Wikipedia talk:Did you know
![]() | Error reports Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you. |
![]() | DYK queue status
Current time: 20:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 20 hours ago() |
This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.
QPQ timeouts
[edit]I've been noticing that we have an enforcement problem with QPQs. WP:DYKG says that QPQs should be submitted within a week of nomination, but we assume that nominators aren't aware of this requirement – we ping them five days in, and they give QPQs anywhere from 10–14 days after nomination and it usually slides. I think we should add "Please provide a QPQ within a week of nomination" to the nomination page smalltext when the QPQ line is left blank. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, (putting on my grumpy hat) there's no reason it should take a week. I'm more than willing to give DYK newbies slack, but I see some veterans doing this. That's just making more work for your fellow editors because they have to chase after you. I'd be in favor of a closing on sight any nom from somebody with more than N DYKs to their name (pick any reasonable value of N) if it does't have a QPQ. RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that it contradicts each other. I normally take "should" to mean that it's (strongly) recommended, but not mandatory. Meanwhile, the phrase "please provide a QPQ within a week" sounds like it means that it must (mandatory) be submitted within 7 days of the nomination. Therefore, I think that 10 days should be the normal maximum and 14 is the absolute maximum. at Template talk:Did you know, it says that "
a rejection usually only occurs if it was at least a couple of weeks old and had unresolved issues
" and I take couple to mean two. I'm thinking the phrase "as you have nominated more than five articles, a QPQ is required. This should be done within 7 days with 10 being the absolute maximum" fits me better. JuniperChill (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)- meh. i think a week is more than enough time for something someone should already have on them when they make the nomination. The week is just a courtesy – if it were up to me, we would require nominators to do their QPQs well before the nomination, so that if the check bounces (the nomination gets pulled off the Main Page), then the credit becomes invalid. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- And I have been reviewing DYK articles well before my sixth nomination. I never thought I would be good at reviewing them, especially my first one. Good thing they don't expire. I actually track my reviews and cross them out if used. I do think a week is already a good enough time though. JuniperChill (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- meh. i think a week is more than enough time for something someone should already have on them when they make the nomination. The week is just a courtesy – if it were up to me, we would require nominators to do their QPQs well before the nomination, so that if the check bounces (the nomination gets pulled off the Main Page), then the credit becomes invalid. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, and change WP:QPQ from "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."" to "A nomination may be closed as "incomplete" if a QPQ is not submitted within a week". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I was thinking more like "A QPQ must be submitted (for those required to submit one) at the time of the nomination." If you're too busy to do your QPQ now, then hold up your nom until you've got time. RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I have no objections, but I suspect a lot of nominators might. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, we have more nominations than we can handle. If people object to getting their act together on time and stop nominating, that's to our benefit. Seriously. RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I like that idea. Those other editors can just not nominate then. SL93 (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Special:Diff/1241179543. RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should honestly go even further. QPQs have a reputation for being sloppy reviews just done to get a credit – when nominations get pulled off the Main Page, we should be revoking people's QPQ credits. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, boy, and I thought I was being bold! RoySmith (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with this too, but only for mistakes that those editors should already know about. SL93 (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Quite often the QPQ runs after the hook you're using it for, which could create a fair bit of complexity as to who owes a QPQ and when. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- We could either require that QPQs be completely finished before they can be used, or accept QPQs that haven't run on a provisional basis (holding the nomination until the check clears). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- PS, as a practical matter, I would suggest that at least for a while, people still be given warnings along with a pointer to the rule change. It's one thing to prod the herd in the direction you want them to go, it's another thing entirely to stand in front of the herd while doing it and get trampled to death. RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think you've acted a bit hastily. One of the reasons that the QPQ timeout limit is seven days is because after that is over, a nominator can't immediately renominate with a QPQ done (because WP:DYKNEW no longer applies). If a new nomination is closed immediately, the nominator can now just open a new nomination with a QPQ; so in effect, the new WP:QPQ protocol is just the most annoying way of pinging the nominator asking for a QPQ. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have reverted the bold change as it's too bold and deserves more than 50 minutes of discussion. One of the reasons we have never required QPQs at the time of nomination is that some nominations, particularly some of the lengthier 5x expansions, take all of a week to complete, so there is no time to do a thorough QPQ. I notice that isn't mentioned, and there seems to be little sympathy for these sorts of significant contributions to Wikipedia. If that's DYK's future, it seems to me a shame. At the same time, there are people who seem to nominate many new articles a week and rarely have their QPQs ready. I have less sympathy in that case, since it seems to be a failure to plan one's time (as opposed to not having enough of it). BlueMoonset (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- About theleekycauldron's suggestion, which is really a different matter altogether, it's something I've thought about over the years, and something I'd be in favor of, depending on the issue behind the pull. (Is this pulled from main page only, from main page and queue, and even from prep?) If it's something that's supposed to be checked and wasn't properly done so, then I think it makes perfect sense to require a replacement QPQ for the one that was botched, and hold up noms from the reviewer until it's done. Of course, it might ultimately lead to people no longer being welcome at DYK because their QPQ reviews continue to be problematic... BlueMoonset (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would play it like this:
- Until a nomination is either off the Main Page or closed as rejected, the nomination can only be used as a provisional QPQ. Provisional QPQs are good enough to keep a nomination from failing, but a nomination using a provisional QPQ cannot be promoted. Using provisional QPQs is discouraged; nominators should come prepared with full QPQs ahead of time. (Alternatively, we could choose not to accept provisional QPQs.)
- Once the nomination's run is finished, it is no longer a provisional QPQ and is usable as a full QPQ unless:
- The nomination ended in failure (including being irreversibly pulled from the Main Page),
- The nomination would have been pulled from the Main Page had a serious problem with its hook or article not been fixed.
- If the reason for failure or pull is outside the scope of the reviewer's job, the QPQ credit is not invalidated. (For the life of me, I can't remember this ever happening, but it is possible, so it's worth mentioning.)
- If a provisional QPQ becomes invalid, the nominator using the provisional QPQ must provide a fully valid QPQ within a week, else the nomination fails.
- I think it'd be worth studying if there's a pattern of reviews of nominations that fail. I'll look into that... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm torn on provisional QPQs. One the one hand, it's more complication and it adds to the backlog. On the other hand, not allowing it feels draconian. Still, I think I'm leaning against it. It'll suck, but people will get used to it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- That seems like a lot of complication for it's not clear what value. What's a "Provisional QPQ"? Just keep it simple; you make a nomination, you do a QPQ. I don't buy this idea that people don't have time to do their reviews. That's part of the system, do your share. If you're going to start on a big project and you're not sure you'll be able to get it done in time, get your review out of the way first. Or if some unexpected crisis happens, post a note here asking for an exception; as long as you're not a perennial extra time requester, I'm sure people will be happy to give you another day or two. Or maybe some kind soul will offer a QPQ donation. Leaving things dangling just makes additional work for your fellow editors, and that's a problem. RoySmith (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- No. Just, no. An extra layer of near-impenetrable complexity that everyone has to work through, not only nominators but reviewers and prep-builders and admin queuers? I'll pass. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would play it like this:
- I think you've acted a bit hastily. One of the reasons that the QPQ timeout limit is seven days is because after that is over, a nominator can't immediately renominate with a QPQ done (because WP:DYKNEW no longer applies). If a new nomination is closed immediately, the nominator can now just open a new nomination with a QPQ; so in effect, the new WP:QPQ protocol is just the most annoying way of pinging the nominator asking for a QPQ. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should honestly go even further. QPQs have a reputation for being sloppy reviews just done to get a credit – when nominations get pulled off the Main Page, we should be revoking people's QPQ credits. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Special:Diff/1241179543. RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I really don't agree with the recent changes. The problem with this is that people may not have time to do a QPQ at the same time that they are nominating an article. This particularly applies if someone is in the midst of a 5x expansion and wants to submit the nomination before the deadline.
- In addition, I don't think this would prevent someone from just doing a QPQ three days after nomination, and then reverting the closure of their nomination. I'd rather we wait a few days rather than immediately closing nominations without QPQs. Epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I have no objections, but I suspect a lot of nominators might. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, I was thinking more like "A QPQ must be submitted (for those required to submit one) at the time of the nomination." If you're too busy to do your QPQ now, then hold up your nom until you've got time. RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith and AirshipJungleman29: Yeah, agreed. Simpler draft:
- A nomination is not usable as a QPQ until it is either off the Main Page or closed as rejected.
- If the nomination fails (including being pulled off the Main Page) due to an error the reviewer should have caught, the reviewer may not use the nomination as a QPQ. If such an error arises and someone other than the reviewer fixes it, the QPQ credit may be deemed invalid at the discretion of whoever evaluates it when used.
- A nominator must provide a valid QPQ within a week of nomination, else the nomination can be closed without warning.
Basically: if you screw up, we take your QPQ credit back. If we have to clean up your mess, we take the credit back. Get your QPQ done ahead of time. Sounds pretty simple to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Better, but "ahead of time" can mean as much as two months ahead of time. Why not just say that if a nomination you review gets pulled due to an error you should have caught, you have to provide two QPQs on your next nomination? Still runs into the problem of how you define "should have caught". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Even when wearing my grumpy hat, I don't think we want to start making QPQ credit contingent on quality of the review. Newbies won't be doing high-quality reviews. Our response should be to educate them how to do better reviews, not punish them for not doing a good enough job. If somebody is chronically doing junk reviews, eventually it'll become obvious and we can deal with that though more education and encouragement. That's certainly true for people whose names appear on WP:DYKLIST or WP:DYKPC.
