooky than the various other ALTs suggested (except ALT0), but I also have no issues with the others. I believe it should stay in the image slot though, being an attractive and high-quality image. CMD (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree it should stay in the image slot. I'm going ahead and substituting ALT2, which is AGF and cited inline. Yoninah (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Excessively late supply of QPQ credits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Resolved. --evrik (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed many nominations coming in with QPQ credits still pending. While I understand this is within the rules, I feel there should be a reasonable time limit imposed. We have a huge backlog of nominations, and this exacerbates the problem.

The nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Leonie Schroder was rejected for not having a QPQ after four weeks.

Another nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Zahiriyya al-Tahta, has no QPQ credit and it now over five weeks old.

Sorry for being grumpy, but this is getting ridiculous. Flibirigit (talk) 12:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Seven weeks later we finally have a QPQ at Template:Did you know nominations/2020 Iran gasoline export to Venezuela. Sheesh! Flibirigit (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Flibirigit, if you're concerned about reducing the backlog, you might also want to call for a time limit on QPQs. A few of our nominators submit QPQs that are two or three years old. Yoninah (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
When I review and the qpq is not there, I ping the nominator, and you could do the same. I confess that I often have no time for a qpq when I'm pressed to nominate in time, and later forget. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I do my part and ping nominators and/or leave them talk page messages if they aren't responsive. At times, if nominations are otherwise good to go and are only lacking a QPQ, I donate a QPQ to let them move forward, but it's not appropriate to do this all the time or when significant issues exist and haven't been addressed in a prompt manner. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah Is there any rules against using old QPQs? I often do QPQs when I have time, and use them weeks later. As far as I see it, as long as a QPQ is done, it should't be problem to do it beforehand. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: I also stockpile QPQs and use them weeks later. But in response to Flibirigit's observation, I was just adding another angle. Really, if all a nominator has is a QPQ that's several years old, they should be asked to do a more recent one. Yoninah (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I would support some sort of time limit to submit QPQs so long as there is a process that provides a reminder (and perhaps evidence of active editing?). I would also support a limit to old QPQs, although set at months rather than weeks. CMD (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I do not support the limiting of use of QPQs. I do support a time limit on how long a nomination can languish with a QPQ. --evrik (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • This is probably the wrong place to be carping about this, but I'll indulge myself since I'm still doing a bit of a slow burn over it. I put a substantial amount of time into reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/1876 Prohibition National Convention, which included searching for and finding sources. After all that, the submitter decided to withdraw the DYK nomination, stating that they would rather use their QPQ credit on something else. I felt like I had been taken advantage of. I put in the work to not just review, but improve, somebody else's article, and then they didn't even want to go through with it. Back when I was a fraternity pledge, we had a term for that, but it's too impolite to repeat here. So, while you're working on redoing the QPQ rules, maybe come up with a way to prevent that from happening again? Maybe your QPQ gets consumed not when your submission is approved, but when it's reviewed? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Abandoning a DYK and then attempting to transfer your QPQ to a new nomination doesn't seem fair to me. If it's not explicitly prohibited, it should be.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
That's the sort of lawyering that results in the addition of new rules. However in this case it's already covered. If it comes up again, inform them that the rules note QPQs are "For every nomination", not for every successful nomination. Another one will have to be done for a new nomination. CMD (talk) 02:17, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

RFC on using older reviews as a QPQ

We meed something mentioned in the rules if we are to change this. The QPQ process was developed to help clear backlogs. No time limit was set as to how far back a past review can be used for a QPQ. I have approximately 400 reviews under my belt, most of which I have never used as a QPQ. Realistically, this would defeat the original concept. Let us set a reasonable time limit on when the old reviews can be used for a QPQ. Please express your views below. — Maile (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Qualifying QPQs need to be real reviews, not just a checkmark comment like "This is good to go".
  • Support this condition. — Maile (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support --evrik (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - QPQs were always intended to refer to complete reviews, not just very simple and incomplete checks. However, I would oppose any proposal where only checkmarked reviews would be counted as QPQs, as not all nominations pass (usually for reasons beyond the control of the reviewer). In addition, reviews that checked requirements but are still missing final approval should still be counted for QPQ purposes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support although this should be clear anyway, there has to be evidence of actually having done a proper review. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: A QPQ credit should be a complete review from start to finish, not just a second opinion. Flibirigit (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support if this needs clarifying, although I would hope all reviews should be real reviews. CMD (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support sensible approach. ——Serial 16:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support for sure. Yoninah (talk) 18:01, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support but listing off the areas checked is a complete review --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support of course. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. It needs to be a real review anyway. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Common sense on this one.--Kevmin § 19:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as effective enough in ensuring the backlog does not grow too quickly. feminist (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Common sense. Don't game the system by doing low-quality reviews. Hog Farm Bacon 23:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Makes sense that you put in effort to every review. I would consider one-sentence reviews as appropriate in circumstances where the article in use is substantially good (where there are really no issues and just a tick. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Two years or older time limit
  • Conditional support - only in cases where the nominator has been absent from DYK for more than a year. — Maile (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose --evrik (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessary. ——Serial 16:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comment below --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose – per my comment below. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Any time limit is unnecessary in my opinion. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as rule creep. this is very very rarely happening and in general the QPQ supplied HAS helped the backlog of the time it was done--Kevmin § 19:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Every review is still a review, whether or not it clears the backlog it is still something a person should be acknowledged for. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • One-year time limit
  • Support - as a reasonable option. — Maile (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose --evrik (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessary. ——Serial 16:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comment below --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose – per my comment below. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Any time limit is unnecessary in my opinion. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as rule creep. In general the QPQ supplied HAS helped the backlog of the time it was done--Kevmin § 19:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Every review is still a review, whether or not it clears the backlog it is still something a person should be acknowledged for. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Six-month time limit
  • Oppose - as too limiting — Maile (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose --evrik (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Already a significant period, and any older reviews will have long been worked through the system. Also support higher. I do think the other question was the more important one to address however. CMD (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessary. ——Serial 16:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comment below --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose – per my comment below. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Any time limit is unnecessary in my opinion. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I'd happily make it one or two months. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as rule creep. In general the QPQ supplied HAS helped the backlog of the time it was done--Kevmin § 19:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Every review is still a review, whether or not it clears the backlog it is still something a person should be acknowledged for. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No time limit at all
  • Oppose - — Maile (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as per my comments in Other section. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per status quo. ——Serial 16:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comment below --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per my comment below. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Any time limit is unnecessary in my opinion. As long as a QPQ has been done, this should be sufficient. While I understand implementing a time limit may reduce a review backlog, it is (1) an additional complex rule over those that we already have, (2) discouraging to editors who may not want to do a QPQ in the first place, and (3) a solution that doesn't really solve a problem. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose There should be a limit. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose A nomination adds to the existing backlog, QPQs are intended to help prevent that backlog from growing. CMD (talk) 03:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support--Kevmin § 19:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support no time limit. This allows reviewers to build up an excess of QPQ reviews ahead of time, rather than doing them late after the nomination that needs it. It thus keeps the flow of noms working. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Special:WhatLinksHere works to ensure that the review was not already used as a QPQ for another nomination. feminist (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Every review is still a review, whether or not it clears the backlog it is still something a person should be acknowledged for. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Other
  • Oppose all time limits as instruction creep. Making DYK more complicated than it already is will just lead to more issues. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose all time limits as making DYK over complicated, and it will worsen the problem this thread was actually about- QPQs being done late. QPQs being done early isn't a problem. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose any new rules. We already have 16,000 characters of "rules" and 18,000 of "supplementary rules" that are surely discouraging any new contributors. We should be paring these back to the minimum necessary - Dumelow (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose time limits I don't see that this is a pressing problem that needs additional rules. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose all time limits – unfairly penalizes someone who wants to help clear a backlog but doesn't want to submit a DYK at that time. Remember WP:NO DEADLINE. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on using older reviews as a QPQ

RFC on a time limit to supply a QPQ

Currently the DYK rules do not state any time limit to supply a QPQ credit. As per the conversation above, I feel that too many nominations are taking an excessively long time to do this, and it exacerbates the backlog. I suggest the following options. Flibirigit (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

