This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Did you know. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
... that in September 2019, far-right politician Milan Mazurek became the first Slovak parliamentarian to lose his seat due to a crime after comparing Romani children to "animals in the zoo"?
What do these two incidents, the first which happened in 2019 and the second in 2016, have to do with each other? We also have to remember this is a BLP. I would end it at "crime". Yoninah (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
It appears that it was the 2016 anti-Romani speech that led to the 2019 conviction and loss of his seat. The article is rather confusing as these events are split across two different sections. P-K3 (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
From what I can gather, the 2016 incident was a cause for his being convicted in 2019. Both sources for the hook mention his losing his seat due to his comments against the Roma. So, I don't see a problem with mentioning the crime he was convicted of. Plus, citation 14 does say that he had compared the Roma to "animals in the zoo". My two cents. Hybernator (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I promoted this to the lead slot, but the second part of the hook with the 3 extra noms really doesn't go with the first. It is introducing a different point about a different painting. These 3 noms were originally proposed separately at Template:Did you know nominations/Don Juan Mateos and Peter Perret, but the reviewer suggested combining them. I think we should go back to the original idea of two 3-hook nominations. Yoninah (talk) 10:36, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Both nominators appear content with a x6, and they do do hang together, as Mateos is in both, and is identified in both by the same engraving, so they're indeed a neat x6, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. No one is going to click on either of the two bolded links at the end, which have nothing to do with this painting. It is expected of a multi-hook that all the elements hang together. Yoninah (talk) 11:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The new prep 3 hook introduces a structural ambiguity, since at a glance it looks like they are secondary scholars of murderousness towards our feathered and furry friends per Spanish Baroque literature rather than the orginal penners thereof; could add "similarly" before "identified" to reemphasize the join..., Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
It does now. (I tried to flag in my review comment on the corroboration of the various hook facts that you have to go fishing across the set to find the various individual facts in the hook referenced; perhaps that's one of the strengths of this x6er, not only does it tell you such facts, but it also performatively bathes the initiate in the painstaking trawling of seemingly disparate texts to arrive at a coherent story that is greater than the sum of its parts, blah blah blah; if we're not careful this will become a x8er with articles on Juan de Noort, engraver from whom Alonso, and a "school of Velazquez" portrait of the same, have been identified), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
The thing about multi-article hooks, especially once you get above a couple of bold links, is that the odds are not all the articles will get clicks from people who are interested, but you never know which ones will. In this case, I think it's possible that someone will get curious about the engraver whose work helped the identification of Mateos, and the two similar yet different names for father and son might get someone to click on the other name if they find the first one interesting. I think we can afford to leave all six bold links in the article, and check after they're off the main page to see what happened. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As I see it, the hook is good to go, but if a reviewer or a promoter finds any issues with it they will have to be fixed by someone besides the nominator. (Vanamonde93) 04:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
So we're responding to an editor receiving multiple topic bans from editing and DYK areas, by running one of the nominations that was discussed as being one that contributed to the topic bans in the first place? I have to say I can see a considerable logic failure there. Black Kite (talk)15:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
This was written before the ban. Also, as long as CofE doesn't mess with the approved hook, we're okay, right? --evrik(talk)15:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, I wasn't saying we should run it, just that if we do, the above would be a better wording. It's a Northern Irish hook with a clear anti-Catholic slant, so it seems questionable whether it should be run or not. Joseph2302 (talk)16:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
The hook says that a unionist wouldn't employ Catholics, putting this on the front page could be seen as endorsing this segregation viewpoint. Joseph2302 (talk)18:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
While this wouldn't technically breach any of the C of E's topic bans as he has had no involvement with it since they were enacted, this hook still shouldn't be run, per Black Kite.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
There appears to be many editors against this hook running as per the comments above and it not being promoted by anyone. This nomination should be closed as rejected. Flibirigit (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, you know, how about we all look into it and get it over with? How about we get a consensus on the issues to be addressed and then promote together. That might be the best option now. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 18:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
How about we simply don't run a DYK with the word "Londonderry" in it, which was only nominated for DYK because it has that word in it, and then just put this episode behind us? Black Kite (talk)22:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
DYK archives are off by one
The archives in Wikipedia:Recent additions are assigning most sets to the incorrect day. Because they are displayed with the newest sets at the top, the timestamp at the top of each set is when the set ended, not when it began. As a consequence, the last set of each day is placed in the section for the day after it appeared. This affects the second set for each day when we're running 2 sets a day (example), and when we run 1 set a day all the sets are placed incorrectly (example). It's been like this for a very long time.
The talk page notification template always links to the correct date. But this has the consequence that most of the time it does not actually link to the set that contains the hook, because the set is in the wrong place. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's always been like that. Even when we run one set a day, a set that runs on the last day of a month will be listed under 00:00 UTC on the first day of the next month. When we update the archives, we have to have keep that in mind. Yoninah (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's always been like that. If you want a link to the archive, you have to code it yourself, as I do on a daily basis. Perhaps the bot could avoid any link to an archive in the credits, promising something which it "can't keep", in 100% of cases when we update once a day, and 50% when update is twice daily. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
... that Trunkey the Elephant has been teaching kids about zoo animals for over 50 years?
@Yoninah, RoySmith, and Noahfgodard: just checking. The above hook is the original hook and the one promoted to Prep 5. But as I read the nomination it looks to me like ALT2 (below) was the only hook approved of by both the nominator and the reviewer: — Maile (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
ALT2:... that Zoo keys, often shaped like elephants, are used to activate audio recordings of storybooks in zoos?
Yoninah, I'm glad my original got promoted. I really liked it better than the alternates. At the same time, thank you to Noahfgodard for the work they put into reviewing this for me. It's this collaborative process that makes the whole thing work. -- RoySmith(talk)01:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
The last one got archived, so helping out to display again. We currently have a total of 167 nominations, of which 97 have been approved, a gap of 70. Please strike nominations you have reviewed, even if it is not approved (unless you are requesting for a second opinion):
It is in prep 5 right now. However, I find the 1920s part could have been reworded better. I suggest that it mentions the making of the quilt to be xx years ago instead of in the 1920s for better context. If not, I suggest just dropping that bit. "..., which had been started in the 1920s, ..." Thoughts? VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 16:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
We don't know how long ago it was because we don't know what date she was at university, but you could substitute "started decades earlier". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I was aiming for a rough estimate as well. Since she was born in 1955, she may have went to college in the 1970s, hence around fifty years ago. Let's see what the rest has to say. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 17:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm really not too impressed by the second hook. That was actually my least favourite part of the article. Mucuna contain an extremely high proportion of antinutrients in the beans. Antinutrients cause infertility, this has been extensively researched in the interest of using such legumes as fodder. Strychnine or plutonium would do the same trick. Regarding the potable water, I saw a woman do that on Naked and Afraid once, which quite impressed me. Here's something I could find on it, a blog unfortunately. Leo Breman (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Maybe switch 'irritant' for 'itching', 'the expulsion' for 'getting rid of', and 'traditionally' to 'in folk medicine' but then at the end of the phrase? Leo Breman (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not bothered as to what hook is used, it's an altogether interesting plant. I thought it surprising that anyone would want to subject their gut lining to a dose of these irritant hairs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
We have a superabundance of U.S. hooks right now, so we should probably be running 4 per set. Also, we have a shortage of bio hooks, so we should probably continue running 3 of those per set. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand how this hook even qualifies as a quirky. There's nothing about shouting in the article. An obvious riff on the Bard, this seems to belong in the April Fools set. Yoninah (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The original seems better to me - I don't know why you'd think it has anything to do with Shakespeare - the phrase is proverbial. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, nothing to do with Shakespeare. But then again, I agree that hooks should not be intentionally misleading outside of April Fools. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠06:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, this is right along the lines of the high school humor that prevails at AFD. Most of the hooks contain raunchy words and references even though they're about completely normal topics. But if you're not interested, we'll keep the alt hook in prep. Yoninah (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Johnbod, the problem seems to be that you named the article with a curly apostrophe (should be straight), but there's something in your DYK nomination that uses (or interprets) a straight apostrophe instead of a curly one, and there is no article by that (straight-apostrophe) name, hence the error. I don't have time to straighten this out now, but I can come back to it later today if you haven't moved the article and fixed the nomination page by then. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks - I thought it was something like that. But curly is correct, so I'm not inclined to move the page just to suit some template. I'll set up a straight redirect & see if that helps. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Johnbod, this is enough of a mess that it isn't worth touching until you fix it to meet Wikipedia standards and DYK standards. In the former case, I recommend WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS to you as the Wikipedia standard, which points out that curly apostrophes should not be used in article titles and is almost certainly why the DYK software generated an error, and the template-creation software knows it. (They shouldn't be used in prose, either: as MOS:APOSTROPHE states: Use straight apostrophes ('), not curly apostrophes (’).) DYK standards come in with your hook, which is 218 prose characters, and too long. I can pretty much guarantee that someone is going to come along and rename the article to use the proper straight apostrophe; please just do it now yourself. Or I can do it if you're not inclined to, but not if you'd revert me. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
... that cavalry of both sides at the Battle of Ticinus fought on foot?
Not sure if this is a valid point or not so I'm just putting it out here for discussion, but this hook sounds a contradiction in terms to me... "Cavalry" is defined in the dictionary as soldiers fighting on horseback, so wouldn't it be the case that once they dismount and start fighting on foot, they are no longer cavalry? @Gog the Mild:@Muhandes: who nominated/reviewed this. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Made sense to me too, and just goes to show the hookiness. You would not expect cavalry to fight on foot, so you may be interested to read more about it. --Muhandes (talk) 11:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Per Muhandes and Yoninah. It's perfectly fine to keep the terms as they are, in fact it's an interesting twist for the hook too and I would definitely click on it. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 14:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Just as the editors above say. A cavalryman having a drink in a bar, sans horse, is still a cavalryman. I can quote RSs saying much the same thing as the hook, in much the same terms. (If at greater length.) I was trying for the "You what? I need to click on that." audience when I wrote the hook. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, it is eligible for DYK. Articles in the Recent deaths section are not bold links, so they are still eligible? Hawkeye7(discuss)11:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, an article that's only been on recent deaths is eligible- I've nominated a few in the past. However, the DYK check tool will incorrectly tell people the article is not eligible for DYK (as the tool sees the ITN notice on talkpage), so maybe put a comment on the nomination clarifying that it's been on RD not ITN. Joseph2302 (talk)12:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Just to add, speaking from the standpoint of a ITN regular, our RD criteria is so loose (as long as they are notable, the death covered by news, and the article is of reasonable quality) that I can't that foreclosing a DYK entry which is more curated. --Masem (t) 14:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if I understand. I work on both RD and DYK, and I've seen strict reviewing there, but worth the trouble if you want attention for your subject while they are covered by the news. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dumelow, Buidhe, and Yoninah: As per MOS:YOU, it isn't really considered good style to use second-person pronouns, so I think we could reword this hook accordingly. Would the following alternative work?
The MOS is written for main space. There should be some leeway for the main page, particularly DYK where we are trying to interest readers in articles. Concocting unnatural phrasing is not the way to do this. Don't forget that each hook starts with “Did you know that ...” so we are already addressing the reader directly - Dumelow (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I am with Dumelow and Flibirigit. A valid and fundamental point from the former. I do not see any problem with the current hook as well. It’s DYK, not in the news haha. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 07:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
... that modern studies have shown that the characteristic fur-trimmed hood on traditional Inuit skin clothing(example pictured) is more effective at preventing heat transfer than manufactured winter clothing?