- I imagine my first QPQs were total trash. I know for sure my first queue promotions were and I only kept at it because leeky provided the right mix of explaining to me what I needed to do better, encouraging me to do more of them, and not making me feel like an idiot. RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29: I thought of that, I'm just not sure how we'd enforce it... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- This discussion is starting to feel like instruction creep. I think the simplest solution, for now, would just be to strict with enforcing the "QPQ must be done within a week of the nomination" guideline. In fact, I think we should actually encourage QPQs to be done before making nominations, and I'm actually surprised we aren't already doing that. The issue with enforcement is that such nominations are often overlooked due to us having a high load. It's actually a lot easier now ever since the change that made it visible how many nominations a nominator has; prior to that you would have to check manually to know if an editor required a QPQ or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- My initial change was a net reduction of 167 characters. That sounds more like instruction un-creep. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I was talking more about the idea of "provisional QPQs", an idea with good intentions but would add needless complexity. It should be as simple as "you have a QPQ, or you don't." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- My initial change was a net reduction of 167 characters. That sounds more like instruction un-creep. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't understand the disconnect. I previously proposed elswehere that QPQs should be done before the nomination. This isn't rocket science. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are some edge cases where it may be permissible to do so, such as during 5x expansions. However, these would be more like the exception rather than the nom. We should really be discouraging nominators from only doing QPQs after their nominations, and I'm actually shocked and disappointed at how common it is even for regulars to delay their QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I know who you are referring to, so that made me laugh. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't referring to any specific editor. I've seen multiple editors doing it, so it was meant to be a general statement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay. :-) Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- It wasn't referring to any specific editor. I've seen multiple editors doing it, so it was meant to be a general statement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I know who you are referring to, so that made me laugh. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are some edge cases where it may be permissible to do so, such as during 5x expansions. However, these would be more like the exception rather than the nom. We should really be discouraging nominators from only doing QPQs after their nominations, and I'm actually shocked and disappointed at how common it is even for regulars to delay their QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support. I'd support requiring reviews be done before a nominated hook appears on the list of noms to be approved. Too many nominations, not enough worker bees. Valereee (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Provisional QPQ is too complex, and it will create more administrative problems. I am not sure QPQ at time of nomination needs to be the rule (saying that as someone who usually does this), but we can definitely remove the requirement for a second notification before the week timeout. CMD (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- The rule could be relaxed for newer reviewers who may not have gotten the hang of DYK reviews yet, but it shouldn't be encouraged for DYK regulars who are already used to the process. If a nominator knows they have an upcoming nomination, they should also make the time to review another. If circumstances mean they can't do a QPQ ASAP, they could probably just ask for an IAR exemption here at WT:DYK.
- Another idea I have is that we can also encourage reviewing nominations even if you don't have plans to make your own. Several of our regulars only review other nominations when they're planning to make their own nominations, but won't do reviews otherwise. If we encourage (not mandate) regulars to do reviews even without upcoming nominations, there are two benefits: one, they can build up a stash of QPQs that can be used later and thus helping to mitigate the current issue, and two, it would greatly help in clearing up the backlog. In my eight years here on DYK I'm actually somewhat surprised this isn't more common or encouraged, speaking as someone who regularly reviews other noms even when I don't have open noms of my own. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's even worse on GAN, where we have editors with hundreds of noms with no reviews. I think it shows a bit of disrespect for the idea of a volunteer community, but there's no enforcement. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- To be fair, GAN is much tougher and higher pressure than DYK. It can seem a lot more intimidating given that the checks are more stringent, and even regulars may not simply have the time, capability, or will to review. After all, if a bad GA passes, it can be a stain on the reviewer even if they did their review in good faith. It's less understandable with DYK given that our standards are more reasonable and less stringent. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Having a firm baseline rule and encouraging specific further actions on top of that is a better system than creating a more stringent rule but crafting various exceptions. We should include the best practice as a guideline, but newer reviewers, difficult 5x expansions, and perhaps other edge cases (finding a good seven day old article by someone else you think would make a good DYK?) seem likely to come up. (Is the backlog a huge issue right now? Template talk:Did you know/Approved has exceeded PEIS.) CMD (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- My personal belief, and it's one I've been promoting for many years, is that we continue to focus on tool-based systems to help nominators and reviewers. One sticking point for me is the identification of typos, which I have a problem doing because my eyesight is terrible. I know we have various bots and editors who do this kind of work separately, but it's surprising that we don't have a toolset like this to help reviewers in general. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Could we somehow grey-out any nom that doesn't include a QPQ? Valereee (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- My personal belief, and it's one I've been promoting for many years, is that we continue to focus on tool-based systems to help nominators and reviewers. One sticking point for me is the identification of typos, which I have a problem doing because my eyesight is terrible. I know we have various bots and editors who do this kind of work separately, but it's surprising that we don't have a toolset like this to help reviewers in general. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's even worse on GAN, where we have editors with hundreds of noms with no reviews. I think it shows a bit of disrespect for the idea of a volunteer community, but there's no enforcement. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- At least twice, I've completed a QPQ and forgot to put it in the box (Kemah Bob, Nighat Arif). I'm all for less time being given after a reminder (say, one day instead of seven), not sure if I could support the reminder being done away with entirely.
If the reason for failure or pull is outside the scope of the reviewer's job, the QPQ credit is not invalidated. (For the life of me, I can't remember this ever happening, but it is possible, so it's worth mentioning.)
I can think of a couple of cases: Dus Bahane, which was withdrawn after I eventually reviewed it, and Tobey (song), which was pulled after a new rule was invented on the hoof. If we are going to make QPQs provisional, I would oppose rejecting them for being provisional; aside from the fact that I review oldest first and it's pretty unusual for any of my noms to be approved ahead of their QPQs, I'd worry about the effect this would have during a backlog as I can well see a situation where nominators simply turn in an old QPQ rather than wait for a new one to clear.--Launchballer 06:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)- The idea of a provisional QPQ seems less than ideal to me, especially if we are now requiring people to do QPQs before nominating articles. This would potentially mean that people can't nominate any articles until the QPQ is already off the main page (or rejected), which could take weeks or even months. By then, the nomination for which the QPQ was conducted would have already timed out.
- Thus, I strongly oppose the idea of provisional QPQs, especially if we are now requiring that they be completed prior to nomination. I am neutral on the new QPQ requirement, though. Epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just do one now and bank it. Next time you make a nom, use it for that nom, and bank another. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- That is actually what I'm thinking of doing. Ideally I'd like to have 2–5 QPQs on hand to use whenever I nominate something. While I somewhat disagree with immediately timing out nominations that don't have QPQs, I also don't have a philosophical objection to that rule.
- My objection only applies to provisional QPQs. If you could not use a QPQ until it appears on the main page or is rejected, then you would need to start preparing for a nomination several weeks in advance, just so you could use that QPQ. This also has the side effect of unnecessarily delaying nominations arbitrarily, solely because of what article the nominator chose to review. Epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just do one now and bank it. Next time you make a nom, use it for that nom, and bank another. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I support having to supply the QPQ at the time of the nomination. If someone forgets, leeway can be given after a reminder ping. If an editor chronically does not post a QPQ at the time of nomination, their nominations can be closed without a reminder ping. Another idea is to tell nominators that they cannot nominate new DYKs while a previous nomination is missing the QPQ: nominators should prioritize QPQs first, not work on other articles while a QPQ is missing. I do not support pulling the QPQ if problems are found in the reviews: if an editor chronically supplies bad reviews, it should be brought up at WT:DYK. Pulling QPQs will cause editors to review the easiest DYKs, leaving older nominations stranded without reviews. Z1720 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Z1720 above. Waiting for a QPQ to be usable until the nom is off the main page means that a person submitting their 6th DYK nom would need to prepare QPQs potentially months in advance. This isn't sustainable. I fully support making QPQs required at the time of nomination (my personal workflow is to do one with my nom tab open and unsubmitted; that way I don't forget). I also think we can empower reviewers to reject noms with an incomplete or faulty QPQ. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with Z1720 and Vanamonde93 above, I don't think waiting for a QPQ to be usable is a good idea, instead we should require a valid QPQ to be provided at nomination time (through warnings in the template and nomination wizard), and reviewers being allowed to reject noms with invalid or non-existent QPQs. Sohom (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose "provisional QPQs" as a good-intentioned idea, but one that adds too much complexity to the process. Any issues where a QPQ was provided, but the review turned out to be defective, can already be dealt with through existing processes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I weakly support the idea of requiring the QPQ to be submitted at nomination time, though I think that should take place after 10 nominations because people nominate articles for DYK before reviewing another. I just think that a review from someone can take place either within a few hours, days or even more than a month. Those between 6-10 nominations (inclusive) will have to provide a QPQ within 7 days (168 hours) and editors on the fourth/fifth day will be pinged/posted on talk page and if not, the nom will close after its 7th day. I'm also thinking that for a QPQ to be valid, it needs to be a proper review. Not just a checkmark with a few words (saying "it meets all the DYK criteria" is insufficient). I also weakly oppose a provisional QPQ due to the complexity. JuniperChill (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Currently, a review only needs to be started, and the reviewer needs to be responsive. I do not support that the review needs the checkmark because some nominators do not respond quickly, causing delays. This would also cause editors to review the easiest ones rather than starting a longer review. I agree that "this is approved" is not sufficient, but DYK already insists that reviewers indicate that they have checked all the criteria, so this inclusion is not necessary. I also do not suggest having separate rules for those between 6-10 reviews as too many rules will complicate things. Also, there is a simple solution to this problem: remind nominators that QPQs do not expire and that they should be reviewing noms early.