  • QPQ must be supplied at time of nomination
  • Support in times of large back logs of nominations. Flibirigit (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Question - If QPQ is not supplied at the time of the time of nomination, what is the recourse? Is it rejected immediately, or does it fall on someone else to remind them? Whose responsibility is it to remind the nominator, to flag the nominiation? Then what is the waiting time for a response, given that we have no set waiting time on any other process here. — Maile (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Many people nominate then add a QPQ within 24 hours or so --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think within 24 hours is reasonable. Flibirigit (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Guerillero. Yoninah (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC) for the article
  • Oppose The needs for flexibility arises because of the 7-day deadline for the article itself. That is the priority and the QPQ is secondary. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose --evrik (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose too restrictive. MB 03:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Guerillero and Andrew Davidson. Regards SoWhy 12:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I see where this proposal is going, but I almost always don't have time to do a QPQ at the time of the nomination itself due to real life concerns. Not to mention the 7 day deadline is pressing enough. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm not sure why it wasn't always that way, I think it's best practice to do the whole nomination in one swoop and I try to keep a few QPQs ready to be used. Mujinga (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: while this would be ideal, sometimes articles take a full week to get to the point that it meets the DYK criteria, leaving no time to do a QPQ. In those cases, I think we need to be flexible; not everyone has time to accumulate a backlog of QPQs, and people newly with five credits doing their first or second QPQ conscientiously are likely to take longer at it and need extra time. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as grossly unnecessary. Considering that DYK nominators are encouraged to review oldest hooks first (first in, first out), there is no rush to complete the QPQ in order for the reviewer to check if the nomination meets all requirements (including, of course, QPQ). feminist (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessary. You don't always have the time to do the QPQ immediately. Hog Farm Bacon 23:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose too restrictive. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessarily restrictive, especially for those still learning the ropes. - Chieharumachi (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • QPQ must be supplied within one week of nomination
  • Support as possibly the best option. One week is the time limit to nominate an article when it was created/expanded, and I feel most reviews can be completed within a week at most. Flibirigit (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support--evrik (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Partial support Nominators can be issued a warning notification at at least a week (whenever a reviewer looks at it), after which a week seems a reasonable timeframe to expect a QPQ if they have actively edited. CMD (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • What about multiple nom hooks? Users still sometimes submit hooks with five or more nominations, is a week a long enough period for such noms? Gatoclass (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think a week is long enough. The nominator would know in advance that multiple QPQ are required, and have ample time. Flibirigit (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support a week is a fair enough time to expect someone to do a QPQ. Given we get 1 week to nominate the article, that effectively gives up to 2 weeks to do it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not a big DYK contributor. I think I've done 8 in my 15 years here. Looking over them, it looks like (other than the first couple of freebies), I supplied a QPQ with the submission about half the time, and the other half I marked it "pending" then followed up in a day or two. I find the submission process cumbersome (lots of fidgety multi-step template editing), so I perceive being forced to do the review at submission time as a burden. But, a week is plenty of time. Maybe even something shorter like 72 hours. I'd also love to see some kind of automation to make the submission and review processes easier. If the mechanical work of submitting and reviewing were easier, I'd be more inclined to support requiring QPQ done at submission time. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Gatoclass --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It's nice when we can review noms as they come up on the noms page and not have to wait for a QPQ to approve them. Regarding multiple noms, we may offer a 2-week time limit. But there should be a time limit. Yoninah (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This seems reasonable. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I could support this on paper, however we recently had a discussion about a similar proposal about unresponsive nominators. Sometimes nominators are unable to do QPQ reviews due to a lack of time or due to unavailability, and one week may actually be a short amount of time for many people. Instead of an outright fail after one week, I could instead support some kind of notice or warning after one week, with rejection only happening if they haven't responded again for about another week or so. In addition, there should probably be some kind of change to the guidelines making the QPQ exemption for new nominators more visible in some form. Many QPQ-exempt editors do not mention their exemption during their nomination, which can make things confusing considering even reviews are backlogged to begin with. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support reasonable as it is consistent with the spirit of DYK highlighting "new" material. Noms are often held up for weeks or months even over content/hook issues. We should not allow further delay that can easily be avoided. MB 03:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support if it's not a hard rule and with the possibility of exceptions if the nominator requests an extension in good faith. As Narutolovehinata5 points out, many people simply don't have time to do it within a week if real life is busy and they should not be punished for it. Regards SoWhy 12:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as second option. This is less bad than having to supply a QPQ immediately, and can even be a good compromise. But it's still limiting, especially in cases of unresponsive nominators. And it doesn't really solve the problem of QPQ backlogs, it just changes when the QPQ review is done. I agree with Narutolovehinata5 that we could give warnings or notices after a week, since I am one of these people who are busy in real life. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose too restrictive - why not 2-4 weeks. It's actually good to force reviewers to looik higher up the queue, and changing that is more likely to increase the backlog. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support There should be a reasonable time limit, otherwise someone reviewing the nom has to delay, or come back again later increasing the review effort. I think we can allow some delay, but don't put it off too much. Otherwise if any delay is acceptable when can a nomination be failed for no QPQ? If someone cannot do their reviews within a week, they should be putting in less nominations themselves. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Partial support in that if the QPQ has not been completed in a week's time, a notice that the QPQ is needed (not an outright failure) should be placed on the nomination, and the nominator allowed another seven days. If they haven't done it after the extension (and haven't engaged with the reviewer), then I think a failure is justified at that point. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Second choice compared to status quo. feminist (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Partial support per BlueMoonset. I've forgotten about DYK noms before, so the reminder after a week is reasonable. If the nominator is still unresponsive at the point, fail it, some effort is required. Hog Farm Bacon 23:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak support I suggest one to two weeks. Nominations are constantly at a backlog, which should not be held up by irresponsible undone QPQs. Also, nominators should be pinged with QPQ checks at least once. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as unnecessarily restrictive, especially for those still learning the ropes. - Chieharumachi (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • QPQ can be supplied whenever/status quo
  • Oppose as per original comments. Flibirigit (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per the discussion before these RfCs. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If somebody hasn't gotten around to it in a week, they never will. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support with a caveat that the QPQ needs to be supplied within a reasonable amount of time and DYkers can decline nominations without a QPQ after a while --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose This wastes the reviewer's time. Yoninah (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not sure how long nominators shoud have to complete a QPQ, but I believe there should be a limit. There is no good reason for nominators to take weeks to do a QPQ when they are notified on their talk page quite a while back. SL93 (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I'd be comfortable with this too. In practise, all stale nominations will expire regardless of the issue. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose --evrik (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose MB 03:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as first option. As long as the QPQ is provided sometime before approval, I don't think this should be a problem. epicgenius (talk) 15:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Somewhat self-serving support as often I sent articles to DYK that I just expanded, and am short on time for a QPQ review because the expansion itself took up all time. I think it stands to reason though that once a reviewer has said "QPQ needed" it's reasonable to expect a prompt QPQ. But not at the time of nomination. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: there should not be an indefinite "whenever"; the expectation should be that if the nominator has not done a required QPQ at the time they make the nomination, it should be done with reasonable promptitude thereafter. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Any additional requirement on this is instruction WP:CREEP for a minor issue. feminist (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reason of backlog. Based on my experience so far, things get held up/stalled quite easily and there should be a time limit for this. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • QPQ timeline exception can be eased in special circumstances for multiple-hook nominations, or multiple nominations for special occasion events, such as Christmas
  • Support - as someone who has been involved in such events that fill an entire queue or two. — Maile (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support within reasonable amount of time, as long as an honest effort is being made. Flibirigit (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I'm always inclined to be flexible if it gives a better result. This is our general policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as long as people are trying to do the QPQs. And support for special events as long as the special events list isn't just limited to US holidays (e.g. if we choose to give people more time around Thanksgiving weekend, then do the same for UK bank holiday weekends as well). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I say, unironically, that I don't see why not. epicgenius (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This seems reasonable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for me this is just making everything more complicated. Why not just do the QPQ before the nomination. Mujinga (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: we should always be open to exceptions and special circumstances if warranted, but nominators need to work with the reviewer and show a willingness to follow through. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: if valid reasons are given, I do not see a problem to compromise as WP:Creep is a thing. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on a time limit to supply a QPQ

  • I'd support 2-4 weeks. Personally I rarely do them before/at the same time, & often not for a week. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
If it was a few cases I don't think this would have been raised as an issue, but quite a few do seem to languish unattended and uncompleted. There may be a more creative way to deal with this issue than the blunt options discussed above, which is why I supported a more flexible timeframe than the strict limit. If the issue is the backlog, perhaps there's a way to have a bot automatically detect missing QPQs, and send the reminders, or a way to have a bot mark them in some obvious manner so that reviewers can simply skim pass over them until a QPQ is actually done (ie. until the nomination is actually complete and ready to review). CMD (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Returning to this, I think enforcing very quick QPQs is likely to make noms that are less attractive to reviewers, for whatever reason, take even longer to get one (as most reviewers want to see a QPQ before they start). Thus it may make the back of the backlog worse. I'm rather puzzled by the votes so far - reviews from up to 2 years ago can be used, but new ones must be done within a week. I often do reviews and never claim them as QPQ unless I have a nom on; then I do a "fresh" one. If those limits became policy I would start to "hoard" them, and so do fewer reviews overall. This doesn't seem to be the intention of these proposals, but it might be the effect. Johnbod (talk)
  • Comment on special occasions set aside for an entire set or two. The editors most likely to understand this without an explanation, are the ones who have been around to do the writing and promotions. There are some occasions where there's only one or two or three editors/admins to carry it off. Christmas is often a mad scramble to get it together. DYK is then lacking its reliable regulars who do the heavy lifting - last-minute nominations, while some nominators hurriedly scurry to come up with the necessary QPQs. And hope there are promoters around. If they don't readily have the QPQs, they have to quickly take care of that. Aside from Christmas, the 2016 Star Trek 50th anniversary also comes to mind. To my memory, all (or almost all) the nominations came from one dedicated Star Trek fan. That was a ton of writing, while also having enough reviews in the wings for QPQs on every hook. There have been other similar events. Having a little leeway on the QPQ timeline for the full-set special occasions, benefits DYK. — Maile (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Personally, the procedure for nominating an article starts with my doing a review. And when considering what article to review, I actively select articles where the QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned earlier, rather than an outright fail after one week without a QPQ, I would support a more flexible timeframe where a notice could be given after one week then the nomination would only be failed if there's no response after a certain amount of time after that (about a week or so, for example). Even then, in certain cases where the QPQ is the only thing that's missing and every other criterion is met, reviewers or commenters could at their discretion donate a QPQ to allow the nomination to move forward. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Siddhantasara is now two weeks old without a QPQ being supplied. Nominator has been reminded. Flibirigit (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I haven't read this entire thing so apologies if this has already been considered. Could we just require a QPQ be provided within a week of start of review? That would let reviewers open the review, mark it started, ping the nom, and not do any further work until the QPQ is provided. That keeps the reviewer from wasting time doing a review that's been abandoned. It prevents other reviewers from doing the review (instead of moving on to a review that already does have a QPQ). If after a month there's still no QPQ, fail the nomination. —valereee (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Summary

  • I think this summarizes the consensus:
Qualifying QPQs need to be full reviews, and not simply a "check mark." Ideally, a QPQ should be submitted within a week of a nomination. After one week, a nomination may be closed as "incomplete." QPQs do not expire and may be used at any time for a DYK nomination.
Agreed? --evrik (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd not !voted so I could maybe summarize, and I agree with this - though I do think there is enough support for "ping the nominator if there isn't a QPQ" to explicitly include that, so there's no future arguments over a nominator arguing they weren't. Kingsif (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
(Having !voted) I agree with the interpretation of the review requirement discussion (although we don't have a mechanism to check this at the moment) and the QPQ expiry discussion, but agree with Kingsif that a strict "within a week" consensus was not strong, given the comments in that section and given the strong support in the section explicitly calling for exceptions. CMD (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • IMHO - Unresponsive authors or nominators is another issue, not just confined to QPQs. --evrik (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Qualifying QPQs need to be full reviews, and not simply a "check mark." Ideally, a QPQ should be submitted within a week of a nomination. After one week, and a reminder to the nominator, a nomination may be closed as "incomplete." QPQs do not expire and may be used at any time for a future DYK nomination.

Agreed? --evrik (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I think that is a good summary of the consensus as I read it. I don't think we should formally change the rules with specific wording, but we can point to this RfC when issues come up. CMD (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    Actually, it would b perfect as point 5b here: Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria. --evrik (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to add image to already existing DYK?

I want to add this image to Template:Did you know nominations/Matchstick Marvels Museum, but I'm not sure how to do it correctly. SL93 (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Politely propose it as a comment. Propose it if you do the review. Nothing really formal. --evrik (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I did for you, but you will have to replace caption by what you want to say. - I do it like this: I go to any nom with a pic, copy from there, and replace the file name, - easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I will do it that way in the future. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Q3 29Aug

Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Robertson Berrey

SL93, when I read 'helped reduce the leprosy population' it read to me like maybe she'd killed them off or sent them somewhere. :) I think the article is saying she provided medical care which reduced the incidence of leprosy, which obviously would result in a smaller number of people with leprosy? I can't get to the source to verify, would this tweak be accurate?