LOL, that's definitely not the intention. It felt less clunky to me as "Inuit skin clothing". The other version has a lot of repeated "the"s all in one sentence - "the characteristic fur-trimmed hood on the traditional skin clothing of the Inuit. It's not a hill I'll die on if you want to alter it though. ♠PMC♠ (talk)20:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Valereee I took care of the referencing, but an issue is that the article states "To be sung in plain air" rather than "To be sung outdoors". I will let Gerda handle that part. SL93 (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I changed it in the article. Plain air for outdoors isn't really common idiomatic English. It's not unheard of by any means, but it's usually written as plein air I think. And it probably makes anyone who isn't a Francophile roll their eyes. :D —valereee (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Valereee It is mentioned in the first sentence of the source 1. Think the phrase is open to translation as the source is in German, but still it seems more of a minor translation issue. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I added a Gramophone review (so far external link) as a ref, which has a translation, I believe "open air", but can't check because when looked the next time they told me to register. Could one of you please look there? - A piece with a similar title gets usually translated as Out of Doors but that original is Hungarian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, there are so many images/leaders (past and present) around the world who come under this topic. The article itself is more of a mini-think piece on the topic. The totality of it across the world could fill an entire book. Evangelicals were prominent during the Jimmy Carter era, and Mitt Romney's Mormon religion has been a topic in his presidential runs. When John Kennedy ran for president, there was a blowback from fears of the Pope running the United States. There's a lot of choices for images that do not include a current candidate. — Maile (talk) 19:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
While this got passed as a DYK, it seems like it is just the intro for a larger article. Look at the entries in the "See also." --evrik(talk)23:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I would just unpromote it. I promoted the article, but I don't know much about the topic or care about it. I don't believe that a promoter needs to know about all topics and everything was sourced, including to print/subscription sources that I have no way to access. It's hard to determine SYNTH when not all sources are readibly available...and the initial concern was only about the image. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The article meets the DYK requirements. I don't know why you think it is SYNTH when all the sources' primary topic is the connection between religion and authoritarianism. The content would not fit in Religion and violence as the sources are not focused on religion and violence. It would create a POV issue if inserted into the second article, because many things correlate with authoritarianism. The article does not need to be expanded as it meets the length criterion. I did not add the see also section and have removed it as WP:OR since no sources are cited for these being related to the topic. (t · c) buidhe01:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The removal of the see also section and the background section make this nothing more than a paragraph. Unless there is some growth of the article, this needs to be unpromoted.--evrik(talk)01:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not seeing a hook that needs to be unpromoted. I'm seeing a start-class article about an actual thing, something I'm actually surprised we didn't already have an article about (though I'd argue it should be at Religiosity and authoritarianism). My only concern was whether the Trump image represented a neutrality issue unless some RS had made the connection between that incident and the article subject.—valereee (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
MOS:DYKPIPE in queue 7
I'm sure it would be spotted, but it will annoy me if I don't say something. I happened to spot that queue 7 - due to run tomorrow - contains a redirect in the phrase "professional athletes protested", seeming to break MOS:DYKPIPE. Does this need to be fixed? --CSJJ104 (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion is regarding creating a Twitter bot based on Did You Know section on the main page. Please share your ideas, opinions, and any other comments you may have in this regard. The features posted here are a consolidation of original ideas, and also comments from the discussion below. These will be continuously updated as the discussion progresses. Though there might several bots doing similar work, the idea for this particular is one is to make it largely community driven, with some accountability.
An exclusive handle will be created, something similar to @WikipediaDYKBot
Link to the article in focus will be posted along with the hook.
The bot will create a log on Wikipedia, on one of the subpages for each tweet that is made.
The bot will generally tweet at the rate of 1 hook per an hour. These will be based on the latest set Wikipedia:Recent_additions. Not directly basing on Template:Did you know, it may resulting in posting of problematic DYKs before they are edited or pulled out.
Additional features
Periodically tweeting of older DYKs, especially if they are related to a particular day, on those days (ex: Christmas-related hooks on Christmas)
I am planning on creating a bot to post DYK hooks to Twitter, periodically. Here are a few aspects on my mind, according to which the bot will function.
The bot checks with the set every 6/8/12 hours and if the set same as the last read, no action will be taken, if not, it executes the required functions.
I am not sure of what would be the best and the most accurate way as of now, I (along with a co-developer who will be working on this) will decide the best after further analysis. KCVelaga (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere - which twitter account are these to be posted too? I'm a little unsure of how much need there is to confirm with Wikipedia about posting these on an external site? Presumably so long as it is attributed, there's no issue? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)11:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: It hasn't been discussed anywhere else - this is the only discussion. I am not exactly looking for any sort of authorisation or confirmation, as I am not sure if that is possible or needed. I have started to this discussion to hear thoughts of users who contribute to DYK, and probably bring up things that I need to care of, which I might miss otherwise. Regarding the account, there will an exclusive handle for this purpose, which will have a "Bot" tag. KCVelaga (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Sounds like a generally good idea. I would suggest something like @WikipediaDYK for a handle, but there's obviously lots of variants that could happen (@WikipediaDYKBot, @Wikipedia-DYK, ...). For the timing, I'd personally suggest something very simple e.g. 1 per < amount of time > until you go through them all. I would also suggest having delaying for a few hours, so that problematic DYKs can be edited/pulled before the bot gets them out. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}13:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Thanks for suggestions regarding naming the handle - I have taken note them. I like "@WikipediaDYKBot" and it suits the purpose. Also, thanks for the heads-up regarding problematic DYKs - great point! Considering the possibility the there might be errors at any point, I believe it would work best if it based on the latest set at Wikipedia:Recent_additions - as any possible errors would have been rectified before archived. Please see the box at the beginning of this discussion, that consolidates all the features. KCVelaga (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Great idea. I've always thought one of those tear-off day-at-a-time calendars with DYK hooks would be a great bit of merch the foundation could use to make a little money (As well as Wikipedia wall calendars, featuring FPs for each month). You might want to also see if you can set it up so it puts out old hooks themed to particular days on those days (i.e., Christmas-related hooks on Christmas). Daniel Case (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: That is a great idea. I would be happy to do this as an additional feature (i.e. once bot starts working with basic functionalities, we add more features). I am assuming it will also require some workflow to set up on wiki. Please see the box at the beginning of this discussion, that consolidates all the features. KCVelaga (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I like the idea. If I wasn't actively avoiding creating a Twitter account or having anything to do with Twitter, I'd follow a DYK bot. I think there should be a slight delay between when the DYKs are posted on the main page and when the bot starts tweeting them out, to allow for errors to be caught (although in a perfect world we'd catch the errors before they hit the main page - but we all know we don't live in a perfect world). I also like the idea of periodically tweeting older DYKs, especially if they are themed to particular days. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving15:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
@ONUnicorn: I agree with delaying. I believe it would work best if it based on the latest set at Wikipedia:Recent_additions - as any possible errors would have been rectified before archived. Please see the box at the beginning of this discussion, that consolidates all the features. KCVelaga (talk) 08:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea but I don't see how it needs to be in centralized discussion as there's no need for approval, given that the content in question is freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe14:21, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm okay with an alt, but I like Alt0 as well, since plant range increase by sea travel is not something you hear often.--Kevmin§18:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
We could indeed list it promptly, or we could keep it for October 22 (and modify the hook if desired), which is the fifth anniversary of the event for which the medal was awarded. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:IAR about page numbers per minor issue and new editor that had no part in nomination
I feel like it's incredibly nitpicky to not promote Template:Did you know nominations/Florence Wickham just because a new editor, who didn't participate in the DYK nomination, didn't add page numbers for books...especially when a main goal of DYK should be to add new work by new editors. I'm hoping that the new editor adds page numbers, but I feel like the nomination should still go through without them. SL93 (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
It seems to me that the nominator who is trying to promote content by new editors should make sure the article meets all the criteria before nominating it. There's no reason to IAR on insufficient sourcing. We have had similar instances in the past where the nominator went the extra mile to add in the page numbers for verification. Yoninah (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Great and you've made your point abundantly clear here and at the nomination. In this case, the nominator said that she can't add page numbers. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) An article with missing page numbers isn't "incomplete" in my opinion. Some online sources e.g. Google Books, don't always give page numbers anyway. And it's not in the DYK reviewing guide, so therefore is just an interpretation of what "complete" means. To my mind, incomplete would be an article where significant chunks of information are missing, not a few page numbers. IMO, IAR doesn't even apply, because this isn't a DYK rule to enforce. Joseph2302 (talk)21:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree also. WP:PAGENUM says: When citing lengthy sources, you "should" identify which part of a source is being cited. While certainly a best practice, it's not a citation requirement. MB22:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I've tried to add page numbers using Google Books, can you check to see if I added the correct page numbers that support the assertions? I'm having trouble with cite 5 and 6 which are next to each other to support one sentence; cite 6 page 513 says Rosalind had its "German première in Dresden in the winter season" and all I could get from the snippet view of cite 5 page 80 was that Rosalind was performed at Theater des Volkes, Dresden. Couldn't find where the date comes from. I don't think adding page numbers is mandated anywhere, but not adding them needlessly increases the work of someone trying to fact check an article; and this can be a big problem on an encyclopedia anyone can edt. Regards, TryKid[dubious – discuss]22:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
AGF applies for inner workings of Wikipedia and the interaction between its editors; not its readers. Don't forget that the main goal of Wikipedia is to serve the readers. Casual readers don't usually look at the edit history of the articles they read, what they see could be from a trusted and well respected editor or it could be a sneaky vandal. Casual readers have no reason to, and shouldn't have to, AGF. Regards, TryKid[dubious – discuss]22:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I haven't personally seen that page because I ignore essays. The idea is great, but then someone should make it a policy. My take is how likely is it for a fact-checking reader to have access to those exact print sources while reading the article? SL93 (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Policies are just essays that a wider percentage of editors agree with. Anyway, all sources cited in the article are available online, at least the relevant parts. So, whether they have print access or not doesn't matter in this. Google Books even has full view of citation 5 page 80 but I still can't find anything that supports the specific November 6 date. Regards, TryKid[dubious – discuss]23:30, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Looks like the date comes from this source but the author for some reason used semi related references instead of just citing this. I'm saying this based on the unlikely similarity of the sentences, before Gerda Arendt changed Folks Theater to Volkstheater based on the cited source. Either this source can be cited or the specific date can be removed, and after that I think the promoter's concerns would be solved. Regards, TryKid[dubious – discuss]23:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah and everybody else above. Andy Mabbett makes a valid point. Not all online books have page numbers, so if we're stonewalling a nomination on this requirement, it puts nominators at a disadvantage. It's an issue I've struggled with when looking for sources, be it at DYK or elsewhere. Perhaps we could overlook that "traditional" DYK requirement that is out of date with technology. — Maile (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree- I did make this point above, but it must have been missed (as was in middle of my text, and I got edit conflicted many times). We can't force people to use page numbers when many e-books such as Google Books don't always provide a page number. Joseph2302 (talk)11:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I was just talking about real books. People check out books from the library to do their research and then don't record the page numbers. I've found that it is possible to locate the page number on an e-book, however, by doing a search on the book title together with some words from the page in question. The URL that comes up includes the page number. Yoninah (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Does TryKid‘s work with the page numbers solve the original problem? That has yet to be mentioned. I still don’t see how it’s a DYK requirement when even WP:V says “ideally”. SL93 (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I restored my tick per page numbers being added. Consensus is that page numbers isn’t a DYK requirement anyway. SL93 (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
RFCs aren’t the only way to gain consensus and isn’t even required for it. I already have consensus among those who commented. I have no reason to open an rfc when page numbers were added anyway. SL93 (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I do not understand why everyone is dumping on Yoninah here. WP:V is a core policy, and asking anyone who is looking to verify information to look through an entire book is not reasonable. It's not about page numbers; it's about whether someone who has access to the source can reasonably check that it supports the information in question. This applies to any form of reference work; if it's a website, a working url is expected. If it's an obscure journal, a unique identifier or url is expected. If it's an ebook, a location number is expected. We don't need it to be written into the DYK rules, because WP:V is already policy. Vanamonde (Talk)22:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Great, but then there should probably be a discussion somewhere about it’s vague “ideally” that it currently has. Anyway, I wasn’t trying to “dump” on Yoninah and I only posted here because she suggested it. Anyway, the original concern was addressed, but I had to be the one to restore the tick. Right now, I’m only interested in Gerda’s hook being promoted now that the issue has been resolved. SL93 (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Prep 2 - Winston Churchill
This might just be an observation, but personally I think the Winston Churchill hook currently in Prep 2 should probably be in a lead spot in another set, especially given that the hook suggestion includes the most well known portrait of him but I believe it would be more intreguing to the readers to have in their mind, the notion one of the most well known people in modern history bricklaying. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)14:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
... that Japanese occupation forces reportedly sentenced Fatah Jasin to death, but Japan surrendered and Indonesia became independent before he could be executed?