- tldr: Keep it simple, change the rules that a QPQ must be provided at the time of the nomination, leeway is given for new reviewers and those who make a mistake, no leeway given for those who chronically do not supply the QPQ at the time of the nomination. Z1720 (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- QPQ rules never actually required green ticks anyway. The only requirement has been to check every criterion: saying simply "it passes the guidelines" doesn't count. Some regulars (admittedly myself included) may condense some of the checks for time reasons, but generally all criteria are still expected to be checked. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- As an editor who sometimes has difficultly getting all the QPQs done at once and remembering which ones have / do not have QPQs (due to volume of work), I do not see what benefit there is in immediately failing with no warning whatsoever any nomination not providing a QPQ from the start. Seriously, what harm is there in a simple reminder that you're missing a QPQ? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- The benefit is that it encourages nominators to do their QPQs without reviewers having to chase after them. Reviewer time is our scarcest resource, and we have more nominations than we can handle. If making things easier on reviewers comes at a cost of making things harder on nominators, I'm fine with that. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- How difficult is it to say "@Username, please provide a QPQ by [date] or this will be closed"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, these notifications don't take up much time anyway. Perhaps there might be a way to automate these notifications? Epicgenius (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can see a few possibilities. One would be some kind of filter that would warn nominators that they haven't done a QPQ (the filter would of course be disabled for exempted nominators). The notice would tell the nominator that if they submit the nomination without a provided QPQ, their nomination is liable to be closed. That way, they are already aware that they have to do the QPQ as soon as possible, if not before the nomination. If that kind of technical implementation is not feasible, another option could be to have a bot running that would leave editors a similar message, warning them that their nomination is liable to be closed if a QPQ has not been done. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- One straightforward solution to that would be to simply do the review before making the nomination. This can be done in conjunction with reviewers being encouraged to review nominations even when they don't have ongoing nominations of their own. With their possible benefits (such as cutting down the backlog and ensuring a QPQ is ready by the time of the nomination), I'm actually shocked that neither practice is encouraged more. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is more difficult than us saying "Please provide a QPQ by the time of nom or this will be closed". As it stands, notifications can be ignored and unfinished DYKs take up space on the nom page for longer than they should. CMD (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, these notifications don't take up much time anyway. Perhaps there might be a way to automate these notifications? Epicgenius (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- How difficult is it to say "@Username, please provide a QPQ by [date] or this will be closed"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- The benefit is that it encourages nominators to do their QPQs without reviewers having to chase after them. Reviewer time is our scarcest resource, and we have more nominations than we can handle. If making things easier on reviewers comes at a cost of making things harder on nominators, I'm fine with that. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are two changes here, one that seems excellent and easy to implement and one that needs further fine tuning. I support an immediate implementation of "qpq must be provided within a week, unprompted, no excuses for experienced nominators". Cancelling qpqs where hooks have been pulled is more complex and should be discussed separately. —Kusma (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd also support requiring nominators to provide a QPQ within a week (or even immediately, provided that this is made very clear in the nomination wizard). I agree that the QPQ cancellations/provisional QPQ should be a separate discussion, too, since I imagine that there could be more pushback to that proposal (as evidenced by the comments above). Epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- In the case of "you need to provide QPQs at the time of the nomination", I think we can give leeway for relatively new DYK contributors (for example, those who are only just starting to be required to need a QPQ). Less leeway should be given to those who chronically fail to give QPQs on time. A wait of at most a day, or even three days, could be reasonable, but going over a week without doing a QPQ, reminder or no reminder, is less excusable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I support QPQ provided at the time of the nomination. Right now, we give one-week warnings and it has not deterred prolific editors from waiting until the last minute. Giving a week causes some editors to procrastinate, nominate at DYK without the QPQ, and then forget about it until an editor pings them. Implementing a strict at-the-time-of-nomination rule will initially cause a few editors to get upset, but after about a week those editors will change their behaviour and complete the QPQs before the nomination. I am willing to have upset editors for a week to have this implemented. Leeway can be given to editors who are nominating their 6th or 7th DYK, which can be prescribed as-needed. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Indulging my penchant for storytelling... I used to participate in a racing event that was scheduled to start at a certain time every week. People were always showing up late and the race organizers would wait for them. People were always complaining about the late-comers, and the late-comers were always countering with, "It's so hard to get here", "There was traffic", "I had to wait for my crew to show up", blah, blah, blah. Finally, we voted that the race would start on time, even if nobody was there yet. The first week the rule was in effect, a couple of competitors didn't make it on time and missed the start. After that, people started showing up on time. RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Z1720, as I see it, if people started immediately closing nominations that did not have the required QPQ, nothing is stopping the nominators from doing a QPQ and then reverting the closure of the nomination, on the grounds that they did do a QPQ. Provided the QPQ is supplied within seven days of the article's creation/expansion/promotion to GA, the article would still be new enough to qualify for a full review. As such, I think this would only create unnecessary conflicts, which we really should try to avoid.I would however be all right with closing nominations without QPQs after 7 days. Closures of such nominations cannot be easily contested unless the article was further expanded, or promoted to GA, during that time. Epicgenius (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- If this passes, what would stop the nominators is that such actions would be against consensus, and thus disruptive. CMD (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- In theory, it would indeed be against consensus. However, in practice, the DYK rules do not prohibit articles from being renominated (and given a full review) if they are still eligible for DYK. If the first nomination is closed solely due to a lack of QPQ, and if a QPQ is then provided for the second nomination, some people would be hard-pressed to see such a renomination as disruptive, since the second nomination would not technically break any rules. Epicgenius (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Let's prohibit repeat nominations as part of this proposal if it passes then. CMD (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- In theory, it would indeed be against consensus. However, in practice, the DYK rules do not prohibit articles from being renominated (and given a full review) if they are still eligible for DYK. If the first nomination is closed solely due to a lack of QPQ, and if a QPQ is then provided for the second nomination, some people would be hard-pressed to see such a renomination as disruptive, since the second nomination would not technically break any rules. Epicgenius (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- If this passes, what would stop the nominators is that such actions would be against consensus, and thus disruptive. CMD (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- That might be too extreme. A simpler solution would simply to revert any attempts to reopen as disruptive, with a note to the nominator that they should have done the QPQ at the time of the nomination. If they really disagree with the decision, they could instead bring it up on WT:DYK, where individual cases could be heard. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how one is extreme and one is simple, they are both the same set of actions. CMD (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, prohibiting repeat nominations, at least as currently worded, sounds too extreme. Rather than saying "no repeat nominations", it would just be safer or more accurate to say that such reversions without discussion may be considered disruptive. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- What is the difference? CMD (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think NLH5 is referring to the fact that a blanket ban on repeat nominations doesn't allow the possibility of reopening the nomination, if a valid QPQ is provided after the nomination is closed. On the other hand, bringing up the issue at WT:DYK leaves open the possibility of opening such a nomination, even if it's against the rules to reopen an archived nomination. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- What is the difference? CMD (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, prohibiting repeat nominations, at least as currently worded, sounds too extreme. Rather than saying "no repeat nominations", it would just be safer or more accurate to say that such reversions without discussion may be considered disruptive. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see how one is extreme and one is simple, they are both the same set of actions. CMD (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- That might be too extreme. A simpler solution would simply to revert any attempts to reopen as disruptive, with a note to the nominator that they should have done the QPQ at the time of the nomination. If they really disagree with the decision, they could instead bring it up on WT:DYK, where individual cases could be heard. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- A better solution, if it's technically possible, would be making the QPQ line on the nomination form mandatory to fill in. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you're talking about SD0001's script, it's possible assuming they agree to make the change. More tricky would be having the script sense if the nominator is exempt, and at any rate DYK can all be done manually so if someone is going to wikilawyer a consensus policy is better than a technical tweak. CMD (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think figuring out if a nominator is exempt shouldn't be hard to implement since User:SDZeroBot already runs a tally of users vs/ number of nominations which is used in our nomination template. (courtesy ping @SD0001) Sohom (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the script already knows which nominators are exempt (this is used to show the count of QPQs required within the interface). I am not sure when I can get to making the neccesary changes, so if someone can prepare sandbox versions of the two scripts, that would help. – SD0001 (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think figuring out if a nominator is exempt shouldn't be hard to implement since User:SDZeroBot already runs a tally of users vs/ number of nominations which is used in our nomination template. (courtesy ping @SD0001) Sohom (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you're talking about SD0001's script, it's possible assuming they agree to make the change. More tricky would be having the script sense if the nominator is exempt, and at any rate DYK can all be done manually so if someone is going to wikilawyer a consensus policy is better than a technical tweak. CMD (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- In theory, we could do that as well. However, in practice I prefer Airship's idea of requiring that the QPQ be filled out before the editor is allowed to submit their DYK nomination (provided that it's technically possible). That way, there would be less potential for conflicts regarding incomplete QPQs. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- A better solution, if it's technically possible, would be making the QPQ line on the nomination form mandatory to fill in. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I support QPQ provided at the time of the nomination. Right now, we give one-week warnings and it has not deterred prolific editors from waiting until the last minute. Giving a week causes some editors to procrastinate, nominate at DYK without the QPQ, and then forget about it until an editor pings them. Implementing a strict at-the-time-of-nomination rule will initially cause a few editors to get upset, but after about a week those editors will change their behaviour and complete the QPQs before the nomination. I am willing to have upset editors for a week to have this implemented. Leeway can be given to editors who are nominating their 6th or 7th DYK, which can be prescribed as-needed. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sometimes I do expand, create an article or get it through GAN but don't have the time or energy for an immediate QPQ. In these cases, I sometimes nominate immediately and do the QPQ later when the reviewer points out the absence. Is this now undesirable practice? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo, just do some QPQs when you aren't expanding or creating and do have that time and energy, and bank them. As long as you keep up with your nominations, you'll always have one waiting to be used. The reviewer won't have to point out the absence, wait for you to fix it and ping them back, come back in, refresh themselves on what they were thinking at the time, and finish the review for you. Valereee (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some of our regulars tend to be late in providing QPQs. Should we ping or at least inform them about this discussion, to ask for their input or at least make them aware of it? Given that if the changes push through they will be affected, I think it's fair for them to at least know about the (possible) change. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- If there's particular people you're aware of who should know about this but haven't been involved in the discussion, then by all means let them know. RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's the issue: I don't have a list handy. I do recall that sometimes, Thriley and Gerda Arendt have been late in providing QPQs, but there are probably others too that haven't been informed yet. Some of the others like Epicgenius and BeanieFan11 have already commented. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for the ping, but I don't care. I tried to make facts known via DYK, and his worked for about a decade, but right now, it's frustrating. I would have liked to say something about a wonderful baritone who was active in Poland and Spain. Instead, we'll say that there was a concert for his 70th birthday, which is utterly uninformative about what he meant to the world. Leave me alone please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- If there's particular people you're aware of who should know about this but haven't been involved in the discussion, then by all means let them know. RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@SL93, Storye book, and Sammi Brie: It's not clear what it means to be a destination for illegal logging. Also, the article talks about logging, but only hints at it being illegal, there's no clear statement that illegal logging is happening. RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I will take a look in a few hours if not resolved by then. SL93 (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for being confused by the article's wording. I looked at the sources, and I suggest just removing the word "illegal". SL93 (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I thought I promoted this, but Airship did. Now I remember that I wanted to promote the hook, but I never got around to it. Damn, I feel stupid. SL93 (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Whhops, I must have been looking at the wrong template when I pinged people. Sorry about that. I should have pinged @AirshipJungleman29 @Generalissima and @Vanderwaalforces RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is set to hit the main page next. RoySmith BorgQueen Theleekycauldron. I still think that removing "illegal" is the easiest fix. SL93 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Done Removed illegal. BorgQueen (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- @BorgQueen: I took this bit of this source to at least heavily imply that logging in this part of the forest is illegal:
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)At the higher reaches of the island, there are remains of an old arboretum, although it has suffered significant storm damage since its installation during colonial times. This installation covers an area of around 60 ha and is currently under the protectorate of the Ministry of the Environment and Forest. However, logging still continues within this zone, as there is essentially no active policy enforcement.