ALT0a:* ... that as a medical missionary, pediatrician Ruth Robertson Berrey helped reduce Nigeria's incidence of leprosy? —valereee (talk) 12:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Valereee Oh, I didn’t think of people coming to that conclusion. The new tweak works well. SL93 (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Main Page

I have started a discussion at Talk:Main Page#that, that, that, that, that, that, that, that which may be of interest to editors here. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

So people know what this is about without having to click on the link to find out, C&C proposes removing the initial "that" from DYK hooks, and changing the header for the section to "Did you know that ...". BlueMoonset (talk) 04:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Kanye West song hooks

@Maile66: We have a lot of Kanye West song hooks lately. Isn't he a candidate in the 2020 United States presidential election? When should we stop running these hooks? Yoninah (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah Is this a trick question? :-) I was just getting used to taking your advice in the other above section, and throw in the towels on my perspective therein. However, you are correct. Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign. Wow - and we ran a hook on his campaign earlier this month. I don't know much about his campaign, but when he opened his campaign, the media chatter was that he was a spoiler candidate to take the general election votes away from the Democratic front runner (notice how I didn't name the front runner). Anybody have thoughts on this? Should we place a moratorium on hooks about the 3rd party candidate, on or about the same as we suspend hooks about the others? Whenever that is. — Maile (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
There is currently one in a prep I did (it's Prep 2 I think). If it is a bit too overwhelming to have his hooks for a while, we can put the reviews for new ones on hold, with the current in Prep 2 remaining if that's okay. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 05:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
There has been no support for extending the election purdah this far. If they go up in September and October there might be an issue, but if it's in prep now that seems fine. CMD (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Fort Trump

Regarding Prep 6 - What is our policy regarding days before an election, when we won't put a candidate's name on the main page? Either DYK has a rule about that, or the Main Page people do. Name placement, is name placement, no matter how its framed. — Maile (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:DYKHOOK, Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates. Flibirigit (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the info on this. — Maile (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Chetsford, Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, and Piotrus: Fort Trump needs to be pulled. I have nominated this at AFD. WP:NOTNEWS The article is about something that does not exist. There is no Fort Trump. It's a discussion that's been going on since 2019, but not much else. All this article tells us is a recap of the various ideas that have been floated since 2019. — Maile (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
@Maile66: well I've pulled it, since the AFD has been started, but with all due respect it seems a rather far-fetched AFD nom to me. The "Fort Trump" concept is very well attested in sources, and there is no requirement for an entity to actually exist for it to have an article - we discuss hypothetical projects which were never realised all the time. I find it highly unlikely the AFD will result in a deletion, but who knows! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru Well, OK, thanks for doing that. As for the rest ... it will all come out in the wash at AFD, either direction. — Maile (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Yep, it certainly will. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
After AfD is resolved, assuming it is kept, the DYK should be restored to the queue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:43, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
The above question about name dropping during an election as per WP:DYKHOOK will then need to be discussed. Flibirigit (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Chetsford, Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, Piotrus, and Flibirigit: AFD Fort Trump closed as "no consensus", so do whatever you do in those situations. — Maile (talk) 01:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The easiest solution is to just schedule this for appearance on the main page after election day, to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Election day is November 3, so we can schedule it for, say, November 5. BD2412 T 01:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea. No objection here. Chetsford (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Out of a preponderance of caution, I wouldn't object to even holding it until December, after the Electoral College votes. I'm not passionate about any date, however, so will defer to whatever the Queue Lords decide. Chetsford (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm also thinking that the election results could drag out long after the election; we could even have a court case as in the 2000 United States presidential election. Why can't we run it right now? And the hook is not about the U.S., but about Poland. Yoninah (talk) 18:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Because featuring a hook that uses the candidate's name, is name placement during an election. — Maile (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The election is more than 30 days away. Yoninah (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine with whatever you decide, Yoninah. (I don't have this discussion watchlisted so ping me if my further input is desired but I'm generally agnostic about the date.) Chetsford (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The higher consideration for the encyclopedia is avoiding the appearance of impropriety, irrespective of a set number of days. However, I don't think it's necessary to wait until the Electoral College meets in December, as the campaign to the general public will be over by election day (though in some past elections, polling places have been held open for extended hours technically running into the next day, so I would give a day for that). Since the point of a DYK is to promote Wikipedia content rather than to promote an outside interest, that is all that should matter. In fact, the topic may draw even more interest in the days right after the election than it would now. BD2412 T 23:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @BD2412: you can comment about our policy in the discussion below. Meanwhile, we can run this tomorrow and be more than two months in advance of any voting. Yoninah (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I suppose if we run it tomorrow, it will have no conceivable effect on the election. It is only a trivial embarrassment. BD2412 T 23:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you. So as not to disrupt the queues, I'm going to be bold and swap it into Prep 4 for a run date of August 30. It survived the AFD and has been waiting long enough. Yoninah (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC) Maile, if you think it should run even earlier, please move it up into one of the queues. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yoninah I'm not going to move it. But for future reference, after all the 2020 dust has cleared, I think the election date discussion should resume. On a neutral basis not related to any one hook. Our world has changed forever with the pandemic, and DYK probably needs to make some adjustments here and there. — Maile (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I've pulled the promotion and reopened the nomination, because Yoninah simply cannot promote her own hook to prep, and ALT2 (the best of the bunch) was hers. I'm also not willing to promote it myself, since I favor holding it until after the election, but I left the space open in Prep 4 rather than revert the move that made room for it in case others disagree. Someone should really supersede the slash icon with a tick icon before promotion; it looks very odd to promote a nomination where a tick is not the final icon. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:45, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's just wait until the election, and no harm in getting another person to review the nom. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
I gave it another review a couple of hours ago, and noted there that it seems it would be more viable to run it ASAP rather than wait. Kingsif (talk) 11:25, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Ever since I put this up at the now-closed as "no consensus" AFD, I've wondered what the conversation would be here if the article/hook was based on Joe Biden and - just to pick a name out of a hat - Governor Wanda Vázquez Garced of Puerto Rico holding a news conference where the governor blurted out, "We would like a new United States military base built in Puerto Rico and named Biden Air Force Base". After all, win or lose this election, he has been the Vice President. And as the nominee, he's within his rights to start consulting world leaders. Biden chuckles and says, "You'll have to ask Congress". Someone checks the financial feasibility of it, and the idea is dropped. But someone at Wikipedia writes an article named Biden Air Force Base as though the proposal alone was notable, even though the base does not exist, and nominates it at DYK. Would there be any objections here to putting that on the main page this close to the election? — Maile (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Given the discussion below, I think posting in August would be widely accepted. However, it should have a better hook. The name was incentive to get a military base in Poland, whereas the hook seems to imply the idea is more to honour Trump. CMD (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Maile, we have a huge and diverse readership. Even people who live in the U.S. don't care about the election. And the article is about a nod to a sitting president. I think you should let this one go already. Yoninah (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, if the hook had been about Biden, Sanders, or any other candidate, such a hook would probably be controversial too. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
So where are we holding with this? If it's going to be run after the November 3 election, along with all the Kanye West hooks that keep popping up, we'll need to file it in a new section under Special Occasions hooks. Yoninah (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Queue 4

  • ... that Chopin's mother was his first music teacher, but his knowledge surpassed hers before he was seven? Source: "He quickly exhausted all the guidance his mother and sister could give him, and before he was seven his musical development was entrusted to an acquaintance of his father's"

I'm not happy about this hook. It was Chopin's musical ability rather than his knowledge that surpassed his mother's, and his first instructor seems to have been his sister (three years his senior) rather than his mother. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah:, @Amkgp:, @Piotrus: and @SusunW: courtesy pings. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 07:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Could make it "first adult music teacher". Not sure about the second issue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry if this is a trite point, but wouldn't the hook be better if it was about her rather than about her son? CMD (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
CMD, I can't find much to say about her personally, and her name is rather unwieldy so I piped it. What about:
ALT1: ... that Chopin's mother and sister were his first music teachers, but his musical ability surpassed theirs before he was seven? Yoninah (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
ALT1 gets over the problems I had with the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Children play "school". My own sister came home every day and taught me what she had learned. It's part of the educational process that happens with siblings. Krzyżanowska taught her older daughter who in turn taught her brother what she knew. Ludwika was a child and not a trained musician. According to the source, her piano lessons were part of a "game" the siblings played.p 22 Krzyżanowska was his first true teacher. SusunW (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I may have to trouble you to fix an error I made with the ce in Queue 4 Cwmhiraeth. This one. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 15:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
That one is sorted. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 7 Gorkha Bridge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Discussion shifted to Template:Did you know nominations/Gorkha Bridge CMD (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Gorkha Bridge should not have been approved or promoted. The article still has issues with copyediting and source fidelity. @Evrik, Spinningspark, and SL93:@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: CMD (talk) 04:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Source fidelity? --evrik (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    • The text is not supported by its inline citations. There was the example I mentioned and fixed, and I just went to check the current article and the first thing I looked at was the claim of a 50 year lifespan, which is not in the source cited. CMD (talk) 04:37, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
      • The fifty year fact is from here: "Cantilever bridge built in upper Gorkha". The Kathmandu Post. Archived from the original on 25 July 2020. Retrieved 24 July 2020.
The two paragraphs in the body of this work have seven sources. I think this article is okay. --evrik (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I promoted it because I was going to complete a copy edit afterwords, which is now completed. I will let others discuss the sources. SL93 (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I think I fixed the sourcing issues. Everything is in the provided sources, but some of them were put in incorrectly. SL93 (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I know the fact exists, the problem is it wasn't in the source cited. The simple existence of sources doesn't qualify as good inline citation. CMD (talk) 05:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Driveby comment: I personally do not find the hook that interesting but am unsure if that is a major concern at this stage. :/ I mean restoring a popular trail is normal but reconnecting seven villages may be notable I suppose. However, I find that being built by Swiss engineers and local residents and by drilling into a cliff is more interesting. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Chipmunkdavis Ignoring the interesting issue which I don't think is actually an issue, is the sourcing issue considered to be taken care of now? SL93 (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
      • One of the sources for this article, which was created in July 2020, says it was accessed in January 2013. None of the 3 sources cited say the project costs 6.1 million (although one mentions this figure as a wage, which I assume is how it got onto the page). The next sentence of the article gives an entirely different figure, which is supported by one of the two sources it is sourced to, the other one giving a slightly different figure. (Other sources give different figures again, which is not reflected anywhere in the article.) The article attributes a quote to the District Development Committee when that may simply be the wording of the news article writer. The article cited for Chumchet doesn't mention Chumchet, and the Chumchet Wikipedia article says it is a village in the valley, which is the opposite of what the article suggests. There is some very close paraphrasing, and a clear need for more copyediting.
      • Why is there a push to get this through? The original nominator has not commented on the page at all since nomination. Please pull it from the queue until its issues are properly addressed. CMD (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
        • Chipmunkdavis If my intention was just to push the nomination through, I would have never asked for your response. I was planning on pulling it depending on your response. It is pulled now. SL93 (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
          • Apologies SL93, I was not directing it at you. It was just a bit frustrating that after I pointed out issues in the nomination page it somehow seemed to gain a momentum of its own and made it quickly to approval and then prep without the issues being addressed or the nominators invovlement. CMD (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
            • Chipmunkdavis I can understand that. I was confused too with the comments given by Evrik and SpinningSpark when I promoted the hook. SL93 (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
              • Really don't know what to say here. The bulk of the article consists of 16 sentences in two paragraphs. There are seven citations across those two paragraphs. It looks good to me. --evrik (talk) 00:31, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
                • Evrik, have you read the comments in this discussion? The number of sources an article has is irrelevant if they don't actually verify the content of the article. 97198 (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
                  • Every fact is sourced. --evrik (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It would be nice to hear from the nominator on the DYK nomination. I let them know that I reopened the nomination. SL93 (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

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

Prep 4:Italian dish

  • ... that although nowadays the neccio (pictured) is considered a dessert, peasants used to eat it with salty food?
@Alessandro57:@Al Ameer son:@Amkgp:
Why is this being referred to as the neccio? The article seems heavily based on Italian and though in Italian it may be referred to as il neccio, it probably should be referred to as neccio in English. Yoninah (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's OK. Replace neccio with "muffin" or "pancake" (probably the closest equivalent) and one would still use "the" IMO. Black Kite (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
No, I think one would use plural "muffins/pancakes" (with "are", and "them"). Replacing "the neccio" with "necci" would achieve the same here. Bazza (talk) 12:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that would be fine as well. Black Kite (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
We could use necci in the hook, because that goes with the image of the multiple necci. But what about the article? Our Muffin article starts A muffin is.... Shouldn't this start A neccio is..., and replace "the" with "a" throughout the article? Yoninah (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, I edited the article. Yoninah (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Based on the article, it is consistently labelled without an article, so I'm kinda on the fence about this, but it wouldn't be too much of an issue to use a instead of the imo. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 13:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The article uses "the necci" twice, which would work if you were saying "the muffins". Loanword plurals aren't consistent, I think the hook would work with "a neccio" or "necci", and could see someone saying simply "neccio", but I don't think "the neccio" would be used in English. CMD (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
I edited the article some more. I think the hook works now. Yoninah (talk) 14:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 5: Image

Regarding Template:Did you know/Preparation area 5 and Template:Did you know nominations/Leslie Goonewardene.

