Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

Technical implementation of the recent changes to WP:QPQ

[edit]

With the above discussion more-or-less having a consensus to require QPQs at the time of the nomination, is it technically feasible to implement some kind of technical implementation regarding it? For example, if a nominator is not exempt from providing a QPQ and does not give one, a warning would pop up telling them about their lack of a QPQ, asking them if they are sure they want to make the nomination. In this case, they can still ignore the warning and create the nomination, but the warning would at least give them a heads-up that they need a QPQ and the nomination could be closed if they do not provide one. I do not think it would be a good idea to outright prohibit editors from submitting a DYK nom without a QPQ however, as there may be legitimate reasons to do so (such as planning to do it within a day, or simply not being able to do it in time but planning to follow up on it as soon as possible). Think of it as similar to the warning that you can enable in preferences where you're warned if you forget to put an edit summary. Is it possible to implement such a feature? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:SD0001 as such a warning or message could probably be added to DYK-helper, although I'm not sure if it's possible to add it to the DYK wizard. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that an automated warning about a missing QPQ is a good way of implementing the consensus. Schwede66 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up ping to @SD0001 :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it's feasible, yes. Please raise an edit request for MediaWiki:DYK-nomination-wizard.js with the necessary changes. I can port the same changes to DYK-helper once that's done. – SD0001 (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5 I think instead on an instant close, how about a 3-day period in which the nominator can supple the qpq or the nom gets closed. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 10:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The place to raise that would be the discussion above. CMD (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the warning, that should already discourage editors from providing a QPQ late in the first place since they're reminded that they need to provide a QPQ. Rather than requiring a three day maximum, it's probably better to leave it to editor discretion (remember that the new change took place because the old rules that required a week-long maximum proved ineffective in practice). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anything less than a week and nominators will just renominate. A warning's a good idea though.--Launchballer 11:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Renominating a nomination that's been closed is WP:GAMING the system and should not be tolerated. The whole point of this is to keep nominators from making extra work for reviewers. Renominating a failed nomination is the opposite of that. RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not tolerate that either. A renomination can be met with another closure. Schwede66 19:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the discussion - which wasn't a formal proposal - had enough consensus to require immediate QPQs, especially since the initial idea was one week from the nomination (not immediate). BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dollar Mountain Fire

[edit]

Now that the issues with Dollar Mountain Fire have been resolved, I would like to see it granted a full appearance as I would have gotten. The initial pull happened less the 3 1/2 hours into a 24 hour run, and historical precedent is that when asked, situations like this often are allowed to rerun the full term. Thanks --Kevmin § 15:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a finite number of slots per day so rerunning Dollar Mountain Fire means not running something else. Given that Dollar Mountain Fire was pulled for an unreliable source and we have more nominations in the queue than we can use, what makes giving it another slot more important than running something else? RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have always had a "finite" number of slots, and yet we have historically also looked at early pulls from the main page and situations where a re-do was acceptable. The 1 single source was already addressed, and it was noted by @The ed17: that he did not feel the nomination should be punished for the pull given the minute amount of information from that source. Additionally placing this into the approved nominations page doesn't "bump" anything. Your frustration at the volume of nominations should be directed at the 1-5 noms and done crowd not the steady regulars that are pulling their weight (I currently have more banked QPQs then I have articles Im writing).--Kevmin § 16:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not frustrated at the volume of nominations. Quite the contrary: it's wonderful that we have more nominations than we can use. That gives us the ability to pick and choose the best ones. And I disagree that editors with only a few nominations should be dismissed as not pulling their weight. One of our stated objectives is ... the recruitment of new editors. RoySmith (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's harm in giving the article a second chance. The article ran for less than 1/4 of its scheduled run time for reasons that were quickly resolved. It could probably run again in a later set: I don't see where "this running again means another article can't" is coming from since it's just one article and it's not like there are any other hooks that need to be bumped off to make room for it, or even a nomination that needs to be rejected. Given how there are still multiple sets in preparation, this could easily be slotted into one of them. If the hook had run for 12 hours or more, I can see the argument about the article being given its chance, but with less than four hours, it probably deserves a fair showing on the Main Page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else willing to weigh in on this?--Kevmin § 01:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like theres not any other commentary coming. Based on the general support in the early discussion after the initial pull and the comment here, would it be acceptable to place the nom back at approved for prep builders to see and include in a set.--Kevmin § 20:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should probably get another chance based on precedent. This should probably head back into T:TDYK.--Launchballer 21:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should have a full main page run with image. I think the aspect of the firefighters surviving under a ledge is fascinating. Given the heat waves and fire risks some areas are currently having, this would be pertinent. — Maile (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin: I've reopened the nom at T:TDYK. This should probably move quickly, as it's almost two months.--Launchballer 14:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: Thanks! I've offered an updated hook to match the word-smithing in the article and correction of the sourcing.--Kevmin § 14:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bikers for Trump