- @Theleekycauldron OK, feel free to restore illegal then. BorgQueen (talk) 04:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @BorgQueen: I took this bit of this source to at least heavily imply that logging in this part of the forest is illegal:
- This is set to hit the main page next. RoySmith BorgQueen Theleekycauldron. I still think that removing "illegal" is the easiest fix. SL93 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Whhops, I must have been looking at the wrong template when I pinged people. Sorry about that. I should have pinged @AirshipJungleman29 @Generalissima and @Vanderwaalforces RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
@SL93, Crisco 1492, and UndercoverClassicist: Given that we just had H. Wortman Pumping Station, would it make sense to spread this out a bit? RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would have no objection, but equally I doubt many readers will be sharp-eyed enough to notice a glut of Hendrik Wortman DYKs. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't mind either way. I don't see Wortman making a return to the main page after this, so anything works. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have no objection, but I would be more concerned if there was a long stream of such hooks rather than just two of them. SL93 (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
A better way to spot maintenance tags?
[edit]There was a (legitimate) complaint on WP:ERRORS today that Dollar Mountain Fire had several {{failed verification}} and similar templates. To be honest, if I had promoted that set, I doubt I would have noticed because they're buried in the text. I wonder if we could do something like add {{failed verification}} (and other disqualifying templates) to a hidden Category:Pages with templates we do not want on DYK. Then maybe some script that turned the hook red when added to a queue or prep page? That would make it trivial to spot these problems. RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- The tags were only added after the hook had begun its run. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah. Then in addition to the javascript, we need a time machine :-) RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- In addition to the fact that the tags were added after the hook appeared on the main page, it seems the editor who made the ERRORS complaint was the same editor who added the maintenance tags. That being said, however, doesn't DYKcheck warn you if there are tags like {{CN}}? Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- With regards to the Dollar Mountain Fire I have addressed the issues @The ed17: had (of which the , and given the very short time it was on the main page would like to see it placed back into a perp set for a full run if possible. As I removed the citations to the "Doukhobor websites". the hook will need to be slightly modified to "shelter near a Creek".--Kevmin § 17:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing the logic here. It got pulled because you used an unreliable source. It's unfortunate that this wasn't caught in any of the DYK review steps, but ultimately it's your responsibility to use good sources. Why does this qualify for a second run? RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi. Tagger and ERRORS reporter here. (Kevmin, I promise I'm not following you -- I have WP:DYK watchlisted.)
- To RoySmith's point: in Kevmin's defense, it was a pretty minor use of an unreliable source. And while I'm waiting for confirmation, I am starting to suspect why I failed to verify so much of the article's information was that a citation URL was inaccurate. See my first paragraph in this edit. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: The source in question, which I feel meets the "Secondary" qualifications in WP:SPS, was used only 3 times (out of then 37 cites in the article), 2 as support for the the other citations in the section and once for the words "rocky outcrop", NO extraordinary new information was taken from the source, and the other sources also affirm the information. I feel you have a rather punitive view of DYKs that aren't immaculate (see your comments above regarding QQP) but its project standard to give nominations pulled within an hour or so of mainpage that have been fixed to rerun.--Kevmin § 19:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
[...] but its project standard to give nominations pulled within an hour or so of mainpage that have been fixed to rerun.
In your case though, the article stayed on Main Page for more than 3 hours. [1] BorgQueen (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)- 3 1/2 hours out out of a 24 hour run, thats less then 1/6th of the run. I feel that falls into "or so" of the total run period. And as I note a quick look at the archives shows that this is not an unusual ask or a rarely granted thing.--Kevmin § 20:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's a case-by-case thing. It was on DYK for such a short amount of time that I don't think it would hurt to allow it to run again as long as the issues have been addressed. We tend to be less lenient for hooks that run at least half of their prescribed time, but 3.5 hours seems short enough that I'd support a re-run. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- 3 1/2 hours out out of a 24 hour run, thats less then 1/6th of the run. I feel that falls into "or so" of the total run period. And as I note a quick look at the archives shows that this is not an unusual ask or a rarely granted thing.--Kevmin § 20:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: The source in question, which I feel meets the "Secondary" qualifications in WP:SPS, was used only 3 times (out of then 37 cites in the article), 2 as support for the the other citations in the section and once for the words "rocky outcrop", NO extraordinary new information was taken from the source, and the other sources also affirm the information. I feel you have a rather punitive view of DYKs that aren't immaculate (see your comments above regarding QQP) but its project standard to give nominations pulled within an hour or so of mainpage that have been fixed to rerun.--Kevmin § 19:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing the logic here. It got pulled because you used an unreliable source. It's unfortunate that this wasn't caught in any of the DYK review steps, but ultimately it's your responsibility to use good sources. Why does this qualify for a second run? RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I believe @The ed17: and I have smoothed out the citation needs on Dollar Mountain Fire and it is ready to be rerun.--Kevmin § 18:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29, Surtsicna, and NeverBeGameOver: I suggest we not use this image. It's poor quality in many ways. I couldn't even tell it was a picture of two fish until I looked at the large version. RoySmith (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I clearly see it as two fish in the small version. SL93 (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Erm, Roy, I think you might need a new pair of glasses. :) BorgQueen (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- ...I don't see what else it could be... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I suspect the white and green fish may blend in with the white and green background for some, especially if someone is not primed to look for fish. (One fish is also a bit fuzzy, but that's one of those issues which is alleviated by the smaller size.) CMD (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- On my desktop, I can clearly see the fish on the left. I can make out the fish on the right if I look for it, but basically it's doing what millions of years of evolution have enabled it to do; blending in with the background. On my phone, it's all just a blob. From a technical quality standpoint, the best images I see in this prep set are File:Sof'ja Kropotkina.JPG from Sophie Kropotkin and File:WOSU office 02.jpg from WOSU-TV.
- And now that I look at this more, there's another issue. The caption says "Perugia's limia male pursuing a female". What WP:RS do we have that says which gender each of those are, and that the activity pictured is pursuit? RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks fine no matter how I go about it. I'm fine with fixing the caption. SL93 (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Done Trimmed the caption. BorgQueen (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can't get myself to agree with changing the image when the only way that I can barely see it is if I remove my glasses. SL93 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the image is fine. And beautiful. BorgQueen (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- BorgQueen and others, I am very curious about the suggestion that we need sources to identify what is going on in a photograph. Is there a guideline about this? Or a community consensus? I see a fair number of images set to appear soon on the Main Page in featured articles with captions that likewise miss sources. One could go further and ask why there is no RS that says the fish in this image are L. perugiae at all. How would there even be a RS for this when the photo was taken by a Wikipedian? Would the author be a reliable source on the sex and behavior of his fish (otherwise evident from the photo)? The removal of this information from the caption is rather unfortunate given that it ties so well with the hook. Surtsicna (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:V says
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including ... captions, must be verifiable
. Uncited information in image captions is one of my pet peeves. The last time I complained about this at a FAC, I was told that the photographer was an expert in field (IIRC, polar bears) and they were taken part of a scientific expedition, so we could count on their expertise to correctly identify what was in the photos. That's not unreasonable. - But in this case, all we know is the photo was taken by User:Usien. Are they an expert? I have no idea. I agree with you that we don't even know if the species identification is correct, but let's for the moment stick to my specific complaint which is how do we know which fish is which gender, and how do we know if the one fish is pursuing the other or if they're just out for an afternoon swim and both happened to be in the same frame at the same time? So if we don't know that, and have no way to verify it, we shouldn't say it. RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- We can tell the sex of the fish by... looking at them. The males differ from the females in the shape of their anal fins (this male has a clearly visible gonopodium), base coloration, and body shape. Whether the male is pursuing the female or just completely innocently swimming in the direction of her genital vent is indeed difficult to say with full certainty. But the idea that we need RS to identify what is in a photo seems problematic. Do we need a RS to ascertain that the woman in the infobox photo at Meghan Markle is indeed Meghan Markle? Or to identify which is the male and which is the female in the Lion infobox? I am genuinely curious about how this is supposed to work. I have always understood WP:V to refer to information in the caption that is not evident from the image itself. Surtsicna (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not evident to me which is the male and which is the female. You're telling me that it's evident to you, which is kind of the definition of WP:OR. RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- The gonopodium on the right fish and gravid spot on the left fish make the sexes clear. That being said, it's falling on that interesting line where anybody with any degree of familiarity with the topic can see its true, while those entirely ignorant of the subject area will have no way of telling and, apparently, focus on the entirely wrong issue. Sexing many species of fish requires very little in the way of specialist knowledge- and, while it may seem counterintuitive, in livebearers it's actually much easier than identifying the species. For example, are one or both of those fish Limia perugiae? Nobody without specialist knowledge of the genus could tell you, and even then maybe not. Fish species are incredibly easy to misidentify. But is the fish on the left a female and the one on the right a male? Absolutely. That is beyond doubt.