The image wasn't approved as much as the deletion request was sent back for more refinement, Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/07/15#Files uploaded by SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk_·_contribs). I think we should rethink the image selection. --evrik (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. But the image also has to be correctly licensed in the article. I'm returning the nomination to WP:DYKN. Yoninah (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

2020 voting dates in the US for the upcoming Presidential election

WP:DYKHOOK, Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates

Does DYK calculate "before an election", by the first date a voter casts a ballot? If our policy is designed to be neutral and not give Main Page space to candidates, then we need to take into consideration that voting is no longer a process where everybody shows up on the same day and votes at the polls. I contend that the American presidential election actually begins in September - when voters begin casting ballots in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, South Dakota, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming - and ends on the official "election day" of November 3. Please see below. — Maile (talk)

Early voting by state

The earliest dates for election voting I see here are 46 days ahead of Nov 3, and 45 days ahead of Nov 3. That would mean in effect that their Presidential elections start around September 17 - 29.

  • Alabama - none listed
  • Alaska - 15 days before the election
  • Arizona - 27 days before the election
  • Arkansas - 15 days before the election
  • California - 29 days before the election
  • Colorado - N/A
  • Connecticut - N/A
  • Delaware - N/A
  • District of Columbia - N/A
  • Florida - At least 10 days before the election. Varies by county.
  • Georgia - October 5 - the fourth Monday before the election.
  • Hawaii - all mail-in voting starting 2020.
  • Idaho - On or before the third Monday before the election
  • Illinois - 40 days before the election.
  • Indiana - 28 days before the election.
  • Iowa - 29 days before the election (in-person absentee voting).
  • Kansas - Up to 20 days before the election.
  • Kentucky- N/A
  • Louisiana - 14 days before the election.
  • Maine - 30 days before the election
  • Maryland - The second Thursday before the election.
  • Massachusetts - 11 days before the election
  • Michigan - 45 days before the election
  • Minnesota - 46 days before the election
  • Mississippi- N/A
  • Missouri- N/A
  • Montana - 30 days before the election (in-person absentee voting).
  • Nebraska - 30 days before the election.
  • Nevada - 17 days before the election.
  • New Hampshire- N/A
  • New Jersey - 45 days before the election
  • New Mexico - 28 days before the election
  • New York - 10 days before the election
  • North Carolina - 19 days before the election
  • North Dakota - At least 15 days before the election. Varies by county
  • Ohio - 28 days before the election
  • Oklahoma - 5 days before the election
  • Oregon- N/A
  • Pennsylvania - Varies by county. Counties may make mail ballots available to voters in person up to 50 days before Election Day.
  • Rhode Island - N/A
  • South Carolina - N/A
  • South Dakota - 46 days before the election
  • Tennessee - 20 days before the election
  • Texas - 22 days before the election.
  • Utah - 14 days before the election
  • Vermont - 45 days before the election
  • Virginia - 45 days before the election
  • Washington - 18 days before the election.
  • West Virginia - 13 days before the election
  • Wisconsin - At least 14 days before the election
  • Wyoming - 45 days before the election


I understand what you are getting at, but I would still do 30 days before November 3 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Out of an abundance of caution and knowing the current US political environment, I would suggest simply not running any 2020 U.S. election hooks, especially if they name a candidate, until after November 3 (and potentially even until January). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
@Guerillero: 30 days before November 3, several states will have already voted, either wholly or partially (depending on the urgency deemed by the voters). So for those voters, we will be closing the barn door weeks after the horse got out. — Maile (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking about this the other day as I created a Puerto Rico hook that is in the upcoming queue (no names and shouldn't be an issue). American election campaigns are unusual in their sheer length, so I would agree with extending the purdah here. Perhaps 3 September would be a simple to implement cut-off date. CMD (talk) 02:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
This is a case of a DYK guideline that simply hasn't kept up with the times. When it was set, there wasn't much in the way of early voting, and mail-in voting was only a major thing in a few states. By now, early voting has become much more prevalent, and mail-in voting is going to be a huge factor. Under these circumstances, 30 days before November 3 will not be sufficient, because we'll be having hooks on the main page during the election period. With people early voting in mid-September, we don't want someone to be affected by a hook just before heading out to cast their ballot. I think CMD's suggestion of September 3, or making it an even September 1 (nothing after the end of August), makes sense this year. We can always hold hooks until after the end of the election cycle. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I think that thirty days before the day of the election is a good guideline. --evrik (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with BlueMoonset and Chipmunkdavis that we should move our cut-off date to possibly September 1 or 3. "Day of the election" is the first date an eligible voter casts a vote, which is mid-September. November 3 is now the last chance to vote date. — Maile (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggested re-wording of the DYK guideline

Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before the first voting date in an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates.

@BlueMoonset, Yoninah, and Cwmhiraeth: or any other promoter interested in this. I've given a slight re-wording of the DYK guideline, by inserting "before the first voting date" to keep the change at a minimal. We need to fix the current gap in wording, not only for the current American election, but because in the global world, rapid communication changes are happening. We need to keep up with the times. Thoughts? — Maile (talk) 18:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose I think we should stick with the election day, and not the start of voting. --evrik (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per evrik. We will drive ourselves crazy finding out where early voting takes place in every district every year, not just in the U.S. but everywhere. And for what? So someone in North Carolina won't be influenced by a DYK hook on the day they can vote? Thirty days before an election has always been our rule of thumb. Yoninah (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Yoninah --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:30, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. The 30 day before election rule is sensible, but there's no need to go crazy over this. The US election cycle seems to begin 2 years before the polling day so we're never going to fully inoculate against the outside chance of influencing voters, but if we keep it sensible then we've done our best.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment It is hard to look up the first day of voting for every election, and 30 days before elections works for a lot of countries. However, we can make individual extensions if agreed, not only to reduce the chance of influencing voters, but also I would suggest to reduce the chance editors here will have to spend a lot of time dealing with a heated issue. CMD (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • You bring up a good point. The only reason we know about the above early voting states in this election, is because I posted them above. And they will surely change four years from now. Maybe it would be easier in this one circumstance, to agree to make Sept 1 (or close to that date) as the cut-off for this year's USA Presidential election, and deal with future elections as they evolve. — Maile (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • What about all the Oppose votes here? There seems to be consensus to leave it at 30 days before an election, not before early voting starts. Yoninah (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Those are about the overall guidelines, the specific instance discussed above has different comments. CMD (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Stick to 30 days from election day. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Wow, I missed this! I'd Support, at least for future, but but how many such hooks do we have in progress that we'd need to swap out? At this point all pre-Sept 1 preps/queues are full. I've actually got one myself waiting to be slotted, and at this point it would need a swap out by an admin. (Template:Did you know nominations/KHive if any admin wants to take pity on me.) :) —valereee (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Valereee you and I, and possibly BlueMoonset are in the minority in the here and now on this. I do believe that at some point in the future, sooner rather than later, DYK has to rethink how it handles this issue. I regularly work CAT:CSD and WP:AIV, where it is evident that the rest of the world often thinks of Wikipedia as a free advertising site. Even to the point of seeing Wikipedia like Facebook or Youtube. Lots of resumes and corporate ads. And as I got into editing talk pages etc. of current events articles, it has sometimes been eye opening in how there are repeated attempts to skew content to one slant or another. Add to that, the above thread by Yoninah regarding Kanye West. DYK is in need of a rethinking on it's being a loophole for free main page political name placement. — Maile (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I think let's be honest here, no-one's going to change the way they vote just because they saw a DYK hook on a candidate 29 days before the election. (As much as we'd like to think we do), we don't have that sort of power and influence. That being said, I think the 30 day rule is a good idea to prevent the project as a whole being accused of any sort of bias. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose My recollection is that this rule was put in place after a series of highly contentious hooks related to the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth campaign during the 2008 US presidential election.[1] That it might not be so easy to determine if a hook was related to an election was not overlooked. I thought that the 30 day rule was a reasonable compromise although in practice it has proved easy to gum up contentious DYK hooks for months on end. As Yoniah points out, implementation of the proposal is impractical. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 3

I approved Template:Did you know nominations/2channel and it is now in prep 3, but now I'm thinking it might be a negative BLP issue despite the "claimed" part of the hook. Pinging Psiĥedelisto and Amkgp. SL93 (talk) 06:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@SL93: Are you concerned about the sourcing? I thought it was pretty bulletproof. The owner of 4chan, one of the biggest websites in the world, claiming his last website, biggest forum in Japan, was stolen by him by someone widely suspected to be QAnon (see also [2], a source not in that article where journalist Adrienne LeFranc repeats this suspicion, the only person she says by name could be Q) is very notable and hooky. The rules state that we must not violate BLP. They don't state that we can't write about living people in DYK. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 07:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Psiĥedelisto I never said that we can’t write about living people on the main page (strange conclusion in my opinion) and I never mentioned the sourcing (which I said was fine in my approval). I’m thinking that there might be a potential issue because DYK tends to stay away from negative hooks mentioning living people because they are going on the main page. Let’s just let others respond. SL93 (talk) 07:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
From WP:DYK - “Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided.“ SL93 (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@SL93: Well, I don't think it's undue, given how famous both men, their websites, and the event itself is, especially in Japan, but of course be aware of my COI - I made and disavowed 8chan as my userpage states. I added another source wihch summarizes the event, Beran (2019). I learned about it recently when I was working on 420chan, but forgot to add it it seems. I understand that we wouldn't want to highlight a random domain theft allegation on the homepage, but this isn't that due to its high profile, in my humble opinion. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 07:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
The hook includes the name of an individual without an article, which is something that is avoided on DYK, and so needs to be changed on that basis. Irrespective of the sourcing, I agree with SL93 that it gives of the very strong appearance of WP:COATRACKing to those who are less familiar with the history behind the event, or less familiar with noticeboards and the Xchans in general. CMD (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: I'd be OK with cutting "by 8chan owner Jim Watkins". Obviously it's inappropriate for me to write an article about Watkins, as much as I might be able to do a good job. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 07:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that part could be replaced by something like "and set up a mirror of the original site in response" or similar. I believe this would address the issue, if that topic is maintained for the hook. Incidentally, I note the article doesn't meet WP:LEAD requirements, as information in the lead isn't present in the article body. For example, it would be good to have the lead details of the traffic post-split in the relevant part of the article. CMD (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: Lead concern has been remedied; and I added an ALT2 hook. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 21:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
@SL93, Psiĥedelisto, and Chipmunkdavis: Template:Did you know nominations/2channel has been moved back to WP:DYKNA ~ Amkgp 💬 08:52, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Actually, Amkgp, as it needs further review, it belongs on WP:DYKN, so I've moved it there. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1

... has two hooks by me Herbert Leuninger and Rhythm Is It! (which also means two related to Germany), could you please swap one to prep 3 which has none? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done But Prep 3 had 2 other music hooks, so I moved it on to Prep 7. Yoninah (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Is the 2 hooks by the same person thing an actual rule? It seems to be occasionally applied, but is nowhere in WP:DYKRULES. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Rule or not, I don't like to take care of two one day ;) - thanks for the adjustment! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Admin needed to promote Queue 7 to main page; bot is down

Queue 7 was supposed to be promoted to the main page at 00:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC), but the bot appears to be down and didn't do the promotion at the scheduled time. I have pinged DYKUpdateBot owner Shubinator's talk page, but in the meantime we need to have an admin do a manual promotion of the queue to the main page.