This made no sense until I realized that Juxlos had added "reportedly" before "sentenced" as part of their edit, modifying Cwmhiraeth's original. Cwmhiraeth has already applied the addition of "reportedly" to the hook in the queue. However, as the article says he was "apparently" sentenced to death, it does not give me confidence in this fact on the main page. The Tempo source says (per Google translate, so by definition inexact) that Jasin "is said to have been sentenced to death by the Japanese army", but the information is credited to another source entirely, Pelita. The original source should typically be used for this, since sometimes the facts in the original and the later report do not match. (The Kiai Haji Mas Mansur source only mentions that Jasin was arrested.) BlueMoonset (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately Pelita does not appear to have any online archives so it would be difficult to verify. I doubt that Tempo would say something with explicit attribution if it wasn't there, though. Juxlos (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I think adding "reportedly" is adequate. We don't know who "reported" it but it indicates that the claim is somewhat uncertain. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Prep 5 - S&M2
... that S&M2 is the highest grossing rock concert film of all time?
This hook statement looks highly dubious to me. The film took only $5.5 million. According to our article, the Woodstock film grossed in excess of $50 million - and that was way back in 1970. One would have thought there would have been plenty of others that exceeded $5.5 million since then. Any comments? Gatoclass (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I am unfamiliar about American sources so I will abstain from giving a more detailed viewpoint but the source appears reliable to me so I am not really sure. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 11:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Describing Woodstock as a "documentary" rather than a "rock concert film" sounds like hair-splitting to me, I would have thought it could be described as both. Gatoclass (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
BTW, the source actually says it was the "the highest grossing rock cinema event in history". I don't know what a "rock cinema event" is, but it sounds more specific than "rock concert film" which is what the hook says. Gatoclass (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I have changed the hook from "rock concert film" to "rock cinema event" as that's what the source says and it may be intended to be a more specific category - for example, an event which includes a cinematic aspect as an integral part of its rationale. Gatoclass (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
BTW, this definitely wasn't the highest grossing "rock concert film" ever made, as this source lists a stack of higher grossing rock films. So far as I can determine, "cinema events" are some kind of newish concept whose parameters are not clear to me - maybe somebody could research it and write an article on it. Gatoclass (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
It looks like we already have an article on it, it's called event cinema and it is apparently live (and sometimes recorded) broadcasting of events into cinemas around the world. So I might add said link to the hook and article for clarity - done. Gatoclass (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
... that after the Rockaway Boardwalk was destroyed in Hurricane Sandy(pictured), a radio ad campaign using the Ramones song "Rockaway Beach" was aired to draw visitors to the adjacent beach?
CSJJ104, instead of using a "y" for the "hookcited" parameter, if you use "AGF", the gray tick will be used by the {{DYK checklist}} template rather than the green one if the status field is "y". The template documentation doesn't really explain this detail. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Baburao Shedmake
I have pulled the following hook from Q5 for further discussion, as I have some concerns about the sourcing:
... that during the Indian Rebellion of 1857, Veer Baburao Shedmake fought and won multiple battles against the British within a period of seven months before being captured and hanged?
I understand the concern about the source Live History India, but from apart from that one source, all other sources are from reliable books and journals. As such I removed the word "won" from the hook.
That helps, Shivashree, thank you, but there's no hurry now that the nomination is currently out of the queue, so let's wait and see what feedback we get at RSN before taking this any further. Gatoclass (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Two DYKmakes from same editor in prep area section
This might be a dumb question, but can there be two DYKmakes for one editor in a prep area if the second one had more than one editor work on the article? I'm referring to prep area 5 per the two Raymie DYKmake templates. SL93 (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
We don't need another rule. This is something that's been followed in practice by prep builders for years. The idea is to have variety in the set, and having two noms by the same editor bypasses that. The C of E is of course referring to special-occasion sets like the FIFA World Cup, Christmas Day, and April Fools Day when some editors submit a lot of hooks on the topic. In general, though, it's discouraged. Yoninah (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I am aware of that, but my question was if it is any different if the DYKmakes involved more than one editor. SL93 (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I read 5 most annoying website features I face as a blind person every single day today. I wonder if it would be possible to add a requirement to DYK to address one of these concerns? I'm thinking, "Every image in the article must have an alt text". That one is fairly easy to comply with, and would go a long way towards both ensuring our front-page content is accessible, and raising awareness. I'll admit I'm not good at this myself; I rarely write alt tags, but having it be a DYK requirement would be a kick in my butt to improve my own work. -- RoySmith(talk)15:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a good suggestion.
If anyone wants to comment beyond DYK, I recently made a request for the WMF to report the accessibility standards that it has established in the infrastructure of Mediawiki design. I would appreciate anyone who can call a WMF response to this to the extent that the request seems worthwhile.
The requirement appears on the DYK Reviewing guide - If there is an image. As far as I can see, that is the only place on DYK where it is written. And I think most editors on Wikipedia are not aware of what ALT text is. In all my years of editing and reviewing at DYK, I can only recall this being mentioned by others once. And when I tried to encourage it on non-DYK reviews, I pretty much met with, "Huh? What does that mean?" Pity. Maybe we should make our editors and reviewers know what it is, and write it into our basic rules for submitting a nomination. — Maile (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Maile66, I wasn't even aware that existed, so thanks for pointing it out. But, that's only for an image that's actually going on the front page, as part of a hook. I suggest we go one step further and require all images in DYK articles to have alt texts. -- RoySmith(talk)19:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd support the request for ALT text, kicking myself. For featured articles, you have to do it anyway, and better to do it for the blind! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
It's a good idea in principle, but the Wikipedia guidelines on what should and shouldn't be in the alt text is about as clear as mud. Often I have no clue what to add for an alt text other than what the caption in the picture actually says. Joseph2302 (talk)19:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
BTW - I think we should specifically define what "alt" means in our instructions. Most of what I have seen are not helpful at all to anyone. If we go through a random pick of various sections of the Main Page, they don't always have ALT text either. For instance, Today's Feature Article has no ALT text. But I see much alt text that is like this: an image of a famous person making a speech, the alt might say "a person standing" or some such vagueness. What is the point of ALT text if it doesn't describe the image? — Maile (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, alt text is becoming increasingly requested at GANR, too, though it's not in that criteria yet. Wikipedia is doing a fairly good job of encouraging it, but I agree with Maile. Sometimes the alt text is "Person at Comic-Con" or whatever. We could even just make it really clear with an alt text explanation along the lines of "Alt text should describe the image in a few sentences, and be descriptive enough that the purpose of its inclusion is clear to a blind reader" or something. Kingsif (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Years ago alt text used to be becoming in practice required at FAC, but this collapsed after long discussions, during which it became apparent that the guidelines on what text was actually useful to the blind and partially sighted were all wrong, when some of them came along to discuss the matter. There was great confusion as to what might replace it, & in the end most people just stopped adding it. User:RexxS is my go-to guy on this, not that I ever do; he probably has links. The question of what to actually write, or how to "describe the image" is not at all simple. Johnbod (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't like it as a requirement for DYK when it isn't one for GA. A gnoming project to add alt texts all over Wikipedia would have my full support, though, ideally led by people who know what they are doing. —Kusma (t·c) 08:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
As several editors have noted, adding alt text runs into the stumbling block of editors not being familiar with it. However, Wikipedia has an advantage over most websites in that images in our articles almost always have captions. Screen readers will announce the alt text and then the caption will be next, so we write out alternative text for images as the combination of the two. That means when everything we want to say about the image is already in the caption, the alt text could be as simple as "See caption". Another point is that the MediaWiki software translates our text into the html which is read by the screen reader. That allows it to set the alt text to some default such as the filename of the image. Sometimes that's okay if the filename is descriptive (although hearing the "dot-jay-pee-gee" at the end must get annoying), but it's a poor substitute for decent alt text. The part that really simplifies alt text for Wikipedia is the fact that we are writing an encyclopedia, and when we include an image, it should be to convey information, not for decoration. That means that we don't need a lengthy description of every visual artefact of the image; we just need to convey in words the information the image is intended to convey, taking into account the context in which the image is used. In the article Battle of Gettysburg, we don't need this:
A tall, gaunt man with a jawbone beard, wearing a stove-pipe hat and a black suit, addresses serried ranks of cheering troops, dressed in blue uniforms.
when we could write:
Abraham Lincoln giving the Gettysburg address
Of course, if the caption said that, we could just use "See caption". In the long run, a few brief words that don't substantially duplicate the caption (the annoyance of hearing the same thing twice!) are a big improvement on nothing, and they can always be improved by other editors. We just need to get into the habit of adding something, and improvements will result. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, As I've stated above, I'm not an expert at this, so don't take this for gospel. I disagree with this example. As somebody born and raised in the US, I've had pictures of Lincoln drilled into my brain forever, so describing what he looks like doesn't help me (assuming for the moment that I was blind). Likewise, the phrase "Gettysburg address" instantly brings up mental images of (what we call) the Civil War, where it took place, how the troops were dressed, etc.
But, that's a US-centric point of view. We're the English language wiki, not the US wiki. I'm guessing people from the UK, India, etc, don't have those same cultural connections, and thus the description of what the people in the photo look like is useful to them.
Studio photograph of Mohandas K. Gandhi, London, 1931.
Gandhi photographed in South Africa (1909)
Or, looking at this another way, I would imagine everybody in India knows what Gandhi looks like. Well, even I, as an American, knows he looks like an old man with wire-rim glasses wearing a shawl. But, he also looks like a young man wearing a western-style business suit. The existing captions, while accurate, don't convey the important story of Gandhi changing his style of dress. -- RoySmith(talk)15:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I have to disagree with your analysis. Leaving aside the ubiquity of American cultural icons throughout the English-speaking world because of films and TV (I'm from the UK), ask yourself what use is such a description to anybody? How does a description of a stove-pipe hat help either a sighted or a blind person understand the Battle of Gettysburg? Images are supposed to be used to aid understanding of the article, not as decoration.
If you want to use the two images of Gandhi to expand on the point that he deliberately chose to dress simply for political reasons, then you need to say so in words: caption1="Gandhi in 1909 wore western-style business suits." (alt1="Gandhi as a younger man wearing smart clothes"); caption2="Ghandi in 1931 wore a loincloth and shawl to identify with poor people." (alt2="As an older man, Gandhi is seen wearing a dhoti and shawl"). If there's an important story, we shouldn't be leaving the readers to guess what it is. Once you've decided what the important story is, use the caption(s) to convey the parts that can't be discerned from the image(s), and use the alt text(s) to convey the information that can be discerned from the image(s). And make sure that you're conveying encyclopedic information, not trivia like "wire-rimmed glasses". --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I think all images on WP do have an alt text for use by screen readers -- it just defaults to either the caption or, in the case of no caption, the file name? If there's a caption and it's an adequate descriptor, we don't need a separate alt text. A photo captioned "Barbara Bush in the White House Rose Garden" doesn't need an alt text saying, "White-haired white woman in a skirted suit." The point of ALT text is to provide important information that, for those with normal sight, is conveyed by the image. Sometimes the caption is enough. I don't think we need to require all images have an alt text, but it's a good idea to look at the image and see if it's conveying information to sighted readers that the caption and text don't convey. This one could have used one; the image needed an ALT that said "Print of an orangutan wearing clothing" or something. —valereee (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: you state "If there's a caption and it's an adequate descriptor, we don't need a separate alt text", but we do. Otherwise the MediaWiki software will leave the alt empty, and screen readers may default to reading out the filename, giving something like "Bush Reagans Quayles 30593072 dot j p g". If the caption is adequate, add something like "See caption" for the alt text. --RexxS (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
RexxS, That was the first thing I asked -- doesn't wp automatically fill the alt with the caption, and if there's no caption, with the filename? Yes, we need some sort of alt as a default. I'd think "see caption" would certainly be more helpful than repeating a longer caption. —valereee (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: The caption is never used for the alt text. You can check for yourself how the software behaves. That wikimarkup produces the following html for the image: <imgalt=""src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Bush_Reagans_Quayles_30593072.jpg/220px-Bush_Reagans_Quayles_30593072.jpg"decoding="async"width="220"height="146"class="thumbimage"srcset="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Bush_Reagans_Quayles_30593072.jpg/330px-Bush_Reagans_Quayles_30593072.jpg 1.5x, //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Bush_Reagans_Quayles_30593072.jpg/440px-Bush_Reagans_Quayles_30593072.jpg 2x"data-file-width="466"data-file-height="310">
The html alt attribute is left empty and that leaves it up to the screen reader what to announce for the link to the image file. It's better to use something predictable as I've suggested. --RexxS (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
(after ec): The screen reader will read the alt text and the next thing it will read is the caption. Can you imagine how annoying it is for screen reader users to hear the same information twice if we duplicate the caption in the alt text? We shouldn't be repeating the alt text in the caption (or vice versa). --RexxS (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The alt text should be a description of what the image is showing, much as you might read out to someone to describe a picture over the phone. In the example case here, it might be "A photograph of US President George HW Bush giving a speech standing at a lectern in a garden with five other people standing alongside him." Or something like that. I have done a few, the most recent being [2]. There's good short guidance from WhatWG at [3]Bazza (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bazza 7: The alt text in combination with the caption should convey the encyclopedic information that the editor intended when they chose that image to include, so the alt text and caption will depend on the context. If the image was used in White House Rose Garden to make the point that the garden was used for presidential events, it might have a caption "Presentation of awards to the Davis Cup winners" and alt text "President and Barbara Bush with the Reagans and Quales". I seriously doubt that any screen reader user would find the lectern or the number of other people and how they were positioned to be encyclopedic information of interest to them. Nevertheless, your suggestion is a vast improvement over having no alt text, and I encourage you to keep adding it. Guides on accessibility for other websites are unfortunately rarely optimal for Wikipedia, which tends to add to the confusion surrounding alt text and alternative text. --RexxS (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: Thanks for your encouragement. My "or something like that" was a hint that this is not a precise science. The advice from the link I gave (describe the image as if over the phone) is still the best I have come across. The "alt" attribute for images is to describe what the media contains. So in the example above, stating that GHWB is using a lectern with others around is pertinent: he wasn't just standing, or sitting, or walking, but probably saying something formal as part of a group. My suggestion should probably have left out the names and just stated that the image was a photograph (as opposed to a painting, or any other type of picture) of a man standing talking at a lectern in a garden with five other people around him. I/we can see that it's more than likely GHWB giving a speech at a press conference of some sort, and the caption should be used to confirm that for us (and possibly tell us what event it was). Btw, the WhatWG link I gave above was linked to by W3C which ought to be taken as the main reference for anything webby. This discussion is good: it's the first time I can recall this subject being properly discussed. Bazza (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bazza 7: The point is that this is not just any old website. It's an encyclopedia and we have more policies in play than WCAG 2.0 envisages:
We have captions on almost all images, so we don't want to annoy screen readers by repeating the same information twice in quick succession. WCAG doesn't know that.
We have a policy on WP:UNDUE weight. If a detail isn't important to understanding an article, then it shouldn't be there. WCAG and the folks who advise you describe the image as if it were over the telephone don't know that either.
We are not writing html, but wikitext, which is later translated into html. Once upon a time, the software supplied the filename for blank alt text, until it was pointed out that it was an annoyance. Now the software leaves it up to the screen reader.
In the particular example, ask yourself how the information that the image was a photograph (as opposed to a painting, or any other type of picture) helps the reader/listener understand the White House Rose Garden? How does the information that it's a man standing (as opposed to sitting or any other type of position) help the reader/listener understand the White House Rose Garden? If we can see it's GWHB and that's important to the article, then that's what we tell the screen reader. The caption should certainly tell us what the event was if the point of the image is to explain that the Rose Garden is used for events. If the point of the image is just decorative, then it shouldn't be there. --RexxS (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
I want to thank RexxS for providing such a clear description of how alt text is used, what it should contain, and what it should not contain. With that, I am happy to support a requirement that DYK images with hooks have a proper alt text, that complements the caption (if there is one) rather than duplicating it, and that describes the encyclopedic content of the image without going into extraneous detail. I am less supportive of requiring it for all images in all DYK articles, however, for the same reason that DYK articles in general are not required to be up to Good Article or Featured Article quality: that's a level of polish that we should not expect of new contributors, and one of the main purposes of DYK is to encourage new contributors. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: As I said, this is a good discussion. I disagree with your interpretation of what the alt attribute is for and your premise that Wikipedia should do its own thing because it is "different". I have not suggested that overlap between captions and images' alt text is ok, and agree that would be silly at the least. I need to emphasize that I am not prescribing anything, but trying to show that usefully using alt attributes for images is not a simple task. For example, 1 September's Picture of the Day originally just stated it was "Among the Sierra Nevada, California". I don't agree that this is to do with undue weight: our own article has an example which tends towards describing the image itself rather than only including what is specifically relevant to the article containing it. Valereee (no criticism here) drew our attention to an image above and reasonably said it should have alt text of "Print of an orangutan wearing clothing" or something similar; but that simple description would not convey the fact that the animal has been drawn with an unnatural (human) stance, pertinent to the article's subject. Having said all that, I could be talking bollocks: we haven't knowingly heard from any readers who rely on alt attributes to help them decipher a non-text piece of information which an article contains: it would be helpful. In the meantime, another page on the website which RoySmith referred to in the opening of this thread has more helpful information, some of which has corrected some of my understanding of the subject at hand, and some which supports it. Bazza (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bazza 7: well, it's up to you whether you take my advice or not, but I've been working on improving accessibility on Wikipedia for nigh on a decade now, and I base much of what I've described on conversations with editors who actually use a screen reader on Wikipedia, most notably Graham87, who is the most friendly and helpful person you could wish to meet. If you don't believe me, you can always ask him. --RexxS (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks very much @RexxS: ... indeed, what you're saying is correct. I generally agree with @David Eppstein:'s reasoning for not making alt text on images mandatory here. I don't think hearing the filename is that important an issue, because screen reader users can always easily cut it off and move to the caption/next element. In fact I've corrected several filename errors that were announced by my screen reader ... see my move log on Commons. To respond to a minor point up above, on the Main Page the caption of an image is the same as its alt text because images there aren't thumbnailed. While I do appreciate the alt text that's added (including the examples above), I think making it mandatory here would cause far more problems than it would solve. Any solutions like "See caption" should be applied universally IMO ... and would just generate more extraneous text for screen reader users to skip past. Graham8707:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Graham, your perspective and experience is, as always, invaluable in helping us find the best route forward to improve accessibility on Wikipedia. My view is that we make best progress by encouraging editors to adopt good practices, not by forcing them. Of course, I'd love to see all images have good alt text, but in this case I'd recommend language like "editors are (strongly) encouraged to ensure all images have appropriate alt text", otherwise it can become a hurdle, especially for new editors. As the number of editors comfortable with alt text grows, these sort of problems will recede. --RexxS (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Strong support We need to force the hand of editors who refuse to engage in proper accessibility, particularly if they are trying to have high-profile content. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯18:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - in the long run. @Valereee, RoySmith, Koavf, Bluerasberry, and RexxS: and everybody else. I withdraw my support of this idea, as I've recently had real-time experience on how it would play out. diff. New reviewers aren't going to know what "alt=" is, and all it's going to do is add another layer that a lot of other projects are not requiring. And, seriously, we can load newbies down with so many do-this-and-do-that, until they either give up or get really confused trying to figure it all out. One too many "gotta dos" here. — Maile (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago. Reviewers have remained active, so there are only 8 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 12. We currently have a total of 128 nominations, of which 77 have been approved, a gap of 51, down by 19 since last week. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and the ones in the Current nominations section as well.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I have a feeling that we are running out of Approved Non-US hooks. Thoughts on what we can do? Also do need some extra hands at prep. Thank you love all of you lots <3 VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 17:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
What's happening is that our hard-working reviewers have whittled the approved nominators down to almost 60, at which point we will go back to one set a day, which will relieve pressure on balancing sets. Yoninah (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
I was just browsing through Special:Newpages, which used to be a good place to randomly find potential DYK nominations. There's a lot there right now that is either too stubby to make it here, or otherwise not good potential DYK. However, I leave the link here in case anyone else wants to peruse the possibilities of what's being created. — Maile (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia Asian Month "Each participating community runs a month-long online edit-a-thon every November at their local language Wikipedia to create new content about Asia" We don't get a lot of content about Asia, but it's something to think about for November. — Maile (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Hooray! I was just getting ready to go over there and see what they were working on for that time period. Thanks for the quick input. — Maile (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot did not run at midnight, so it's almost certainly down; DYKHousekeepingBot has also stopped running. I've pinged Shubinator, the owner of the bots, in the hopes that he'll stop in this evening and get the bots restarted. In the meantime, are there any admins around ready to do a manual update of the main page? Pinging the usual set of admins: @Cwmhiraeth, Casliber, Amakuru, Vanamonde93, Maile66, Guerillero, Valereee, Wugapodes, Lee Vilenski, and Gatoclass:. (Be sure to check to make sure that the bot has not awakened and started/done an update in the meantime—it is Queue 1 that needs promoting.) A reminder to whoever does this that Mandarax has an automated process to distribute the appropriate credits to nominator/creator and article pages, and has offered to run it after manual updates. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Done, BlueMoonset, if you could take a look. Mandarax, assistance from your tool for the credits would be much appreciated. Also, can someone confirm that item 8 in the instructions is only applicable to locally uploaded images, and should be amended to reflect that? Vanamonde (Talk)03:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Vanamonde, many thanks. It looks okay to me, though it's past my bedtime so I can't guarantee I didn't miss something. A minor point: the archive should note the time the old set was replaced on the main page, not the time it should have been: I changed 00:00 to 03:51. I did want to suggest that Template:Did you know/Next update/Time be changed from 2020-09-18T00:00:00Z to 2020-09-18T01:00:00Z, to give the set you just promoted at least an extra hour on the main page until 13:00, so rather than only eight hours and change it gets over nine hours. If the bot isn't running at the time of the next promotion, the set will get extra time beyond that, and the next set can get whatever remains until midnight, perhaps as much as eleven hours, perhaps somewhat less. If you don't see this and no one else does, either, it's not the end of the world, I just thought it would be nice to give the current set some extra time. The bot, if it runs, will home in on midnight for the following promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Article and user talk notices are all taken care of. Sorry I wasn't around immediately after the update, but it doesn't hurt for the credits to be issued a little bit later. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM06:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
It's an off-Wiki program I wrote to set up each edit with the appropriate parameters. (If it were on-Wiki, I would've made it available for anyone to use.) Having done a few sets of credits manually in the past, I know what an annoyance it can be to include the hook and everything. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM14:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Without really knowing what I am doing, I have changed Gatoclass' setting to "2020-09-18T13:00:00Z", which I think is one hour later than the "2020-09-17T12:00:00Z" that the bot set for the second set of hooks yesterday. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
If you don't know what you are doing, why are you fiddling with it? The bot adds 12 or 24 hours to the time in Next update/Time to figure out when it needs to do the next update, so by changing it to 1300 hours, you effectively told the bot not to change the set for another 12 hours after that, which means leaving the set there for more than 20 hours - I have reverted your change. Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Cwmhiraeth, that was unfortunately the wrong thing to do—the next update is calculated by adding Next update/Time (which is really the base time from which the next update is calculated from) to the User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates (in this case 12 hours, our current promotion frequency, but the number is in seconds), but Gatoclass has reverted you, so all is well. However, it's now past 01:00 plus 12 hours (13:00), and the bot is not ready, so it's time for another update already.
@BlueMoonset: Well, I tried to be helpful but seem to have got it wrong. Afterwards, I saw that the update had not taken place at the time I expected it (14.00 UTC) but did not know whether that was because of my change or because the bot was still not running. How can I tell that next time? Anyway, the timing is far from critical and I reckon we will be going back to a 24-hour rotation in the next few days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, you can always tell whether the bot has run by looking at the Template:Did you know page, which has the contents of what's displayed on the main page. It tells you when the last update was, how long ago that was, and when the next update will be. (You can also look at the history of the page to find out whether it was a manual or automatic update; if DYKUpdateBot did it, it was automatic.) The way I've always operated at DYK (and GAN, for that matter) is that if I'm not sure how something works, I don't touch it unless I investigate first and make very such that I understand it. This is something where I do, and I was very specific in my original post about the change that Gatoclass should make, yet you made a different (and wrong) one after he did exactly what I asked. When it comes to the main page, if you ever have to preface something with "Without really knowing what I am doing", it's probably best not to do anything, or query here first and hold off until you can get a confirmation that it's the right thing to do. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, the current set has only been on the main page for, what, nine hours? - so it wouldn't hurt to leave it up for another hour before changing over. I can do it if necessary, but would prefer if somebody else did it as I'm quite rusty on the procedure, having been unable to contribute much in recent months due to work commitments and other issues. Gatoclass (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Gatoclass, it's been there for a full ten hours, and if the switch is done now the new set will get ten hours (or a few minutes less). Seems reasonable to me. The update is pretty straightforward now that Mandarax is taking care of doing the credits. I'll ping the rest of our admin list, though, to see whether any of them can step in to do the promotion: @Casliber, Amakuru, Vanamonde93, Maile66, Guerillero, Valereee, Wugapodes, and Lee Vilenski:. (Be sure to check to make sure that the bot has not awakened and started/done an update in the meantime—it is Queue 2 that needs promoting.) And I'd like to ask that folks take a look shortly after midnight to see whether we'll need another manual update then. Thanks to all, and apologies for all the pinging. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I updated the main page. Let me know what I messed up because there seem to be a lot of moving parts with 2 sets a day. @Mandarax: would you be willing to do the credits? If not I can do so manually. — Wug·a·po·des00:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Wugapodes, it looks good, with the sole exception being that you forgot to add the archive date/time at the top of the set you archived from the main page; I've taken care of that for you. Thanks for doing it! I imagine Mandarax will be along in about six hours to take care of the credits, about the same time as before. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
When I reset the time above to 00:00:00 UTC, I did so intentionally, recalling previous discussions about this. On further reflection, I see to remember opinion being split; one set of users feeling like we ought to share time on the main page as equally between sets as possible; another feeling like DYK switching over at odd times made it look silly. I'm wondering if we need to set a guideline for this, so we don't argue over it every time, but I'd like to take the temperature of the water before diving in. Vanamonde (Talk)14:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
It's always been the case that time losses are staggered across succeeding sets so that no single set is penalized unduly. Surely that is not a controversial principle. Gatoclass (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Back in July 2018 we reset the "drift" from fifteen minutes to two hours after a discussion: this is the time the bot will move, forward or backward, to get back to 00:00 (or 00:00 and 12:00 if running twice a day). DYKUpdateBot actually has a formatted page of parameters for that: User:DYKUpdateBot/ResyncDrift. So the bot does it automatically; when we have manual updates, we're (by definition) off from the desired times, so we do our best to get back to the normal time(s) without unduly shorting any set—sometimes, if we're at two a day and the delay was six hours or more, we'll skip one update and pick up again at the next. It's typically not an issue at all when we're doing one set a day; when there are more, we do our best to finesse things so no one set takes it on the chin. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
I've started up both DYKUpdateBot and DYKHousekeepingBot and they're back in action! Thank you to everyone who chipped in to keep things rolling with manual updates. Shubinator (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Let me ask again, once an article goes on the main page, and DYKUpdateBot places notice on the article talk page, can we remove the notice place by WugBot? --evrik(talk)14:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree it's a good idea, but might need a bot request (as it's a new task). Either Wugbot or DYKUpdateBot could probably perform this task I guess- DYKUpdateBot could add it as a step to remove the DYK transclusion, or WugBot could run another job to remove them if it has appeared at DYK. Joseph2302 (talk)14:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
We used to do something similar to that, but I believe it got changed because some editors preferred it remain visible on the talk page like a GAN review. I'm fine setting up the bot to remove transclusions, but I'd prefer more input so that I don't wind up switching it back and forth. — Wug·a·po·des17:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Could I get a second opinion on this nomination? Basically I'm not sure any of the sources prove the subject is notable, and the nominator agrees there might be a problem. I don't just want to throw out a perfectly reasonable DYK on one opinion. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)18:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, I don't have much time to look into this right now, but aviation.safety.net does supply a list of references it uses, here, and so does planecrashinfo,[4] and in my experience, websites which include a list of references are generally regarded as sufficiently reliable. Gatoclass (talk) 19:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
We have 61 approved hooks with 4.5 empty prep sets as I write this. We should revert back to one set per day soon since we will imminently cross under the threshold of 60 approved hooks. Flibirigit (talk) 00:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree, we are below 60 approved hooks, so should be reverting back. I assume it's easier to do this after the 12 noon (UTC) set runs. Joseph2302 (talk)10:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Reviewers have been doing an amazing job of keeping the Approved page stocked. We're now hovering around 65 approved out of 120 nominations. Hopefully we can keep whittling away at the nominations before going to one set a day. Yoninah (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Now that two preps have been promoted to queue, only one prep is filled. It would be great if another couple of preps could be filled. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Back to one-a-day sets after midnight
After Queue 1 is promoted to the main page at midnight, it will be time to go back to one set per day. As of the latest totals from DYKHousekeepingBot, there are only 55 approved hooks (111 in all), under the point (60) where we are supposed to switch back.
When that promotion has taken place, a little over an hour from now, an admin changing User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400 is all that's needed to set us up for a single set daily going forward. Thanks to any admin who does this. (I'm going to be busy starting in a couple of minutes for well over an hour, so if I come back after midnight and no admin has been by, I'll ping folks, but I'd rather not ping if not necessary, since admins were pinged for another matter earlier today.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
The whole point of DYK is that someone clicks on the bolded link. They then get to read in more detail about the hook and will see that the project has been delayed by six months and the knock on effects. I can't fit all of that into a DYK hook. The hook is to hook the reader into reading more. — Calvin99916:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The reason why DYK wants hooks to be interesting is that people should be intrigued into clicking on the article link, but they won't if the hook is not interesting. Yours weren't, as was noted, so they needed to be replaced or revamped. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Tiny grammar error
In the recently approved Huey Long DYK, the ? should come after the closing ". Didn't know where else to put this, sorry if this isn't the place. Ovinus (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
... that as an advisor to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Paul Alexander tried unsuccessfully to tell Dr. Anthony Fauci what he could and could not say about the coronavirus?
I see this exact question was discussed at the nom, but I wanted to make sure other editors saw it before it hit the main page in case someone thinks this needs discussion w/re: negativity. —valereee (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, Orthogonal to the negativity issue, I think this is absurdly verbose. How about making it just:
... that Paul Alexander tried unsuccessfully to tell Dr. Anthony Fauci what he could and could not say about the coronavirus?
that makes it a bit more mysterious, and thus more enticing for people to click on. Everybody knows how Fauci is, but who's this Paul Alexander guy? I'll click and find out. -- RoySmith(talk)14:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping and the comments, Valereee. As per the nomination discussion, I initially proposed a totally boring hook, for fear of making him look notorious rather than notable. But after some prodding by Yoninah I came up with what I believe is an interesting and neutral hook. I also think that including his title makes the hook both more coherent and more interesting; if all we have is a name no one has heard of, the reaction to "some guy tried to tell Fauci what to say" might be "so what?". -- MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
MelanieN, I don't disagree, I was just afraid my own (progressive) political bias might be causing me to think something was okay that wasn't, so I wanted to make sure other editors saw it before it hit the main page. I think the extra verbiage is needed, too. It's wordy because his title is so long, but I think his title is probably necessary. —valereee (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
A building is not a store and typically does not move: what happened was the owner built a new building on Fifth Avenue (the one in question) and moved store operations there. One possibility:
I've bumped the numbering up because we already had an ALT4. My personal opinion is that both ALT5 and ALT6 are kind of wordy and boring. I still like the ALT3 I wrote in my original review. -- RoySmith(talk)13:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, your alt in the review does have more international interest. The hook ref is verified and cited inline. Posting here for others' consideration:
Not really fond of ALT3/4/7. Even aside from the "browse for clothes" being an unsupported fact (not in the article at all), this was a major department store likened in its own article to Marshall Fields in Chicago, and Fields had a sizable book department in its main store. The store article itself doesn't get into the extent of its merchandise; I don't think these hooks are a useful approach. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, yeah, I think ALT5 or ALT6 would be all right. The current hook is kinda weird because the building itself didn't move. On the other hand, ALT6 might give the impression that the bold link would lead to the page about the store itself. I can also suggest an ALT8:
Pinging Cwmhiraeth, since the hook is now in Queue 1 and we need an administrator to replace it. I'm making the change from plural publishers to singular publisher in ALT8a below since there is nothing in the article that indicates a second publisher at any time since. Reping to Epicgenius, since I forgot to sign last time. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
ALT8a: ... that a former department store building in New York City was converted into a graduate school, publisher's offices, and research library?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Yoninah, I would say yes, it meets C6...it does connect to the real world. Also my understanding of C6 is that it's mostly about the (work of fiction) target article being required to connect to the real world -- this target article is real world. —valereee (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, yes, but the target article isn't Nicholas Nickleby. It's a real-world pub where a fictional character met another fictional character. C6 is about DYKs for target articles about fiction. —valereee (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago. Reviewers have slowed down lately, so there are 14 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 23. We currently have a total of 141 nominations, of which 65 have been approved, a gap of 76 that has grown by nearly 50% in the past 12 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and the ones in the Current nominations section as well.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Something is wrong. The person giving Beulah Ream Allen the medal of freedom does not look anything like Douglas MacArthur. It is almost certainly someone else. The original source (USNLM) does not identify the person as Douglas MacArthur. --Westwind273 (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Well, that one is dated 1946. Syngman Rhee and Douglas MacArthur in 1948 In 1948, he seemed to have considerably more, and darker, hair. — Maile (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
It was obvious to you. But there is no requirement at either Wikipedia or DYK that contributors have to be expert on military history, or expert at every detail of that which they edit. If that were the requirement, Wikipedia would not exist, nor would most any other institutions in the world. — Maile (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it even necessary to speculate. The issue that led to this was SYNTH, and both DYK and WP:FPC SHOULD have picked that up. The image source does not name the man. The uploader assumed, based on a DIFFERENT source, that it as MacArthur. This is a content issue as much as an image issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
:::The photo in the cited source has a caption (Google translated) "President Syngman Rhee and General MacArthur attended the ceremony to commemorate the establishment of the Republic of Korea on August 15, 1948 ⓒ NARA (National Archives of the United States)", but I couldn't find anything on archives.gov. Thincat (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
It's there; just scroll up a bit. The way it's currently done, sets are archived under the date they come down from the Main Page. So, although the link is to the 28 September 2020 section, it actually appears in the section above, for the 29th. (This situation is most pronounced for the last set of a month, when the link points to not just the wrong section, but the wrong page.) MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM16:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thincat: Any photograph of MacArthur after 1921 should show him with stars on his shoulders. This is NOT MacAuthor. Its simply not possible in any way, shape, or form that the man in the DYK photo is MacArthur. (And for the record I caught this mistake a week before the DYK, I just didn't have time to act on it owing to work). TomStar81 (Talk) 19:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I'll just search for some more Venezuelan statues... Is it really that high now? Maybe we should start engaging regional wikiprojects? Kingsif (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
There's a WIR Asian focus 3 months coming, so that should increase diversity. Maybe we should just ban all US hooks for a specified time period? ;) Joseph2302 (talk)22:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
No, banning all US hooks is not a rational option. Keep in mind the project has not control over what is nominated, and should at no point turn down nomination simply for falling into XXX topic range. @Yoninah: what solution or suggestion do you have to change alleviate the issue you see?--Kevmin§23:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@Evrik: I didn't count the real number, but after skipping all the image hooks (because I already loaded one), it took me a very long time to find non-U.S. hooks for Prep 5. One after another is U.S.-based. @Kevmin: since we have prep sets ready for the next 8 days, we can only hope that there will be more non-U.S. noms and reviews. Yoninah (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it's more of question of where our non-US contributors went. And I think it's not just at DYK. Pandemic result? For the last several weeks, I've been noticing that same phenomenon hither and yon on Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
You nominated a translation with text not supported by sources? Why? I guess that means I have to find time to go flag them ... or will you be doing that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Um ... kind of hard to come up with a hook on that one, isn't it? The only thing that I understand enough to come up with a hook (but not knowing enough scientific jargon how to link it at the source), is what I just left on the template. — Maile (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
The above are the top three I saw after sorting through about 3 "new pages" pages. Most of what's being created are either stubby, or not adequately sourced, or sports lists of one kind or another.. I'm thinking that it's not just DYK, but Wikipedia as a whole that is seeing far less non-American contributors. — Maile (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
The Guerrero article is promising, but it has a "needs copyediting" template at the tap and several citation needed tags. If it was nom'd for DYK I'd be willing to review it. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew09:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for inquiring, but no ... I don't do DYK (only got trapped because I didn't unwatch the page after the MacArthur debacle, and saw the hispanic sounding name on my watchlist, so looked at it for a Spanish-language check, and saw the mess). I found too close paraphrasing there, haven't checked it all, and am not yet comfortable with the article. Please do ping me if you ever need help with Spanish language, but I really don't do DYK except for noticing Spanish-language issues or errors on the mainpage. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
PS, it's a fascinating story. If anyone is game to push it up to FA status, count me in. The intersection with medical is of interest to me ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
In the Philippines. Just created today. Ran it past Earwig's copyvio detector, and it looks pretty clean. The individual (non PDF ones) sources also look pretty clean when checked individually by the Duplication Detector. Terrific images included. — Maile (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
At Template:Did you know/Preparation area 7 using my large font size, the question mark after Miami Herald appears on a line by itself. {{nowrap|''[[Miami Herald]]''{{-?}}}} works, at the cost of not allowing a line break between the words "Miami Herald", but then one wonders why you don't do that whenever a hook ends with italics. Or if {{-?}} is considered the least bad alternative, "we've thought of that" would be an adequate response. Art LaPella (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The template was recently edited in such a way that it added negligible space, rendering it essentially useless, in addition to, I believe, creating the wrapping issue. I've restored my original coding. Please see if that solved the problem. (Note that I only add the template where the spacing is an issue; for example, after an italicized d, f, i, j, k, l, r, t, v, w, x, or y.) MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM08:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Good. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I hadn't noticed that it had been edited. It should probably have the same template protection that similar templates such as {{--)}}, {{-'}}, and {{-"}} have. I'd appreciate it if you or another admin would please take care of that for {{-?}}. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM17:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria We do that on special occasions. Didn't we do this for the Moon Landing anniversary? I know we did it for Star Trek a few years back. It's not always for a month, but if it's a special occasion that's more than one day, we have a special area to draw from. But the little snag on this one, seems to be an objection from a nominator. That, and the fact, that WIR has extended that for their project to be the entire final quarter of 2020. So, maybe we should discuss here how to handle that. evrik In view of the objection farther up the page, I would suggest asking the nominator of each potentially apt nomination, if they want theirs set aside. Since we are already into October, for the WIR calendar, maybe we don't have to. Feedback would be good here. — Maile (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This isn't a special occasion as we've traditionally understood, though, it's an editing campaign. I've got no problem with us encouraging people to participate in that campaign, but if people choose to write articles that are within its scope outside of the campaign period, I don't understand why we would hold off on running them. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I object to the Transmission of COVID-19 do you know, that was written by a paid editor to the CDC with a vested interest. It was approved with a WP:IAR process and was factually incorrect. For such DYKs with such a high impact in such a controversial issue, additional scrutiny needs to occur, especially when they are written by paid editors. --Investigatory (talk) 06:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with the article. Sure they work for NIOSH which is part of CDC, but many of their articles have been DYK-worthy, especially the COVID ones. I don't see any reason why it shouldn't have run- this is a good faith editor writing articles about health and safety related to COVID-19. If they were trying to promote NIOSH or CDC to DYK, that would be an issue, but that's not what they're doing. And I don't see how WP:IAR even comes into this DYK nom anyway. Joseph2302 (talk)09:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I reviewed this nomination. The IAR is a bit of a red herring; the article seemed to pass the 5x expansion rule, but part of it had been copied from another article, and I was unsure how much of that copied text remained. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Thankyou, i dont have an issue with John, I just think the CDC should not be contributing to articles on the COVID-19 pandemic. Because most health agencies worldwide disagree with the CDC. See the conflict of interest noticeboard. --Investigatory (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I also think major edits shouldn't be made at this time since the pandemic is still present and always changing. It is very difficult to describe what is reliable and what is not even if sources provided are known to be reliable for quite a while. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 13:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if it would be appropriate to close and hat this thread, referring the discussion to the one at COI. Here, it's just beating a dead horse. — Maile (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree, there is nothing actionable here, as the DYK has occurred. If COIN takes some action that affects the user's DYK ability, then that's when it becomes appropriate to us. Right now, this will just become a duplicate of the COIN thread. Joseph2302 (talk)16:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"[T]he 1936 film Hearts in Bondage is a rare example of a Hollywood film depicting naval battles of the Civil War"
I don't know where to post this, but we should probably specify that this hook (currently on the MP) refers to the American Civil War. Very, very far from all readers of the English Wikipedia are from the US and will immediately think of the war there when someone mentions "the Civil War". Glades12 (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, should be American Civil War rather than Civil War. Many countries hace had civil wars, and so non-US people wouldn't assume it's the American Civil War. Joseph2302 (talk)19:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Why are Asian hooks being moved to special occasions under November Wikipedia Asian Month without prior consent? I just removed a nomination of mine from there. SL93 (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, prior consent. As in you never asked. I want my nominations promoted as soon they possibly can be and that is my right. SL93 (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
My apologies for not mentioning it sooner. Actually, I though I had. If you are referring to Template:Did you know nominations/Hargovinddas Kantawala, you're the nominator, so I'm unsure what right you're speaking of. In any case, I think that this particular article might stand a better chance of getting the picture slot in November. --evrik(talk)03:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
You did ask it, but you didn't give me a chance to answer before you moved it. I'm saying I have the right to not participate in Wikipedia Asian Month. Special occasion requests are made by the nominator. I'm confused why you don't see the issue. SL93 (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Let me rephrase that then. I didn't request it to be in the special occasion area. It's certainly not up to you for all of those nominations. SL93 (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
You really take the word "right" to heart when I already stated what I meant afterwards. You could have worked in the spirit of "God" or "animal rights" and I still wouldn't care. SL93 (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
To answer your earlier question, the bot that moves the approved articles doesn't put them in the holding area. I simply went through and moved all the Asian articles into the holding area. Sorry if I assumed to much. --evrik(talk)03:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I do understand each other's intentions, and have been in a situation like this myself. I guess is a matter of knowing what each other's boundaries are. Now that we know, we can avoid such situations. Hopefully this helps to lighten up. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 09:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Women in Red initiative is running from October to December, and my opinion is that if we leave all the October Asian hooks until November, we'll get an overkill of Asian hooks for a month, and worse diversity of hooks this month. In my opinion, better to spead them out and get a better diversity of hooks. Especially as we seem to be struggling a lot with non-US hooks recently. If people want their hooks to be left until November, they can request it- though date requests don't often increase views that much anyway. Joseph2302 (talk)09:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Didn't realise I had one, yes Issy Wong doesn't need to wait for November- she's born in and plays cricket for England, so is only loosely related (by family) to Asian history. Joseph2302 (talk)15:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, just noticed this thread. I agree with Joseph2302 that all the Asian women hooks should not be left for November. I'm sure nominators will want to see their hooks run before that, especially as the contest begins in October. Yoninah (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Not only did it seem wrong to me to have special occasion hooks without nominators requesting it, but there is also the constant issue of balancing hooks - including between US and non-US hooks. I personally think that all of those nominations should be moved out of the special occasion area, until it's specifically requested by the nominator. SL93 (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
It may have been against your wishes, and while I am sorry you are upset, if we are going to observe the month, something needs to be done. --evrik(talk)22:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
At the very least, there could at least have been a request for permission first if the nominator or other contributors would be open to such a move, as not all editors would want their hooks to be delayed so much just to go up as a special occasion hook. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew00:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
evrik, I would like to understand your rationale for moving my nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Tenzing Norgay National Adventure Award to Wikipedia Asian Month section without the courtesy of even asking for such a move. Except for Template:Did you know nominations/Shah Jalal Dargah where the nominator agreed to the move, rest all the 4 moves (including mine) seem to be done without even asking for it. You should have at least asked after all the above discussion took place, with several experienced users making such a point. As a new user I would like to see my hook (especially when I have created the article) on the front page as soon as possible rather than waiting for some made-up random month. This is especially the point when I get the understanding that there seems to be a shortage of non-US approved hooks. Also based on my limited understanding of the organizing such a month, the objective seems to be motivating editors to create or expand articles on Asian topics in that particular month to bring into the attention the relative shortage of high quality articles on Asia. What good is then hoarding articles created 1.5 months before the month, which gives the wrong perception of the actual progress made in November itself. Roller26 (talk) 11:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I think that if people ask for them to be put in Asian History Month, then do it. Otherwise, you can ask them, but don't just assume and put it there. The one I had moved was only very tangentially related, if I nominate properly relevant articles then I'll ask for them to be held until November. But no need to be presumptuous, good to get some diversity in hooks this month. Joseph2302 (talk)11:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I checked the source that mentions that the honourary dude is a patron but did not explicitly state he organised it. Is this stated in the book? Just to make sure cuz the dude's article only stated he sponsored the fountain. Thank you, and courtesy ping @Yoninah, AleatoryPonderings, Eddie891, and Cbl62:VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 12:53, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Was something trying to promote Prep 7 to Queue 7? Now Prep 7 is all the way at the bottom of the page for some reason. Yoninah (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I was just trying to post that I just now fixed it. BTW, it doesn't take an admin to handle that task. I just noticed that autoconfirmed can also change it. However, since only admins can promote to Queue, I can't imagine why autoconfirmed would deal with this feature.. — Maile (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The DYK hook for this article was discussed at WP:ERRORS resulting in a change in the hook, and the discussion (as at this moment) can be read here. The hook will be off the main page soon and the article issues belong at the article talk page, but I believe that it raises issues about DYK processes that belong here. I am not seeking to lay blame for any mistakes / sub-optimal decisions but to try to learn from them and to avoid further problems.
Firstly, as Floquenbeam noted, the prohibitions in DYKHOOK given the proximity of the election are specific to candidates rather than more broadly about US politics-related articles. This does allow for discretion as there may be articles / hooks with US politics connections that would be unproblematic, but I agree with Floquenbeam that this seems "to violate the spirit, if not the letter" of the prohibition. Can we agree that any US politics hooks not be added to queues before the election without a discussion here that they are appropriate?
Secondly, the hook states in WP voice information that I doubt can be justified based on RS and as NPOV. As Andrew Davidson noted, we don't have definitive information on the sequence of infections, on whether this group were all infected through White House-related activities, or on who brought COVID to this group – including whether there is a single originating source.
Looking at the nomination page, the hook was proposed as ALT1 at 11:19 am, a note that a reviewer for the hook was added at 13:41, the tick was given at 16:57, a note added that the image was not related to the hook at 20:20, and the hook promoted to the queue at 20:45. That strikes me as pretty fast and I wonder what the urgency was if US election politics was not a consideration. I invite discussion as to whether this hook should have been approved and, if so, whether it should have been run at this time.
My initial take is "candidate" is a clear rule, and something like, 'White House fire' (like Windsor Palace fire) is not "candidate", nor is spread of disease -- I suppose, I would support advice of elevated scrutiny by the preppers and admins of all somewhat related things to an election; and also if there is a colorable, good faith objection on the grounds of close to election is raised, there needs to be a positive consensus for it to run (or continue to run). Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:DYKNOT says that "DYK is not ... A means of advertising, or of promoting commercial or political causes. ... DYK must not provide inappropriate advantage for such causes (e.g. during election campaigns...)" This should be observed in a broad rather than narrow way to ensure that we do not violate important policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. It is no great imposition because all we have to do is defer any politically sensitive topics until after the election. We already hold back a variety of other hooks for particular dates per Date requests and so it is easy to treat political hooks in the same way. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
DYK Bot?
Is there a bot that tags pages with their corresponding DYK entries? If so, the new Category:Pages using DYK talk with a missing entry will contain pages that don't feature the blurb, so if the bot could run against that category, that would be really nice. For simplicity, you could just remove the existing {{DYK talk}} template, and replace it with a new one in the modern format. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}01:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Headbomb, I believe that Wugapodes has a bot that transcludes DYK templates to article talk pages, and Shubinator's DYKUpdateBot adds DYK templates to article talk and nominator/creator user talk pages at the point that their DYK nominations are moved to the main page, and to pages of image files that are featured as well. I'm not sure what you're looking for here, but perhaps they will be. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
@Headbomb: IIUC, this seems most closely related to Shubinator's bot task which assigns DYK credits by placing that template on talk pages. The requested task seems like it will need its own bot though since it will need to grab hooks from the archive and add them to the talk template. I haven't looked into the state of the archive, but this might be better as an AWB task since it might require human interpretation. — Wug·a·po·des01:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Don't see how AWB could be used for this. But let's see what Shubinator says first before going to BOTREQ. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}01:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a couple of days ago. The review backlog has continued to grow, so there are 24 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 3. We currently have a total of 165 nominations, of which 73 have been approved, a gap of 92 that has increased by 16 in the past 10 days, and 41 in the past 22. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
There's a possible image copyright issue in Prep 4. I hope I'm wrong, because I would love for that painting to appear on the Main Page. File:Brooklyn Museum - The Mellow Pad - Stuart Davis.jpg was uploaded by the Brooklyn Museum bot. The Museum's entry for the painting says "No known copyright restrictions", but clicking on that gives "Works created by United States and non-United States nationals published prior to 1923 are in the public domain". (Wikipedia uses 1925.) This work was created between 1945 and 1951. The artist died in 1964, so the life plus 70 years criterion isn't applicable. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM18:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
This image is uploaded at Commons, and licensed as:
"This image was uploaded by the Brooklyn Museum as a content partnership, and is considered to have no known copyright restrictions by the institutions of the Brooklyn Museum. Note: While the Brooklyn Museum cannot make an absolute statement on copyright status for legal reasons, it supports and encourages the Wikimedia community in researching and applying the copyright status tag that is most appropriate for their purposes." — Maile (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Pinging Nikkimaria. This looks to me like a very clear case of a misleading copyright notice; surely a painting created by an artist no earlier than 1945 is assumed to be covered by copyright. If so, we need to get the image off that prep. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I think the wording of those two hooks are sufficiently distinct to merit their own appearances. But we need to space out Arjuna Award hook appearances so they don't tax readers of the DYK section on the main page. A multiple hook would be phrased differently, like: Did you know ... that the Arjuna Awards of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s were such-and such?Yoninah (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll admit, I am not too well versed in the DYK process but looking at the current requirements for an article to be considered "new" – I wonder what people would think about amending the rules to include lists that have become a FL in the past 7 days? My thoughts are that normal articles already have the GA criteria as an option, and in my mind, FL seems like an appropriate compromise when a "GA list" option don't exist. As someone who spends quite a bit of time around FLC, we routinely get users nominating a series of lists over time and if allowed in to DYK (with the prose requirements in mind) would likely result in more entries – which is surely beneficial! Aza24 (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Featured lists have their place on the main page, where they appear twice a week, their frequency of appearance being presumably being related to the number awaiting their day of glory! There's one there today. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
GA was only included after a consensus here, because GA was the only review process that did not have a slot on the main page. TFL is a twice-weekly main page slot. Please see WP:TFL for details on that process. — Maile (talk) 10:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I was/am aware of TFL, I only brought this up because at the moment FL can appear as DYKs already, under the expansion criteria already, so I thought that extending that to newly promoted FLs would make sense – although I understand the hesitancy with TFL in mind. Aza24 (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Many FL end up on here anyway, as they are 5x expansions or new articles over 1500 characters. Usually on DYK before they become FL. But don't think we need to expand scope to explicitly include them. Joseph2302 (talk)17:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
It looks like you updated this queue. I'm concerned about including the Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination hook. It is clearly election related. WP:DYKHOOK prohibits candidate-related articles, but IMHO this violates the spirit, if not the letter. Would you mind replacing it, and doing whatever we need to do to postpone until after the election? If you agree with that reasoning, I think we can just leave it there, if you disagree, I'll open a thread at WT:DYK to get more opinions, because admittedly I'm out on a limb here. Let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Floquenbeam, I'd been worried about that, too. I looked at the DYK nom, and that question was part of the discussion. I was thinking of bringing it up tomorrow at DYK talk, but please feel free to bring it up there yourself, I'm a bit out of pocket this evening! —valereee (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Definitely concur that the hook needs to be postponed until after the election. We should not be running any hook related to current US politics while the campaign is live. IMHO the white house covid outbreak should have been deferred too,as even that has political undercurrents. — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Valereee I've copied it above from your talk page. We have time to discuss here, and these concerns are valid. I'm also one who thinks this should be delayed until after the election, but think it should be discussed here. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
For clarity, my comment above was made on Valereee's talk page, and was moved here by someone. But to reiterate, I understand it is topical, but we need to bend over backwards to not appear partisan on the main page. The same philosophy that led to our policy of "no candidate-related articles at DYK within 30 days of an election" should be extended to "no election-related articles at DYK within 30 days of an election". Yesterday a DYK hook about the Whitehouse COVID outbreak ran. This is a hook about how close the ACB nomination is to an election. Both issues are very directly linked with controversies related to the election. Both a legitimately be viewed as criticism of one of the candidates. This hook should be postponed until after the election, and I suggest rewording the DYK rule to prohibit all election-related hooks, not just candidate articles. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment - The Coronavirus nomination was part of a pandemic crisis, happening in the Here and Now, immediately affecting the world population. That's why I'm OK with it on the Main Page as it was. The Supreme Court nomination - whether it's this one or another nominee - is currently about political wrangling. The entire motivation behind it being held BEFORE the election results - according to both political parties - is to assure that in the event of a contested election, the Republicans have the votes stacked in their favor, should it be decided in the Supreme Court. That's why this should not be on the Main Page yet. It's not a confirmation of her nomination. It's election year politics, openingly admitted by supporters of one lone Candidate. — Maile (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
In line with my comments above after the covid hook, this SCOTUS nomination hook should not run before the election. No matter what it says, it is addressing an election-related topic (and a contentious one) and we should follow the spirit of the candidate ban for scheduling the running of this hook. WP should not make choices that make it appear partisan except those well-grounded in policy. EdChem (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Supreme Court nominations are now 100% partisan dogfights so this should not run until after the election.-- P-K3 (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I have pulled the hook as there appears to be a consensus that it shouldn't run until after the election. The hook set is thereby incomplete, as I'm taking a break right now, so if somebody would like to complete the set in the meantime, be my guest. Gatoclass (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Our rule is very simple: Articles and hooks featuring election candidates up to 30 days before an election in which they are standing should be avoided, unless the hook is a "multi" that includes bolded links to new articles on all the main candidates. Amy Coney Barrett is not an election candidate, and therefore there are no grounds for postponing this hook until after her election. So this is being done under WP:IGNOREALLRULES. Hawkeye7(discuss)19:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
The article clearly features one of the election candidates, who is mentioned in its second sentence and repeatedly throughout. This is clearly deeply intertwined with the election, and pulling it is not IAR at all. — Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Amakuru. At the very least this is clearly against the spirit of that policy. We should respect external political processes, especially when it relates to elections, and any reliable source would point out that the ACB nomination is not only partisan, but electorally significant precisely because of how close to an election it is. I really don't think posting this prior to the US elections is a good idea. — Wug·a·po·des23:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree that this is an election topic and should not run at the moment. The candidate is now named in the first sentence and featured in the lead picture. That's fine, but not on the main page during the election period. Johnuniq (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
The clickable "Mark this page as patrolled" used to show up only at the right-hand bottom of any new page that is normally patrolled at Special:Newpages. Never used to appear on templates, I think. The last few weeks, I've noticed this appearing at the bottom of new nomination templates, right after the first edit. It does not appear to be there immediately following the template creation. I just got it to show up on a new nomination by doing null edit. To get rid of it, you need to click on it. But why is this showing up on DYK nomination templates now? It serves no purpose there. — Maile (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Apparent article support sentence reads: He collaborated with Luigi Pigorini to study the lake-dwelling Terramara is a work of prehistory which included paleontology, botany, zoology, entomology, palynology, geology, anthropology and archaeology to build a complete picture of these Bronze Age communities.
Cwmhiraeth, I'm not sure..."in a work of prehistory" is opaque to me -- is it perhaps idiomatic? Maybe "in a study of prehistory"? But that puts study into the hook twice. Maybe "He collaborated with Luigi Pigorini to study the lake-dwelling Terramara in a work which included paleontology, botany, zoology, entomology, palynology, geology, anthropology and archaeology to build a complete picture of these Bronze Age communities."? That eliminates 'a work of prehistory' —valereee (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I would appreciate clarification on the meaning of Rule D9. An editor has nominated a multiple hook and added to it an additional page created 18 days earlier, citing Rule D9 and the fact that we have a backlog of 75 unreviewed hooks. If D9 can be interpreted in this way, I wonder if it is serving its purpose? Yoninah (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, true, I hadn't looked at it from the reviewing backlog pov, I was thinking the appearance-on-the-MP backlog. But of course more hooks means more work for that reviewer. I know I've sometimes looked at a hook and thought ai yi yi...five articles to review... —valereee (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, in practice, we typically don't allow anything as old as the oldest nomination on the list these days, because we're gotten a great deal more lenient about letting nominations sit around for weeks and even months. As a practical matter, we currently have 174 nominations, which is a large number of hooks, enough to fill nearly 22 days, and doesn't include over a dozen being saved for special occasions in that time period, so strict enforcement right now would be perfectly justified per D9. As a practical matter, we usually allow maybe an extra seven days for new DYK submitters, and sometimes an extra day or two for regulars if they lost track of time. In this case, the nomination was made on October 15, and three of the articles were created and/or moved to mainspace within the seven days prior except for one, which was moved back on September 27, and should have been nominated by October 4. To my mind, eleven days past deadline is too old, and the thing to do is to make that article a non-bold link while reviewing the other three. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Morgan695: I did see that nomination while I was building the October 31 set. But I didn't get the connection with Halloween from a cursory reading of the hook. Yoninah (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
In the context: 2 November is All Souls' Day, I translated So nimm denn meine Hände for the purpose, but will need to expand a bit before nominating. I see that the prep for that day was already begun, - can you please hold a position. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not that impressed that the CEO of Wikimedia said we have "too many articles on battleships, not enough on poetry". There is no limit on the number of articles we can have so there is room for both. Coming from a foundation that does very little to actually encourage content creation it's a bit rich to complain about what volunteers choose to spend their time on - Dumelow (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I think she's entitled to her views, just as you are. Maybe Wikipedia's strong interest in battleships and military history is a result of concentration on topics which attract our many male editors. I too find these interesting but I sympathize with a woman saying it would be good to have just as many high-quality articles on poetry. I wonder whether she is in fact correct in her assumptions: compare all the subcats under Category:Battleships with those under Category:Poets, not to mention Category:Poetry. Too busy to add them all up now but it looks to me as if it's a close thing.--Ipigott (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Obviously, you and I had different focus/take-away. I just now finished reading the piece. What I took away from this, is that we as collective contributors have given something unique and positive to world knowledge. In spite of - or perhaps because of - all our flaws, mis-steps, and sometimes head-banging, we are leaving something of value in our footsteps. — Maile (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I was perhaps a bit abrupt there. The Esquire article is excellent and hopefully will attract new editors to get stuck in. Addressing imbalances in content is important and needs talking about but I think a better phrasing would be "I wish our coverage of poetry could be as good as our coverage of battleships", if indeed our coverage of poetry is lacking. We don't want to disparage the work of anyone who contributes usefully - Dumelow (talk) 17:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Dumelow. Moreover, her suggestion that only men like battleships and women poetry is a little offensive. I'm not certain how far removed that is from saying "we need more articles on recipes and hair tips, and fewer articles about math, so women will read WP". Just in the U.S. there are 70,000 active female naval personnel, which is more than there are active editors on WP in any given month so the notion that women don't like "battleships" seems to be spoken from a personal experience that isn't reflective of contemporary reality. Anyway, I'm sure she didn't mean to offend anyone but greater prudence in word choice avoids the potential for misinterpretation. Chetsford (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a couple of days ago. Reviews have picked up a bit lately, so there are only 11 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page. This list covers everything through October 14. We currently have a total of 172 nominations, of which 98 have been approved, a gap of 74 that has dropped by 18 in the past 11 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and the ones in the Current nominations section as well.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Can an article be in DYK a second time?
Hello,
I had Afşin-Elbistan C power station in DYK some time ago as a new article. It has now been promoted to GA so is it allowed to be suggested for DYK again with a different fact? I won't be offended if you say no if too many other articles are awaiting their first appearance, as obviously they should have priority. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
No, the specific DYK rule is 1d, which says "If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, it is eligible for DYK." Joseph2302 (talk)09:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
No, but what you can do is mention him - without bolding - in a hook about something or someone else. To my experience, the links get noticed even when not bolded. Most recently: the organ symphony by Louis Vierne, - the composer got more hits than the bolded composition, intentionally so, - I had no way to make him GA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Any Nepali speakers out there?
To check the Nepali sources in Chisapani Gadhi. Some of the sources are in Nepali and without a double check I wouldn't want to approve the nomination (assuming that that nomination shouldn't be rejected out of hand - the article is quite problematic). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Users in Category:User ne-N may be useful- it's a list of users who have said they speak native level Nepali on their userpage. The only Nepali speaker who I've seen at DYK is the nominator of that DYK. Joseph2302 (talk)10:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Queue 2 has two hooks from Morgan695. One's about a film and one's about a bar, but they do have a pretty strong similarity in that they're both on LGBTQ-related topics. They're also both marked as special occasion hooks, so I didn't want to move one out on my own initiative. The bar's on the site of a former cemetery, but I don't see a Halloween connection for the film, there's no discussion at the nom, and I'm not sure where to look for other discussion (and is there any easy way to tell who moved it to the special occasion slot?). Maybe the film is just because of the Bloodsisters name? Is a film about lesbian sadomasochism maybe problematic to try to connect to Halloween? Ping to promoter Yoninah.
@Valereee: See the nomination template for Metropolitan. I offered a hook with a better tie-in to Halloween but the nominator rejected it. I'm glad someone else agrees with me that the present hook doesn't have an obvious tie-in to Halloween. I kind of thought a name like BloodSisters worked better for a Halloween hook. As far as I'm concerned, you can move the gay bar to a later set. Yoninah (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
@Valereee: Further to your post: We can't really call this a Halloween set because none of the hooks relate directly to the usual topics—witches and ghosts. So I wouldn't hold the hooks to such a strict standard. The only true special occasion hook for October 31 is the second one, for the Reformation. Yoninah (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Of the two Morgan695 hooks, the Metropolitan one was offered as a potential Halloween hook, but was never moved to the special occasions area; the BloodSisters had never requested special occasion status, and didn't receive it until after promotion. I don't see why either has been called a special occasion hook; it's a big stretch since neither is. (I don't think the Al-Ghuraba cemetery hook is appropriate for Halloween.) valereee, One certainly should be moved out; swapping it with another U.S. hook might be best. Thanks for noticing this. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Request: multiple DYK for new MP articles in New Zealand elections
Hi there,
User:DrThneed and I are both relative newbies to DYK. The New Zealand elections were last week, with an unusually large number of new Members of Parliament elected, most of whom had articles created or moved into mainspace October 17th or October 18th. @DrThneed: has just posted a nomination in October 18th, with the help of @Schwede66: and me. The ideal date for it to appear would be on or after Monday November 9th, because the special votes are being counted and won't be done until about November 6th (and it's conceivable that one or more of the MPs listed could lose their seat when those votes come in).
We'd like to know what else needs to happen before it's ready to run, and when we might be able to slot it into the lineup. Here's the nomination, just replace it with a link if reposting nominations is not the done thing in this Talk. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 03:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are some issues with the nomination. The first is that the QPQ rules have changed since the previous multi-article nomination in 2011: for multis, QPQ is calculated per article (bold link) rather than per nomination (see WP:DYKSG#H4). As nominator DrThneed has one previous DYK credit, given the nomination's 20 bold links, a full 16 QPQs will need to be supplied given that a maximum of five freebies are allowed. Also, there is an issue with the hook: except for (pictured), parentheses should not be used in hooks (see WP:DYKSG#C9). So the hook will need to be recast, and a lot of QPQs must be done. (Not all 16 need to be done by DrThneed, though as nominator they have ultimate responsibility for supplying them.) Since the election results won't be finalized/certified until early November, the nomination can't be finalized before then either, so there is time to supply the QPQs. We can't really plan to slot it in until we are sure that all 20 have won their races (i.e., that the hook is accurate). Pinging both Schwede66 and Giantflightlessbirds as well so they know about this. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Wow, that is a large number of articles to review, lol...you might ask for QPQ donations, there are people who will do that, and it's very likely you'll need multiple reviewers for that hook. I was going to suggest maybe not boldlinking all of them, but I don't think that works as the hook is currently at 500 characters; I didn't count, but the unbolded portion of the hook may already be 200 characters. Maybe consider breaking this into multiple hooks, one for each party, that could be run consecutive days? —valereee (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I doubt I'll have the time to implement these changes within the next few weeks. Once the changes are live, it would require monitoring and developer availability for a few days which I can't guarantee at the moment. In the meantime, I don't agree that the tag should be removed; currently it serves as a warning for manual users of the template that it should not be used and may break in the near future. That is within my understanding of deprecation but if others want to remove the tag, I won't make a fuss. Following CAT:DT I've noincluded the {{Deprecated template}} to stop categorization of the template and prevent further confusion. — Wug·a·po·des01:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Done Thank you for the help! :D VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 07:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Done — Maile (talk) 22:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Agree — Maile (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Moved to DYK Hideaway (U.S. Senate)