- So yeah. I'm with @Surtsicna. Why is the nebulous species identification completely fine, but the trivial question of "does the fish have a visible penis" OR? I don't want the picture pulled, but it makes no sense to pull the caption and not the image. The pursuing thing, though, that's hard to verify from just a still and I do have to thank @BorgQueen for pulling that part. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @GreenLipstickLesbian
For example, are one or both of those fish Limia perugiae? Nobody without specialist knowledge of the genus could tell you, and even then maybe not. Fish species are incredibly easy to misidentify.
Thank you for making such an interesting point. If we can't be 100 percent sure, I'm inclined to pull the image altogether. We really don't want to take any chances on Main Page, do we? BorgQueen (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)- I completely get the inclination. I don't think I'd like that solution, however, as I think it would kind of give us a really weird precedent. For example, most species of animals and plants need the exact same amount of knowledge to identify them- could we truly never run a mainpage image of them that hadn't been previously published in a reliable source and suitably licensed? And for photographs of people- the cross-race effect is real, even for famous individuals, but even ignoring that, people confuse each other all the time. If somebody claimed to have met an author and gotten a picture of them, why do we trust that they identified the author correctly, especially if we don't have any other good images to compare it to? And, even then, wouldn't our act of comparison then fall under WP:OR? And how about photographs of cars, planes, geographic features, computers, buildings without signs- do we trust our fellow editors uploading the pictures to get their labels right, or do we hold out for a reliable source to confirm the id for us? I fear with this interpretation, we'd be limiting not only the images we ran, but the type of images we could run. Taking August's hooks so far, three plant images have been run. Of these images, two of them (File:Pavonia praemorsa 1DS-II 2-6600.jpg and File:Tulbaghia acutiloba, blomme, veldblomstappie, FG NR, a.jpg were uploaded as "own work", but we accepted the uploader's identification as okay enough for the main page. And what I said above, about fish identification? That goes doubly for plants.
- All in all, I don't think there's a good solution to this issue that's going to make everybody happy. I know my personal opinion, of course- Wikipedia is a big old work in progress, and removing all "own work" images seems far more damaging than occasionally misidentifying the odd fish. (Especially when, as far as I can see, nobody has seriously challenged either the sexing or the species ID) It does seem unlikely to me, however, that this is the first time somebody has raised this point. Does anybody know of any old conversations, RFCs, or the like discussing this issue? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good point regarding the plants, GreenLipstickLesbian. BorgQueen, I think in this case MOS:IMAGES helps a lot:
Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic.
Closely related fish species might look perfectly alike on the outside and only be distinguishable by e.g. the number of teeth, and if we cannot see those, we do not need to be 100% certain. Trusting the photographer is then fully in line with MoS. Surtsicna (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good point regarding the plants, GreenLipstickLesbian. BorgQueen, I think in this case MOS:IMAGES helps a lot:
- @GreenLipstickLesbian
Whether the male is pursuing the female or just completely innocently swimming in the direction of her genital vent is indeed difficult to say with full certainty.
Thank you, I'm so relieved to have removed that description from the caption then. I don't think the Meghan Markle analogy is relevant to this case, as it doesn't normally require specialized knowledge to identify Ms. Markle when we look at her portrait images. But, of course, there can be more room for confusion and debates when it comes to certain old, or noticeably unclear, photographic images. BorgQueen (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)- Sorry, that was me being a bit facetious! I was suggesting that it is highly unlikely that he was just passing by because male poeciliids are notoriously lecherous. As for Markle identification, I am reminded of the incident of Dolly Parton anonymously entering a Dolly Parton look-alike contest and losing to a drag queen. I can guarantee that there are many people who find it much easier to identify animal species than to identify Markle - and the skill it takes is pretty much the same. Surtsicna (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've started a discussion at WT:V#Image captions?. RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, that was me being a bit facetious! I was suggesting that it is highly unlikely that he was just passing by because male poeciliids are notoriously lecherous. As for Markle identification, I am reminded of the incident of Dolly Parton anonymously entering a Dolly Parton look-alike contest and losing to a drag queen. I can guarantee that there are many people who find it much easier to identify animal species than to identify Markle - and the skill it takes is pretty much the same. Surtsicna (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not evident to me which is the male and which is the female. You're telling me that it's evident to you, which is kind of the definition of WP:OR. RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- We can tell the sex of the fish by... looking at them. The males differ from the females in the shape of their anal fins (this male has a clearly visible gonopodium), base coloration, and body shape. Whether the male is pursuing the female or just completely innocently swimming in the direction of her genital vent is indeed difficult to say with full certainty. But the idea that we need RS to identify what is in a photo seems problematic. Do we need a RS to ascertain that the woman in the infobox photo at Meghan Markle is indeed Meghan Markle? Or to identify which is the male and which is the female in the Lion infobox? I am genuinely curious about how this is supposed to work. I have always understood WP:V to refer to information in the caption that is not evident from the image itself. Surtsicna (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:V says
- Yeah, it looks fine no matter how I go about it. I'm fine with fixing the caption. SL93 (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I suspect the white and green fish may blend in with the white and green background for some, especially if someone is not primed to look for fish. (One fish is also a bit fuzzy, but that's one of those issues which is alleviated by the smaller size.) CMD (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
BorgQueen, can we have the sexing of the fish back in the caption now please? We are so fortunate to have been given a good photo capturing both sexes, and it ties directly into the hook. Surtsicna (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Surtsicna Very well. Tell me the exact caption you'd like. Sans the pursuing, of course. BorgQueen (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @BorgQueen "A Perugia's limia male approaching a female" should be non-contentious. Approaching as in coming nearer, no romantic advances implied. Surtsicna (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
What is the standard (not ideal) to which DYK should hold itself?
[edit]Earlier this year, efforts began to repair DYK, but I have questions about DYK itself. The big one: What's the bar?
Is it Britannica's level of accuracy? In The Myth of Brittanica, scholar Harvey Einbinder crucified that professional encyclopedia for their frequent errors. We'll never get things perfect, so what is our threshold for acceptable?
Below are two contested DYK hooks compared to news coverage. Many issues at WP:ERRORS come from content cited to sources making the same or similar errors. Andrew Tate's DYK spurred a lengthy and intense discussion at WP:ANI. Jex Blackmore's DYK was one of many disputed at WPO. In both discussions, there were legitimate concerns about hooks describing living people in a way that could potentially give a reader the wrong idea. However, neither hook is outright false, and content similar to the contested hooks appeared in many news sources. Changes to the subjects' articles addressed both issues, but the changes were minor.
- Andrew Tate
Described by DYK as: "'absolutely a misogynist'
"(DYK)
Described by news outlets as:
- Guardian
- "
On one YouTube video, Tate described himself as “absolutely a misogynist”.
" - BBC
- "
In an interview with another YouTuber, he said he was "absolutely a misogynist", and added: "I'm a realist and when you're a realist, you're sexist. There's no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist."
" - Daily Mail
- "
Tate claims he is 'absolutely a misogynist'.
" - Mirror Online
- "
In an interview on YouTube, Tate admitted he was "absolutely a misogynist", and said: "I'm a realist and when you're a realist, you're sexist. There's no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist."
" - The Independent
- "
In an appearance on the Anything Goes with James English podcast last year, Tate said: “You can’t slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I’m absolutely a misogynist, and I have f*** you money and you can’t take that away.”
" - LA Times
- "
As a part of a two-hour interview in 2021 on the podcast “Anything Goes With James English,” Tate said, “You can’t slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I’m absolutely a misogynist, and I have f— you money and you can’t take that away.”
" - Forbes
- "
Tate describes himself as "absolutely a sexist" and "absolutely a misogynist,” and has stated that women "belong in the home" and that they are "given to the man and belong to the man."
" - Washintgon Post
- "
Self-described mysogynist Andrew Tate [...] who has described himself as “absolutely a misogynist,” told NBC News that he plays an “online character.
" - The Signal
- "
Tate describes himself as “absolutely a sexist” and “absolutely a misogynist,” going as far as to say that he prefers women that are as young as 19 because they have been with less men and are therefore sexually innocent.
"
Later changes:
Changed from "influencer, and has described himself as "absolutely" misogynistic and sexist.
"(14 May 2024) to "influencer, and has previously self-described as a misogynist.