The instructions on how to do the promotion are at the bottom of the queue page (or any queue or prep page). Pinging admins @Casliber:, @Amakuru:, @Vanamonde93:, @Maile66:, @Guerillero:, @Valereee:, @Wugapodes:, @Lee Vilenski:, and @Gatoclass:. Please do not undertake this unless you can do at least the first five steps in quick succession (though hopefully you'll be able to do them all)—doing fewer leaves things in an unsafe state. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMoonset (talk • contribs) 00:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy resending pings since statement above was not signed. Pinging admins @Casliber:, @Amakuru:, @Vanamonde93:, @Maile66:, @Guerillero:, @Valereee:, @Wugapodes:, @Lee Vilenski:, and @Gatoclass:. Flibirigit (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Flibirigit. That was pretty maladroit of me. Apologies to all. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 Done. I've updated the template, set the clock, cleared the queue and updated the next queue number. Haven't done credits yet. Luckily I wasn't sleeping very well and spotted this at 5am UK time! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot is back online now, thanks BlueMoonset and Amakuru for stepping in! Shubinator (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Shubinator. Good to know we're good for tomorrow. If any other admin stops by and sees this, there are a couple of empty queues that are ready to be filled with prep sets. Much appreciated! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I have not done the credits or the talk page notifications - started doing the top one, but seems you have to manually copy over the hook and the nom subpage and I'm on my phone now so too fiddly. So will either do it all later or someone else can do those credits for now. I think all the other bits are done, but if there's an error anywhere let me know. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Understand, but admit that I first thought something went wrong with the article when I didn't see the expected credit for O Jesu Christe, wahres Licht ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Hm...I went to Manually posting the new update (if the bot is down) and it says If you have time, please do the credits for the hooks just promoted (see "Credits" section above). I don't see a credits section. If someone can point me at the instructions? —valereee (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: The easiest way to do this that I'm aware of is to go to the version of the queue that the main page was updated from, and then use the "give" and "tag" links in the credits section. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, thanks! Off to break wikipedia! —valereee (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I've done all the gives, but there has to be an easier way to do the tags. It seems to require me to open the queue both in the version and in code, copy the hook in code, return to the queue version, click tag, temporarily paste the hook into the edit box, copy code, paste the code, cut the hook, and paste the hook into the code. Can that be right? —valereee (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee:Vanamonde93 are you all talking about the credit templates on the user talk page and the article talk page? Not sure what method that is, but here's a simple method that has worked for me. First of all, do only one kind at a time, so you don't have to switch templates. All the nominator templates in a row, or all the article templates in a row.
  • Pick any hook that's on the archived page.
  • Go to the nominator page and look at the credit they received. Copy that ivmbox template, and use it as your template giving the nominator credits for each of the missed round. Change what is necessary, and paste it on each user page.
  • For the article credits, copy the "DYK talk" template. Copy and paste on each article talk page, changing only what is necessary. — Maile (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
So the answer seems to be yes, you have to work in three windows. Fun! I am so thankful for all our wonderful bot creators! —valereee (talk) 10:33, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Done! 14:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, valereee, Maile, and anybody else, I've created an off-Wiki tool to make this all very effortless. So, any time user credits and article talk page notifications need to be manually added, feel free to give me a ping and I'd be happy to take care of it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 08:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Mandarax I have added a notation to our Admin instructions page. diff Thanks. — Maile (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Request for admin assistance

Otto Hahn just passed GA, and I would like to add it to the Template:Did you know nominations/Discovery of nuclear fission to create a double hook. I have a QPQ for it (Template:Did you know nominations/Aurora: Beyond Equality). But it is sitting in Queue 6 and I cannot update it. All that needs to be done is:

  • bold his name in the hook
  • add a {{DYKmake}} card to the Queue:
    * {{DYKmake|Discovery of nuclear fission|Hawkeye7|subpage=Otto Hahn}}

If an admin could do this for me, it would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done but I reversed the arguments to the DYKmake because it seemed to work better that way. Someone please let me know if it should be unreversed or anything else done. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks a million!!! (You should also bold Otto Hahn in the Queue 6 hook.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok, done that too. (I guess I should have caught that one but these details are complicated if you haven't already done it many times.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • David Eppstein, Hawkeye7, has there been an actual DYK review of Otto Hahn? If not, please reverse the edits that have been done to Queue 6 until such a review has been done, which will require an actual nomination. Please take care of that, Hawkeye7, if you wish to add this article to your hook. GA listing has never been an automatic add at DYK, and for very good reasons. Thanks. (Note that had this been in prep rather than in a queue, it would have been beyond the pale to add the new bold link.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    • I did verify that it had passed GA before adding it, but did not actually check carefully that it met other DYK requirements (although I expect it does) because I didn't think it would be right to both do a review and edit the queue. If you want it to be more thoroughly reviewed, then unless someone else wants to do the review quickly while it's still in the queue, it should be pulled from the queue for a re-review rather than just dropping the double hook on the floor and pretending it's still a single nomination, as your suggested reversal would do. However, pulling hooks from the queue is beyond what I understand about the behind-scenes machinery of DYK. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Actually, my suggestion included opening a new nomination for Otto Hahn and seeing whether a reviewer (other than the GA reviewer; we don't allow the same reviewer for GAs and DYKs) could handle it in pretty short order, since we'll be going to two-a-day tomorrow and Queue 6 will now be promoted midday Sunday. But it's probably safest and easiest to pull the original nomination from queue at this point, formally add the second article to it, and get it reviewed in the usual way. Pinging a few admins (though any admin is welcome): Amakuru, Maile, Cwmhiraeth, and valereee. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
        • The second hook has already been added to the nomination, and the addition of the second article was discussed during the original review. The sole eligibility requirement of the article is its promotion to GA, which was double checked; the hook was approved based solely on the other article (although it is in fact in both). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
          • When an article passes GA, to go on DYK it still needs to meet some other conditions that might not have been part of the GA review: for instance, it needs to have not been on DYK before, and it needs to meet the DYK standard that every body paragraph has a reference. But as I said above, I don't expect any of that to be problematic in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
            • The article was checked in the original review. Pulling the entire queue and moving it back to the prep area as suggested by BlueMoonset seems an overreaction, and some of the queue and prep items may be time critical. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Hawkeye7 and BlueMoonset: I just added a special DYK review to the review template. The article is fine, and we should let it appear as planned. — Maile (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Maile, thanks. Can you please specify that you reviewed the Otto Hahn article in your addition? And give it your own tick? Contra Hawkeye7, there is no indication in the original review that the reviewer did any checking of the Hahn article at all. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done let me know if I missed anything else that should be on that review. Happy to be of help here. — Maile (talk) 01:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1

I was thinking that maybe the image hook in prep 1 should have "claimed that Saint Francis of Assisi (depicted) was probably a hermit" at the end. The article uses the word probably and I'm trying to be proactive in case the current hook ends up at Errors. As the nominator, I can't edit the hook myself. SL93 (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done SL93. :D VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 08:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

And that's how it's done. —valereee (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Switched on Pop in Prep 7

Could someone perform a quick ce on the Switched on Pop hook? I feel like it should say "used" instead of "uses" since it's a non-fiction book. No need to use literary present tense.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 20:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Films and books are ephemeral, so we use present-tense verbs. Yoninah (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh gotcha. I thought it only applied to fiction.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 21:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Return to two sets per day

There are now 126 approved nominations with all prep sets full. We should return to two sets per day very soon as per the recent RFC on long-term solutions for backlog. Flibirigit (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why going to one set a day from two spurs on the reviewers, but it does: we've had a reduction of 36 in the number of unapproved nominations, from 113 to 77, even as the total number of noms has climbed by 27.
We should probably change over just after midnight (so after the 00:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC) bot update is complete).We will need an admin to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200 shortly after the main page is updated tonight. Here is what needs to happen with the special occasion hooks currently in preps and queues (admin also required for these moves):
  • Queue 3: nothing should be changed; the special occasion hook for August 29 that is there (Rachael Heyhoe-Flint Trophy) is best run in the first set of the day, or 01:00 to 13:00 local time.
  • Queue 4: the Valley West Mall (Arizona) (bold link is Manistee Town Center) special occasion hook for August 30 should move to Queue 6, the second set of the day, or 08:00 to 20:00 local time. It will need to swap with a hook, and there isn't much to choose from. I'd suggest the "verraco of the bridge" hook; do not use the "nuclear fission" hook as there is an issue with the hook that may not be solved by tomorrow noon, as it involves a required review.
  • Queue 1: the "Battle of Dunbar" hook (which is a special occasion hook for September 3, although not labeled as such) should move to Prep 6, the first set of the day, or 01:00 to 13:00 local time.
Thanks to whoever takes these on. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Courtesy pings to admins for action on above request. @Casliber:, @Amakuru:, @Vanamonde93:, @Maile66:, @Guerillero:, @Valereee:, @Wugapodes:, @Lee Vilenski:, and @Gatoclass:. Flibirigit (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I suspect going to one set per day frees up capacity among those building preps and moving queues, many of whom are frequent reviewers. —valereee (talk) 10:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I have made the change to twice a day, and will now make the hook adjustments mentioned above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Manned Orbiting Laboratory

Kindly requesting for a new review of the hooks in this nomination so that it can move forward. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I proposed a new hook. --evrik (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Queue 3

The nonimation has been reopened, so discussion can continue there. See Template:Did you know nominations/WAP (song).  — Amakuru (talk) 08:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

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

@Lk95, Nice4What, Soman, and Yoninah: May I suggest that the hook featuring the Cardi B song use its title, WAP, and not all the words in the acronym? --evrik (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Any reason why? I believe the full title makes it more interesting. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not the full title. Wet Ass Pussy is classless, rude, and vulgar. Since it is not the name of the song, nor the name of the article we shouldn't use it. --evrik (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    I don't really see the problem myself. WAP does stand for "wet ass pussy", as the cited source tells us. And the purpose of the hook is to sound interesting and lure the reader into reading the article. A few people might be offended by it, but it's not like it's a graphic image, it's just words and should be OK per WP:NOTCENSORED.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    We should use the actual title of the song, which is WAP. Spelling out the acronym is just intentionally going for shock value because someone wants to have sexual slang appear on the main page of WP, snicker! Hey, hey look! He said pussy! No. —valereee (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with censorship, LASER is an acronym, but do you hear anyone saying, "light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation?" No. While I like WAP as much as the next person, its not the name of the song. --evrik (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It's misleading. The official title of the song is "WAP". The official video of it has it titled "WAP". The song's Facebook page is "WAP" Billboard, the Los Angeles Times, and all other media have written about "WAP". — Maile (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • i'd say that without the abbreviation read out, the context of the hook gets blurred. An alt would be " the song 'WAP' (short for 'wet ass pussy')...". --Soman (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • So ... aren't the very definition of "hooks" to get the reader to want to read more? Most likely, those who are of that generation and musical tastes, already know. Since when is it DYK's job to rub the reader's nose in the meaning of a hook, just to make sure they get it? I would also state that if all the article has of interest are the words "wet ass pussy", then it has no notability to stand on its own. — Maile (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Maile66: Nose like a credit card? ::::Shudder:::: --evrik (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No, it’s from the song. --evrik (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, that was a big tip-off that I've never heard the song. — Maile (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I would support either changing per the original suggestion or per Soman's suggestion. While the vulgarity definitely adds to the hook-iness, the quote on its own is still a good hook. And I agree with the editors above, the song is called "WAP" not "Wet-Ass Pussy". Bad Bunny's most recent album is called YHLQMDLG. No one refers to it as Yo Hago Lo Que Me Da La Gana even though that's what it stands for.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 22:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Second opinion requested