[edit]

@RoySmith We can't use this image because the logo itself will have to be licensed under CC or something we can use. I'm letting you know because you've suggested in your review that we use it. BorgQueen (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pity, but thanks for letting me know. RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tokamak de Fontenay-aux-Roses

[edit]

@Maury Markowitz Could you please point out where it is stated that File:TFR early.jpg is under CC-BY-SA-2.5? BorgQueen (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I've asked on the article talk page and there was no reply, so I'm asking here again. Meanwhile I've moved the hook to a prep. BorgQueen (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Artem.G I see you noted this discrepancy in your review but decided to AGF. Unfortunately, image licensing is something where AGF doesn't apply. RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found the relevant information. It isn't. SL93 (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SL93 Thanks. ITER Organization retains copyright in the pictures and videos. [...] The pictures and videos may not be sold, distributed or otherwise made available for use by third parties It most certainly isn't then. The image will have to be removed from the article, and eventually, from Commons. BorgQueen (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated it for deletion on Commons. BorgQueen (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I sent to the Commons drop box:
Dear Maury,
Sorry for the late reply. You can certainly use all the materials found on our website, we would just appreciate if you could quote us @ITER Organization.
Many thanks,
Cordiales salutations /Mit freundlichen Grüssen/Kind regards/Dozo yoroshiku
Cecile FOUCHER DE BRANDOIS
Admin & Communication Assistant
Communication Division Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BorgQueen: ...and next time, would it be too much to ask for more than one hour to respond, especially on a holiday weekend? Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not even close to enough. You need to go through this process. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I've found that process so frustrating in the past that I've stopped bothering to try. On more than one occasion I've found a photo that I wanted to use, wrote to the copyright owner, and got back an email just like the one Maury got: "Of course you can use it, no problem, we're happy to make it available". And then I write back, "That's great, thanks, but could you please send an email to permissions-commons and tell them X, Y, and Z?" and that's where things start to go sideways. The people at the other end don't understand why, after telling me it's OK, I'm insisting they jump through some additional hoops and eventually I just give up and don't use the photo. I get why we need to cross our t's and dot our i's, but it's still frustrating. RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This. And ever since the move to VRT there's no point even trying. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz Excuse me? I've waited for several days. BorgQueen (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen: I did not receive the original ping, only this one 40 minutes before it was posted for deletion. Once again wiki software FTW! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. This edit will have created a ping. You must have overlooked it. It’ll be there in your ping history. Schwede66 16:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOHA etiquette

[edit]

I just moved my own approved special occasion nom to the SOHA. The reviewer OK'd the SO request, but I'm not sure if I am allowed to perform this move myself. As a believer in NOTBURO, I decided to ask for forgiveness instead of permission, or even better: a clarification of the current etiquette surrounding the SOHA. Any comments? —Kusma (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am not sure I got the formatting right as the SOHA was empty. —Kusma (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PSHAW hasn't whinged, so you should be fine. The actual approval's been given, so I don't see why you can't move it yourself. (There's a bot that moves it to approved, perhaps there's a way of telling it to move it to SOHA?)--Launchballer 15:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The move to SOHA has to be done manually. You don’t have to wait for the bot to move it to approved before you move it; it makes no difference. If the reviewer accepts the special occasion request, I cannot see why the nominator couldn’t do the move. Schwede66 16:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6

[edit]

Betty Hanley

[edit]

@Sohom Datta, Silver seren, and Phisph7: The source says "holds the Royal Warrent for lampshades", the article says "official lamp curator to the British royal family" and the hook says "appointed the lamp designer". My understanding of how royal warrants work is fuzzy at best; are these three really all the same thing? RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phlsph7 fix ping RoySmith (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes? Each person with a Royal Warrant has exclusive access to the royal family for whatever that specific warrant is on (or can just sell whatever good it is with the official name of the royal family). In Hanley's case, that was for lampshades. So she was the supplier for the royal family and could also sell the lampshades from her shop with the official name and branding of the Royal Warrant. Our specific article on the warrants explains as such in the first lede paragraph. SilverserenC 00:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Saffron Walden Weekly News said Now she holds the Royal Warrant for lampshades, and makes all the lampshades for Buckingham Palace as well as various members of the Royal Family. and When making lampshades for the Palace, I have to submit colours, shapes and patterns because the Queen likes to know exactly what is - going on - and she does! Littlebury : a parish history says her warrant was awarded in 1977. It appears from the newspaper that she was the palace's lampshade supplier and designer rather than supplying all the palace's lighting, so the article and hook should be reworded. TSventon (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some minor tweaks to the article, TSventon. Can you change the hook in the Queue from "lamp" to "lampshade"? That should be all that's needed. SilverserenC 02:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change. And while I was there, got rid of an extraneous "the". RoySmith (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Me Up When September Ends

[edit]

@AirshipJungleman29, NegativeMP1, and MaranoFan: I was going to suggest that we run this on September 30th, and looking at the nom, I see that was indeed suggested. So can we do that? RoySmith (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it would be preferable if the hook could run on September 30th. I don't mind if it runs earlier, though. λ NegativeMP1 00:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I didn't see that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 If you pick out an appropriate replacement, I'll handle the swap. RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alt2 for Template:Did you know nominations/United States Pavilion? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron when I try to promote this to Q6 using PSHAW, it hangs at "Closing Template:Did you know nominations/United States Pavilion..." and the browser console contains:
index.php?title=user:theleekycauldron/DYK_promoter.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:259
Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'includes')
at evaluate (index.php? title=user:theleekycauldron/DYK_promoter.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:259:21)
at HTMLInputElement.l (index.php? title=user:theleekycauldron/DYK_promoter.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:197:87)
could you take a look? RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith  Done after this fix. BorgQueen (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I looked at the comment just before that, where it says: 

******************** Example format ********************
* (Follow this or you WILL break something)
**
** Normal credit:      *   ArticleName – Editor (give) (tag)
** Nomination credit:  *   Nom credit: Nominator (give)
**
** Each credit MUST go on a new line
*********************************************************

and followed the instructions to the letter, lest I break anything :-) RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the misleading instruction needs to be modified. BorgQueen (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS, thank you for fixing it for me. RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that really should say {{DYKmake|Example|Editor}}, emphasis mine. It caught me out when I started promoting as well.--Launchballer 18:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess that needs to get fixed in Template:Did you know/Clear? RoySmith (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it. This should trickle down over the next week or so.--Launchballer 20:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I suggest it?

[edit]

If we could get Eternal September up to GA fast enough, we could run it on the same day :-) RoySmith (talk) 23:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Railways in Canberra

[edit]

@BorgQueen, Flibirigit, and Willthorpe: WP:CLOP issues with https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/projects/current-projects/regional-rail, see Earwig RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot seems down

[edit]

I've manually updated. Can anyone help with the credits? Thanks. BorgQueen (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shubinator BorgQueen (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Manual archiving done as well. BorgQueen (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This gave me a scare for a moment; apparently when you do a manual update, it generates a "Your edit on Template:Did you know/Queue7 was reverted" notification to the person who promoted the queue, which in this case was me. My first thought was, "Oh, jeeze, what did I screw up this time?" :-) RoySmith (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've manually done all the credits too. BorgQueen (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've started up DYKUpdateBot again, should be good to go for the next update! Sorry for the trouble, and thanks for taking care of this update BorgQueen. Shubinator (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived two days ago; I've created a new list of 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 16. We have a total of 293 nominations, of which 126 have been approved, a gap of 167 nominations that has increased by 16 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usage police

[edit]

Might it perhaps be possible to change the standard DYK template that states "Nominator has less than 5 past nominations." to "Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations." Emphasis added. Some (though not all) may think "less" is ok, but nobody will think that fewer is incorrect. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:1979:BEF5:5AEC:99F4 (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is something that script-wizard SD0001 or an interface admin could fix. Pedantry is very welcome here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: In fact all it needs is an autoconfirmed editor to fix it, per the protection status of the involved module; as a non-intadmin, I just fixed a different issue, inspired by this edit of mine. Graham87 (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. This has bugged me since its implementation. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such a pleasure to run into like-minded people, in a sea of contrarians. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:1979:BEF5:5AEC:99F4 (talk) 20:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually two of those in the script: in another place, it says "This article has a readable prose size of less than 1500 characters". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that one is correct. If you wanted to rephrase it to use a countable noun, you could say, "This article has fewer than 1500 readable prose characters", but "size" is a measurement so it takes "less than". RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the issue is whether you can count the parts. "Size" without measurable parts only takes lesser. Size with measurable parts (x characters, y grams, z atoms) is where fewer is appropriate. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:8439:2776:EB1B:231D (talk) 05:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "This article has fewer than 1500 characters of readable prose". I hope this is correct. – SD0001 (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed – SD0001 (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a feature to the DYK wizard and DYK helper that would warn nominators if their nominations are not new enough?

[edit]

While we're at it, would it be a good idea to implement some kind of feature to both the DYK wizard and DYK helper that would warn nominators if the article they're nominating doesn't meet the seven day warning? It would not be a hard prohibition since the warning can still be ignored, and there are reasons where a nomination being late can still be accepted. It's just an idea that came to my mind given how we regularly get nominations, usually from DYK newcomers, for ineligible articles that were not new enough at the time of the nomination. DYKcheck already has such a check built in, would adding a similar check to the wizard be feasible? It might help cut down on the ineligible nominations (one recent example being Template:Did you know nominations/The Passenger (Boschwitz novel), which I just closed for that reason). Courtesy ping to SD0001. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is an extra day or two beyond the seven automatically allowed per the instructions, discouraging a nomination that goes to eight or nine could easily mislead someone unfamiliar with DYK rules. Although I suppose the warning could add that if they request the extra one or two days they can have them... BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scripts currently ask the nominator to enter the date the expansion or creation occurred. The following warnings are already in place:
  • If they enter a date older than 8 days:
    • Yellow warning text: "Possibly ineligible as date is not within the past week"
    • On submitting: "The date specified is not within the past week, see WP:DYK#New. Are you sure you want to continue?" (OK/Cancel)
  • If they enter a date older than 10 days:
    • Red warning text: "Must be within the past week, see WP:DYK#New"
    • On submitting: "The date specified is well outside the past week, and hence the article is ineligible for DYK, see WP:DYK#New" (No option to proceed, unless they change the date.)
What changes are you proposing? – SD0001 (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SD0001 Are there already such warnings? I wasn't aware of them if they do exist. I was asking because, as I mentioned above, there are still nominations (usually made by DYK newcomers) for ineligible articles. If both the script and the wizard already have such warnings, then I'm not sure how they were able to make those nominations unless they made them manually without using either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that the script just asks the user to enter the date – it doesn't check if the creation/expansion actually happened on that date. Moreover, the date field defaults to today. I suspect most users don't bother with changing it. – SD0001 (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that latter point is true. Does the script have any way to detect moves from draft space to main space? CMD (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it shouldn't be all that difficult for it to reference User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js to get that detection :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, the wizard and DYK helper referencing DYK check would probably be useful in weeding out the ineligible nominations. For example, if an article isn't a 5x expansion, both could warn the user if they were sure they want to nominate the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would be useful is being able to pick multiple eligibilities. I nominated Gigi Perez earlier as a double nom with Sailor Song (song); Perez was moved from draftspace but Sailor Song was created in mainspace.--Launchballer 13:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current wizard/helper is also currently unable to check if a nomination has multiple articles. For example, I've seen double nominations but the message below still says that the nominator needs only 1 QPQ instead of 2. That could possibly be fixed as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Ácido Argentino

[edit]

In the review for Template:Did you know nominations/Ácido Argentino, the nominator has stated that a track listing does not need to be cited and that the album itself is a suitable source for the personnel as per WP:PRIMARY. Any thoughts are welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY explicitly mentions track listings and staff as an example of when primary sources are allowed to be used. With that said, a citation to the album is still probably a good idea just to be sure. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we go back down to eight hooks per set?

[edit]

I think it would improve quality. We have also codified WP:DYKTIMEOUT since we made the change. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's too soon to make the change. One of the reasons we went with nine hooks a set is to get through our backlog faster. Even with nine hooks a set, our backlogs are still long enough that nominations not transcluding is not uncommon. Given that the alternative is two sets a day, which would open up another whole can of worms, along with how in practice DYKTIMEOUT really only culls out a handful of nominations per month, I'd oppose the proposal for now as premature. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I did consider asking about going to two sets per day a few days ago as we had seven filled queues, which I can't remember ever seeing. I do know that a quick perusal of Category:Failed DYK nominations shows that last month - the first complete month in which timing out noms was a thing - we failed significantly less nominations than in any month since September 2022. I did some research at the start of the year and we should be running around 9.5 per set.--Launchballer 08:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That category lists nominations from a month, not failures in a month. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That explains a lot.--Launchballer 11:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sets of nine are working out fine. I also think two sets per day is a disaster. RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2/day is not very fun and a lot of work, but I think it is sometimes needed to reduce the backlog. I'm happy if we can avoid going to 2/day but would help again if we flip the switch (I tend to promote a lot during 2/day times and then end up a bit burned out and do not touch DYK queues for a few weeks or months). —Kusma (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to deal with the backlog is to be more selective about what we run. RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think promotors are free to balance the sets on their own. For instance if there are too many long hooks in a set, the promotor can erase a slot. Too short, add a slot. I also do not like the idea of rejecting the work of editors to reduce a backlog. I think it is ok if the nominations wait. Lightburst (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a while since hooks rotated every 12 hours. Given that we are just over 120 approved nominations, 24 hours is fine. If we do get to 140, then theres the chance. JuniperChill (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about WP:DYKPBI

[edit]

Hello, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I was wondering if there was a prerequisite, formal or informal, for promoting hooks. Wikipedia:DYKPBI and WP:DYKPBR don't outline one, but I figured I'd ask just to be safe. Thanks. Kimikel (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by prerequisite? The prerequisite is probably that the hook should be approved by the reviewer, although it should also be checked by the promoter. The promotion should consider topical and geographical balance with the rest of the set, although this occurs at the time of promotion. CMD (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis I meant prerequisite as in qualification for being a promoter, apologies. Kimikel (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The prerequisites for being a promoter are a willingness to learn in what can be a complex environment where everyone makes mistakes, and a can-do attitude. CMD (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's no official requirement. I see you've already got a few DYK nominations done, so I assume you've also done a few individual reviews for QPQ. The next logical step would be doing some promotions. And as CMD said, you will make mistakes. Don't worry about it, everybody does. As long as you have a positive attitude about accepting guidance from those who came before you, you'll be fine. RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know... (Part II)

[edit]

I've been involved in building Prep 7 and 1—5, which means I can't promote any of them to the queues. @RoySmith has already done Q6 so any help from other admins for the rest of the sets will be appreciated. Pinging @Kusma @Z1720. BorgQueen (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not check the hooks you haven't promoted?--Launchballer 12:10, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On it. —Kusma (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7: Glennda and Camille Do Downtown (nom)

[edit]

I'm not super thrilled by the lack of independent sourcing for the claim. Even if we are OK with attributing to Paglia the claim that the bans (BTW there seem to be only two, and "two" is shorter than "multiple" so might be better) were motivated by the film's (or perhaps Paglia's?) political incorrectness, we should have an independent source confirming that the film was indeed banned. Can this be improved? Or am I being too picky? Pinging nom @Morgan695, reviewer @Epicgenius, promoter @SL93. —Kusma (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this seems pretty marginal to me. In fact, I'm not convinced this meets the spirit of WP:DYKRULES ("long enough"). It's just barely over the 1500 character minimum, and a good chunk of that is the lead which just duplicates material from the body. 10% of the character count is the names of various film festivals.
I'm not even sure this meets WP:N; it might be better to merge it into Camille Paglia and work on getting that up to GA standard. I see a note on Talk: Camille Paglia that it was nominated for GA back in 2006, but not listed. Unfortunately, I can't find the GA nomination page. Did GA just not work that way back then? RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that, for my first GA in c. 2006, I just needed to list the article on the GA project page and add the GA icon to the article. If the article wasn't good enough someone would just remove it and tell me why. BorgQueen (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first GA nom and its review, from 2006: [1]. As you see, there was no separate page, just a comment on the talk page. The {{good article}} template that places the green plus on the article was not generally used until about 2010 (it was deleted and salted in 2006). —Kusma (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But yes, anyone was allowed to remove the GA template from the talk page. It was a very wiki but very random process, and for a long time, GA had a poor reputation as an unreliable marker of quality. —Kusma (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the very beginning, there wasn't any nomination process at all. I do remember I just decided to call one of my articles a GA, and it stayed as such for a while until a reviewer came along and demoted it lol. BorgQueen (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even more wiki :) —Kusma (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was such a long time ago, my memory about it is probably mixed up. I just searched through my talk page archives and seems you're right about the talk page nom. So there was a nomination process, albeit a very unreliable one. BorgQueen (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you were right the first time. I was recently poking around the GA talk page archives and reading about how the process developed, and at the beginning it was in fact simply a matter of adding an article to a list. It looks like the nomination process began around April 2006. As a side note, it's interesting to see how close we came to the "good article" icon being a thumbs-up. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. I thought I was getting senile already! BorgQueen (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually find another source: [2]: "The New Festival [..] refused to screen Glennda and Camille Do Downtown." They mention Paglia's trashing of feminists and an altercation with AIDS activist group ACT UP. I am still not sure we should feature Paglia's opinion of her own film's reception so prominently. —Kusma (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve orange-tagged the article and note that after a recent copy-edit, it doesn’t meet the 1500 readable prose minimum. In its current form, the article is a stub and needs to be pulled. Schwede66 19:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hopefully it gets pulled soon. I have noticed that these discussions often don't get acted upon until the last minute. I see four admins in this discussion that can pull it now. SL93 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Using the source from Kusma, perhaps ... that New Festival refused to screen the documentary film Glennda and Camille Do Downtown, for what academic Camille Paglia claimed was "reasons of political incorrectness"? is a solution? Makes the focus of the hook both the refusal to screen and Paglia's counterclaim, rather than just Paglia's claim. Morgan695 (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rule proposal: exclude lead from length

[edit]

As I noted in #Queue 7: Glennda and Camille Do Downtown (nom) above, that article only passes the 1500 character prose length if you include the lead. I think we should be excluding the lead from the count, since by definition, the lead doesn't contain any "original prose"; it's just a summary of the rest of the article. We would need to modify @Shubinator's DYKcheck, but I assume that would be fairly trivial. RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I get the sentiment of the proposal, it's something I'd oppose for reasons of fairness. There are articles on topics that simply wouldn't meet the length requirements otherwise, and such a policy could unintentionally strengthen our systemic biases especially when certain topics from underrepresented areas lack the wide coverage that the Anglosphere has. In addition, cases like the one you brought up are uncommon enough that, rather than a strict rule, it may be more practical to leave it to editor discretion. Indeed, that's what the guidelines actually used to say prior to Theleekycauldron's overhaul (there used to be a section that more-or-less said, paraphrased, "articles just above the 1500 character limit may still be rejected by editors for being too short.") There's also the case where sometimes, lead sections include information not mentioned elsewhere, so that could also cause issues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles with lead sections that include information not mentioned elsewhere would deserve {{lead extra info}}. (I genuinely don't know why we discriminate between yellow and orange tags.)--Launchballer 15:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to just increase the prose minimum to 2500 or 3000 characters. DYK articles often aren't super organised and do not always have separate lead sections. Also, for list-ish articles, the lead may summarise the list, not just other prose; why discount that? —Kusma (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some articles don't need a lead; see MOS:NOLEAD. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that those articles are stubs and fall foul of WP:DYKTAG.--Launchballer 16:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There would go my most common tip for those just under a x5 expansion who didn't do much to the lead. I wouldn't object greatly to the principle, but a careful and well-done expansion of a lead is a genuinely important component of article expansion. CMD (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t support the proposal. One of the obvious implications is that it makes it harder to establish prose count. Short articles can already be rejected for various reasons; we don’t need rule creep here. Schwede66 19:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t support the proposal. I agree with Scweede66. DYK has been the most accessible area of the main page. I fear that if we keep adding requirements and rules that will not he case any more. A lead is just good writing and some of our articles do not even have sufficient leads. I do not think this is a problem that needs solving but I appreciate the OP's concern. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1244406063"