"(15 May 2024)
- Jex Blackmore
Described by DYK as: "an American pro-choice activist and Satanist
"(DYK)
Described by news outlets as:
- Dazed
- "
Satanist activist and performance artist, Jex Blackmore
" - LifeNews
- "
Satanist leader Jex Blackmore
" - ABC News
- "
The Satanic Temple in Detroit [...] founder Jex Blackmore
" - Variety
- "
Jex Blackmore, a spokesman for the Satanic Temple and the head of its Detroit chapter
" - Jezebel
- "
Satanic Artist and Activist Jex Blackmore
" - Lansing State Journal
- "
Jex Blackmore, Satanic Temple's spokesperson
" - Morning Sun
- "
Satanist Jex Blackmore
"
Later changes:
Changed from "Blackmore was affiliated with the Satanic Temple
"(17 May 2024 ) to "Blackmore was affiliated with the Satanic Temple, a non-theistic organization,
"(25 May 2024)
- Questions
So, are we holding ourselves to a higher standard than Brittanica? Higher than the baseline of professional journalism? I think that's a consensus that has developed. If our bar, at least for the main page hooks, is raised above those sources, we can't settle for citing and summarizing them. So how do we do it? Rjjiii (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Are we really holding ourselves to the baseline of professional journalism if we don't issue retractions when we get things wrong? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Any professional journalists would probably vomit at the thought of including a little box filled with random trivia on the front page of their website/newspaper, so there's that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- The standard is " if you can complain about it, no matter how minor, inconsequential, or honestly still correct, the hook will be changed". That's the level I've seen over the years. Many of the complaints at ERRORS are specious at best and tendentiously wrong much of the time. But the complaint was made, so we must change it to suit the complainers. SilverserenC 17:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would like to propose adding retractions to the {{DYK talk}} template, as one possible location. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Nathaniel Coe might need adoption
[edit]Template:Did you know nominations/Nathaniel Coe is six weeks and might need adoption, as its nominator has not edited in one month. The article only has minor concerns to be addressed. Problems are not insurmountable. Flibirigit (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am looking at your concerns on the nom page now to see if I can help in any way. Viriditas (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I remedied the birthdate confusion. Moving on to your other points now. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I removed the quote box as tangential. All that is needed now is to choose a hook. I would like to see Narutolovehinata5 return to this role, as they have good instincts for this. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I remedied the birthdate confusion. Moving on to your other points now. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I've been involved in building this prep. I've promoted two of the hooks and reviewed one. So I believe it is best if someone else could move it to the queue. BorgQueen (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
@SL93, Y2hyaXM, and Bsoyka: excessive WP:CLOP with nytimes.com/2022/10/06/education/learning/mississippi-schools-literacy.html RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith Just made an edit to the page that should fix this. Please let me know if you see anything else wrong with the page. Cheers! Y2hyaXM (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- If not, I will take a look later. SL93 (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Possible DYK
[edit]I find the DYK process a little challenging, but if anyone wants to pick it up, the new page, Scethrog Tower, offers possiblities:
- DYK that George Melly sold paintings by René Magritte and Pablo Picasso to buy a stretch of riverbank at Scethrog Tower?;
- DYK that Jeremy Paxman slept in a tent at Scethrog Tower when staying with George Melly to go fly fishing?;
- DYK that Bruce Chatwin wrote much of On the Black Hill at Scethrog Tower and dedicated it to Diana Melly?.
Or they could all be combined into one monster hook! KJP1 (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @KJP1: I must admit, as a fan of quiz shows, I do quite like ALT1. Why are you not able to do this yourself, given that you didn't seem to have that much of a problem with your sixth nomination last month? (For the record, I'm not opposed to nominating this myself, but I'd want a QPQ.)--Launchballer 12:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I am pretty certain there's at least one useable hook in there somewhere. As to why I don't just do it myself, it's a fair point, but frankly I find the DYK process to be a little painful. I only did the last one as a thank-you to the editor who took the trouble to get me the photos. So, as I do not intend to take it forward myself, but nonetheless am confident there is a pretty good hook in there, I thought I'd flag it in case someone else wanted to pick it up. I've done this before, although I can't remember with which article. KJP1 (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fair enough. For your information, the aforementioned sixth nomination used Poll (parrot) and you appear to have an unused QPQ for Robert Micklewright. (I just went through your edits to the Template: space.)--Launchballer 13:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I am pretty certain there's at least one useable hook in there somewhere. As to why I don't just do it myself, it's a fair point, but frankly I find the DYK process to be a little painful. I only did the last one as a thank-you to the editor who took the trouble to get me the photos. So, as I do not intend to take it forward myself, but nonetheless am confident there is a pretty good hook in there, I thought I'd flag it in case someone else wanted to pick it up. I've done this before, although I can't remember with which article. KJP1 (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- ... that the S1/S2 rolling stock of the Amsterdam Metro was also a tram?
@Styyx, Sammi Brie, and SL93: I'm not sure this hook is appropriately understandable for a reader of average understanding: what's "rolling stock"? What do S1 and S2 mean in this context, is it just a name? Why is it surprising that it's a tram? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- One could expect a train with the name metro actually run as a metro and not a tram. I thought rolling stock was pretty basic language as you pretty much can't have a transit article go without it (eg. New York City Subway). S1/S2 is indeed the name of the train type.
- PS. in 'murican it would be the subway running as a streetcar. Styyx (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure how a metro differs from a tram (one has rubber tires and the other runs on rails, maybe?) but I think it's fine. I think most people will recognize that "metro" and "tram" are both words that describe types of transportation systems and will click through to find out what the difference is. RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- If I may opine, a tram is basically a light rail or streetcar back in the US, whereas a metro would be more akin to a subway. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- there's lots of technical terms needed to write an article; doesn't mean everyone knows what they mean, and I think "rolling stock" is pretty obscure even if basic. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'd be fine with replacing "rolling stock" with "cars" or "trains". RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- As someone who lives in the UK, the term rolling stock is in common use here. For example, see London Underground rolling stock and Thameslink#Rolling_stock. We also use the term 1995 stock, 1996 stock, 2009 stock, etc. Plus remember the concept of a tram-train. JuniperChill (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure how a metro differs from a tram (one has rubber tires and the other runs on rails, maybe?) but I think it's fine. I think most people will recognize that "metro" and "tram" are both words that describe types of transportation systems and will click through to find out what the difference is. RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Prep 6: Poll (parrot) (nom)
[edit]- ... that a parrot reportedly screamed profanities at the funeral of U.S. president Andrew Jackson?
@Di (they-them), KJP1, and SL93: I don't think "reportedly" is good enough of a hedge for this hook. Snopes rates the claim as "unproven", noting that they found no contemporaneous evidence from the claim, only a letter written from one of the funeral's attendees to a historian decades after it happened. I think the hook should be workshopped to make it clear that this seems to hover closer to a good story than it does reported history. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: The Snopes article quotes a professor of history as saying that the event is "uncontroverted but also unauthenticated", meaning that even though it hasn't been proven, it's not widely doubted that it happened. Being uncontroverted, "reportedly" is an OK way to phrase it (IMO). Di (they-them) (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Uncontroverted" just means "this circumstantially fits with what we know about Johnson and Poll"/"we have no reason to think this person is lying", but that's not the same as "the general consensus of scholars is that this probably happened". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Theleekycauldron - isn't that what "reportedly" is doing as a caveat? Rev. William Menefee Norment recounted the story to Samuel G. Heiskell, and Heiskell reported it in his Andrew Jackson and Early Tennessee History. The article lead then goes on to report Snopes' reservations. If it was just an internet "story", I could understand but as the teller not only attended the funeral, but had also met Jackson in life, I'm not sure I get the concern. KJP1 (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- p.s. The Rev. Normant doesn't look like a man given to the telling of tall tales! - he's third from left, front row, [2].
- I think it should say that "one funeralgoer later recounted" the story – one of the annoying nuances of history as an academic field is that eyewitness observations are way more unreliable than most people would intuitively guess. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't run this at all. This is all just repeating the same cute story which may or may not be true, and we have no real way to figure out which. Surely we've got better stuff we could run? RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- That "reportedly" is doing a lot of heavy lifting for its actual meaning "according to a 103-year-old source retelling the 76-year-old memories of a 92-year-old-man". The important bit of "uncontroverted but also unauthenticated" is not the first word but the last—the events were so old that Norment could have made anything up, no matter what he looked like. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- This should get pulled. I went through and looked at all of the sources. Most of them are not up to WP:RS standards and I've applied the appropriate tags. RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I pulled it. SL93 (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @SL93: Please see my response to RoySmith, I don't think that pulling the hook was the right decision. RoySmith tagged most of the sources as unreliable despite the fact that all but one are 100% reliable (Snopes, the Audubon Society, and subject matter experts are not considered unreliable). Only one source could be considered potentially unreliable (Lafeber Co.) but its claims are backed up by overwhelmingly reliable sources. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: I really don't understand what criteria you hold for something not being up to RS standards. The sources that you tagged as unreliable are news articles, Snopes (which has been determined to be reliable, see WP:RSP), the Audubon Society, Jacksonian America (a website run by a subject matter expert), and a museum. All of these seem to pass RS standards to me. The only source that I could imagine being potentially unreliable would be Lafeber Co., but its claims are backed up by all the other reliable sources. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- You can't just say, "This was in a newspaper, therefore it must be true". This is summed up at WP:CONTEXTMATTERS which says,
Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication
. - Look at, for example, "Strange But True: Andrew Jackson and the cursing parrot", in the Naples Daily News. This has 7 unrelated factoids, ranging from marriage practices in ancient Rome to how seahorses reproduce. How likely do you think it is that each of these statements was fact-checked, analyzed, and scrutinized before publication? Or is it more likely this is just clickbait to drive traffic to the ads on the page for ED pills, miracle mouthwashes, and a shower head which is claimed to be "Life-Changing". RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Snopes, the Audubon Society, the museum, the Washington Post, and Jacksonian America (run by professor Mark Cheathem) are all reliable sources that cover the subject. If it was just local news articles you would have a point, but it's not. Also, the Naples Daily News source is listed in conjunction with reliable sources to the same claim. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I'm a little curious as to why you would seemingly have redundant sources all over the place? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that it's better to have multiple sources backing up claims. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- It depends on the claim. I find, in my own personal experience, it's better to have one single source backing up a claim, but if necessary, to bundle primary and secondary sources together to show how there's a chain of scholarship with each work reinforcing the other, particularly when the secondary cites the primary. You can see how I did this in Toulouse-Lautrec Cooking. Only one source appears at the end of a sentence or a paragraph (if possible), but multiple sources are bundled if it helps illustrate the chain of ideas, scholarship, or literature references. To be brief, it is best to have one source, not many backing up claims, but if necessary, bundle multiple sources into one when needed. I just ran into an editor who was citing ten or more sources at the end of sentences, making the articles all but unreadable, and without any reason. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Having multiple independent sources is useful. Many of these are just repeating what the others say. For example. the Audubon source (which has all of two sentences to say on the subject) cites the Presidential Pet Museum and The Tennessean. You already cite both of those directly, so citing Audubon doesn't add any new information. The Cincinnati Enquirer (which devotes a single sentence to this) likewise just cites the same article in The Tennessean. So it also adds no new information.