I'm hesitant to promote either of these hooks at Template:Did you know nominations/Ōzushima because they seem so repetitive:

I think the hook could be made a lot sharper without all this repetition, but the nominator disagrees. I'd appreciate a second opinion. Yoninah (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah I commented at the nomination. SL93 (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Law of unintended consequences

There is a discussion here, RFC on how to format external links, that proposes changes to the MOS. As much of what done here is about preparing articles for the mainpage, you may want to take a look. --evrik (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today with only two entries remaining, so here is an updated list. Reviewers have been active, so there are only 17 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through the latest date in that section, August 13. We currently have a total of 185 nominations, of which 86 have been approved, a gap of 99. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and those in the Current nominations section as well.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Some context given the QPQ RfC above: at the moment 3 of these entries lack QPQs (although it has not been a week since they were nominated), and only two use QPQs that are months/years old. CMD (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Additional:

VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:08, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Still more:

—BlueMoonset (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 1: Origins of the Hermit Friars &c.

@SL93, MartinPoulter, and Yoninah: The current hook links hermit to Order of Saint Augustine, which contravenes MOS:EGG, that piped links should be kept as intuitive as possible – readers wouldn't expect to be taken to the article on the Augustinians when clicking on the word "hermit". I suggest the following alternative:

This clarifies the order of hermits that Francis was claimed to be part of, and avoids unintuitive linking; I've also removed the previous instance of the word "Augustinian" to circumvent unnecessary repetition. I hope this is suitable. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm fine with the change. SL93 (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Fine with me too. Yoninah (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done I substituted the new hook in prep. Yoninah (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Prep 2 > Queue 2

WTF am I doing wrong? —valereee (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Queue 2 shows as being filled, but not on the main preps/queues page. On that page, Q2 is empty and the stuff is still in Prep 2. On the prep 2 page, it's empty. Am I forgetting a step? —valereee (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Valereee Things with DYK are not updating correctly per Yoninah’s post above on this talk page. I was annoyed earlier because even the approved nominations page wasn’t updating after promotion. SL93 (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
SL93, well, that's a relief to me personally. I thought I was experiencing some sort of psychiatric break. :D —valereee (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Queue 4: Three Brothers

I just noticed that the wording of my hook about the Three Brothers jewel was slightly changed: because the word "jewel" was omitted, the sentence now sounds ungrammatical ("... that the Three Brothers was..."). Can we change that to include the word "jewel" again please (i.e. "... that the Three Brothers jewel was part...")? -- Arcaist contribs • talk 13:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Arcaist, if you give us a link to the nom, that helps us find what you're asking about —valereee (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/The Three Brothers (jewel). I also wondered why it was changed. Yoninah (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
That's the nom, thanks. Maybe it got deleted when the "(pictured)" was removed? Thanks for the help! -- Arcaist contribs • talk 14:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Change was made by Ravenpuff with this edit summary "Bypass redirect; avoid repetition of "jewel". diff. Here is the redirect mentioned, The Three Brothers (jewel) — Maile (talk) 14:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
The jewel could be considered a singular entity while bearing a name that would typically indicate a plural, so I wouldn't necessarily consider it ungrammatical. I also note that the article in question in fact uses exactly the same wording ("The Three Brothers ... was"). I won't object if the hook is reworded to what it was before, though. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I think the main difference is that in the article, it becomes clear in the same sentence that it is "a piece of jewellery", while in the hook as it is now, you essentially don't know what type of thing we're talking about (a crown, a sceptre, a diamond?), only that it was part of the crown jewels. -- Arcaist contribs • talk 16:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Nominators should not edit their hooks in Prep or Queue

My understanding is that it is an agreed principal at DYK that once a hook has been promoted to prep and thereafter, nominators are never to edit those hooks. If they want a change, they come to this page and request it.

This has been made clear time and again on this page, and notably to The C of E, who has many times violated this rule and been told not to. I myself have given him warnings, the most recent one here with a very specific warning: The next time you make any edit in prep to a nomination of yours, it will be pulled from prep, and, assuming consensus here agrees in the ensuing discussion, scrapped. Unfortunately (or fortunately), I didn't see this edit before Prep 1 was promoted to Queue 1 or I would have pulled the nomination.

Now that the nomination is in queue, I am requesting that the admin who promoted it (and also approved the nomination), Cwmhiraeth, remove the word "unrecognised" from the hook. I had pointed out in the review that "unrecognised" was factually untrue, at least as concerned the Fermanagh County Council, yet the subsequent hook included the word anyway—and it's not exactly neutral in this situation (and I'm not sure that omitting the political reality of the moment from the article, where the treaty that would create the Irish Republic had been signed days before the council vote was held, is neutral either). I will let discussion here decide whether the hook should be pulled entirely, since I am involved, in that it was my corrective edit in prep, removing the word, that started this chain of events, and I had objected to it during the review.

I would also like to get the temperature of the DYK community on whether we should formally request that The C of E agree to stop making any edits whatever of his hooks once they have been promoted to prep. Too often in this and other matters, his actions have been disruptive. If we agree and he is unwilling to concur, the alternative is to go to WP:ANI and file a formal complaint, requesting that the Wikipedia community impose such a remedy, with penalties if not followed. Thank you for your consideration. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I approved the hook that was promoted. The word "unrecognised" seems appropriate to me because Dáil Éireann was a revolutionary parliament of the self-proclaimed Irish Republic that was not recognised internationally. That I then promoted the hook to the Queue was because it was part of a set that I promoted from Prep, and it is often the case that I have been associated with one or other hooks in a set. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
"unrecognised" removed from the hook. I have added to both T:TDYK#How to promote an accepted hook and the prep instructional drop-down right above the prep areas, this sentence:
  • Under NO circumstances should any nominator make changes to their own hook, once it has been promoted.
It needed to be clear in the instructions somewhere. This makes it straight across the board, and no need to single out any nominator for an agreement on this. Today, it's The C of E, tomorrow it might be someone else just trying to be helpful. I was not involved in any of the background, but I almost promoted that set to Queue as is, but got sidetracked away from DYK and never did it - but it could have been me doing that. I saw the change, but it didn't click in my head, nor did it click about who made the change. You caught this, because it was something you already had knowledge of. But if I had promoted to Queue, and read the entire article first, I would not have known the historical background to catch that. Also, The C of E works on subject matter in a country other than mine, but we could say that about many nominators of DYK.— Maile (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • While I agree that this should be a general principle, I think it's worth noting that yet again, we are here discussing what is fundamentally a neutrality issue with one of The C of E's hooks. I am quite fed up with this, and I rather suspect I'm not the only one. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Vanamonde93: The first thing I noticed is that this was a hook about Northern Ireland by The C of E. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Guerillero: I'm going to wait a little while to see if anyone tells me I'm overreacting, but if that doesn't happen, I'll look into proposing a formal restriction. That discussion will have to happen at AN, of course, but if you have thoughts on what a proper response would be, I'm happy to hear them. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
    @Vanamonde93: If you are thinking about something Ireland related AE is also an option; I notified them of the Troubles DS last month. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Given that these Northern Ireland hooks have frequently been more trouble than they're worth I would not oppose a proposal for The C of E being restricted from proposing hooks about Northern Ireland broadly constructed. Either that or every Northern Ireland nomination he does should have at least one other editor as a co-nom(s) to make sure whatever hooks come out are sufficiently neutral. I should also point out that he recently proposed Template:Did you know nominations/Rosemary Barton (politician), whose Gaelic football hook was approved and promoted against my objection that it didn't sound quite right (for context, the subject is a Unionist politician). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I think you are slightly overreacting over one word. It is one word I feel is vital to clarify. The simple fact is that the Second Dail at the time, was a legally unrecognised organisation of a self proclaimed republic that did not exist. It is not the actual predecessor of the current parliament of the Republic of Ireland. It is important to make the distinction between the two, hence the inclusion of the word "unrecognised" because at the time, Ireland was a part of the UK and it was only a few months after the events of the hook, it was partitioned to become Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • You are once again ignoring the fact that you have been warned about changing your own hooks in prep. Do you commit yourself not to do so ever again or not? BlueMoonset (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • If this were one incident, yes, it would be an overreaction. It is not an isolated incident. There were instances where multiple DYK regulars took issue with the neutrality of your hooks in August 2020; August 2020, second hook; May 2019; May 2018; February 2018; October 2017(also discussed here); June 2017; and April 2016 (also here). I doubt this is an exhaustive list, as you've been contributing to DYK for a while, and searching through all the archives would take a long long time. @Guerillero: to answer your question above; that's useful to know, but I think the problem's not limited to Ireland by any means. We're seeing slurs in hooks and attempts to present articles of faith in Wikipedia's voice, also. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with Vanamonde that this problem is not at all limited to Northern Ireland, and I doubt a Northern Ireland-specific restriction would prevent further problematic DYK contributions from this user. 97198 (talk) 05:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the person in question is not just problematic in relation to NI. They hold conservative views in general and use wikipedia and DYK to slyly push them. Their articles often misrepresent what the cited sources say, or are unduly weighted - this is often overlooked by DYK reviewers. AGF has it limits. 86.56.27.247 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Self reverting

I violated that rule, because when an approved hook was placed in a prep, it was changed to something factually wrong, and I restored to the approved version. We may want to be careful saying "under no circumstances". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Plus, my wording was a little heavy-handed, given that there are some genuine errors/omissions that happen. I've revised the wording to below: — Maile (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Nominators should not make changes to their own hook, once it has been promoted. If an error has occurred, please post a notice at WT:DYK
Well, placing a notice means blaming someone for having made a mistake. Silently fixing is more my style. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm also guilty of modifying one of my promoted hooks on at least one occasion. In particular, the hook on Akane Fujita where I changed the word "funny" to "fun" as after the hook had been promoted I did a recheck on the translation of the quote used as a source (in particular the word "omoshiroi") and "fun" seemed to be more accurate than "funny". At the time I did not know that nominators were discouraged from editing their own hooks while in prep and had I known so I would have instead requested for the change here. Even though it's been a few years since then I apologize for my mistake. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
To be frank about this, I might have known about this unwritten rule ... or not. I might have tweaked one of my own hooks ... or not. If I did that and nobody questioned it, then it's not going to stick in my mind as my actions being wrong. If the majority don't like what I added, I can always take it off. But if we are going to have any "agreed principal", it needs to be in writing somewhere. And it needs to apply to everybody - or to nobody. I'm a little uncomfortable about having a vague unwritten policy, brought to bear when a given situation irks somebody. — Maile (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I didn't know about it myself, and to be honest I'd question whether it's even sensible, given the valid reasons for making changes that Gerda has given above. Common sense should be the overriding factor here, so if an error has crept in as a result of hook tweaks, then it seems better for the nominator to just set it back to the approved version. On the other hand, if an error is detected and fixed after the hook is promoted to prep, it would be inappropriate for the nom to revert back to an errored version. So I'd say either start an RFC for the new addition to the rules, or remove it. It looks from the above discussion like this really is part of a longer-term issue with one editor and our reaction to that shouldn't be to introduce a catch-all that applies to everyone and will just cause bureaucracy down the line. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I have never edited my own hooks in the queue or prep area, but I have requested that hooks be changed when errors have been made, such as using an unapproved ALT, failing to acknowledge a contributor, or as a result of someone changing the hook in a manner that rendered it factually or grammatically incorrect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I apologise that I have not known about this issue sooner and shouldn’t have promoted the hook that swiftly. But I would agree that hooks shouldn’t need to be edited as often as what was brought up about this user. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 06:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I suggest we propose a formal rule about any editor modifying an approved hook before we sanction anyone. Also, I would not support a topic ban on any one editor. --evrik (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Is it a rule or not

I have reverted the changes above made by Maile66, as they were made without discussion and consensus has not been established for them. I strongly believe in WP:BRD as a principle, including for hooks, and I don't think we should make rules which compromise the principle. It seems to me that what we have here is problematic behaviour by a single user over a long period of time - it might be better to address that rather than crimping the rights of every user because of the behaviour of one. Gatoclass (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I agree with Maile. No nominator should be editing their own hooks in prep or queue. The correct way to make a correction to your own hook is to call attention at DYK Talk. Gerda Arendt, that can be done without sounding accusatory, and in the rare case that it can't be, just go to someone else's talk and ask them to make the change for you. —valereee (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I will obey, but don't ask me to understand why something should stay wrong for a second longer than needed, in the name of process. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, well, but it's not actually incorrect until it's on the main page. If I see an obvious error on the main page, I'll fix it without waiting for discussion, but then I go to ERRORS and explain. I wouldn't object to a rule like that: if you see an error in one of your own hooks in prep and for whatever reason feel it must be fixed immediately, like maybe it represents a BLP vio or something, at minimum you have to come here and open a section. —valereee (talk) 11:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
What in "I WILL OBEY but don't ask me to understand ..." did you not understand? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to ask you to understand. I was explaining my own understanding and asking if a slightly different version of the proposed rules change would feel less like something you were being asked to obey and more like something you'd actually support. —valereee (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
No Valereee, that's just adding needless red tape. I have often tweaked my own hooks after they've been promoted, either to correct them or to express the idea better, and it seems I'm far from the only one. One absolutely should not have to run to this page to start a discussion over every change to a hook no matter how minor - especially given the time-sensitive nature of sets and the fact that there frequently aren't people around at midnight when the set changes over. There might be a case for making some addition to the rules about this, but at the very least, more discussion would be required. We shouldn't be throwing out the baby with the bathwater just because of the problematic conduct of one user. Gatoclass (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Would you accept having to at least come here and say what you've done when you do so? I do not agree that we should be fiddling with our own hooks except to correct obvious typos. "Expressing the idea better" needs a new approval, IMO. —valereee (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Fully agree with Gatoclass. The change should not be brought in without proper consensus, and I don't think people should be discouraged from making changes which benefit the main page, nominator reviewer or otherwise. If there's a dispute over something, then it can be discussed. And blatant errors should hopefully be spotted by the promoting admin as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, then why are we even requiring a hook go through four layers of review? If nominators can just make a new one up "because it expresses it better" why are we bothering? —valereee (talk) 11:35, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, it's always been in the rules that hooks are subject to change without notice as they make their way to the main page, per WP:BRD. Putting obstacles in the way of administrators and others copyediting and otherwise improving hooks is just a bad idea that will discourage improvements. The bottom line is that we want the end product - the set that makes it to the main page - to be of the best possible quality, and you are not going to get that if you insist on discussion of every change. Gatoclass (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Gatoclass, yes, they're subject to change by other editors. The nominator should not be changing the hook to their preferred version at any point in the process without some sort of discussion or at minimum without placing a notification at talk. I am just wondering if I haven't had enough coffee yet this morning and am completely misunderstanding what is being said by you and Amakuru because this is completely freaking me out, and I don't freak out easy. :D —valereee (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree that it's generally good practice for users who want to make a change to one of their own hooks to discuss it here first, or for them to notify this page if they go ahead and make a change prior to any discussion. I'm just not overly fond of hard-and-fast rules that add unhelpful red tape and get in the way of useful improvements. So, discourage potentially harmful behaviour, sure. Encourage good behaviour, why not? But "thou shalt not" is generally not a helpful approach in my experience. Rules should never be permitted to get in the way of common sense, except where there is an imperative need, and I'm not seeing one here. Gatoclass (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@Gatoclass, Valereee, BlueMoonset, Amakuru, Vanamonde93, and Gerda Arendt: I have no problem with being reverted here. The rule/guideline we are talking about here has come up because of an issue with a lone user. The issue re a pattern with that particular editor probably needs to go over to ANI for some uninvolved users to weigh in. It's certainly something I've not been aware of. However, as for this alleged rule, it either should be in writing, or it should not be applicable. We can't just assert it's a rule when we want to revert someone. And judging from the above comments, maybe a lot of us have been tweaking our own hooks. There are also no restrictions on good-faith editors erroneously changing hooks of others. — Maile (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: to answer you question to me above, you mention the layers of review, but under the current set-up the hook is allowed to be adjusted by anyone at any stage anyway, except once it's been uploaded to the queue (and even, the convention seems to be that other admins are free to change the hooks in the set I promoted, even swap them in and out, despite the fact that I've signed the set off with my own blood!) We have several "copy-editors" who tinker with hooks in the preps on a daily basis with three of the four stages of approval completed. Given that free-for-all setup, it seems odd to me to allow everyone *except* the nominator, the one person who probably has the most knowledge of the subject matter and the highest investment in the DYK hook, from making changes to it. To be clear, this is not to give a green light to disruptive or against-consensus editing, for example reverting back to a proposed version of the hook which was not approved or inserting misleading words into the hooks - which is behaviour prohibited to all. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't make a big deal if a nominator makes a change to a hook which is beneficial to the accuracy of the main page and the experience of redaers. Reverting errors that creep in after promotion, as Gerda mentions, would be a good example of that.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, for me the the reason for the nominator, who I agree has the most knowledge of the hook, should be the only one not allowed to fiddle with it after approval is because someone who has written an article may have a point of view. They may strongly prefer a hook that has been rejected as an NPOV vio or unclear or not interesting by the reviewer or prep builder or queue mover. I've seen multiple noms stubbornly cling to hooks that other editors have said are problematic. —valereee (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: hopefully we're not as far from being on the same page as it seems! Regarding noms who "stubbornly cling to hooks that other editors have said are problematic", I'm not proposing that they be allowed to change the hooks back to a problematic version... certainly not. But that should be obvious anyway - any editor anywhere on the Wiki who edits against obvious consensus is being disruptive. We don't need a special "noms may not edit the prep set" rule to cover that case. I've probably said enough on this subject for now, and I still think Gatoclass's point about BRD above sums it up best, but in the end I don't want to see us introducing yet more rules which just end up being a time sink for what should be clear-cut scenarios. Not contentious ones, but clear-cut ones, and the errors introduced by good-faith edits that Gerda mentions above would be covered by that.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be another misunderstanding. Didn't I say I restored the approved hook, vs. what the prep builder made of it? So I followed review process, possibly better than the prep builder. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Prep builders are free to make changes they think are necessary. If an approved hook gets changed as it's being transferred to the prep, it's likely a change the prep builder thought improved the hook, and it shouldn't be changed back by the nominator without discussion, IMO. —valereee (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
All you say is right. They are free, but they may make a mistake, and then to discretely correct it would be the action with least time required by others, but I WILL OBEY. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
I think we should formally open up a consensus discussion for this since it is getting a little unclear of the direction we want. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 13:23, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Let's propose a small rule change. --evrik (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

No editor, admin or otherwise, should make substantive changes to their own hooks after that hook's promotion (so is restricted to those purely grammatical); if the nom "think of a better version", it should go back n the pool for independent review. (I'm slightly surprised that such a basic truism needs stating, but we are where we are.)

All the best! ——Serial 15:13, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

I would say the complete opposite of that. It is a truism that if a nominator has gone through the hoops, negotiated with the reviewer and had a hook approved, then they should have some protection against drive-by changes by unoinvolved parties which change the meaning or introduces an error. When that happens the nominator not only can revert that change per BRD, they *should* do so, so that errors and misunderstandings don't hit the main page.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, that's taking all agency away from the promoter, who is expected to clean up any grammatical or other issues when promoting, if these are not deemed serious enough to supersede the approval tick and send the hook back for more work. At any point in time we can have a less experienced nominator and/or reviewer (or even promoter, though this last is less common), with a problematic hook sailing through; in the former case(s), the promoter is expected to use their judgment on what best to do, while in the last a less than ideal adjustment can cause issues with the hook that need fixing. However, reversions to the hooks by a nominator to what was passed should not be allowed as a matter of course. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
This would be solved by say that the selection and final wording of the hook is up to the promoter. Changes to a hook in a prep or queue need to be vetted at the DYK talk page. --evrik (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
That's basically how I've been operating all this time except for obvious issues, and what I'd thought was the general settled policy. Hence the freakout lol —valereee (talk) 17:42, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
There have been occasions where the nominator and reviewer have agreed a hook and the promoter has promoted it, but then someone else has fiddled around with it in prep, "making improvements", and it has ended up inaccurate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
(re what evrik and Valereee say is established policy) A look at the history of any prep set will reveal that this is not the case. The promoters put hooks in, then people tinker with them. Excluding the nominator from any input into that process but allowing self-appointed copyeditors would be perverse. I'm not saying the copyeditors do a bad job, their inputs are mostly useful, but there doesn't seem much reason to think that it's the prep-setters who have the last laugh. It's a multi-faceted process with input from nominator, reviewer, promoter, admin and others.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru, and I agree that anyone changing a hook's meaning should be discussing at dyk talk. I just think the nom needs to be even more circumspect. They're involved in ways others touching that hook aren't. —valereee (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Eligibility of S.T.H.