- And since I don't want to be accused of outing, I'll just mention that in an off-wiki thread, somebody finds it "baffling" that I would call the Washington Post unreliable. I'm also baffled, since that's not one of the sources I complained about. RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Any source can be unreliable at some point, even the WaPo, which was bought out by Bezos in 2013. Keith Olbermann and others have been keeping tabs on the number of unreliable stories run by the WaPo and the New York Times, so this isn't actually that baffling at all. American media has a huge problem, often due to multiple factors, such as failure to innovate, media consolidation, and the loss of basic journalistic ethics and values when confronted with power and money. Still other factors, which are rarely discussed, include the loss of interest in long-form reading by the public, who are conditioned by social media to read only headlines and small blurbs. Researchers like Sherry Turkle and others like Nicholas G. Carr have written extensively about this problem, with the vast majority of academia ignoring it until recently. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that it's better to have multiple sources backing up claims. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I guess I'm a little curious as to why you would seemingly have redundant sources all over the place? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Snopes, the Audubon Society, the museum, the Washington Post, and Jacksonian America (run by professor Mark Cheathem) are all reliable sources that cover the subject. If it was just local news articles you would have a point, but it's not. Also, the Naples Daily News source is listed in conjunction with reliable sources to the same claim. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- You can't just say, "This was in a newspaper, therefore it must be true". This is summed up at WP:CONTEXTMATTERS which says,
- I pulled it. SL93 (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- This should get pulled. I went through and looked at all of the sources. Most of them are not up to WP:RS standards and I've applied the appropriate tags. RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Uncontroverted" just means "this circumstantially fits with what we know about Johnson and Poll"/"we have no reason to think this person is lying", but that's not the same as "the general consensus of scholars is that this probably happened". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
[edit]The previous list was archived several hours ago, so I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 5. We have a total of 283 nominations, of which 132 have been approved, a gap of 151 nominations that has increased by 1 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
More than one month old
July 5: Template:Did you know nominations/David B. GillespieJuly 18: Template:Did you know nominations/David YongJuly 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Aracy Amaral- July 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Abduction of Jonila Castro and Jhed Tamano
- July 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Malacchi Esdale
- July 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Julie Roy (activist)
- July 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Ácido Argentino
- July 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Fede Vigevani
Other nominations
- July 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Henry Bubb
July 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Center squeeze- July 28: Template:Did you know nominations/J1407b
- July 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Juan de Casas
- July 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Tinzaouaten (2024)
- July 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Cosmetic Playlover
- July 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Patrick J. Hessian
- July 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Auckland Central in the 2020 New Zealand general election
- July 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Homer House
July 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1- July 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Queer advocacy in the Israel–Hamas War
- July 30: Template:Did you know nominations/1990 Serbian general election
- July 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Teodoro Asedillo
- July 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Yahya Al Ghotany
- August 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Rabbinic period
August 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Yellow River Delta National Nature Reserve (two articles)- August 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Ani ni Aisaresugite Komattemasu
August 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Republic Drug StoreAugust 3: Template:Did you know nominations/A. I. Namm & Son Department Store- August 3: Template:Did you know nominations/MV Don Claudio
- August 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Laurence Patrick Lee
- August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Rico Krieger
- August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Joanna Ferrone
- August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Liberalism in the Philippines
- August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Sienna Green
- August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Sugar Dog Life
- August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/CyberJoly Drim
- August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Allison Reese
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) 22:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Can we have a moratorium on nonsensical hooks
[edit]Like today's "that Quintus Quincy Quigley preferred Angles to a ring?" - it's not quirky, it's not hooky, it's nonsense. Sure, it's a complete sentence, but there's a fine line between leaving a reader wondering more about the statement and leaving the reader wondering what the statement itself is. A hook doesn't, perhaps shouldn't, give everything away, but it's still got to say something that is either inherently interesting (and QQQ simply preferring something is not) or - if it's in the quirky slot - something that is interesting based on wordplay or similar (which isn't apparent even though Angles is clearly a double meaning and ring deliberately too vague). Kingsif (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Works for me. This one was really pushing the limits of quirky. RoySmith (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Andrew Davidson, Surtsicna, and AirshipJungleman29:.--Launchballer 10:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
The OP's last hook was "... that though Donatello was a Bardi, he was not a Bardi?" This sounds nonsensical so you obviously have to read the article to understand it. This makes it a good hook and I'm not seeing the difference. Otherwise, this just seems to be a case of de gustibus non est disputandum. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- My position is that hooks of this type aren't great, but the community thinks they're fine, so I promote them to the quirky slot. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, I don't think my last hook is good because you have to read the article - it's good because it entices you to read the article based on what the hook actually tells you. And that, Andrew, is the difference. Being told X is Y but also not Y, makes a reader interested in what Y could possibly be that makes such true. It makes sense in the fundamental way of understanding what is said even if you don't know what all of the parts are. The hookiness (and quirkiness) is the apparent contradiction, one does not need to know what Y is to understand the hook itself.
- While the hook I mention here in the OP, is effectively just throwing random words into the hook to make the hook itself read as weird. It's nonsense in that there fundamentally is nothing there to be understood, any meaning having been sacrificed for an attempt at mimicking quirkiness. The hookiness is "these words are weird and don't make sense put together". And worse, it is also super boring taken at face value, even if you know what it's about.
- As I said, there's a fine line, but IMHO most people can tell the difference between relying on readers being unaware and intrigued, and relying on them being confused - and we shouldn't be aiming for the latter. Kingsif (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- The words "Angles" and "ring" are not random; they are exactly the words used in the full anecdote. One is a proper name, and this is indicated by the capital letter while the ring is just a ring and not cryptic at all. I started with the anecdote and tried to express this succinctly. As explained in the nomination, I didn't want to obscure the name of the subject with too much detail as I felt his name was the most intriguing part of the hook.
- So, the hook worked reasonably well for me as it was built up from knowledge of the subject. It may well be puzzling for readers coming cold to it but that's fine for a hook. How well it works overall in attracting readers remains to be seen.
- As for your hook, I don't much appreciate it because I'm not sure what those different meanings of Bardi are and I still haven't found out because they don't sound especially interesting to me. But if it works for you then I'm fine with it. Creating these things is like composing poetry or an epigram. It's an art, not a science and so some variation in content, style and appreciation is to be expected.
- In my case, the editor who reviewed the hook seemed to like it and it went through the prep and promotion process without being altered in any way, which is unusual in my experience. It's not clear to me why you're making a big deal about it now but so it goes. If it helps draw more attention to the article, then that's more hits for it. And, at the end of the day, the set scrolls off and we're done because this is all quite ephemeral.
- "Animula vagula blandula..."
- Andrew🐉(talk) 21:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- You know I didn't mean to highlight your hook specifically, but that it's the latest in what has seemed an increasing number of 'quirky' hooks that have nothing interesting about their facts (and, forgive me, "X preferred Y to Z" isn't inherently interesting, and strange words alone will not make it so) but have been written seemingly deliberately absurdly to try and make them quirky. I still like to come at reading DYKs fresh, and IMHO it's off-putting when hooks have nothing interesting but their weird construction. I just wanted to draw attention to a trend of something I think is going to make hooks less appealing. Kingsif (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/LinnaeusWeddingPortrait.jpg/220px-LinnaeusWeddingPortrait.jpg)
References
- ^ Philosophia Botanica, Stockholm: Godofr. Kiesewetter, 1751, p. 297
- Interest is not inherent; it is an attitude or POV of the observer and some acute observers are able to take an interest in anything and everything. For example, consider Carl Linnaeus (pictured) who wrote, "mirari omnia, etiam tritissima". I came across this motto at the Chelsea Physic Garden and immediately thought that these were words to live by and so put them on my user page.
- So, our pragmatic measure of the interest of our hooks is statistical – the number of views that they get. The numbers are in now and Quintus Quincy Quigley got 11,605 views, which seems reasonably good.
- Bardi (surname) got 6,634 which is rather less. It was in the quirky slot too but attracted some heat at WP:ERRORS which resulted in changes to the hook. Perhaps these weakened the hook and made it less effective. The official history of the main page now has that hook as "... that though Donatello was a Bardi, he was not part of the Bardi family?" which doesn't seem so interesting, eh?
- Andrew🐉(talk) 10:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
mamas sang on "Mama"?