Is the article S.T.H. eligible for DYK? It is a new article, but is created from a mix of original content and content spun-off from Boyd McDonald (pornographer). It wasn't entirely a direct word-for-word lift; I changed a lot of the copy, both for general prose quality/flow and copyvio. Morgan695 (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/S.T.H.
  • Threw caution to the wind, but the periods in the title are making the nomination show up like this. Can anyone assist? Morgan695 (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed. --evrik (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
If a new article incorporates text from an existing article, it needs to qualify as a 5x expansion. See supplementary rule A5. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Prep 4: Tires

@Hawkeye7:@Dumelow:@Amkgp:
I came across this hook, which is 218 char long, and tried to fix the grammar. Here's what I came up with:
But this is still over 200 char. Deleting "carelessly" doesn't help. I'm wondering if we could just run with the shorter and snappier ALT1:
ALT1: ... that American logistics in the Northern France campaign waswere impacted by a critical shortage of jerricans, over 2 million of which had been discarded or abandoned in Normandy? Yoninah (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Like "physics", "logistics" is a singular noun ending in an 's'. So the grammar is fine. Do not change the verb.
I have no objection to switching to ALT1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll replace it in prep. Yoninah (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
While you're at it, the name of the article was truncated in the nomination template name. I have renamed the template but could you change the subpage in the credits from "American logistics in the Northern France" to "American logistics in the Northern France campaign" to avoid any problems with the change history etc. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, @Hawkeye7, Yoninah, and BlueMoonset: we aren't supposed to move the nomination templates. It mucks up the process on that nomination. Hopefully, someone can correct that move. — Maile (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
The subpage must be changed. What is the correct procedure? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: is better on the details than I am. — Maile (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I've fixed Prep 4, but it shouldn't have been necessary: the nomination page was closed, and should never have been moved. Hawkeye7, please do not ever move a nomination template once you've created it; the name of the nomination page does not need to change, and you're making unnecessary work for people. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance everyone. My apologies for making work for you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:33, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Previous featured picture

Can a previous featured picture be used for a DYK? I am referring to my nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Nan Wood Graham. SL93 (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why not. There's nothing in the rules. It would be WP:CREEP to expect of a reviewer to check around to see if an image has otherwise been on the main page. — Maile (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Why not use the other image? --evrik (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    • evrik The other image isn't free use. SL93 (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I also don't see why not. FPs are featured for a reason, so it's to everyone's benefit if we use them where needed. DYK's about the article anyway. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I think answer should be yes. No reason not to, and it means we get good quality of pictures on the DYK lead. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:59, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Although the previous list has not been archived, it is at the top of the page and separated into three different segments posted days apart, so here is an updated, unified, and much shorter list. Reviewers have remained active, so there are only 10 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 28. We currently have a total of 200 nominations, of which 116 have been approved, a gap of 84. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and those in the Current nominations section as well. (As of this writing, there are four unreviewed nominations under August 29 alone.)

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there a script that automates submitting a DYK?

Please tell me there is one :) TIA for the link. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you bet. Go to the page where you would normally create a nomination. Scroll up to the top of that and see an info box that says "Does this look too complicated? Try this semi-automated process instead" You can install the script on your common.js. Once installed, there's a tab at the top of the page that you just click to create a nomination. — Maile (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

3 queues open and ready to fill

(We're back to 2 sets a day.) Pinging @Casliber:, @Amakuru:, @Vanamonde93:, @Maile66:, @Guerillero:, @Valereee:, @Wugapodes:, @Lee Vilenski:, @Gatoclass:. Thank you, Yoninah (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

3 more queues open. Pinging @Casliber:, @Amakuru:, @Vanamonde93:, @Maile66:, @Guerillero:, @Valereee:, @Wugapodes:, @Lee Vilenski:, @Gatoclass:. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, I promoted 3 of the 4 queues that are filled now, plus I did the one that is now on the main page. Hopefully, someone else is available. — Maile (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyone else notice a delay between posting in the preps-queues, and the changes showing up?

This is only on the Queue/Prep page, and has been happening for hours. I promoted Prep 6 to Queue 6 about 4 hours ago. And I changed the next prep count at the same time. It looked like nothing happened. I did a refresh several times, and nothing. So, I purged the page. Magic - everything was there. I tried this on other unrelated pages, including my own personal space, and there was no delay.

Now I have promoted Prep 7 to Queue 7. And it's four hours later. The exact same phenomenon existed. I ran a test over at WP:VPT because that site has a bigger load on it, bigger than the DYK Queue/Prep page at first glance. No delay whatsoever in anything showing up after I clicked "Publish changes".

So, why is the delay happening here? I can understand why maybe it's loaded down when I promote from prep to queue. But just updating the next prep number, only involves changing one digit for another. There should be no delay there whatsoever. Feedback? — Maile (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it also happened to me while building a prep set a few hours ago. Maybe the engine is overloaded? Yoninah (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Maybe the page and its graphics has grown to larger than I think. @Wugapodes, BlueMoonset, and Gatoclass: any ideas on this recent phenomenon? Is this a sign that this might get worse? — Maile (talk) 01:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't know, but it's a phenomenon that used to occur not infrequently a few years ago, though I haven't experienced it for a while. It might just be a coincidence that it happened when you were editing queues and preps. A few minutes ago I was unable to save an edit, with the software giving me a message that an update was in progress, so perhaps there have been a few technical glitches today. Gatoclass (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
It's still happening. I just posted an image hook in Prep 7 and I can't see it after refreshing my browser. Yoninah (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I couldn't see it, either. I purged the page, and it looks to be there now. But we probably don't want to have to purge the page after every edit we make over there. — Maile (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I also noticed it on the approved nominations page when promoting hooks to a prep. The page was acting like I never promoted any hooks and I had to click purge for it to update. SL93 (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
lol, wish I'd noticed this before I'd reverted three edits, tried again, and thought I'd forgotten how to promote to queue. —valereee (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
FWIW I'm noticing delays in nom templates updating between pages. I changed a caption and it hasn't updated on the noms page. Maybe it's a transclusion thing? —valereee (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
The WMF is doing a server switch today. See meta:Tech/Server switch 2020. Based on the side effects listed there, I think these issues are because of that. If things continue being slow after a day or two then we should look into other causes. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
As of this morning, the issue seems to have cleared, and everything is back to normal. — Maile (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Prep 7:Video clip

Template:Did you know nominations/Matchstick Marvels Museum

Matchstick models at the museum
@SL93:@Evrik:@Amkgp:
Is there any problem with this indoor museum image from the U.S.? I remember a similar video from an indoor museum in Asia that was not allowed. Yoninah (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Probably, I don't think Freedom of panorama in the U.S. includes inside (i.e. non-public) works of art. Kingsif (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I am not a US copyright expert. Pinging @Valereee: for courtesy help as he/she was involved in DYK discussion. ~ Amkgp 💬 13:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I also notice that on Commons, it has a tag saying it hasn't been checked by admin/reviewer to check licence is valid. I guess that licence is only valid if freedom of panorama holds for inside works. Which I have no idea if it does- US copyright expert needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I think Maile66 can help regarding Commons:United States Freedom of panorama. Thanks ~ Amkgp 💬 13:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
This video clip looks to be about what is inside the museum. Need Nikkimaria to have a look at this. If you read "Artworks and sculptures X mark.svg Not OK", it seems to depend on when the artwork was installed, and whether or not it was/is copyrighted. — Maile (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Maile66 I guess I'm confused how it isn't considered a public space when it's open to the public, doesn't charge admission, and is ran by volunteers. SL93 (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm fine it it's removed. I always thought that much of United States copyright law is crap. SL93 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
SL93 I love the article and the subject matter, BTW. Public fountains and statues are also free to look at. But nobody can reproduce that work for free and claim it as their own creation, which is what would happen without the copyright laws. The copyright law is to protect the artist. I noticed in the article it is mentioned that Ripley's Believe It or Not! bought some of them, and that there was otherwise a documentary about them. Ripley's is a for-profit business. In the proliferation of all matters available on the internet, copyright laws protect this matchstick artist from anyone seeing the idea on the internet and selling duplicates as their own design. The artist has a right to the financial proceeds of their own work, even if that work was displayed for free in public. — Maile (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The issue isn't whether it's a public space or not - while in some countries 3D works in a public interior space can be freely photographed/recorded, the US is not one of those countries, and given that per the article the museum didn't open until 2003, absent a release from the model creator unfortunately I think this won't be useable despite the release from the video creator. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Totally not something I'm good at —valereee (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I removed it from the article. Someone will need to move it to a non-image slot. SL93 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Now in the Prep 6 quirky slot. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate it. SL93 (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC:Wording

Invalid. WP:RFCNOT, WP:NOTBURO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

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


Since Wikipedia is free-domain licensed, there are no such thing as article ownership, such as the following: 

N1
Users are encouraged to help out by preparing updates in the six prep areas. You don't have to be an administrator. Note that promoting your own articles  is generally discouraged, and promoting your own articles before they have been independently verified is disallowed. When possible, it is also best to  avoid promoting the same article that you reviewed, nominated, or created. (It is almost invariably possible to avoid this conflict of interest, so eschew  such promotions. Ask for assistance at WT:DYK if you've run into a seemingly intractable situation.)

It is better to change the own article to "articles one authored". -- PythonSwarm T | C | G 02:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

  • I got dragged here by a bot for that? If you want to change two words just change them. Someone who knows how to cancel RfCs please cancel this. EEng 03:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I am in a similar position to EEng: the proposed wording adjustment seems too trivial for the RfC apparatus. That said, the repetitions and qualifications in the paragraph could benefit from pruning (for example, to lose the first bracketed sentence altogether?). AllyD (talk) 06:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with the proposal. It does away with a misleading term. -The Gnome (talk) 07:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • You don't need a full-blown thirty-day formal WP:RFC for this, particularly since I can find no evidence that the suggestions at WP:RFCBEFORE have been tried, let alone exhausted. EEng: see WP:RFCEND. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edits breaking DYK helper

The DYK helper seems to require the hidden comment at the top of each day to remain exactly After you have created your nomination page, please add it (e.g., {{Did you know nominations/YOUR ARTICLE TITLE}}) to the TOP of this section (after this comment). Recently, I've often encountered instances where it breaks and directs me to the repair page, and when I go to do it manually, I discover that someone has changed "TOP" to "bottom" for the day in question. Was there agreement to make this change, and does whoever is doing it know that they are breaking the DYK helper? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

@SD0001: script creator. — Maile (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Sdkb can you provide a diff on any of this? It's hard to find what you are specifically talking about, without a diff on what happened. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Maile66, I unfortunately can't, since the error occurred while using the DYK helper. It couldn't find the heading for the day (I think because the hidden comment had been changed), so it didn't make any edit, and instead threw up an error message pointing me to repair page I linked above. That page instructed me to add the nomination manually, which I did here, also restoring the expected hidden comment text at that time. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
All right. so if I understand what you are saying, the issue is that when the designated section is opened, where you are supposed to add your nomination ... sometimes it says to add it to the bottom, rather than add it to the top. And we don't know who is changing that. Did I get it right? I think I've seen that myself a time or two. I don't know who decided to make those changes, but overall, it's more likely someone who believes they are being helpful. If so, I'm sure they can read this here and not do it again. But in the bigger picture, as long as the nomination gets posted under the correct date, everything is OK. Potential reviewers are more likely to select a nomination they think they can handle, rather than pick one from any given order. So, it's a minor thing, but duly noted here. On the other hand ... if you are saying that the change messes up the nomination when you are making thorugh the DYK helper, then we have a problem. — Maile (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I have edited the script so that it no longer looks for an exact hidden comment. It should now work provided the comment exists; doesn't matter what it says. – SD0001 (talk) 05:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, it's easy enough to check the article history for the nominations page and find out who is changing the comment text and ask them to stop. They shouldn't be doing it anyway. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
It appears that Kevmin has been changing "TOP" to either "BOTTOM" or "Bottom" when making DYK nominations; see, for example, the July 29 edit that affected the header for that date, and a similar edit to the August 31 header on September 2. I'm assuming that these are the reason Sdkb and other users have been having problems with the DYK helper, and I would strongly suggest that Kevmin stop immediately. If it really upsets him that it's top and not bottom, the place to discuss it is on this page. Or he can just place his own nominations at the bottom contrary to the instructions while leaving them intact so as not to mess things up for other people. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_171&oldid=1085471852"