[edit]Since we're on the subject, how do people feel about .. that mamas sang on "Mama"?
in Queue 2? RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that one's quite far away from nonsensical. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Have to agree with Airship, that's a logically quirky way of saying that some vocals in the song were provided by people who are mothers. This Mama hook IMHO fulfils the aim of quirky hooks - presenting a fact in a fun way - and is not the problem at hand. If people can't sense the difference, a litmus test could probably be "ignoring how it's written, is an interesting fact presented?" Kingsif (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- To add, the only borderline example I currently see in the preps and queues would be prep 7's "that English DJ Sammy Virji pranked Salute after making "Peach" with them?" - it's debatable whether pranking a collaborator is an interesting fact, and if you think it isn't, the hook would be relying on something of an innuendo not just for its quirkiness but for its interestingness. Kingsif (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Possibly showing my immaturity, but I proposed that hook thinking people would click to see what the prank was.--Launchballer 17:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the prank is interesting, a hook about it could be. Kingsif (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- A good hook doesn't give all the information, it leaves the reader wanting to know more.--Launchballer 18:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Where did I say give all the information? Just making the prank (rather than "Peach") the focal point of the hook could give it some substance. Kingsif (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- A good hook doesn't give all the information, it leaves the reader wanting to know more.--Launchballer 18:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the prank is interesting, a hook about it could be. Kingsif (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think that's interesting or even encyclopedic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Possibly showing my immaturity, but I proposed that hook thinking people would click to see what the prank was.--Launchballer 17:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- To add, the only borderline example I currently see in the preps and queues would be prep 7's "that English DJ Sammy Virji pranked Salute after making "Peach" with them?" - it's debatable whether pranking a collaborator is an interesting fact, and if you think it isn't, the hook would be relying on something of an innuendo not just for its quirkiness but for its interestingness. Kingsif (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @RoySmith Given that it's now in Queue and the reservations raised here, is there consensus to put it back to prep or to even pull it? For what it's worth, I do think it's a rare example of a quirky hook that's actually accurate even at first reading, but AJ29 has made an objection to it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I could go either way; I'll let somebody else make the call. RoySmith (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, my comment above was referring to the Sammy Virji hook. I am perfectly fine with the mamas hook, as I say above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 When I encountered that hook in Prep the concern I had was that it assumed knowledge of who Salute was. However, I didn't want to add too much context since I was worried that others might feel that adding context would the hook. In the meantime I've moved it to a later prep, but do you think it needs to be pulled or reworked altogether? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- As above, I don't believe the information is encyclopedic, so would prefer either ALT0 or ALT2 from the nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- @AirshipJungleman29 When I encountered that hook in Prep the concern I had was that it assumed knowledge of who Salute was. However, I didn't want to add too much context since I was worried that others might feel that adding context would the hook. In the meantime I've moved it to a later prep, but do you think it needs to be pulled or reworked altogether? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5, my comment above was referring to the Sammy Virji hook. I am perfectly fine with the mamas hook, as I say above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I could go either way; I'll let somebody else make the call. RoySmith (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Prepping questions
[edit]Hi! Just got PSHAW, since I'm new to this area of DYK, I want to ask a question. For the prepping procedure, bullet point three says ... that the article has not been substantially edited since the last approval
, does it include good-faith edits and/or expansions? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗
12:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TheNuggeteer: I have no comment on your post; but in the meantime, could you explain what makes you qualified to close this nomination despite not being a DYK moderator? While it's been marked as rejected and should probably closed off the bat, I find this quite odd. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wait, it was only for DYK moderators? You should probably revert the edit.
🍗TheNuggeteer🍗
13:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC) - Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, what's a DYK moderator? Why does TheNuggeteer need to be "qualified" to close a nomination which obviously fails the DYK criteria, and who awards these classifications? I don't believe I've got one, and I've closed dozens of nominations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. TheNuggeteer did nothing wrong closing that nomination.--Launchballer 13:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wait, it was only for DYK moderators? You should probably revert the edit.
- @TheNuggeteer To return to your original question, I would not consider small good-faith edits, but major expansions or reorganizations definitely would warrant a re-review. Sohom (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
@Styyx: please walk me through the sourcing for the hook statement. In the nom you just put "Source: Article", which isn't useful. RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi RoySmith. I have made it a bit more clearer in the article. "
This meant that the line ran as a metro from Amsterdam Centraal to Amsterdam Zuid and was fully integrated into the system, while switching to a tram service after Zuid until its terminus
", source: "Toen in 1990 lijn 51 naar Amstelveen in gebruik werd genomen, moest deze deels als metro en deels als tram worden uitgevoerd" and "At the time, no rolling stock existed that was able to convert from a metro to a tram mid-service. The GVB placed an order at La Brugeoise et Nivelles (BN) for 13 trains in 1988 that were capable of doing so, only for use as Line 51
", source: "Al moet gezegd dat er in 1985 nog geen voertuig bestaat dat op zowel een metro- als trambaan kan rijden. Er zijn dan alleen nog technische tekeningen beschikbaar. Het vervoersbedrijf besluit de stap te wagen en laat een sneltram bouwen door de Belgische leverancier BN uit Brugge". Note that in both instances the rest of the sentence is supplemented by the other source used. Some sources used elsewhere in the article also call it a tram (i.e. see the translated title of source 28). Styyx (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)- OK, thanks. AGF on the language translation. RoySmith (talk) 18:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
@Bsoyka: it's good practice when citing a video like https://watch.yurview.com/videos/iman-mahdavi-count-down-to-paris to include a time index in the citation so people know where to look. This is analogous to including a page number in citation to a book. RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
@SL93, BeanieFan11, and Grnrchst: it looks like the event is a team of three; just mentioning two competitors in the hook is a bit misleading. RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did mention it in the nom:
I also realized there's the possibility of including Lim Si-hyeon, the third member of the team; however, her article needed to be expanded to about 3,300 bytes to count as 5x expanded (someone else expanded it) and it is currently about 2,700: not sure if including it would somehow be possible.
BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)- Even if the third article doesn't qualify for DYK as a bolded link, the hook should still make it clear that the two people mentioned were just part of a three-person team. RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I will say that Lim Si-hyeon is currently 2969. Given that it's not going to take up that much extra room if we're linking to it anyway, how do we feel about IARing it?--Launchballer 16:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why? Just include the link without bolding it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I will say that Lim Si-hyeon is currently 2969. Given that it's not going to take up that much extra room if we're linking to it anyway, how do we feel about IARing it?--Launchballer 16:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Image in Prep 3
[edit]File:Margaret Coe - Crater Lake 2 - 2010 - Oregon State Capitol.jpg in Prep 3 is almost certainly not a valid free image. The artist is still alive, and the painting is from 2010. Clicking on the image in its source page, it says "Artwork copyright the artist, who must grant permission to use or create photographs or derivative works for any other use than personal." MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I pulled it. SL93 (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I nominated it for deletion at Commons here. SL93 (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Image eligibility question
[edit]It is my understanding that images of statues in the US erected after 1978 are generally not considered free without express consent from the sculptor. However, this image of a 2013 statue is owned by the US federal government and in the public domain. Does it meet the criteria set forth in WP:DYKIMG from a copyright standpoint? Left guide (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I asked about this on Commons:Commons:Village pump#Is File:P103013PS-0384 (10596687253).jpg actually PD?. RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Mismatch between DYKA and the main page
[edit]The Main Page DYKs are different from the ones showing up under today's date at DYKA. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- You posted this at a couple minutes after midnight UTC. My first guess is you just caught it in the middle of doing an update and if you wait a few minutes everything will be fine. RoySmith (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- The bot only updates the page once per day right at midnight to add the latest DYKs. See the page history. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Shubinator, who maintains the bot. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- At some point, someone's gotta write Wikipedia:Did you know/Yes, the archives are out of sync, right? (Sets are archived by the time they're taken off the Main Page, it's easier that way.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ohhhhhhhhhhh. That's extremely counterintuitive. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can't blame me for missing this sentence in the middle of the second paragraph at the top of the page, right? (Currently, DYK hooks are archived according to the date and time that they were taken off the Main Page.) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, no, it's really snuck in there. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can't blame me for missing this sentence in the middle of the second paragraph at the top of the page, right? (Currently, DYK hooks are archived according to the date and time that they were taken off the Main Page.) voorts (talk/contributions) 00:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ohhhhhhhhhhh. That's extremely counterintuitive. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- The bot only updates the page once per day right at midnight to add the latest DYKs. See the page history. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. For the latest conversation on this, check out Special:Permalink/1216864813#Main page DYK now and Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2024/March#27 March 2024 don't match?. Shubinator (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Reopening Jab Se Tere Naina DYKN
[edit]Hi, could this nomination be reopened? All the issues were resolved by me at the earliest time possible. It only had to be promoted. KunalAggarwal95 (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t support that. The article is no longer new; it was first nominated almost two months ago. Schwede66 19:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Schwede66, the article is not new, and even though the article is barely over 1500 characters now, there is still a fair bit of crufty material in there. Sohom (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Right now this nomination's proposed hooks do not seem to meet WP:DYKINT as they seem to be reliant on being familiar with Biblical studies and may not be easily understood by a general audience. Is there anyone here who could assist and perhaps propose a more non-specialist hook? Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)- The place to raise that would be the discussion above. CMD (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Anything less than a week and nominators will just renominate. A warning's a good idea though.--Launchballer 11:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- I would not tolerate that either. A renomination can be met with another closure. Schwede66 19:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Anything less than a week and nominators will just renominate. A warning's a good idea though.--Launchballer 11:43, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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
- 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)
@SL93, Daniel Case, and Epicgenius: this needs an end-of-sentence citation. RoySmith (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- RoySmith I thought it did. "Kaplan looked outside reported case law for examples modern readers would be more familiar with: first, Alfred Eisenstadt's V-J Day in Times Square, and wildlife photographer Thomas D. Mangelsen's widely reprinted Catch of the Day, showing a grizzly bear waiting with an open mouth for a salmon leaping out of an Alaskan river. This aspect necessarily applied only to the image, and not its subject matter: source". SL93 (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think I see what you mean, and I think I took care of it. SL93 (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC)