Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 182

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 175←Archive 180Archive 181Archive 182Archive 183Archive 184Archive 185

RfC on proposal to require a second QPQ from "senior" DYK editors (those with 20+ DYK credits) when there's a backlog of unreviewed nominations

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
While it's not overwhelming, consensus seems to be in favour of adopting EEng's revised proposal. After the number of unapproved nominations reaches a certain "high water mark", nominators with over 20 DYK credits will be required to provide two QPQs per nominated article instead of one. After the number drops back down to a certain "low water mark", the rule will not be enforced. Further discussions will be held to ascertain the value of the low and high water mark. Further discussions will be held to ascertain whether the QPQ requirement will apply to every nomination or every article nominated. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Did you know ... that articles nominated for WP:Did You Know often wait months for approval?

Editors nominating an article for Did You Know generally must review someone else's nomination; this is called the QPQ (quid pro quo). But because new DYKers are allowed to make up to five nominations exempt from this requirement, there are always slightly more nominations coming in than reviews being performed, and over the years a large backlog has accumulated.

To reduce this backlog, so that nominations can be reviewed more promptly, DYK regulars have !voted to change the rules for DYK's review requirement. Those rules currently provide

If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than 5 DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nomination is exempt from QPQ.

The proposal is to substitute new text requiring that editors who have previously nominated 20 or more articles do two reviews for each article they nominate. But... But... But... this "double-review requirement" will be in force only when there's a backlog of unreviewed nominations (which is estimated to be maybe 10%-20% of the time). Read on to learn the precise text being proposed. EEng 00:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


Noble but imperfect first proposal

Previous discussion here

At the time a nomination is promoted to the main page ...
  • (a) if the nominator has fewer than 5 credits (whether or not self-nominated), no QPQ is required;
  • (b) if the nominator has at least 5 credits but fewer than 20 credits, the nominator must do one QPQ;
  • (c) if the nominator has 20 or more credits, the nominator must do two QPQs (if there's a backlog) or one QPQ (if not).

Note: The above text is the result of extensive discussion above. 18:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Some longtime DYK editors feel aggrieved at this additional burden, but the feeling is that these are the editors in the best position, because of their experience, to do an occasional extra review. And while it's hard to predict more than roughly, it seems like the requirement for extra reviews will be in force only about 1/4 of the time (because it takes a long time to build a backlog, and likely not too long to wear it back down). EEng 18:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. We can easily reduce the average time it takes to get a DYK on the main page by a week or two. This would benefit the community greatly. It would be worth getting the current backlog down quickly, so the regulars aren't at 2 QPQ for long. Desertarun (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support no issue at all with this. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:56, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • comment - how many unreviewed noms is a "backlog", exactly? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    After a good deal of discussion (Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 180#Thinking about upper/lower trigger points) we decided it's not possible right now to set the "trigger points" that tell us when we go into/out of backlog mode because there are too many unknowns about how fast the backlog will get eaten down, how many unreviewed noms we want to leave to "prime the pump" and so on. As with the switches between running one set vs two sets per day, with experience we should be able to come up with those trigger points, but initially we'll have to wing it. EEng 22:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, seems perfectly reasonable, and a logical extension of giving editors a free pass for their first 5. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think that the text should say "At the time a nomination is made", since the QPQs are part of the nomination process. A definition of a backlog needs to be made. Flibirigit (talk) 19:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    Flibirigit, the reason it doesn't say "At the time a nomination is made" is that if someone with four credits makes another four nominations in quick succession, they only have one more freebie but this would give them three beyond that (or potentially more if they're particularly industrious). This is specifically addressed for multi-article nominations, where someone with four credits making a four-article nomination gets one of them free and must supply nominations for the other three. This was already discussed in the proposal stage above. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support the spirit of this proposal. I would prefer that the backlog numbers be defined, with numbers far enough apart that the changeover from backlog to non-backlog happens infrequently (unlike the 120-60 rule for 24h/12h hook sets, where for a while a changeover happened every two weeks). Z1720 (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    That's one of the reasons we didn't set these triggers until we saw what actually happens once the rule is in place: we were afraid we might set them so things switch back and forth too quickly. Once the trigger points are properly set, I think the back-and-forth will much slower than we have with the 12h vs 24h changes. The backlog grows quite slowly, so once the current backlog is eaten down sufficiently (whatever that means, and however long that takes) the double-review requirement goes into abeyance, and it will be probably be many, many months -- perhaps a year -- before it will need to be reinstated temporarily. EEng 22:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support with many thanks to the gracious editors who, up to this point, have already been doing extra reviews to help offset the newcomers' freebies. DanCherek (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment This just shifts the backlog from the unapproved nom page to the approved nom page, correct? It sounds to me like getting through airport security faster so that you spend more time waiting at the gate. Does it really help to get them reviewed faster? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • If my understanding is correct, once the backlog is shifted to approved noms this will trigger the more frequent update schedule. This would require more work from prep builders, of course... --Paul_012 (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
      The backlog presumably is gradually reduced in both places—a somewhat quicker flow to the Approved page, and therefore a somewhat quicker increase to 120 approved and the shift to two sets per day—and then back to a normal pace. The "more work from prep builders" is a variable thing; all approved nominations will eventually need to be prepped, so it's a matter of when, not if. At some point, the approved will drop below 60, and the prep building will have to slow. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • We have to stop 2 preps per day because the approved noms are getting low - but there are still hundreds of unapproved noms. Desertarun (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is a good idea in principle, but I'm wondering about the practicalities. In addition to the above comments regarding the definition of a backlog (which will probably need different values for when one is triggered and removed), is there a tool for counting DYK credits? Manually checking whether a user has more than 20 seems like a rather non-trivial task. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    Indeed there is such a tool: [1]. EEng 22:26, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    Seems like it would need modification to show up to twenty. Is Betacommand still maintaining the tool and contactable somewhere off Enwiki? --Paul_012 (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Good point above by Muboshgu. Also, refer to the list of older nominations regularly created by BlueMoonset. That list is effective in bringing the older un-reviewed to the forefront. Those are often lagging behind for various reasons - language, subject matter, details reviewers are not familiar with, etc. etc. Lots of reasons they aren't the easy pick of the crop. Is there something in this proposal that accomplishes the same thing? Otherwise, we're back to the beginning of that situation. How do you move the older ones that most reviewers are hesitant to tackle? — Maile (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Further to the list from BlueMoonset. If you look at the oldest nominations, you will frequently see that BlueMoonset goes over those oldest nominations and leaves comments at the bottom of the nom template as to its status, or what is left to be done. A very helpful practice. — Maile (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment to clarify this notice "Note: After 120 or more approved nominations, we rotate to two sets a day and when we drop below 60, we rotate to one set a day." right above the hook table list. Yes, we rotate. But the number of sets is manually changed by an admin here: User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates. It's automatic in the fact that the trigger numbers have already been decided. But it still takes a human admin to make the changes. — Maile (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a solution in search of a problem. No where in any of the DYK structure is a "will appear within x time from from initial nomination" stated. As a long time 10+ years contributor of noms this is effectivly penalizing me for contributing, and for something that is not a problem at all, and already handled regularly by BlueMoonset. Additionally as noted this will create confusion for anyone noming in a "backlog" timeframe, and then noming in a "not backlog" time frame. Also what objective definition of "backlog is being used, given that all THIS proposal does is punt the wait time to approved que rather then unapproved que, contrary to what Desertarun states.--Kevmin § 20:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    • all THIS proposal does is punt the wait time to approved que rather then unapproved que – Not at all. The pipeline from the approved Q to the main page shifts into high gear when predetermined high-water mark of approved hooks is reached, and easily eats down any temporary surfeit.
    • already handled regularly by BlueMoonset – No it isn't. Despite BMS's efforts we have a large backlog that's been growing for years.
    • penalizing me – You had your free 5 and have found DYK a source of pleasure and satisfaction. Time to give little extra back. The double-requirement will only apply a small fraction of the time anyway.
    EEng 22:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    Yah, NO, I give back every time I nominate an article and do a correct QPQ, there is no onus on me to have to do more then that give that this is a volunteer project. Additionally All that will happen is that the noms que will be shifted to the approved que, forcing a more frequent manual waffle between 24/12 main page rotation. Again for something that is not at any point call a problem in the DYK rules sets. you say this will not happen often, but that is irrelevant to this is a solution seeking a problem.--Kevmin § 00:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    Yah, YAH:
    • a more frequent manual waffle between 24/12 main page rotation – Nonsense. The switches between 12 and 24 are required because the steady-state arrival rate of approved hooks currently matches, apparently, something near the midpoint of those numbers. For all we know, during times when the double-review requirement is in force the increased rate of approved hooks will more closely fit with 12-hour page rotations, and fewer "waffles" will be needed. You're not thinking about this straight.
    • I give back every time I nominate an article and do a correct QPQ – I guess I should have said "Time to give little extra back, because more is needed and people like you and me are in a good position to provide it". Luke 12:48: To whom much has been given, from him much will be asked.
    • there is no onus on me to have to do more – Absolutely. If this rule is adopted and you don't like it, you don't have to participate anymore.
    • Again for something that is not at any point call a problem in the DYK rules sets. you say this will not happen often, but that is irrelevant to this is a solution seeking a problem. – Sorry, can't parse.
    Honestly, I'm baffled by the intensity of your hostility. You act like the Bolsheviks are coming for your tiara. EEng 07:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    Do me as an atheist a favor and leave the bible versus out of the conversation please. You do not know that the waffle will be less though, as your wording indicates. I have over 400 nominations due to being active for over 10 years. That doesn't mean I have one ounce of review ability out side the subject areas I nominate in, which are already sparse to begin with. I can't do anything with biography or location nominations since I don't know a fig about them. Forcing the very small percentage of contributors the have over 20DYK credits is not actually going to fix your faux problem. When will you start doing regular reviews? Again, this is a solution seeking a problem.--Kevmin § 15:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Do me as an atheist a favor and leave the bible versus out – I'm an atheist myself, but not an antitheist, and I recognize that even fairytales contain wisdom.
    • When will you start doing regular reviews? – I've done far more full reviews than I've made nominations, and have made some 5000 contributions to other reviews and 2800 posts to this very page, so trying to paint me as not pulling my weight won't get you very far.
    • You do not know that the waffle will be less though, as your wording indicates. – Exactly: I was pointing out that the effect was unknown. Meanwhile you were asserting, based on no evidence at all, that the proposal will "[force] a more frequent manual waffle between 24/12 main page rotation".
      But since you've poked the bear I've now looked into the matter, and can state with certainty that this proposal will reduce the frequency of 12/24 waffles. Turns out the system spends most of its time in 12 mode, with occasional shifts into 24 mode when hooks become scarce. But when we're in 2-review-required mode, new hooks will become available at a faster rate, so there will be even fewer shifts into 24 mode. So you're totally and complete wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!
    EEng 21:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support in principle. I agree it would be good for DYKs to run faster. The automatic rotation from 24 to 12 hour sets prevents the backlog from just moving from one queue to the other - these processes are complementary. I do think we need to have enough unreviewed noms so an editor can find one to review in a subject area that they are confident they can do a good review. This would be a factor to consider when picking the thresholds, which intentionally are left TBD here. Another "tweak" I suggest is perhaps, when the backlog threshold is reached, requiring two QPQs from the main list or just one from the Bluemoonset old list - as a way to incentivize working on the old noms (which sometimes is like walking through a minefield). MB 21:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    I thought about making the second review be from the "problem child" list -- after all, it's our most experienced reviewers who will be making these second reviews -- but it seemed a bit burdensome. For now I think the second-review requirement, and BMS's list of stalled noms, should remain complimentary. EEng 22:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    According to this list, there at least 440 editors with 25+ DYKs (not all of whom are still active). Maybe those with 100+ (around 125) are "our most experienced reviewers". I wouldn't support all second QPQs having to be from the stalled list. MB 01:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per WP:NOTBURO. There is not a substantial problem here that needs fixing. IronGargoyle (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong support per my prior comments during the formation of this RfC. This is a useful long-term solution to a resistant backlog and one of the best ideas to solve that issue WT:DYK has managed to come up with. I still think there's a couple more moving parts than ideal, but worst comes to worst we say the experiment failed, you know? 20+ credits is a pretty small minority of the project, even if it's an outsized proportion who watch this page (see the stat above showing only 440 of tens of millions of registered editors have 25+ credits); this does not actually put a particular amount of burden on people, certainly less than most alterntive proposals. It's the best possible mix of cost and outcome. Vaticidalprophet 01:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not happy about the prospect of making a nomination during a non-backlog time, making my single non-backlog QPQ before creating the nomination (as I always do and as I think everyone should be required to do), getting the nomination approved, and then suddenly weeks later in a time when I haven't planned for any availability getting a notification that my nomination is in trouble because now it's a backlog time and I need two. I think there should be some sort of mechanism so that the number of QPQs needed depends on when you did the QPQ not on when someone else gets around to promoting it. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Shifting to oppose as worded, not because I have any in-principle opposition to a double QPQ when needed to cut the backlog, but because I don't think this is the right way to do it. It shifts the required time of QPQ even later in the process, from review time to promotion time, the opposite direction from what should happen. Really what needs to happen is stricter enforcement of it being done at nomination time. So this is just going to lead to people dragging out their required QPQs longer, or not doing them at all for nominations that have other problems that would have previously had QPQs, and these delays will cut into any improvement in process from more QPQs getting done. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As worded, "'At the time a nomination is promoted to the main page". Definitely not a good idea to leave the decision on the edge of promotion. I think we should stick with the policy of the review determines if the QPQ has been done. End of story on that. The burden of deciding that should not be on the promoter. — Maile (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    There should be a way to finesse this so that the requirement remains, as it is currently, that the nominator has to do a QPQ review if they have five or more credits—they might only have three or four at the time the nomination is made, but have other promotions to the main page and are up to five before the nomination gets to the main page. We've had newer nominators have to come up with a QPQ after approval because of when their several nominations were promoted. The wording needs to deal with that, but a change was not intended in that regard. What would you suggest, Maile? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    Uh ... "as it is currently"? I realize you have more experience and have more knowledge in your DYK knapsack than the rest of us. But this aspect is news to me, and probably others. It would be one more burdensome check point for a promoter. I don't think we should load promoters down with so much nitpicking stuff that they throw in the towel and abandon DYK. Most promoters are doing good to get the basics before promoting. It is not their job to re-review every nitpicking aspect of a review, just to do a promotion. The world as we know it will not come to an end, if this is not a part of the promoter's job. We should thank our lucky stars we still have participants willing to do the promotions. Enough is enough. — Maile (talk) 10:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    Also, if a nominator is encouraged enough to do multiple nominations, the odds will even out in the long run for their QPQs. We should not be tacking it on as an added requirement because of recent circumstances. This is a little bit like driving down a long highway, only to be stopped at the end by a toll booth taker saying, "Oh, by the way. Hope you enjoyed the drive. But we're not going to let you off this road unless you pony-up a toll that was not applicable when you first entered the road." — Maile (talk) 11:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    Maile, DYK nominators should be aware that after five credits they have to do a QPQ for all subsequent nominations. If they've received four, and then make four new nominations in short succession, they should expect to have to do their first QPQs on three of them. They can count, can't they? It's not like they didn't know from the outset that they'd have to start paying tolls after Exit 5... BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
    OK. Whatever the majority thinks is the correct course to follow. — Maile (talk) 02:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Question: Who declares when there is a backlog? My concern is that if this goes through, we will be switching between 24 and 12 hour sets a lot more regularly. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    We'll just have a little chat like we used to for the 12/24 switches before the fixed trigger points (for 12/24) were establshed. After a while we should be able to set trigger points for unrevied backlog/no unreviewed backlog as well, but that we'll need some experience first.
    I don't know where people get the idea that this proposal will cause more frequent 12/24 switches; there's no basis for that. (However, if someone could tell me about what proportion of time we current spend in 12 mode, and what proportion of time in 24 mode, then I probably could predict the effect on that of instituting this change. There's a third mode too as I recall, but I forget what it is. BlueMoonset?) EEng 07:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
P.S. I got the data I needed, and it turns out that the proposal will, without question, reduce the frequency of switches between 12 and 24. Details at #switches. EEng 21:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per... everyone else that supported. Pamzeis (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I support requiring more QPQ from experienced nominators. I oppose the proposal as written. The number of QPQs necessary should be determined and checked at nomination time. We shouldn't suddenly require an extra QPQ (or return one QPQ) depending on whether there is a backlog at a random point 1-80 days later when the nom hits the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose no clear indication of the system is backlogged or not, and constantly switching between 1 and 2 QPQs required is just confusing for people. We should try making DYK processes simpler not much more confusing. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I support this in principle. My preference would have been that we sort out the process how to determine whether we are in backlog before posting this RfC, but even without that element I would still be able to support this. What I have a problem with is what Maile points to. A single or double QPQ requirement should be clear at the time of nomination, as it's much simpler for this to be checked by the reviewer. It gets more complex for prep builders and then the admins who promote to queue having to double check when backlog kicked in and how it relates to individual nominations. I appreciate that "at the time of nomination" is the current requirement and there are good reasons for it. But the double QPQ requirement should not become a complex burden on DYK volunteers. Schwede66 21:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • TIME OUT EVERYONE I'm working on fixing what Schwede (and several others) have expressed concern about. EEng 21:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    Sure, but PLEASE DON'T EVEN JOKINGLY BRING IN THE BIBLE. No place at all for that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose This counter-intuitive proposal penalises those who have already contributed the most to DYK and the project in general. Writing a good article already takes a considerable effort and a thorough review even more as so many nominations are of poor quality and in need of significant remedial work. The most experienced reviewers are also the most experienced writers but will they bother to spend their time here if they have to review twice as many articles as anyone else? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose too complex, too many more rulez. I'd do more voluntary reviews if I didn't have to spend my time dealing with objections in discussions that get longer than the articles. - Can we make reviewing simpler perhaps? Look for basic requirement instead of fine-tuning hooks and ignoring that what's interesting to one may be boring to someone else, and what's interesting to all will likely be trivia for all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The proposal as written is unclear as to what constitutes a backlog and being asked to do an extra QPQ when a nomination is finally promoted is like moving the goalposts during a game. As other have mentioned before this penalizes users who plan out QPQs in advance and spend considerable time writing one article. Flibirigit (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Update: The cabal is pondering what to do. Stand by. EEng 04:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose per Philafrenzy and Gerda etc. Reviewing one article per nomination is fair on those nominating DYKs. More than that means you're forcing people to give more than they get, and linking it to some nebulous state-of-the-backlog is even more arbitrary. It also runs the risk of lowering the quality of the reviews actually performed. DYK has been running for more than 15 years now, and is arguably at its highest quality level thus far - certainly the error rate seems way down on 2-3 years ago. It will continue to function fine without this proposal.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
    Even though I've asked a hundred times now that people stop commenting since the proposal's going to be modified to address concerns expressed so far, I can't help responding to the following startling statement: you're forcing people to give more than they get. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not "get" something. It's all give. EEng 16:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
    Oh, I'd have to disagree on that. I will go with the majority on whatever is decided here, but this is a process outside of building an encyclopedia. And I think the giving and getting refers to completing reviews vs receiving reviews, not a traditional reward. Kingsif (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but that's just the wrong way of looking at it. Everything we do here is about building the encyclopedia, and that includes the main page features (which contribute indirectly, by building goodwill and attracting new editors). When you nominate a hook, you're not "getting" something, you're contributing a hook to the front page. When someone reviews your nomination, they're not doing you a favor, but helping to maintain the quality of what we present. It's all give. When you start talking about give and get, you quickly end up with people saying stuff like Amakuru: why should I give more than I'm getting? EEng 21:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
    It's all give, yes, but I interpreted Amakuru's words to basically say why should [user A] complete more reviews than his noms receive, or: why should only few users be the ones keeping DYK running. As said, I don't really care how this ends up, there's arguments on both sides, but wanting a few editors to do the heavy lifting, especially already-established users, newcomers to DYK who are not asked to do as many, will not, thus not gaining experience, and furthermore, it may appear as a boys' club of a few regular contributors that other people can't really break into editing. I have no idea if these issues were on Amakuru's mind, but even if not, "why should X users do more reviews than Y users" is a valid question that hasn't really been discussed here. No DYK "senior" is throwing up objections that I can see, but that's not the only potential problem with implementation: e.g. experienced DYK editors also nominate a lot more than others, often doubling up in certain common areas, and won't be able to review their own noms. How's that bottleneck going to work itself out? Kingsif (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

What I think isn't getting through is that, once the current backlog is dealt with, we'll probably be in "backlog mode" something like two months out of each year, during which 25 experienced DYKers will do 2 extra reviews each, and after which that'll be it until another year goes by. Is that really worth all this gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair? (I have no idea what this "doubling up in certain common areas" bottleneck is you refer to.) EEng 23:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, it takes maybe 10 minutes to do most DYK reviews. Sometimes doing a second one really isn't much of an imposition. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
From my first comment I noted that I don't care, I haven't !voted. You keep ignoring the logistical part; it's not much of an issue, I've got a lot of past reviews done that I won't need to do any new reviews any time soon even with two. I don't care and I think it's on everyone to review as many as we have time and energy for. But limiting it to only certain editors could be an issue whether they care or not. While the proposals may solve some issues, they may introduce others, and that's why I don't care and haven't voted: I do not think there will be any significant improvements to the process. You want a long explanation of the issue and "doubling up in certain common areas" bottleneck? Ugh, in collapse because long: Kingsif (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
tl;dr "if you want the prolific users to review more, you must consider they also nominate more, and there is no direct trade-off"

Besides making newbies feel like it's exclusive here, let me explain the doubling up comment. We get a lot of noms about NYC and opera; often, they have the same pair or 2/3 established DYK contributors as co-nominators. They can't review their own noms, and presumably reviewed 4 to be able to nom. That means if they want to nominate another DYK, say with a double link, they'll need 8 reviews, and won't be able to review their own noms. There may still be a backlog, but certain users won't be able to review, because taking into account most noms are opened for review fairly quickly and just not approved for a while, there's only a limited number of new noms a day and not enough to support the noms from these users not including their own. And if half the other noms are from other experienced users also co-nominating, you face the same problem. It becomes a bottleneck of new noms from the same users who have maxed out reviews they can do, until we get inexperienced users reviewing one of those noms, possibly only nominating one article, and slowly building up enough of a backlog to support users having to do 4/8 reviews that aren't of their own noms. Do you see the issue with that stagger? There will always be a base number of unreviewed noms in such a system unless some users take it upon themselves to review all outstanding noms without nominating themselves, something I've done but it's still mental tax, you know. Facing this scenario it would work better if all nominators had to do 2, it would clear the experienced users' noms and give them more other noms to review quicker. And that's just the first hiccup that came to mind: if you want the prolific users to review more, you must consider they also nominate more, and there is no direct trade-off (in giving review->getting review), so there will still be a backlog, but rather than being spread across all noms, the backlog will be disproportionately noms made by the experienced users. (The second level of that is that those noms typically have fewer issues, and so it might mean the average time from making noms/opening reviews to getting them approved becomes longer, also not ideal) Kingsif (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

To be honest I can't follow what you're saying, but I don't think you understand the proposal. We'll exit "backlog mode" way before the well is empty, probably when we're down to something like 80 open noms. There will always be plenty of noms needing review. David Eppstein, you're a genius computer scientist, specialist in queuing theory, and expert on the conservation of mass and the Third Law of Thermodynamics -- do you have any idea what K is talking about? EEng 01:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Kingsif appears to be misunderstanding the backlog part of the proposal, thinking incorrectly that it will require 2 QPQs always, and worrying that this will mean that there won't be enough unreviewed nominations for nominators to review, preventing them from fulfilling the QPQ requirement. Because this proposal only kicks in when there is a backlog, this can't happen. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
No, David. I'm not misunderstanding. In a backlog, people will still be nominating, right. Regular DYK editors will be reviewing the backlog but also adding to it. In fact, this proposal relies on that, since it's about nom requirements. So then there comes a point where there is still a backlog but the nominations that were originally causing it have all been reviewed, just replaced with noms from people who are regulars. Other people will still be nomming and reviewing, but not at the same rate since they're not required to. Reviewing comes to a standstill because the people you want to do more reviews can't review their own noms, so can't review the backlog they've made. This creates a bottleneck as other users slowly chip away at reviewing those noms. To recap: there's a backlog, this clause kicks in, and there's a sudden rush of more noms being reviewed. Then a long period when there's still a backlog but reviews are tackled slower. For that not to happen, we have to rely on the regular editors to review *without* nominating. But this clause is making a requirement related to nominating. I don't see it improving the system, but I'll keep on as I have been, it won't really change much for me, personally, either. Kingsif (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but it's clear that, in fact, you don't understand. Except in the inconceivable case in which all the outstanding nominations were nominated by a single editor, for every nomination X there's always some other editor (not the nominator of X) who can review X. Whatever it is you're imagining cannot happen. EEng 08:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


Take 2 -- Everyone please vote again on revised proposal

OK, you nitpicking rabble, try this:

At the time of nomination ...
  • (a) if the nominator has previously nominated fewer than 5 articles (self-nominations or otherwise), no QPQ is required;
  • (b) if the nominator has previously nominated from 5 to 19 articles, the nominator must do one QPQ;
  • (c) if the nominator has previously nominated 20 or more articles, the nominator must do two QPQs (if DYK is in "unreviewed backlog mode" at time of nomination) or one QPQ (otherwise).
A nomination lacking a required QPQ should not be reviewed (other than to note that QPQ is needed) until the QPQ is supplied.
The high- and low-water marks for entering and leaving "unreviewed backlog mode" will be determined by a later discussion, after experience with how quickly the new requirement eats down the backlog, and how quickly the backlog grows back.
Multiple articles in a single hook: Suppose you have nominated 4 articles previously, and now nominate a single hook with articles A, B, and C "bolded". Then A is your fifth article and requires no QPQ; B and C are your sixth and seventh articles, and each requires a QPQ.
  • By way of namedropping, BlueMoonset and David Eppstein collaborated on this.
  • This resolves the main concern expressed to date, which is the confusing interaction between nominating "now" and the exact QPQ requirement (none? one? two?) being notionally established only "in the future", at the time of main-page appearance.
  • The backlog grows very slowly (the current one took years) so "unreviewed backlog modes" should be short and far between – something like a month or two once a year.

EEng 05:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

  • I opposed the earlier version (because it seemed likely to cause delays and uncertainty in how many QPQs were needed) but this one looks good to me, so if we go back into a formal RFC it would have my support. I think that, to keep DYK running smoothly, sometimes having to do two QPQs is a reasonable price for those who nominate frequently (among whom I count myself). And I think the change of wording to count nominations rather than DYK appearances also adds needed clarity. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support That looks good. Thanks. Would support when the formal RfC starts. Schwede66 07:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Looks fine to me but I don't see much need for an example. You could separate the actual rule changes from 'guidance information' about the stuff that would be discussed on the talk page. I'm not sure if we are still in RFC or not though? Are you closing this RFC and making a new RFC, or am I supposed to vote now? Desertarun (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    The example explains what ought to be common sense, but without it there's technically a loophole allowing someone to make a giant multiarticle nomination and do no QPQs. Bluemoonset was concerned about that so I included the example. EEng 12:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    I suspect almost nobody would know this loophole or be able to exploit it. Even if they did the 2 QPQ would be able to undo the effect easily enough. Anyway it can be left safely enough. Desertarun (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    Trust me, the day will come that someone exploits it. EEng 02:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. But I would also support at 30/3, 40/4 etc. etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    @Alanscottwalker: Your alternative proposal is clearly ridiculous. I have 277 credits; would you really expect me to do 27 reviews for nominating a single article? Schwede66 23:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    With rounding it would be 28, actually :P. EEng 00:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    As I think was said earlier, 'to whom much is given, much is expected,' it's not like every article we create is required to be here, but I could also support delay kick in, larger intervals, and/or a cap. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Not clear to me if we're voting on this yet, but I'd support, as above. The current QPQ rules allow for a non-zero number of nominations to occur without a review; we are currently relying on volunteers to deal with the the concomittant increase in the number of unreviewed nominations; based on the fact that this number frequently grows unreasonably large, relying on volunteers isn't always sufficient. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, we're voting. I mean not-voting. We are !voting. Everyone !vote! COME ONE, COME ALL! !VOTE !VOTE !VOTE !VOTE EEng
Irrelevant technical discussion
  • Where does the RfC statement begin, where does it end? The statement as copied to the RfC listings is a mess: it includes a {{collapse top}} but not the matching {{collapse bottom}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    The bot probably got confused by the {collapse}. In desperation I've manually copied the appropriate text into the RfC listing, though I won't be surprised if that sends the bot into a tailspin. EEng 22:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    Legobot will simply revert you. You need to correct the problem at its source, which is on this page. Legobot identifies the start of the RfC statement by the {{rfc}} tag; it identifies the end of the RfC statement by the next valid timestamp. What occurs in between must be syntactically complete: that is, for every opening construct there must be a corresponding closing construct. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
    No, the source of the problem is the stupid design of the bot; obviously the RfC statement should be a parameter to a template instead of some lame guess based on a signature. I guess people will just have to come here to find out what the proposal is. EEng 23:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Neutral While I'm leaning toward support, I think that the current guidelines also would benefit from a training program to help people who are less familiar with the process learn the ins-and-outs. It's hard enough with the current guidelines to learn how to nominate a DYK for a page, let alone learn how to do the QPQ, promoting, and other such things. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. This is like herding cats. —valereee (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support this improved proposal. Johnbod (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support (summoned by bot) per WP:EEng is infallible. But seriously, either proposal is OK; this provides reasonable parity to production and assistance, as far as my experience has shown me this to be an issue. Urve (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    See also User:EEng#correct. EEng 11:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Isn't the simpler solution to do away with the 5 free noms? The nominators lacking the basic skills required, are likely to be those with a problematic and time consuming nomination. --Ykraps (talk) 05:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    I think there's merit in allowing editors to go through the review process a few times to learn how it should be done first. Nominators lacking the basic skills required are also likely to carry out poor reviews just for the sake of doing QPQ and may end up creating more work for everyone. Armadillopteryx 06:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    I just did my first DYK, and I'm pretty certain that if I had to review another to get the process started I would have likely not bothered. Learning one process to submit a DYK should have some time to sink in before you have to learn another process to review a DYK. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    I would argue that anyone that has written and kept an article in mainspace, or has 5X expanded an article without being reverted, has all the skills and knowledge required. They might not be comfortable doing it, but they are capable of doing it.--Ykraps (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per everyone else. Pamzeis (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - seems a sensible proposal to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. This is like herding cats, except you also have groom others editors' scabby kittens. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support but I'd support even more stringent requirements (1 QPQ per every 5 articles, or 10 articles after 5 "free" DYK reviews, instead of these if...elseif...else loops). But since I don't expect these requirements to go that far, that's a good step forward. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per all my previous comments on how we should be making DYK less complicated, instead of more complicated. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per the above. Sea Ane (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, it's reasonable to ask highly active users to contribute more reviews. It is also good practice to do the QPQ review(s) before nominating your own article. I think this will get rid of any backlog quickly, and we'll then see how long it takes to grow back. —Kusma (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. A sensible way of making up the QPQ shortfall caused by allowing new users to make their early nominations without doing QPQ. Desertarun (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Joseph2302's point about DYK becoming more complicated, because it may discourage people from submitting more content to DYK because there's more work to do, and because this doesn't solve the problem of getting nominations on the main page faster. The backlog shifts from unreviewed to reviewed articles, and it doesn't seem to make much difference to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    Just saying that this is a misunderstanding: backlog shifts from unreviewed to reviewed articles. Those are completely unrelated issues. Any backlog in reviewed articles gets managed by switching to a 12-hour cycle. When this double-QPQ kicks in, it's clear that we'll go into (or remain in) 12-hour cycles and we'll stay there for longer than usual until the backlog is gone. And then we are back to the normal 12/24 cycle. That is, it will be a one off change and the average person wouldn't even notice, as all it means it'll stay in the 12-hour cycle a bit longer than usual. Schwede66 21:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Seems sensible, any reduction in a backlog is a good thing. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support No concerns. I don't want the process to be more complicated and don't think the reviewer should really have to determine how many QPQs the nominator needs to do - we should be able to count on anyone with 25 credits to do two when required with their own volition. Perhaps someone can automate this - a bot that adds a message to every new nom with the number of QPQs required. Regardless, support. MB 22:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
    I think such a bot wouldn't be too hard to build at all. EEng 01:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
    @SD0001, would there be a way for DYK-helper to detect how many QPQs are required for a given user at a given time? It seems like it might be a lot of moving parts -- how many noms a user has made + whether they're currently required to do 2. —valereee (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
    I have little doubt that the nomination template, as it's being saved for a new nomination, could fetch both the nominator's current tally of nominations and the current "unreviewed backlog mode" (in backlog vs. not in backlog) into the nom page for everyone to see. Or maybe some bot comes by after the nom is saved to fill that stuff in. That same bot, conceivably, could keep an eye on the unreviewed backlog and automatically take us into or out of backlog mode based on the hi- and low-water marks, once we determine those. (In contrast, the 1X/day vs. 2X/day changes to freqency of main-page set swaps require a bit of finesse to carry out, which I believe is why a bot doesn't do those on its own.) EEng 16:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as a user to whom this would without doubt apply. I can certainly handle it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per my previous comment as well as Vanamonde's rationale above. DanCherek (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – I have been a silent spectator of this whole discussing since a month. This seems a better and improved version of the previous proposal, and I would be delighted to do two QPQ's when I fall under that category. Once any user has got some of their nominations reviewed, reviewing other nominations is very easy. My only suggestion to help further reduce the backlog would be to have nominators of special date requests hooks to do 2 QPQ's (if the nominator has previously nominated more than 5 articles) even in "unreviewed backlog mode". This would maybe help further reduce the backlog, as well as reduce some date request nominations, as I have seen that we accept almost every date request. But again, that would be just more rules and more confusion! Please let me know (and ping me) if I am missed something. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
    I'd support that, exempting special events like April fools or the Olympics. I think the criteria around special date requests would need to be a separate RFC discussion though.Desertarun (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
    I think there's a danger that requiring "payment" of extra QPQs for date requests will increase the requester's sense of entitlement for the date request, which could create more drama in the long run. —Kusma (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
    +1. —valereee (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
    Kavyansh, surely where you said even in "unreviewed backlog mode", you really meant even when not in "unreviewed backlog mode". Maybe my critical faculties have been worn out by this slow ride through purgatory, but I can't for the life of me see why special occasion hooks should have this additional provision attached. And in the name of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the saints and apostles, PLEASE let's not make this any more complicated. EEng 00:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
    Pinging @Kavyansh.Singh per request. —valereee (talk) 17:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Good catch!
@EEng Good catch. I really meant even when not in "unreviewed backlog mode". I understand that more rules create further confusing (especially for DYK, which already has a lot of rules) But it is worth discussing (separate from this RFC) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bloom6132: In case that's too subtle, what EEng is pointing to is WP:CANVASS and you should be careful to not give the impression that that is what you are doing. Because thus far, that is the impression what we get from your selective pings. Schwede66 00:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Schwede66: I've remained neutral in this discussion, not voting one way or the other. I thought this revised proposal was supposed to address the concerns of those who voiced opposition to the initial one. If so, do you not think it's appropriate for them to have another look? If not, then it's starting to look like the true reason why EEng shut down the first discussion was because it wasn't going in his favour. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    Wow, what a strange interpretation. I suspended the discussion because because people had expressed concerns about the proposal, and I thought a modified proposal could allay those concerns. Not every RfC is about winning and losing -- sometimes it's about getting people together to find a solution to a problem, and if I do say so myself this episode has been a textbook example of that. EEng 14:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    Not at all. Eight of the last ten votes (at the time of writing) have been in opposition to your revised proposal. "I thought a modified proposal could allay those concerns" – sure, whatever you want to believe … —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, I should have been clear that I meant that the revised proposal addresses concerns about the disconnect between the time when a nomination is made and the time when, notionally, the QPQ requirement is determined (i.e. the time of main-page appearance), which was the most common concern stated. And indeed, those who originally expressed that concern have pretty much all returned to support now; those who just didn't like the idea of requiring more QPQs, period, regardless of by what mechanism, aren't going to support no matter what so there's nothing to be done about them. Obviously I didn't mean that everyone was converted by the revised proposal because that would be dumb. Duh. EEng 03:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I have no time for this. I don't like more DYK rulez but if others think it's a good idea I won't be in the way. May I still review noms even if there's no qpq, or will I get punished?? (To mention just one thing I dislike about the proposal.) I feel more and more distanced from DYK, DYK? It used to be a place where - when you notice great news - you may tell it, and develops into a rule-ruled system where people may tell you that what you desire to tell is not appealing to the masses, and you have to find something else. I'll go to RD if that continues. Kurt Biedenkopf today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
    Gerda Arendt, if you want to review nominations here, please do. You don't have to create a nomination before you can review other nominations. In fact, the underlying rationale for the RfC is a backlog that has built up over years because we don't require newbies to DYK to do a QPQ (for good reasons; a DYK review isn't the most straightforward thing to do). If you did nothing else but reviewed a few dozen nominations, we wouldn't need this RfC. :-) Schwede66 23:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
    I suspect Gerda's opposition is influenced in part by a recent experience of others here trying to make the QPQ process more bureaucratic and heavyweight (see Template:Did you know nominations/Tone Roads No. 1). It shouldn't have to be that way and this QPQ proposal should not be tied to making the QPQ process more cumbersome. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Gerda Arendt is asking if she can still review nominations, even if they don't have the required QPQ, or review nominations where no QPQ is normally required? I understand this effort to get more reviews done by sort of doubling up on the requirement. Personally, I've reviewed (and kept count of) 405 nominations. By contrast, I've only nominated 72 articles. But, yeah, I understand where Gerda is coming from. In an effort to keep the project rolling, it seems like new rules, or new something else to keep track of, on a regular basis. Kind of hard to keep track of. As it is, we have to skip around from one instructional page to another, to find one that applies to what we're looking for. And we just keep adding and adding. Don't leave us, Gerda. Your absence would make a very large noticeable hole in this project. — Maile (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    I consciously wrote the proposal as A nomination lacking a required QPQ should not be reviewed (not must not) to avoid making it rigid. One can imagine a situation in which we don't want to hang up a nomination while the nominator's doing their best on some complicated review which will be their QPQ. EEng 02:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    Gerda, if the qpq you did for the Tone Roads nom was the problem, realize that reviewer was a very new reviewer, only two credits so far. They don't have the experience to recognize someone who has done hundreds of reviews and can be assumed to know what they're doing. —valereee (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    Waking up on a Sunday morning (and a feast day on top) to all of this: sorry about my English, I feel misunderstood.
    Did I oppose? No. I said I have no time for this (not even for reading the proposal), and that's still true. I had two recent deaths to handle yesterday, and a last-day DYK nom, and managed only one of the two RD. I have to decide where I spend my limited time. - You decide this, - I'll oblige. - Valeree and others, the review of the new reviewer was no problem for me, really, I tried to talk to them, and it was solved. What I tried to hint at (above) is that - in 12 years - I saw DYK develop from something where you got your line about a new article from nomination to being in the queue in 10 minutes (my record, Cecil Aronowitz, and it came with a personal thank you on my talk for having written the article, imagine!), 4 sets a day, to something rulez-driven and loaded with formality. DYK is no longer what I loved, if you know what I mean, - why should I decide about the furniture when I'm on the verge of leaving the household. - I boldly indented the formatting below my post, - please take a look at the guideline on top of User talk:Drmies. - There's real life making me happy, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    @Gerda Arendt and Valereee: regarding Tone Roads No. 1., yeah, that's on me—I was very new when I came across that one, and looking back on it, I definitely wouldn't have made the same call. My apologies, it seems to have dragged on for a bit before getting approved. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    It's a telling commentary that an editor who was a wet-behind-the-ears tenderfoot when this RfC began is now, as it ends, a seen-it-all cynical old-timer. EEng 03:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Probably not a popular view, but here goes. I oppose this because it adds one more reason to not participate, but y'all will do what you will do. I used to nominate every article I wrote, but the process became more and more tedious and contentious. I neither have the stomach for the drama nor the time to spend analyzing and reanalyzing those that end up stuck in the system. I have restricted my nominations only to an occasional GA (meaning I don't even submit every GA I have gotten approved). Yoninah noticed that my nominations dropped off and proposed a system wherein she reviewed articles I wrote and nominated them and I sorted the sourcing for her hooks and answered questions if any arose. Placing the burden of more reviews on experienced editors who rarely participate will make it even more likely that they don't bother. And I get that the proposal says only when there is a backlog, but who writes articles checking to see if there is a backlog first? One writes when one has adequate sourcing and nominates when one comes across an interesting fact. SusunW (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support although I still think semi-regular backlog drives would be better as it would be more fun and inviting for users. I also want to reiterate that switchovers between backlog and not-backlogged periods should be infrequent. Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    Comment. I did some calculations. The 2 QPQ period would be two weeks every 6 months. The backlog discussion, including those prior to the RFC, started 2 months ago today. Desertarun (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    This makes me even more hesitant to support this proposal, and instead support backlog drives. The AfC backlog drive virtually eliminated their whole queue, while GAN's backlog drive reduced theirs by 47% and GOCE's drive reduced theirs by 23%. If the backlog session would only last two weeks every 6 months, I think a two-week drive would be a more fun and positive way to address the concerns, rather than forcing reviews from editors. I am not changing my !vote because I do think that something needs to be implemented and I would rather have 2 QPQ sessions than nothing at all. Z1720 (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    We had a vote on a barnstar backlog drive but very few supported it. *shrug* Desertarun (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    Hostile as I am to any idea I didn't come up with, I blew it out of the water with my unrelentingly vicious criticism. EEng 03:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
    I think 4 weeks every 12 months would be less annoying. EEng 18:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
    Agree. Desertarun (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't think this is a good way to reduce the backlog. I think it would be better to think of ways to improve the display of the nominations so that the older ones get more attention - for example, moving nominations that are in the process of being reviewed to another page (unless they need a new reviewer). As someone who frequently brings articles to DYK, I view QPQ as a necessary chore - having to do twice as many would decrease the appeal of the DYK process for me. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Further Comment - It hit me this morning, that we already have a process for double reviews, and that is that if someone has two articles that meet the criteria for one hook, they have to complete 2 QPQs. If this were to go ahead, are we expecting a user with two suitable articles to complete four QPQs? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    Well, double hooks are very rare. Anyway, I can't remember exactly how the multi-article hooks rules work, but I think what we want is an an extra QPQ per nomination, not double. So a regular nomination, with a single article, requires 2 reviews. A nom with 2 articles requires 3 reviews (not 4). That would be my way of looking at it, anyway. EEng 14:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
    I don't see why there would be an exception for a multi-article nomination. Each QPQ required should be doubled, so two articles would require four reviews if we were in the "two for each" phase. It shouldn't matter whether two articles are combined into a single nomination or separated into two. (The person fully reviewing a two-article nomination gets two QPQ credits for that review.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
    Again, multi-article noms are very rare so this question affects things, like, 0.0003% either way. But somehow asking for 4 reviews at once just seems too oppressive. EEng 04:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
    @BlueMoonset: does the "Count of DYK Hooks" table take into account hooks with multiple articles? Or does it treat them as a single nomination? —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
    Bloom6132, as far as I've been able to tell, it's the number of open nomination templates transcluded on the Nomination and Approved pages, excluding the special occasion section, though Shubinator, whose bot generates the table, can tell you for sure. I've certainly never noticed any extra counting when, for example, a two-article hook gets split into two single-article hooks within the same nomination. Please pay no attention to EEng's 0.0003% figure, since it's wildly inaccurate. (There have been five multi-article nominations on the main page so far in August.) BlueMoonset (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
    Oh, sorry, that's 5 multis so far in August out of 296 hooks total. That's 1.7%, so you're right: that's HUGE! EEng 04:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
    It's not huge, but it's orders of magnitude off from what you asserted. A rate of 1 in 60 (or 50 or 100 or whatever it is over a longer period) means that it happens regularly enough that it needs to be accounted for. If you want to post numbers with no basis in fact as you did here that's your business, but it's far from ideal in an RfC you want to succeed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
    Given that 0.0003% translates to 1/333,333 -- in other words, fewer than 1 in the entire history of DYK -- you might want to take your hyperbole detector in for calibration. The colloquial interjection like in my wording affects things, like, 0.0003% either way was a further clue. EEng 00:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
    Yep, the "Count of DYK Hooks" table technically counts transcluded nomination templates, not hooks - bit of a misnomer with the name :) Shubinator (talk) 04:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a workable solution to a problem that does need addressing. It is more complex than necessary in my opinion, but it's the draft most likely to garner the most support. As such, I support this version of the proposal in the spirit of compromise and the desire to see DYK function better (hopefully) going forward.4meter4 (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose We all accept the existing QPQ, but this further goes against the WP:NOTCOMPULSORY policy. There's a lot of supports here, which is commendable. I get that some feel they won't do something unless they are forced to or someone else holds them accountablie. We're human. My suggestion: Supporters above—and any other volunteers—add their name to a list, pledging to do extra reviews when necessary. If they are "caught" not following their commitment, the community can provide peer pressure, good-natured ribbing, etc. This is all non-binding, but in the spirit of a community holding volunteers accountable to their pledge.—Bagumba (talk) 03:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I think that’s a misapplied use of WP:NOTCOMPULSORY because DYK itself is not compulsory. Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything ever at DYK. It’s entirely voluntary. However, just like FA and GA, DYK comes with a certain set of requirements that one must accept if one wants to participate. If you don’t like it, you can do other things on Wikipedia because well it’s not compulsory to contribute to DYK.4meter4 (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This proposal makes DYK even more complicated than it already is. I'm not convinced there is a problem/backlog which needs to be solved, and adding more layers to the process will discourage participation. Flibirigit (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As per my last !vote. This is still (as noted by Flibirigit) a solution in search of a problem. There is no NEED for a "backlog" process this complex, as there is nothing in DYK that says a nomination will appear within a certain time frame. Literally there cant be a backlog if there is no timeframe to say we are running late on.--Kevmin § 17:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support (in case that's not obvious, not that we're just counting votes, but inevitably someone's gonna do that). EEng 19:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. per WP:NOTBURO. No, let me spell this out because clearly it needs repeating: WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A FUCKING BUREAUCRACY. Well, maybe DYK is sometimes, but that doesn't mean we should make it more of one. Seriously though, this is a core principle that some people want to throw out the window so that pages don't linger unreviewed for slightly longer. This is a terrible solution for a really minor problem and it's frustrating and borderline disruptive that it keeps coming back up even though it has been repeatedly rejected. I have to say that I think it would discourage a lot of long-term contributors (including myself) to participate in DYK. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
    It hasn't been repeatedly rejected. In fact the original proposal had overwhelming support except for the concern about the time rift between when a nomination is made and when the QPQ requirement is determined. This new proposal fixes that. EEng 00:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose making DYK more complicated to participate in. I don't like the idea of pushing more of the burden on those who contribute most to DYK already-- for instance, this would make me much less inclined to do other work around such as prep building- which I do on occasion. Also, too many rules makes things harder to do on a volunteer project. Finally, I don't like the multi-article loophole (either it's two per article-- i nominate a fair number of these, this would have been eight qpqs at once by itself-- or it's one extra, in which case bundling articles is a way to get out of doing extra qpqs) and I cant think of a good way of fixing it. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
    It's actually not complicated. One month out of the year, a small number of editors will be subject to this additional requirement, and they'll already know who they are; no one else is affected at all, or even needs to know about this.
    If someone wants to be a jerk by bundling two unrelated articles into one nomination, more power to them. EEng 00:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
    There's still a fair bit I don't understand about this proposal--how was the conclusion reached that it would be one month a year? What defines a backlog here? For that matter, as long as there are unreviewed nominations, what isn't a backlog? How will people be alerted that we are in 'backlog mode'? And there's still the issue that imo we shouldn't be adding weight to the biggest contributors, many of whom arguably keep the process running. There's nothing stopping those above who say it's no trouble at all to review more from holding themselves to review more than one QPQ without a hard-and-fast rule-- In fact, I might start holding myself to it. I just think a hard rule is too much. There's also the issue of uneven QPQs-- some take a lot of effort to review, others are simple ticks-- and that's what I'd argue is the main cause of the backlog, and this proposal doesn't really solve it. Finally, I disagree with they'll already know who they are -- I don't think you've gotten a significantly large group of those that this proposal will effect weighing in, and I'd imagine some will not be very happy to be informed of this new 'reward' for writing content. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The motive may be sound but it adds another element of complexity and seems to penalise those that have done the most, which seems counter-intuitive to me. I propose instead that those (such as EEng) who have spent the most of their free time working here for no pay, no recognition apart from the odd barnstar, and two words of criticism for every one of praise, should get free donuts each month for every extra DYK they do with no need to provide a QPQ at all. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
    And what about those who are diabetic, gluten-free, or battling high BMIs? Whence their salve and sustenance? EEng 12:07, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose... I would repeat comment by SusunW and Mike Peel. However, I would be happy to do a few extra if asked. Reviewing other articles has really helped me editing away from Wikipedia... many times it is actually enjoyable. But, for it to be imposed would discourage contribution. Whispyhistory (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Joseph2302 and Eddie891. Makes DYK more unnessarily complicated. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    In fact the proposal simplifies things considerably. The only new provision is part (c), which affects very few people. Everything else is the way DYK already works, just being set down clearly in one place for the first time; and, in fact, even that old stuff is much simplified by this proposal, by junking the old "credits" system (under which you don't know for sure whether a QPQ is needed until the time of main-page appearance -- weeks after making a nomination) for a simple count of nominations (determined at the time you make the nomination, so you know right off whether a QPQ is needed).
    People who say the proposal "makes things more complicated" are apparently just looking at the size of its text. EEng 20:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    it’s nice to be told what I looked at and what I didn’t. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    I said you "apparently" are just looking at the size of the text. If you're volunteering that you did indeed read the proposal, but don't understand how it compares to the current rules, I can accept that explanation as well. EEng 13:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    @EEng: Not at all. Introducing "unreviewed backlog mode" (which is still undefined) adds more complexity. And the proposed way of determining it is nebulous at best. You suggest determining it "after experience with how quickly the new requirement eats down the backlog, and how quickly the backlog grows back" Since you stated that the high- and low-water marks will be determine "after experience", who exactly gets to determine when the new requirement kicks in for the first time? —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    • unreviewed backlog mode" ... adds more complexity – Nothing could be simpler than high- and low-water marks. We'll need a later discussion to determine what those limits will be, but once that's done it can be automated.
    • who exactly gets to determine when the new requirement kicks in for the first time – It kicks in immediately, obviously. This whole thing started because Desertarun proposed a barnstar-driven backlog drive.
    EEng 13:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    "It kicks in immediately, obviously" – no, it's not obvious. The number of approved noms presently is 96. If it's reduced to <60 at the time this RFC is closed (i.e. number of sets is reduced to one a day), are you still going to call for "unreviewed backlog mode" to kick in? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    <Stares slack-jawed for several seconds, then snaps out of it> As Babbage once put it: "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." You're not only not in the ballpark, you're not even on the right planet. Desertarun or Schwede66, I'm on mobile so maybe you can enlighten our benighted colleague (if that's even possible). EEng 18:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    Discussing the details is presumptuous. I would prefer to wait for the outcome. Desertarun (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    Bloom6132 The point of this RfC is to reduce the number of nominations (currently 160) in the system so that the average time it takes from nominating to front page exposure isn't overly long. The number of nominations held has gradually risen over the years. The RfC intends to introduce a mechanism whereby this number can be actively managed. The RfC has nothing to do with the number of approved nominations; that's an entirely different process. Schwede66 18:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    I also dispute your repeated assertions this would affect "very few people". By what measure? Looking at Queue's 7-4, the most recent ones, this rule would apply to 5/8, 3/8, 6/9, 3/8, and 6/9 of those receiving credits. While this may not be an entirely representative sample, these are not insignificant percentages that suggest approximately half of DYK writers could be subject to double QPQs. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    Your data is irrelevant, because all it suggests is that about half of nominations come from a group of editors who each already have made many nominations; it says nothing at all about how many editors make up that prolific group. I believe Desurtarun worked out the statistics on how many editors are actually over the 20 line. (BTW, what your data also does is confirm that "unreviewed backlog modes" will be very brief, because there will be lots of double reviews being done in a short time.) EEng 13:22, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Temporary discussion closure
@Joseph2302: I definitely understand where you're coming from on that—my call was that there hasn't been a new !vote in almost three days, and while the oppose votes did pick up some momentum, it looks to have dwindled already. I don't think there are the !votes to throw the result into question, and I don't think they'll materialize after this lull—especially because it looks like every DYK heavyweight I've seen has already weighed in. (although this closure probably changes that) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:00, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, this has been open for only two weeks; RfCs at DYK are always open for at least 30 days. Please reverse your premature closure of this RfC, and let it run for the full period. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: i mean you gotta be impressed with my ability to predict the future on that one, i did know this was going to happen (/j)
it's reverted. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:RfC Rules say "There is no required minimum or maximum duration." There aren't any special DYK Rules regarding RFC. Desertarun (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
it is what it is theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
You could have left it closed - there would have been very little that could have been done to undo your close. Desertarun (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@Desertarun: i guess it is worth standing up for myself sometimes—i generally have all the spine of a sea slug. in retrospect, i shouldn't have reopened—it's just scary, y'know? everyone's been here so much longer than i have, and they sound quite authoritative. this has been open for only two weeks; RfCs at DYK are always open for at least 30 days. Please reverse your premature closure of this RfC, and let it run for the full period. Thank you. it's frightening theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Desertarun, with all due respect, you are still fairly new here, and past practice and consensus is that RfCs run for at least 30 days. Given that this is a significant change and the whole RfC effectively had a restart partway through, allowing the full traditional time is the best way for this to proceed. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: With all due respect don't pretend you can ignore RFC rules because you've been here a long time. You harassed this user into re-opening a perfectly good close. Please don't do that again in future. Desertarun (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Friends! Romans! Countrymen! Lend me your ears!
  • Friends! Romans! Countrymen! Do not quarrel! There's a difference between a close that enacts what is probably inevitable (even if the 8-opposes-out-of-most-recent-10 pattern continues, it would take another 25 votes before the opposes can even achieve parity with the supports -- not that we're counting votes, of course), and a close that makes the "losing side" (really not an image we should be employing, but whatever ...) feel that all voices were heard. And there's certainly no hurry, so no harm in waiting longer. EEng 20:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    "it would take another 25 votes before the opposes can even achieve parity with the supports" – wrong, the current count is 22–11 in favour of the proposal (so another 11, not the exagerrated 25 you claim). Also, this won't be closed as successful with just one vote more, because that's not how consensus is determined here. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    You have a bad habit of not reading what the other person said, and responding to not-what-they-said:
    • so another 11, not the exagerrated 25 you claim – What I said is that even if the 8-opposes-out-of-most-recent-10 pattern continues – the pattern you pointed to – it would take another 25 votes (under the count at the time I wrote). You've now shifted to the rather silly assumption that every single vote from now on will be an oppose. Make up your mind. (P.S. Oh look! Since I wrote that, two three out of three four new votes have been supports! At that rate, you'll never catch up! 13:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC))
    • this won't be closed as successful with just one vote more – It's you guys who have been citing vote counts. Make up your mind.
    EEng
  • Oppose. This adds complexity, and I'm not persuaded the backlog is dire enough to warrant it. We've been surviving alright enough for years with only one QPQ required. The urgent issue DYK faces is interestingness, not an overlong backlog. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - yes, it makes things more complicated, but only for experienced users, who are more able to handle the complexity. --GRuban (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - this is a very mild amount of "more complicated" and frankly "makes things more complicated" doesn't persuade me as a very good reason to oppose a change. Article writers can handle the "complication"; we're not children. This proposal is a good way to tackle the backlog, while actually ensuring that the system stays open for new editors and doesn't get overrun by regular contributors. That's a very good thing IMO. Levivich 12:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong fish and chips, with mushy peas. Like a good old-fashioned Irish referendum, it looks like this proposal will be asked again and again until we give the correct™ response. And our old buddy EEng, ably assisted by DYK stalwarts BlueMoonset and David Eppstein, seem to have persuaded the crowds that this tasty dinner is the one to order from the menu. I therefore see no reason to oppose the proposal if others like it. I don't submit that many DYKs myself, but when I do I'll be happy enough to do two QPQs. Why not? I might even find that the answer to "Did you know..." is sometimes in the negative, and therefore I'll learn a thing or two that I didn't know before. Consider me a support.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - Firstly, isn't there a danger this will encourage more sloppy, rubber-stamp type reviews than we already have? Secondly, this is likely to represent a substantial burden to those submitting multi-nomination hooks. Would it perhaps make more sense to require just one extra review per hook, rather than one per nominated article? Gatoclass (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: while this RfC has been ongoing, the number of unapproved nominations has been declining at a rapid rate thanks to extra reviews: we're down to 41 unapproved and 82 approved, a total of 123 nominations in all. At the moment, we don't have a significant unreviewed backlog. By contrast, at the point that EEng made his first proposal back on July 6, we had 320 nominations of which 120 were approved and an unapproved total of 200, and at the point that this RfC was started on August 4, there were 244 nominations of which 114 were approved and an unapproved total of 130. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, I noticed that too -- Hawthorne effect? This means that we wouldn't go straight in "unapproved backlog mode" after all, but wait until the backlog grows back -- to where, exactly, we still need to determine. As a stab in the dark[1] I'd say 150. Another thought is to just wait 12 months, and wherever the backlog grows to in that time, start with that as the high water mark, since we've been hoping that backlog mode will come around about once a year.
There's a very important, and subtle, point here that must not be overlooked. Reviewing drives and so on only make a permanent dent to the extent that reviewers forgo using their review credits to satisfy future QPQs. Each time someone does a review now to cut the backlog by 1, but then makes a nomination citing one of these recent reviews as their QPQ, that's one less review we get out of them at that point, the backlog grows back by 1, and we're back where we started. To the extent this happens the backlog hasn't actually been reduced -- it's just gone underground for a while, robbing Peter to pay Paul.[2] EEng 03:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
There would be no point in running a reviewing drive of the sort that GOCE and GAN do unless reviews submitted under the drive were not eligible for QPQ credit. So that's a non-issue, really: people who sign up do so knowing that their reviews will never be usable for QPQ. As for the people who have been doing extra reviews this summer, it's a small set of names who have done a great deal of work, and while they could conceivably use up some of these reviews for future nominations, my estimation is that the bulk will never be used for QPQ purposes. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
IIRC there was no mention of forgoing credit (for future QPQ purposes) in Desertarun's recent proposal for a backlog drive, which is what got me thinking about this. For myself, I'm still living off a stack of reviews I did during the George W. Bush administration. EEng 00:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Note: Not a threat to stab anyone. See WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1018#EEng_agression.
  2. ^ Note: Not an accusation that anyone's actually committing robbery.
  • Comment: How many active nominators currently have over 20 nomination credits, and how often would they be required to do two QPQs? Some of them are also regular reviewers and have reviews lying around no? How many people are we negatively impacting, by how much, and what's the total gain from it? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I agree with Sdkb that the backlog here isn't sufficiently elephantine to justify this measure. Indeed, we don't have a backlog problem at all when compared to AfC or CCI or CAT:NN or any number of far more important processes. This seems to be a solution in search of a problem. Regardless, it seems that trying a carrot (e.g. a backlog drive) would be preferable to this stick, particularly in light of the latter's complexity. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
    • "Solution in search of a problem" is a really difficult argument to swallow here, because, as noted above, when this RFC started, the backlog was 300-strong even though it's now lower (we can't time the RFC to only take place when there is a problem), and also because the proposal only kicks in when there is a backlog of a certain size, meaning that this will be a solution that is only implemented when there is a problem. Levivich 19:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - one potential issue is that if all the nominations quickly get approved, aren't we going to have the problem with the page being unable to display all the noms which we've had before? Or was that issue resolved? Gatoclass (talk) 05:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    Long before that happens the system automatically switches into 2 set/day mode to double to rate at which hooks appear on the main page. EEng 04:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose There are only 119 nominations awaiting approval and many of these already have reviews in progress. Having a 2:1 ratio risks overshoot and making it variable would be confusing. Best to keep it simple. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
    2:1 ratio of what? Overshoot what? Making what variable? As explained by Levivich a few posts up, the current number of unreviewed noms, at the time we happen to be considering this proposal, is irrelevant.
    We're at 30 days so time to close this. My apologies for being MIA recently but I have a critical project that demands 100% of my time, and that will continue for a while. EEng 04:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    Oh, come on. A 2:1 ratio of QPQs to nominations has been a hallmark of this proposal since the beginning, there has always been a risk that we'll deplete the available unreviewed nominations before we can end the 2:1 requirement period, and there is certain to be some confusion whenever we vary between 2:1 and 1:1. You may disagree with him, but his concerns are both valid and understandable. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    Really and truly and actually, I had no idea what he was talking about, because he started out talking about the # of noms awaiting approval, so I thought he meant the ratio of unapproved:approved, or something like that. Overshooting is impossible since a nominator will be told, at the time of making the nomination, whether 1 or 2 will be required, and that will automatically revert (if we're in 2 mode) to 1 the moment the number of unreviewed noms drops below some pretermined point. EEng 17:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    Either you're failing to account for the (perhaps large) number of 2 mode nominations in process that still need two QPQs (which could well cause an overshoot), or you're allowing someone who stalls on doing their second QPQ to be suddenly relieved of the necessity if 2 mode switches to 1 mode between the time they nominate during 2 mode and the reversion to 1 mode. Doesn't seem fair to those others who did their two QPQs promptly... But you seem to think that the mode changes will be smooth. Recalling the days and sometimes weeks it took to convince people to swap from one set a day to two sets (and back again) before we decided on hard and fast numbers for the switch points (as you well know, this proposal has no predetermined points, and may not for quite some time), I think you're wrong that "overshooting is impossible": it may well take an overshoot to get folks to agree that it's time to flip the switch from 2 mode to 1 mode. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please, will some kind person close this now???
Take 2 at closing take 2. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:36, 11 September 2021 (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.

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago; this new list includes all 20 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 6. We currently have a total of 174 nominations, of which 92 have been approved, a gap of 82, up a steep 24 in the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Queue 1

I noticed that MindaRyn is scheduled to go up at 12:00 UTC on September 23. Is it okay if it could be moved to the morning set instead? She's from Thailand, so the time her hook will go up would be evening over there (as well as in most of Asia), so perhaps it would be more appropriate for her hook to go up when it's daytime in Asia. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:50, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

BLP and hooks

i won't use the hook.

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.


Would writing a hook from the assault section of Zach Fansler be a BLP violation? He pled guilty to the assault, and the article itself is (in my opinion) neutral. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I personally find it a bit distasteful to air people's dirty laundry on the main page, regardless of any policy implications. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
the same's been nagging at me, honestly. for me, the interesting part was much more the quirkiness of "an elected official blaming it on kink" than the "it" itself, although there's no real way to convey that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:HOOK: Articles and hooks which focus on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided.—Bagumba (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2021 (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.

The image that was in Prep 4 was not acceptable. The image page has "Source" listed as "Own work", but, as usual, that applies to the photograph but not the artwork depicted in the photo. According to Commons:Template:NoFoP-Indonesia (which I've added to the file), "There are no freedom of panorama exceptions of any kind", and such images may only be included "with fair use-style conditions". Juxlos, the image will be deleted from Commons; you may make a local copy with a fair use rationale and include it in the article, but it can't be featured on the Main Page. I've removed the image from Prep, and a new image hook will have to be found. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

That's on me; i'll find a replacement theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 Done theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Prep 3: Shadow docket

@Sdrqaz, Jaydavidmartin, Szmenderowiecki, and Theleekycauldron: In this hook we're currently unintuitively linking presidents' names to articles about their administrations, which is best avoided (see MOS:EGG). We could either relink the names to target instead the presidents' biographies (e.g. "Trump"), or else expand the link texts to be intuitive (e.g. "the Trump administration"). I think the latter seems like a better option, since it's the administrations that won the requests rather than the presidents themselves. Would either of these options work? — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that it's a case of Easter egging (I would've thought it wouldn't be a terrible surprise that a link to a president's name would go to the article about their presidency), and I don't know why you've moved the "per year" from the end to the middle (I had kept it at the end because the comparison with Bush and Obama was more important in my opinion). If the links are to change, I would rather they change to their "personal" articles (yes, I am aware they don't own them) as it would keep it to the point. However, my first preference is to keep the hook "as is" from the nomination. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sdrqaz: My justification for moving "per year" was to give it more visual adjacency to the fact in question: the correct statistic is "28 times more per year", not "28 times more" simpliciter, and moving the phrase as I did would better avoid potential misinterpretation in this regard, I think. I'd of course be happy to revert this change if necessary. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 18:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
It's not a very long hook, so I'm not sure the visual adjacency is necessary. My concern is over the "hookiness" in the changed hook. Theleekycauldron, in your experience does having the clickbaity elements (in this case Bush and Obama) at the end of the hook or in the middle help? If the regulars (not me) think that it's better at the end, then I'm fine with it. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@Sdrqaz: In my opinion, putting Bush and Obama in the middle might actually harm its hookiness. Trump is hooky enough, and so is "shadow docket"—if we can get them to read that, we've reeled them in. Putting Bush and Obama right after might serve as a distraction, or get them to click on those instead. We want to direct users to your article, and the hope for this hook is that they read "... that Trump won 28 times more..." which gets them angry or mollified or interested, reading either way, and then reading "shadow docket requests" and thinking "wait, what's the shadow docket"? If we put "bush and obama" right after, it's not going to attract more attention from people who weren't reading the hook anyway, but it is going to distract a few people who click on Bush or Obama instead of your article. Of course, this is all just interpretation. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. In that case, would it be better to unlink Obama and Bush (replacing "Bush" with "Bush Jr")? Sdrqaz (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
If it were just about hookiness, I'd say yeah—but I think we usually allow for the idea that some reader might not know who Bush or Obama are, at least not colloquially. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I see no reasons for change, either. You could argue for "that the Trump administration won 28 times more shadow docket requests than these of Obama and Bush" but TBH it's fine as is. It's implicit that it's not about any of the three presidents in their personal capacities, therefore it must have been as part of their duties or the duties of their administration. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to keep the character count as low as possible, so I don't think we should expand the hook visually. If you guys decide you want to change the link targets, that's fine by me. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should probably change the links to point to the people rather than the presidencies then, per the point made by Ravenpuff.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Prep 4 hook too long

Pinging nominator Cat's Tuxedo, reviewer Favre1fan93, and promoter Cwmhiraeth.

This hook is 232 prose characters, far above the maximum. Would it be best to try to shorten the hook to get it below 200, or is the ALT1 hook a good alternative:

  • ALT1 ... that the music of the video game Rings of Power was composed by a first-year medical student?

Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I'm leaning toward going with something similar to what I had to begin with, like "...that Andy Gavin used white noise patterns on his dorm room's television as an aid for programming Rings of Power?" The clarification as to what causes the white noise doesn't seem all that necessary to me, and it would entice readers' curiosity more anyway. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 04:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I personally think ALT1 is a better hook. The white noise hook is a little niche, while ALT1 is more snappy and quirky. I mean, it's not every day you see a medical student composing music. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
I have swapped the hook in prep with ALT1, which is interesting but less technical. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm alright with that. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK post tool doesn't like URLs

In my "More" menu I have a tool called "DYK-helper". It has a bug... well two because the tool's UI does not contain a link to the page to report bugs. I tried Google, but that only lists a template page for the documentation, which is completely blank, while over on the Commons I get a page of instructions with no talk. Can someone point me in the right direction to the place to report issues? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Try User talk:SD0001? Shubinator (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Time to return to two sets per day

There are 121 approved nomination as of now. Returning to two sets per day should be done as soon as possible after midnight. Flibirigit (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

That was fast. Only been two weeks since we switched to one. Pamzeis (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Fast, but not atypical: the last one-per-day period lasted 17 days, and the one before it 14 days like this one. Although this time we were unlucky in that there was a massive influx of GAs thanks to reviewing for the WikiCup: great for reducing the number of unreviewed GANs, but it added about 35 new-GA DYK noms in the first few days of September.
I've just swapped one of the two affected special occasion hooks, and the second will need to be placed back into the special occasions section because the preps will only go out to September 23 after the change, and this one shouldn't run until September 26.
PInging admins Amakuru, Maile, Cas Liber, valereee, Cwmhiraeth, ONUnicorn, Schwede66, Wugapodes, Gatoclass and Lee Vilenski, in the hopes that one of you can update User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200 in the next few hours (and definitely before 12:00 UTC), and that some of the rest of you can promote preps to queues, since we have a backlog that's about to go down twice as fast and all of the preps are full. Thank you all very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll refill the prep sets theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Hold on to your hats everybody, this is going to be a bumpy ride!  — Amakuru (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
because i was getting so much sleep before theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm a little more active these days, I'll try to do a few more promotions, though I think I still don't have time to fill prep sets...Vanamonde (Talk) 19:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Attention needed to lead article in next queue

Hi all, I was looking through the next queue and noticed some issues with the lead article Monika Salzer. I've fixed some translation, spelling and grammar issues (though one translation needed remains, which I've tagged) but there is uncited content. The uncited material doesn't look to be controversial but this is a BLP and it currently falls short of the DYK requirements. Pinging nominator and reviewer to see if they can help out in the 7 hours before this is due on the main page: Gerda Arendt, Paul_012 - Dumelow (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The two tagged paragraphs in the body appear to come from her CV (hosted on her personal website), which should be fine here per WP:ABOUTSELF, and I've added it. I'll defer to Gerda Arendt to clarify the tagged statement in the lead, but otherwise I think it can be safely modified to follow the body. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Just reading what is tagged, which is in the lead where it mentions the Protestant Church of the Augsburg Confession in Austria. Only Gerda can answer this, but it looks like that might be Gerda's summary of the third paragraph. Either way, maybe Gerda can clarify. — Maile (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I was out. It's in the body, but said there just "church" to not repeat the clumsy name of "her" church", but well, I repeated the clumsy name now now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Jim Lovell

Template:Did you know nominations/Leland Kirkemo is currently in the approved queue, but Jim Lovell recently passed GA, so I have added it to the nomination, with a second QPQ. The wording of the approved hook is unchanged. I didn't want to move it back myself, but if someone wants to double-check it, and claim a QPQ, that would be fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

looks fine to me! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

To current prep set promoters

@SL93 and Cwmhiraeth: by my count, we're currently at 46 U.S.-related hooks in an approved section with 91 noms. Pretty much every prep set should contain four U.S. hooks, because that ratio should probably come down from 4:8 to around 3.5:8 or so. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we worry a bit too much about this balance thing. Let the chips fall where they may. EEng 14:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
i don't care so much, but it's when it's above 4:8 that worries me. That can easily get out of control. Anyways, we're back to around 3.1:8 now, so it's fine. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:00, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Prep 4: John Rudzinski

@PCN02WPS, Kingoflettuce, and Theleekycauldron: This hook has two links in a row with Air Force defensive coordinator – could we find a way to rephrase/relink this hook slightly to avoid doing so? Also, linking "Air Force" to Air Force Falcons football seems rather unintuitive, as it isn't obvious that this links to a football team (especially to a reader unfamiliar with "defensive coordinators"). — RAVENPVFF · talk · 22:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

... that defensive coordinator for the Air Force Falcons John Rudzinski coached...?
... that John Rudzinski coached...?
... that defensive coordinator John Rudzinski coached...?
just suggestions theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
... that John Rudzinski, defensive coordinator for the Air Force Falcons, coached... ?
Or perhaps even more explicit:
... that John Rudzinski, defensive coordinator for the Air Force Falcons football team, coached... ?
I think both of those flow well and clear up the confusion from the original hook, do you think one of those would work? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
pinging Ravenpuff and Kingoflettuce as well. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, that makes the full hook:
... that John Rudzinski, defensive coordinator for the Air Force Falcons football team, coached for a high school in Charleston, South Carolina, while stationed at Charleston Air Force Base?
That is in character count, but it's a little too comma-y, at four commas. How about:
... that John Rudzinski, defensive coordinator for the Air Force Falcons football team, coached for a high school while stationed at Charleston Air Force Base?
We can cut even more, by the way:
... that John Rudzinski coached high school football while stationed at Charleston Air Force Base?
I actually like that last one the best—it's much snappier, and it doesn't tell the whole story (leaving readers interested to click on it, and not one of the other links). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem like his being defensive coordinator is essential to understanding the lead. I'd suggest:
... that Air Force football coach John Rudzinski coached ...
—Bagumba (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron, your last hook is fine by me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be good to avoid "coach"..."coached", as in the last suggestion. I'm not sure we want to drop the Falcons; people who coached high school football while in the Air Force don't sound all that special. How about the following slight variation to theleekycauldron's second-to-last proposal:
I'm good with that mashup, yeah theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron and BlueMoonset: sounds good to me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Current set: Arthur Linz

Original hook:

  • ... that American chemist Arthur Linz specialized in molybdenum, an element with so many uses that it was once described as "ambidextrous, bi-sexual and polygamous"?

Hi @Philafrenzy, Cwmhiraeth, Theleekycauldron, and Maile66: just a heads up that it was raised at WP:ERRORS that the hook above seems an odd one, because the fact mentioned is not about Linz at all, it is a comment made by somebody else about the chemical element, with no reference to Linz. Given that there was an alternative hook approved:

  • ... that in their book about molybdenum, American chemists Arthur Linz and David H. Killeffer complained that previous works included the true and the false, the probable and the fantastic?

I decided to be WP:BOLD and change it to that, which is actually about something Linz said rather than someone else. Hopefully this will be OK with you guys, but do let me know if it's not. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

He did cite that quote approvingly I think in the introduction to his book as reflecting the element's many uses for which he was an advocate, so it does reflect his views. Did you check the source? Philafrenzy (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
No, I didn't, but I don't really think I needed to read the source: for it to be relevant to Linz this nugget of information would have to be included in the article. And if furthermore, if we are to say that Linz shares the "ambidextrous, bi-sexual and polygamous" opinion, I'd think that should be derived from a secondary source, not just inferring things from what he wrote in the intro do his book. Also pinging in Stephen who spotted this issue in the first place. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I've seen this argument about hooks before. Is there relevant guidance written about how closely related a hook must be to the bolded title i.e. what facts, even if relevant and stated in the article, are still not suitable for a hook?—Bagumba (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Here, the hooky part was about molybdenum, not Linz, I don't think it's that hard to judge. Kingsif (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
yeah, i didn't notice the disjoint—i support the change. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's that hard to judge: Still it made it to the MP, went to ERRORS, and now here. Ok.—Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

International Women's Day

There seems to have been a time, at least in the past, when DYK ran quite a few women's bios on International Women's Day. Is this still a thing, and if not, can we bring it back? Also, was it just that all the bios were women, or that all of the hooks were women's bios/related to women? The second seems preferable to me. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

It was the second- had some bios and some other articles related to women. On 2021 IWD, we had almost two whole sets of women hooks (the counter is out by 1 set, so the one's it shows as 9 March am and 8 March pm were actually both on 8 March), and on 2020 IWD, we had one complete set that ran for 24 hours (again, the archive wrongly shows this as being on 9 March). These nominations usually follow the normal date request process, which is to be nominated approximately 1-6 weeks in advance (which wouldn't be until mid-January 2022, as IWD 2022 is 8 March 2022). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
When is International Men's Day? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: 19 November. Pamzeis (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
please tell me we're not going to do that? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Probably not, but there's no policy-based reason why we shouldn't. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems perfectly reasonable and fair to me! If we're going to do Women's Day, it's only right we do Men's Day too! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: copy that! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Seriously, IWD is in March. It's September. A good target would be Oct 12th when it is Ada Lovelace Day which celebrates Women in STEM... and there is no article for that day which would be a good start. If we start writing now then we could have a set. Women in Red will be running a 24 hour editathon at places from NZ to Manchester to celebrate the day. Victuallers (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Late to this: IWD is on 8 March, DYK has observed it every year that I remember, and regarding the archiving: by the archive date being when archived not when loaded, it's the following day in many cases, and when sets sit for 24-hours, it's always the following day. That is not wrong, you just have to know. Today is International Peace Day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago; this new list includes all 23 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 14. We currently have a total of 186 nominations, of which 95 have been approved, a gap of 91, up 9 in the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Why (Yoko Ono song)

Could someone promote the nomination to P2 in the trailing hook slot? I'm the reviewer, so I can't promote, but it's quirky and ALT4 should go in slot 8. Thanks theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

if you put in the trailing slot of p3, that's also fine theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron, that ended up with a great hook! I've promoted it to P2. Schwede66 23:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I thought so too! Credit to Rlendog on that one. Thanks for the help! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Is a photo of a sculpture really the sole property of the photographer? I thought we had a similar problem with that photocopier monument from Atar. I'm not quite sure the image is free for us to use. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I’ve added the Dutch Freedom of panorama template to the Commons file. It’s ok to use the photo. Schwede66 19:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think so. Both the template you added and Commons:Commons:FOP Netherlands state that Dutch FOP applies to drawings and paintings but not to photographs. Because this is a photograph, it is not covered by FOP. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC) I guess this applies to public art in photographic form, not to photos of public art; sorry for the confusion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy ping to editor Husky who is the photographer who shot the image for more information. Netherzone (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
(ec) I think it's okay. The photo was taken by a user who would own the rights, and published it with an appropriate license regarding the photo. I think the Commons info is referring to photos as the objects being reproduced, so one couldn't use a photo of a photo. (Disclaimer: I'm no expert; it's just my interpretation.) Thank you, Theleekycauldron for noticing the incomplete licensing, and Schwede for fixing it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Original photographer here. Yeah, this is definitely covered by Dutch FOP. The Commons template is not complete, the mentioned paragraph specifically mentions 'photographic works' as well. Also, if this would be an issue i doubt we could have organised more than ten editions of Wiki Loves Monuments in the Netherlands. Husky (talk page) 21:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks go out to all for checking on this. Netherzone (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

If you aren't sure what Freedom of panorama is but would like to know more, please have a read on Commons. Schwede66 23:28, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I've promoted the nom—thanks to everyone for the prompt responses! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:48, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Queue 7: Wu Dao

  • ... that Wu Dao has ten times as many parameters as GPT-3?

It is not clear from the hook or the article what is meant by a "parameter" in this hook. I'm not particularly familiar with AI, so perhaps this is a piece of terminology specific to that domain (I'm aware of Parameter (computer programming), but that's more to do with human-generated code, and the numbers tend to be of order 1 or 2, not billions!). For this hook to make sense, there needs to be some sort of explanation in the prose as to what this means, and also a link to some relevant article on the subject, if there is one. Pinging @JPxG, TheSandDoctor, and Theleekycauldron: as nominator/reviewer/promoter. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: this was gnawing at me too. I don't have the bandwidth at the moment to make the fixes, but this should get corrected before the article hits the main page. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: 9 more minutes until then. SL93 (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
excuse me??? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
all right, I'm on it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
I did my best with it. I paraphrased an explanation from the provided source, stuck it in between dashes. This place really is gum and wire. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: thanks for doing this at such short notice, and sorry I should have circled back to this and checked if it was resolved before posting time, swapping out the hook if necessary to give people more time. I'll try to do that every time going forward, to avoid putting last-minute pressure on anyone like this. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
not a problem! although hopefully we do catch these sooner next time :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Painting title

HMS Caroline off Shakespeare Head, by Thomas Buttersworth

In the prep 4 caption, should "HMS Caroline of Shakespeare Head" be completely italicized as a painting title? If so, then why is the "HMS" missing where the painting appears in the article infobox? If not, then why does the word "by" imply that the painting title has been used? Art LaPella (talk) 04:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Art LaPella: the italicization seems to be consistent with the actual name of the painting and the general convention of ship naming, as far as i know theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
What actual name? Does that mean the painting's title is "HMS Caroline"? The caption suggests it's "HMS Caroline off Shakespeare Head", so it should ideally be HMS Caroline off Shakespeare Head (double italicization is often shown as unitalicization). Or else HMS Caroline off Shakespeare Head. If the title is "HMS Caroline off Shakespeare Head", MOS:ITALICS: "Italics should be used for the following types of names and titles ... paintings ..." Art LaPella (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
oh, you're right—it should be HMS Caroline off Shakespeare Head theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
resolved Art LaPella (talk) 05:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • FTR, Chicago MoS, 8.171: Any term within an italicized title that would itself be italicized in running text—such as a foreign word, a genus name, or the name of a ship—should be set in roman type (reverse italics). A title of a work within a title, however, should remain in italics and be enclosed in quotation marks.. 14.103: When terms normally italicized in running text, such as species names or names of ships or foreign words (but not titles of works; see 14.102), appear within an italicized title, they are set roman (“reverse italics”; see 8.171). When, however, such a term makes up the entire title, it should be italicized. EEng 14:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Nominations I can't promote

I don't like asking this, but there are 20–22 nominations on the Approved page (out of 78) that i can't promote, some of them highest on the page due to the amount of time they've gone unpromoted. They're in reverse chronological order—could someone promote a few when there's an open prep set? Thanks so much, theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  1. Template:Did you know nominations/Ni Yulan
  2. Template:Did you know nominations/Division of Industrial Hygiene?
  3. Template:Did you know nominations/Architextiles
  4. Template:Did you know nominations/Wedding of Princess Elizabeth and Frederick V of the Palatinate?
  5. Template:Did you know nominations/Kirovs Lipmans
  6. Template:Did you know nominations/William M. King
  7. Template:Did you know nominations/Leland Kirkemo
  8. Template:Did you know nominations/Squares (crisps)
  9. Template:Did you know nominations/Salu (cloth)
  10. Template:Did you know nominations/Nicolas Mahler
  11. Template:Did you know nominations/Karl-Heinz Petzinka
  12. Template:Did you know nominations/André Kisase Ngandu
  13. Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas Foxcroft (slave trader)
  14. Template:Did you know nominations/Mondeghili
  15. Template:Did you know nominations/Show Me the Father
  16. Template:Did you know nominations/Komm, Herr, segne uns
  17. Template:Did you know nominations/Science Fiction Awards Database
  18. Template:Did you know nominations/Anne Wyllie
  19. Template:Did you know nominations/Community Banana Stand
  20. Template:Did you know nominations/Relocation of the United States Government to Trenton
  21. Template:Did you know nominations/Erynn Chambers
  22. Template:Did you know nominations/John Oliver Memorial Sewer Plant
OK, I will build a set. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
i really appreciate it, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I've promoted a couple, just move them if you don't like the slots etc. Desertarun (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
no, that's perfect thanks theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:05, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Just remember, we still have an unusually small proportion of bios to non-bios: prep sets should be held to two bios until the ratio improves. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
I thought I was still keeping to that, no? i'll go check theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
You were, but not those promoting from this list. I thought a reminder wouldn't go amiss for them. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
ah, i gotcha. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Shortage of bio hooks

as of this posting, i count 18 bio hooks, out of roughly 90. Of those 18, I can promote probably half, so don't mind if there's, like, only 1–2 bio hooks in every prep set. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Double hook with two nominations that were independently approved

I have a little dilemma with Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen Sondheim Theatre and Template:Did you know nominations/Bank of America Tower (Manhattan). Basically, the only hook approved in the Stephen Sondheim Theatre nomination is a hook where Stephen Sondheim Theatre is bolded, but Bank of America Tower (Manhattan) is also linked. The theatre nom was approved by Gerda Arendt. The hook is "... that the historic facade of Henry Miller's Theatre (pictured) is preserved at the base of the Bank of America Tower, while the theater's interior was rebuilt underground?"

The Bank of America Tower nomination has several approved hooks, but these don't include the double hook that I mentioned, with both the theatre and tower linked. That nom was approved by Panini!, who has also indicated support for the double hook in the theatre nomination, but didn't officially review that hook.

Is it possible to just run the hook that was approved for the Stephen Sondheim Theatre article, bolding the Bank of America Tower link in that hook (and discarding the other hooks in the tower nomination)? Or can this not be done? – Epicgenius (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Reviews consist of three parts, article, hook, and other (QPQ/Image). If both reviews have approved the articles, that part is fine, and both will also have checked QPQ and Images separately. That leaves the hook, and if Gerda Arendt has approved the hook in question without the bolding, I don't think the bolding changes that hook. As neither has been promoted, I think there is no issue with closing Template:Did you know nominations/Bank of America Tower (Manhattan) with a note that it is being combined, post passing, with Template:Did you know nominations/Stephen Sondheim Theatre. CMD (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
It is approved bolded in the theatre review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

s.o. hook that should be in queue

@Amakuru and Cwmhiraeth: could one of you please take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Crash Bandicoot 4: It's About Time? We might be able to salvage something of the special occasion date request (oct. 2, in the u.s.) if it goes into q7 before the next swap in 17 or so hours. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

fixed anvil temperature hypothesis

there's an open slot in p2—would someone mind promoting Template:Did you know nominations/Fixed anvil temperature hypothesis? I feel bad, it's been like three months today theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

thanks, cwmhiraeth :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Prep 1 - Thomas Parr (slave trader)

This is in the Prep 1 quirky hook:

@Acad Ronin and Desertarun: I never heard of Thomas Parr, but maybe he's a known name in England. Given the slot, I wonder if it might be more hooky this way:

Comment honestly, i like ALT0 better—it tells less of the story, which leaves more room to click on Parr for why Darwin might have called him that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I too like ALT0 better.Acad Ronin (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment: More will know Darwin than Parr in the UK. I see nothing wrong with ALT0 for the same reason as Theleekycauldron. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment. I too prefer ALT0. Desertarun (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

we're below 60!

my thanks to User:Maile66 for clearing six preps at once—quite helpful! We're at 59 approved hooks at the moment. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:31, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Doing the move as of midnight 27 September 2021

I've just checked, and the lead hook in in Queue 7 is a special occasion hook that needs to be promoted at 12:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC), so we cannot delay that promotion. Maile, as it is the moment that we drop below 60 that is supposed to trigger the change, we should go ahead with it even if we have climbed back above 60 in the interim.

So, if one of the pinged admins is around a bit under 19 hours from now, after the promotion of Queue 1 to the main page is completed a few minutes after 00:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC), that will be the time to edit User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates to be 86400, up from 43200 where it is now. Please do not do it sooner! Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Are we doing the move to one set per day? If it's not done in the next 36 minutes, then a new set will be on the front page. Pinging admins: @Maile66, Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, Casliber, and Valereee. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Hang on, isn't @BlueMoonset: saying do it AFTER 36 minutes' time? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think so. They said after 00:00 on the 27th. I've have done the change, but can undo if I've made a mistake!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Amakuru. You did the change just in time. Thanks also to Joseph2302 for making sure this got done in time, so we didn't have to wait another day. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Admin needed to promote special occasion hook to Queue 7

The 2021 London Marathon special occasion hook needs to run on October 3, which would put it in Queue 7. Can an admin please arrange to swap out a hook to make room for it (possibly even the lead hook)? Joseph2302, are there any updates needed now that the marathon is almost upon us? Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I believe the hooks are all still correct, they're definitely still aiming for 50k of runners. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Queue 4

Nothing wrong with the hook, but I guess this nomination was approved for October 1, Jimmy Carter's 97th birthday! Being currently in Prep 4 means that it would be on the main page on 28 September (08:00 New York). I guess, shifting it two days later to the appropriate slot for October 1 wouldn't cause any harm. (Full declaration: I reviewed the GA nomination of this article) Ping for @Theleekycauldron (promoter) and @Maile66 (admin). Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe we're changing from 12hr hooks to 24hr hooks, according to #we're below 60!, so believe this in correct slot after that change is made after midnight (UTC). Joseph2302 (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
If that's the case, then it's completely fine.... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
And if UFOs take people to a paradise of rest and serenity, then no one deserves that more than Jimmy Carter. EEng 19:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
god bless theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Admin needed for swapping the special occasion hooks

The above mentioned Jimmy Carter hook is in Queue 4 (30 September to 1 October UTC), which needs to be moved to Queue 5 (1 October to 2 October UTC) to be on main page on October 1. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, and Casliber: any chance someone could fix this before it goes to the mp? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 Done. As an aside, didn't we have a hook about someone seeing a UFO just a few days ago? I do recall that because someone complained about it!  — Amakuru (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
we here at dyk are the most trusted information source on UFOs, of course. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Contractions and DYK

I think we're applying MOS:CONTRACTION a little too broadly. I'll bring up this hook as an issue:

  • ... that Richard Osman wrote that Squares were invented because scientists were concerned that children were not hurting the roofs of their mouths as often as they should be?

This hook isn't flawless, but I dislike the fact that "weren't" was changed to "were not". It's a statement from a comedian, why can't we let it flow a bit better? I think this is one of the those times where WP:IAR trumps the MOS, because we're not writing a full article here. I'll ping Ravenpuff because I brought up their edit, but this isn't about this specific hook, it's about the practice in general—this isn't the first time this has come up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Fair enough, I've reverted the edit – that said, I think we could easily add quotation marks to this hook, which would sidestep the MOS issue in this case. I'll leave the more broader discussion for now. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
yeah, we usually get out of it by sidestep, but I figured this might be something worth setting a precedent over. thanks for the quick feedback, by the way theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It's a myth that contractions are absolutely forbidden in formal writing. (Probably the only place that's literally true is in the law.) It's incredible that anyone thinks that amid all the loosey-goosey stuff DYK puts out, somehow contractions will tarnish our image of aristocratic gentility. EEng 05:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    in about a week, we're running a hook outlining a story in which a comedian tells a quaint connecticut town to eat his ass, to which the town responds by naming their sewage plant after him. if we think we're on any kind of superior moral plane if we don't use contractions, we're all on drugs. absolutely no shade to anyone, it's a genuinely a general note theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    That's my kind of hook! Maybe people think that by not running hooks with contractions, we're salvaging what little dignity we have left. EEng 22:00, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Prep 7: Mondeghili

@Cwmhiraeth (i spelled it correctly on the first try, hell yeah): I'm not sure the image in P4 is freely licensed. Alex2006 added it, but we never got confirmation on the source of the image (it's not alex's work and the image doesn't provide any proof of its licensing status). We were waiting on a response from the uploader—do you have other evidence that the image is freely licensed? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I do not know about the licensing, do what you like about the hook. (My name is perfectly simple! "w" is a vowel equivalent to "oo" in the Welsh language, so "Cwm" = "Coombe", a steep sided valley, and "hiraeth" means a nostalgia or longing for the mother country, not really applicable to me as I already live in the depths of rural Wales.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: My mistake, it was p7, not p4. I think the best thing to do is to unpromote (we're a bit short on space in the prep sets, so there's not much room to move it) for now, and we'll repromote in a few days, with or without the image. (also, thanks for the explanation of your username! that's so cool—would it be pronounced like this?) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Hallo @Theleekycauldron: & @Cwmhiraeth: (great name, BTW: after 11 years finally I know what it means :-)) the copyright problem is solved. The picture of the meatballs is the cook's work, but unfortunately her computer skills are not equal to her gastronomic ones, :-) so she asked a friend to upload her files on commons without giving him a written and explicit permission. Hence the problem. I immediately contacted the latter, and as they are both from Milan, therefore very fast and efficient (unlike us Romans :-( ), they solved the problem this morning. The cook sent an email (according to the template) to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, then she inserted the Template:OTRS pending on the Commons page of the meatballs, and finally also created a decent user page on commons itself. So the meatballs are now safe! Alex2006 (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
excellent! we should be good to go, although I would request that the hook i offered be considered before promotion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I've left the image slot in p7 open for ya theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 Done. ALT3 would need to be reviewed before being used. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Inglis Bridge, Monmouth

With apologies, I have made a complete hash of an attempt to nominate this new article, Inglis Bridge, Monmouth. Sorry for messing the process up. KJP1 (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

The nom in question is Template:Did you know nominations/Inglis Bridge, Monmouth. I had a look, and cannot figure out what's wrong with it. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
There are few error messages like "<Inglis Bridge, Monmouth>" is not a valid article name; check for bad characters, "<KJP1>" is not a valid user name; check for bad characters. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, but unfortunately I’m not able to amend it, although I have tried. The article is Inglis Bridge, Monmouth and the nominator is me. If someone is able to correct it, I would be most grateful. KJP1 (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@KJP1 – Is it fixed now? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
It looks to be fixed on the nomination page, here, Template:Did you know nominations/Inglis Bridge, Monmouth but not on the Template talk: Did you know page. Many thanks for your help, and sorry for making a mess - and work. KJP1 (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
It should be fine now, as I just purged the Template talk: Did you know page. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
And so it is! Thank you very much indeed for your help. KJP1 (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

prep set 0

i'm not making this a formal rfc (i have learned from the "gordian knot" fiasco of the previous post-rfc), but I wanted to gauge rough consensus on a small idea I've been turning over in my head. Basically, it doesn't make any sense to leave the last prep set blank. It's not a huge deal, but like, it's a "i paid for the whole prep set, i'mma use the whole prep set" kind of deal. So there should be a prep set 0, in a separate heading under all the other ones. It would have a minimum size of 4, but can expand as much as needed. It would be basically for storing hooks when they have to be booted out of their set in an emergency. Prep set 0 (we could also call it A, to emphasize that it's different, or E, for emergencies, or whatever) wouldn't rotate with prep sets 1–7, it'd be under a separate heading in T:DYK/Q. I don't really enjoy keeping an entire prep set open for rare emergencies—let's make a dedicated place for when we have to boot hooks from queues. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

prep set 0 hooks would get priority over hooks in WP:DYKNA, of course, although there would probably be situations where not every hook in prep set 0 can be promoted into a new prep set all at once. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
This suggestion complicates the DYK process rather than simplify it. There is nothing wrong with the current practice of leaving one prep mostly empty, nor is there anything wrong with returning a nomination back to DYKNA and then promoting it again when needed. Flibirigit (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Flibirigit that this just adds complication, and we can leave a prep open for this purpose (when we're doing 1 set a day, all preps filled means we're setting preps 14 days in advance, so lots of time to change). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Also, there is no stigma to unpromoting a nomination if it is imperative to promote another one into that particular prep set and there are no empty prep slots available anywhere. It's simple enough to do, and doesn't add the complexity of having to remember to check one other place for nominations. The final prep set doesn't have to be left partially empty, though having a couple of slots unfilled can be useful. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearance of Lauren Cho

@Amakuru and Cwmhiraeth: could one of you promote this nom into the highest queue possible? It's based on the Gabby Petito story, so if we run it in a week, we're going to look like out of touch doofuses. We should probably run it as soon as possible, while it's still kind of current. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Maile, too theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
I frankly don't see the need for a rush or other special treatment. People will remember who Gabby Petito is in a week or three, and if anyone is silly enough to think of us as "doofuses", that's on them. Please promote to prep, not queue, and as part of creating a new prep when it fits, not displacing a hook in an already established set. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
aight, suit yourself. my thing was, petito's story is trendy, and people tend not to care about trends three weeks later. sure, they'll remember, but the internet has an annoyingly short memory. anyways, doesn't matter theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Jacob Wohl

A separate user approved ALTs 1 and 2.

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'm a little stuck on this nomination; the article is pretty negative, so is the hook, but so are all of the sources. The rules say that Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided, but this doesn't seem to be undue. To complicate things, WP:HOOK doesn't include "undue", and so by WP:HOOK, this nomination shouldn't be approved, but by the Onepage and other rulesets, it might be fine. I went looking for precedent, but I couldn't find anything super helpful—what's the call here? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the nominator has proposed ALT3 which seems pretty neutral to me, so that may work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:50, 5 October 2021 (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 bot is down

The bot seems to be down, and Shubinator has been notified.— Maile (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Maile66, Casliber, Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, Valereee, and Victuallers: we're overdue for the update, could someone push it out? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

aight, someone got it. bot's still down, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
I suppose this is due to it getting into an edit conflict when it did yesterday's update.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot is back online! And yes, the edit conflict took down the bot. Shubinator (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to Hog Farm for manually doing the update for us. — Maile (talk) 10:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

WandaVision

Why is there a DYK about WandaVision nearly every single day. It feels as though this has become an advertisement for this television show. There should not be a DYK from the same article nearly every day especially if that article is about a television show which is currently being promoted by private companies at this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.202.159 (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

People on DYK write about what they are interested in. The reason for it being so often is because we were at one set of hooks every 12 hours. SL93 (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Should there not be a limit on hooks which pertain to just one article in particular. Especially if there could be some corporate interest involved? Are you saying we need to submit more DYK hooks and this wouldn't be a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.202.159 (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
That is not what I'm saying. I don't think there should be a limit. How would we apply it fairly? For example, I have been submitting articles about people and companies related to Iowa. Other editors nominate multiple articles on New York City skyscrapers, German singers, etc. I am tagging the nominator of the WandaVision articles. @Favre1fan93:. SL93 (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Understood, but your examples are still from different articles albeit in similar categories. They are broad categories. These DYKs are from just one article. That one article is not a broad category, it is a television series. I appreciate the tagging of the nominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.213.202.159 (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I haven't seen the specific DYKs in question, but as a general rule there are no repeat DYKs from the same article. Please kindly check again. CMD (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I think IP's comment was pertaining to the fact that not only was there a hook on WandaVision, but that each episode of the show was promoted to GA status and has its own hook, coming out to I think ten hooks. As to why, SL93 is right—people write about what they're interested in, and given that 1. the facts were interesting and 2. each hook went through a review process that made sure nothing promotional was said about the show, I don't think the coverage was unfair.
That being said, IP has a point—there's an argument to be made that we're giving a show undue publicity by giving it main-page coverage for five days straight, or even longer. That's partially my fault as the prep-set builder, I could have spread them out more. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

This in some ways can be seen as a smaller version of the Gibraltar issue from 2012. There was a project supported by the Gibraltar government which created lots of Gibraltar-related articles which overwhelmed DYK, raising concerns that it was in effect using Wikipedia's Main Page for promotion and leading to RfCs to ban them from DYK. I don't remember what the outcome was, but having a general rule on how to deal with large influxes of topical nominations (especially those which could be seen as promotional) would be useful. Ten hooks about WandaVision I'd say isn't excessive, but they should probably be spread out over a month or so. There should indeed be some form of reminder for the prep builders, but maybe someone could come up with something more concrete? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The Gibraltar issue was related to paid advocacy/editing I believe. As long as this user is acting in good faith, which I believe they are, there's no reason why they can't propose lots of hooks on the same niche topic. But probably a good idea to leave at least a few days between each one running, otherwise it'll get dull an repetitive (like when we had c. 30 wrestling hook nominations, because someone wasn't allowed to put them all into one long hook, and so we had a hook every 1-2 days for 2 months. Or when we had about 10 "coffee in country X" nominations in a short period of time in about 2016). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
...not to mention when we had a hook pretty much every few days for years on waterways in Pennsyvania, many of them on the order of that Sugar Hollow Creek and South Branch Roaring Run are Class A Wild Trout Waters, but are entirely on private land? and that some reaches of Turkey Run and Oak Run were described as "moderately depressed" in the 1970s? [2]. I'm not making those up. Somehow the collective hive-mind was unable to arrive at the obvious conclusion that running hooks like that twice a week for three years made us look like complete dopes. EEng 17:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
yeesh, that's a rough one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
But they get stiff competition from Did you know ... that some people fill their screened porches with indoor furniture? See Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Screened_porch. (I should note that despite this lapse, Nyttend is normally a very sensible and helpful editor.) EEng 19:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
you really couldn't've just let the nomination die? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
alt2 put me to sleep, by the way—you couldn't have done something with the climate control line? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how nominating separate articles that all got promoted to GA for their own DYKs is an issue, as that is one way nominating DYKs work. I can't speak to the editors who work to promote them and add them to prep areas, but it sounds like Theleekycauldron has addressed this in their comment above, and is more to do with the prep process, then the actual nomination process. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
For the record, it's not like they ran once a prep set:
  1. WandaVision: 9 September
  2. Don't Touch That Dial: 19 September
  3. Filmed Before A Live Studio Audience: 22 September
  4. Now In Color: 25 September, set 1
  5. All-New Halloween Spooktacular: 26 September, set 2
  6. We Interrupt This Program: 27 September
that's a little excessive, but at least it wasn't constant theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
the next one is scheduled to run on 6 october theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
GibraltarPediA Options was a 2012 RFC I ran, and wish I didn't because I had no idea what I was doing. Two other Gibraltar-related DYKs were the 2013 batch from others. — Maile (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I would expect the editor to have the good sense to know not to nominate umpteen articles on basically the same thing at the same time. Either spread your work out more or just pick the best one or two to get DYKs from and let the others quietly pass into the encyclopedia. --Khajidha (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    (1) Your expectation would be disappointed.
    (2) Actually, editors shouldn't be nominating umpteen articles on basically the same thing spaced over time, either. See the Pennsylvania waterways series, mentioned above.
    EEng 21:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    Since DYK requires that nominations closely follow page creation/expansion, spreading out one's work will probably mean deliberately withholding contributions to Wikipedia, and that doesn't seem like a net positive. Maybe we should promote a "not every new article needs to be a DYK" message, if repetitive topics are indeed a concern. That said, it probably also depends on the nature of the topic. Pennsylvania waterways, for example, are so extremely banal that no one would criticize Wikipedia of promotion (and it probably also fits general expectations of Wikipedia). I'm tending to see it more as a local quirk, like how so many featured pictures are (were?) of birds and bugs, though the POTD schedulers work hard to spread them out. (POTDs can be scheduled months in advance, though; DYK prep builders don't quite have that luxury.) In a way, it mildly interestingly shows what kind of articles are being added to Wikipedia. It seems that repetitiveness starts to become an issue when it raises concerns, either due to there being actual promotion going on as in the Gibraltar case, or the perceived possibility as raised here. I can sort of imagine someone taking interest in a political party and churning out biographies of its politicians, which wouldn't look very good if someone took notice. It's a potential issue, but how likely is it? Not very, it seems, or it would have already been addressed. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
    Agreed, and since it can be easy to work on a set of related articles together, this encourages bunched nominations. We do have consensus against using DYK for promotional purposes, for example by preventing political hooks from going out within a couple months of an election. However, in this case the show has been over for half a year. Wandavision hooks are also more naturally self-limiting than Pennsylvania waterways. CMD (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

My apologies to BlueMoonset for snubbing their job, but i'm around and looking for stuff to do, and I thought this could be something I could try my hand at. Now, to do my best BlueMoonset impression:

This list includes all 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 23. We currently have a total of 157 nominations, of which 78 have been approved, a gap of 79, down 12 in the past seven days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

BlueMoonset, am I doing this right? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Ada Lovelace Day 12th October

Hi. Apologies if this is not the right place to post this. Women in Red are holding a 24h international editathon on the 12th October (Ada Lovelace Day), focusing on women in STEM. It would be great to have a hook about a woman in STEM during that time period. Prep 7 (due to run 16th/17th) with Anne Wyllie as the lead could perhaps be switched with one of the sets due to run on the 12th? In making this suggestion, I declare my naked self-interest as the editor who wrote and DYKed Anne Wyllie and also as one of the organisers of the WiR editathon! But I'd be happy to see any DYK on the 12th about a woman in STEM if we can manage it. DrThneed (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support this—Wyllie would be a great pick for Ada Lovelace day. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
This sounds reasonable to me too. Up to theleekycauldron whether they want to find a new hook for their set at Template:Did you know/Preparation area 7 or leave it someone else. CMD (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently doing some MP / queue shuffling but probably shouldn't promote this from prep to Q2 as I was involved (in a minor way) of getting this article DYK ready.
@Theleekycauldron: Would a straight image hook swap from Template:Did you know/Queue/2 work? CMD (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: I'll find a new image, no worries. Feel free to swap—as long as you leave holes in the prep sets and not the queues, I'll fill it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@Schwede66, Kusma, and Maile66: Template:Did you know/Queue/2 for image hook swap with Template:Did you know/Preparation area 7. CMD (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 Done please check to verify I did what you asked. — Maile (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
looks good to me! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Is it a fact?

After moving Prep1 to Queue1, I changed the second hook from

  • ... that ice hockey executive Kirovs Lipmans was once the second-richest person in Latvia?

to

  • ... that in 2010, ice hockey executive Kirovs Lipmans was reported to be the second-richest person in Latvia?

Please be extra careful about turning "reported him to be" or similar phrases in the article into a definite assertion in the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Flibirigit: is lr reliable enough to drop the reportedly? My guess would be no theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Deleted articles

I’m sure I’ve read it somewhere, but I can’t remember where. If an article that was featured in the dyk section was deleted, is a recreation eligible for DYK again or not? Eddie891 Talk Work 00:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

i can't find a precedent offhand in the archives, but I'd argue against that. Unless there were some kind of extenuating circumstance, that would be a disqualifier. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
I think it's already mentioned in the rules that, except for unusual and one-off circumstances (such as the Yoninah tribute set or the Apollo 11th 60th anniversary celebration), articles previously featured on DYK cannot run again. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up specific message template?

Would it be possible if we have a talkback-like template for leaving messages to editors regarding their DYK nominations? {{subst:DYKproblem}} doesn't really fit all cases as it's meant only to inform nominators of issues found in a review; it doesn't really fit as, for example, a follow-up message to a nominator that issues continue to exist, or as a message informing them about not providing a QPQ (among other cases). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:36, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging the nominator on the nomination page itself for a follow-up message should be fine. Same goes with not providing QPQ. Also, {{subst:DYKproblem}} has a parameter for additional text, which could be used to specify the issue. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Normally my default is pinging the nominator, but nominators being unresponsive to pings is not an uncommon occurrence, so sometimes I have to leave a talkpage message as well (usually in the form of a talkback). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
This is what watchlists and (for more visibility) pings are for. If they can't bother to respond to those, close the nominination. EEng 13:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Not everyone gets pings from nominations. Using the DYKproblem template or some other talk page message is the way to be sure they are notified. If you've already left one earlier in the process, adding a note to that section should work. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I had no idea {DYKproblem} had so many bells and whistles, and it's a great example of needless complication. The documentation says |nominator=: The optional |nominator= parameter may be set to "no" to create a message intended for an article creator who was not the article nominator, and who possibly doesn't know that their article is at DYK. This parameter defaults to "yes," and there is no need to change it or even include it when notifying an article nominator. I can't even tell what that's saying. How is it superior to just a regular ping? EEng 19:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh wait, now I see that this is a template to be put on a user's talk page (not to go in the nomination tempalate). OK, that makes sense. But what doesn't make sense is there's nothing in the template to tell you that. There's no mention at all that is is for use on a user talk page. EEng 20:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Backlogged nominations I can't promote

A bunch of nominations I'm involved in somehow are hanging at the back of the DYKNA backlog; If someone could put a few in prep for me, that'd really be helpful!

thanks so much in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC Discussion: Details of implementing EEng's propsal "Unreviewed backlog mode"

How should this proposal made by EEng, now that it been adopted, be implemented? There are several questions left unanswered in the original discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

High and low water mark

When should this proposal be enforced?

  • Base proposal: The rule should be activated when there are more than, say, 180 pending unapproved nominations, and should be deactivated when the number of nominations drops below, say, 100.
  • Alternative proposal: If you think either of those numbers should be modified, you're welcome to do this.
  • Per original RfC: Postpone any discussion until we have data, as specified in the RfC header.
Comment. We were quite reasonably going along with 32-38 unapproved nominations for 10 days recently. So I think the base turn off point should be much lower, probably 40. If it is set at 100 then we're going to be oscillating between on and off quicker than necessary and leaving an extra 60 unapproved nominations in the backlog which could be removed. Desertarun (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Add. It may be advantageous to go lower still in order to encourage experienced users to do second reviews on stalled nominations. Desertarun (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment: According to the original proposal, The high- and low-water marks for entering and leaving "unreviewed backlog mode" will be determined by a later discussion, after experience with how quickly the new requirement eats down the backlog, and how quickly the backlog grows back. Why are we having this proposal now, since we have no experience yet? This proposal is jumping the gun; the whole idea was to get experience prior to proposing numbers, not toss out 180, 100, or even 40. I've added the point above. Note that when the RfC started, we had an enormous backlog and the assumption was that we'd start with the doubled requirement. We've since been down into the 30s, and are now in the 70s for unapproved currently near our low water mark, so I don't think we should be starting now: by my count only 39 of the 76 nominations are either unreviewed or needing a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Comment I don't want to relitigate the RfC, so if we're postponing this discussion, so be it. And we wouldn't be starting enforcement now, of course. But I am wondering who gets to initially decide when we enforce the rule—because I feel less like this is jumping the gun and more like this is putting up the target in the first place. We can always change it later, but I want to know what we're shooting at. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, I expect the process will be much like we used to have when we switched from one set a day to two a day (and back again) before we settled on specific numbers so the switch would be automatic: someone will notice that the number of unapproved nominations has grown to some excessively large number and propose that we move to two QPQs per article (or nomination) for the 20 noms and over crowd to increase the review rate. There will be discussion over a period of days, and a consensus will emerge, whether to move to two QPQs or to stay at one QPQ. (It sometimes takes more than one discussion.) The same will occur for the switch back to one QPQ. After we go through a number of cycles and get a feel for which unapproved numbers seem to work, and which ones don't, we'll have a discussion on that, and ultimately do an RfC to set them so we don't have to get consensus each time. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Procedural close RFCs should only be used once a discussion has been had. A formal discussion on the number has not been had yet. Also oppose these numbers, as we should use round numbers, which 180 is not. And should actually work out how we're counting these numbers, since often many of the nominations are waiting on response from the nominator, and so aren't available for a DYK reviewer to review. All of which should be discussed in a discussion prior to any RFC. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
"Retroactive implementation" not relevant

Retroactive implementation

Should this proposal require extra QPQs from nominations that were made before this proposal was adopted on 04:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)?

  • Option A: Yes
  • Option B: No
  • I'm not sure I understand the intended meaning of the above, but extra QPQs should not be required until all details of this proposal have been hammered out, including the issues canvassed here. Gatoclass (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, thanks, but my position hasn't changed. To reiterate: no retrospective requirements - the double QPQ requirement should only apply to nominations made after the proposal has been implemented. Gatoclass (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I dont support retrospective reqirements. Desertarun (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose RfCs don't apply retrospectively. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have just struck this proposal for two reasons: first, you can't add an extra requirement onto already-existing nominations. Second, by the time this RfC ends a month from now, the virtually all of the current nominations will have been approved and most will have already run. I plan to hat the section within 24 hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - this question makes no sense. It's always been clear that the requirement to do 2 QPQs will only be in effect if we're in 2QPQ mode at the time of the nomination being submitted. So given that we aren't currently in such a mode, and have never been, it logically follows that no past DYKs are subject to this. And DYKs submitted today and tomorrow and every day until the point in time when the mode is invoked for the first time, are also not subject to it. I suggest a speedy close of this subsection.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Multiple-article nomination requirements

Should this proposal require an extra QPQ for each article nominated from an editor with more than 20 DYK credits who has previously nominated 20 or more articles for DYK, or just an extra QPQ for each nomination from an editor with more than 20 DYK credits who has previously nominated 20 or more articles for DYK

  • Option A: One extra QPQ for each nomination by a "senior" editor (no matter how many articles are nominated in that nomination)
Example: A multi-nomination with 2 articles = 2+1 = 3 QPQ required
Example: A multi-nomination with 3 articles = 3+1 = 4 QPQ required
  • Option B: Two QPQs for each article nominated by a "senior" editor, whether that article is in a singleton nomination, or is one of several articles in a mutli-article nom
Example: A multi-nomination with 2 articles = 2x2 = 4 QPQ required
Example: A multi-nomination with 3 articles = 3x2 = 6 QPQ required
Oops, yes I did mean option A, thank you for picking that up EEng - corrected. Gatoclass (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
So you see I'm not always on the side of evil. EEng 06:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually, on reviewing the history, I see that my original vote was correct, what has happened is that somebody at some stage tried to "clarify" the options and in doing so, reversed their order. Gatoclass (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
So you did actually mean B, which is A, but now you mean A which was B? "A" lesson to us all to "B" mindful of our Ps and QPQs. EEng 06:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
you've really got something snappy for every occasion, don't you? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
As superpowers go it's middling. Not as good as invisibility, but better than making milk go sour just by looking at it. 14:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Option B for me. Desertarun (talk) 10:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    I have changed my mind and prefer Option A now. Most times I've seen multiple nominations they've been mired in problems, so I don't think we should make it easier to do multiple nominations like this. This is a small detail though, so I'm unfussed with exactly what we do. Desertarun (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    It's already difficult enough to do all the QPQs for a multi-nomination, expecting an extra QPQ for every nominated article in a multi would just be too much of a deterrent. One has to remember that multis are actually a boon to the project as they reduce the number of hooks that would otherwise have to be featured. Gatoclass (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    Well, articles don't "have" to be featured. We could just run fewer articles. EEng 19:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah I can see your point now. I will go back to Option B afterall. Desertarun (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    Desertarun, I think you're not getting enough sleep. Haven't you got A and B reversed? Surely you mean you were for A at first, then B ("I don't think we should make it easier to do multiple nominations"), then A again ("Yeah, I can see your point" that multi-article noms are already hard enough). EEng 19:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    You're completely right. I'm now option A again! By my count we're now 3-1 for Option A. So can we find someone to close this section/matter up? Desertarun (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    Of course I'm right -- see User:EEng#correct. But hold your horses, pilgrim. The transition to the new system is in now way urgent, so no need to rush. EEng 23:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Definitely A Look, the idea of the main proposal was to levy a little QPQ "tax" on senior editors, to pay for the first-5-frees that newbies get. Taht tax works fine if it's per-article, and works fine if it's per-nomination. But per-article is just crushing on nominators. So per-nomination. EEng 19:17, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've adjusted the initial wording to reflect what's actually in the RfC—according to that we've gone from DYK credits to nominations, but the proposal deliberately changed direction to nominations. I don't think the close's use of "credits" should be allowed to undo that change, unless there was pushback against the change, and I don't see it. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Pinging theleekycauldron in the hopes that they will modify their close wording to reflect the details of the actual proposal (20 or more nominations, not over 20 DYK credits). Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I think all the close needs to say is (a) that the proposal was adopted as worded (no need to restate what the proposal said); and (b) that an apparent ambiguity was identified -- whether e.g. a 3-article nominations requires 4 QPQs (3 + one extra) or 6 QPQs (twice normal) -- which was not resolved. No doubt as we discuss implementation additional interpretation issues may arise, but unless I missed something else that came up in the discussion any such additional stuff doesn't go in the close. EEng 17:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
​​  Done theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Have we resolved this? My mind is boggling a bit with the complexity, so apologies if I've missed something. We have two votes for double QPQ and no votes for one extra QPQ. If we haven't now resolved this then one more vote for double would count as a consensus. Desertarun (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I think the lack of discussion here may be because the options are so unclear. I'm not seeing how Option B: Two QPQs for each nomination from a senior editor is same as "one extra QPQ". In any case, my vote is for one extra QPQ. – SD0001 (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I've reworded the options to make them clearer and given examples. It would be easier to have this matter sorted so it can be incorporated into the technical discussion. Desertarun (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Definitely A I coordinated a project in 2020 that resulted in a mass DYK nomination (16 articles in 1 hook if I remember correctly). Double QPQ requirement would have killed the DYK part of the project. We got some new DYK contributors out of it. Schwede66 02:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Definitely A Two per article is overkill. This would unnecessarily shift a large part of the burden to those who go for multi-nominations, which are usually a nice addition to DYK. DanCherek (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    Also fine with no change per CMD. DanCherek (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • C, no change. Multi-hooks are relatively rare, and honestly they're a bit more fun. A multi-hook already requires multiple reviews, adding a +1 seems unnecessary to what already takes more work than a single nomination. If this change would leave a loophole that you can make a multi-nomination to avoid a QPQ, then fine, a bit of abuse of that loophole doesn't seem an obvious issue. In the cosmically unlikely chance that the loophole is abused enough to become a huge issue, then this can be revisited. CMD (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah, but if you do a 3-article nomination, and do one extra QPQ for it, then you're only doing 1/3 of an extra per article, whereas you'd have to do a full 1 extra review per article each article was nominated seperately. So there's already a substantial discount. EEng 02:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Definitely A. There will never be a guarantee that there would be 2n articles to review, especially with the n being higher, but it's almost certain that there will be n+1 articles. If I were forced to review 32 articles for a 16-article hook, I would probably not nominate such a hook at all (or just do 20 and leave everyone else on the hook for the others, lmao). I'm not even certain that, a lot of the time, there would be 32 nominations to review - shifting the burden on multi-hook nominations will just leave fewer for everyone. By contrast, an extra QPQ per nomination would hurt less. Of course, I'd really much prefer keeping it as is, but short of that I definitely would go with A. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Mothball

I don't accept theleekycauldron's repeated attempts to claim consensus for this as they seem too involved. If they start to make demands of this sort, I shall resist them per WP:CHOICE. As the process is, in any case, supposed to be reserved for special circumstances of overload, I suggest that it be mothballed, parked or tabled. Looking at the pending nominations, it appears that we have about two weeks worth plus a long tail of awkward cases. This seems just fine and so there is no need for a state of emergency. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Support informal discussion about numbers should take place before any formal RFCs, which violates the process of WP:RFC- Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. I would urge an RFC to review this and confirm/deny this. And we're not in a backlog right now, and Wikipedia has no deadlines, so no need to push this through without any discussion and the picking of arbitrary numbers. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support There's no deadline, and if we set specific numbers now it will be very difficult to change them later. Let's do a trial run of the 2 QPQ (when there's a backlog) before making this decision. Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I've cut the Gordian knot by removing the RfC template. Last thing we need right now is a lot of passers-by opining when the questions haven't been clearly defined. Leeky, love your enthusiasm but you gotta slow it down. EEng 10:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I think the questions posed and discussion are useful but also think it doesn't need to be an RFC. Desertarun (talk) 11:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Agree. But let's not discuss them all simultaneously either. And can we stop calling this "EEng's proposal"? I am merely a humble servant of the encyclopedia, and wish neither praise nor honor for myself. EEng 11:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Regarding mothball - as a result of the backlog discussion some helpful people came along and did 150+ nominations. It is quite possible that when we do need 2 QPQ in future the same thing will happen again. So 2 QPQ could be very short in time duration. Desertarun (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    I think I mentioned the Hawthorne effect before in this context. EEng 17:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    I guess we'll have to wait and see on that one. Either way the average backlog will be a lot smaller in the future. The main issue here is at what point 2 QPQ should turn on, because when that happens we can just watch the unapproved nomination count come down and when people are posting "I'm waiting for a nomination to review" - that unapproved nomination number is the point to turn off 2 QPQ in the future. And we plonk that number into the guidance. Desertarun (talk) 18:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah we probably need to hold this proposal in the meantime, things aren't urgent anyway. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

(re Desertarun) During the past months' discussions I've had in the back of my mind distinguishing "virgin" unreviewed noms versus, um, well, non-virgin unreviewed noms, that is, noms for which a review has been started, but not finished. It's the former group which constitute the true "unreviewed backlog", and when they get low that's when you fall back from "unreviewed backlog mode" to regular mode. Since I hear rumblings of technical changes to the nom process (the templates involved and so on) maybe somewhere in there can be a flag or somet'n that lets the bot distinguish those two species of unreviewed noms, so that we can monitor their counts separately. EEng 06:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - the decision to invoke 2 QPQs in special circumstances has been endorsed, albeit that it was closed by an WP:INVOLVED editor (this was clearly done in good faith, but I don't think it was good practice, as it gives rise to questions of legitimacy like those above, and I'd politely request Theleekycauldron not to close discussions in which they've been involved going forward). But the close being effected (and I also did reluctantly agree to it), I think it's time to draw a speedy line under this. I don't think we really know the ideal threshold for when to invoke the 2QPQ at this point, and I don't think arguing about it here will help. So I suggest that EEng (who is the owner of this proposal, however much they doth protest) and BlueMoonset, the two editors who've studied this issue the most, give us their best-guesstimate threshold for moving to 2QPQ, and we put that straight into the guidelines with immediate effect. Then we can move on with our lives. As time goes by, we will learn more about what effect this has, and we can adjust the figures as appropriate. It doesn't have to be an exact science right now, though.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    I really think the approach mentioned by Desertarun above, with my additional comment just below it, are the right approach: wait and see. It'll be some time before the unreviewed backlog grows back, and we might have some bright ideas in the meantime. EEng 14:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    As I mentioned in the first section, I think we'll figure out the switching places as we go along: we did it with the switch from one to two sets being promoted to the main page (and back again), and after we've reached consensus several times on when to switch from one to two QPQs and back we'll have a better idea of which numbers work best. I'm certainly not going to be a part of guesstimating anything at this point—there is no urgency, and allowing two people dictate the numbers seems highly inappropriate—nor do I think a single data point is adequate, even though Desertarun's monitoring of our recent low backlog is interesting information. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    okay, i should probably address this. I interpreted WP:Non-admin closure#Editors who are uninvolved as clearing me to close unless I had cast a !vote, which I did not, or was otherwise entangled with the discussion, which I didn't assess myself to be. I didn't think my prior closure excessively entangled me with the discussion—and for the record, neither did the editor who encouraged me to close the discussion for good. Of course, if my closure looked improper to others, I'm sorry about that, and I'll be more careful from now onward.
    One more thing I'm going to add—to any of you who think it's okay to leave a nasty message on my talk page because the RfC didn't go the way you wanted, please stop. It's hurtful, and I'm just trying to be of use here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    @Theleekycauldron: oooh, I think I owe you a big apology. I had assumed from what's been said above, and the rude message on your talk page, that you had !voted in support of the proposal or the earlier version of it. But looking back on it (and I really should have checked this before making my comments) it doesn't seem like you ever gave an opinion at all. Your only contribution was to ask a question on a point of order on 30 August, so it was fine for you to close it. I don't understand why those above think otherwise. I've struck that part of my comment. Cheers, and sorry again.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    no worries, it's all good—i appreciate the apology :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    I reminded leeky elsewhere that fools rush in where angles fear to tread. EEng 14:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

(re EEng) When we were down at 32-38 unapproved nominations I was monitoring the situation (in case it cost us RFC votes). About 25 of those were long term stalled and the rest were under review but a week old. The virgin nominations were being snapped up and completed almost straight away. It would be nice to be in a situation whereby new nominations were snapped up regularly all the time, but I can't see practically how that would happen. At the time I attempted to free up more second nominations on stalled nominations by dropping "new reviewer" icons down, all that happened was that the old reviewers returned and said hands of. So in a nutshell 32 is the absolute minimum we can go down to - at that point new virgin nominations disappear as soon as they are noticed. To confirm this when 2 QPQ is up and running I'd suggest we post a talk page thread and ask people to monitor the numbers on a daily basis. 40 looks good to me, that'd be 32 under review and 8 untouched but it won't be hard to confirm this and could avoid problems with overshooting etc. Desertarun (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Start and End

I thought, to make things less confusing later, that setting a few procedural rules might be useful in terms of starting and stopping the two-QPQs-required periods. This makes it easier for nominators and reviewers to see what periods the extra QPQs need to be done by the 20-noms-or-more crowd. Here are my suggestions:

  • Periods start at 00:00 (UTC) on the day immediately following the determination that two QPQs are needed.
  • Periods end at 23:59:59 (UTC) on the same day that the determination is made that two QPQs are no longer needed.
  • Nominations made prior to the start of a two-QPQ period only require the normal single QPQ per article (or none if fewer than five nominations), even if they remain active into a two-QPQ period.

I would also like to suggest that the official Nomination date be the date the nomination template was created, since the date and time are on the nomination page and in the page history; it is too difficult to search out the date the nomination was transcluded to the Nominations page.

In addition to whether you think the above are fine or should be modified, there is the question as to what happens at the end of a two-QPQ period. I see two possibilities:

  • Option A: Nominations made during a two-QPQ period must include the extra QPQ(s) even if the nomination is not concluded until after the period is over.
  • Option B: Nominations made during a two-QPQ period are not required to have the extra QPQ(s) if the nomination has not yet been approved and all the QPQs have not yet been provided. Any extra QPQ(s), once provided, may not be withdrawn or reassigned.

I tried to word the two options so they worked regardless of whether we decide on one extra QPQ per article or one extra per nomination in the relevant section above. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely it's A, but you're making it sound too complicated. At the moment of the initial SAVE of the nom template, that's when the requirement is determined. I'm pretty sure this can be automated, so that during the save some magic checks the "unreviewed backlog flag" somewhere, and also checks your nomination history to see if you're 20+, and based on those it pastes into the saved nom template a statement of whether an extra QPQ is required -- and now you know your QPQ requirement for this nom. (You'll notice I'm using this "extra" language instead of 1-versus-2 language because it's compatible with either of the two interpretations on the table about how multi-article nominations should be handled.)
I see no need to align the starts and stops on midnight boundaries. When you save, you find out the requirement. Maybe it's a surprise -- so what? All the better. People shouldn't be gaming the requirement by timing their nominations to avoid the extra. And the setting/unsetting of the "mode" can happen at any moment, automatically by bot, as soon as the backlog crosses one of the trigger points.
(I actually had the idea, back when, of having random component -- when a 20+ editor saves a new nom template, something rolls a die to see whether you win the lottery and have to do an extra QPQ. But I thought it would be too hard to explain. But really, that would be quite elegant: every time someone saves a nom that's QPQ-exempt, a counter somewhere gets incremented. As long as that counter's nonzero, whenever a 20+ editor saves a new nom the system randomly decides whether that editor gets the honor of doing an extra QPQ, thus decrementing the counter; if he doesn't win that lottery, another 20+ editor an hour later might. There wouldn't need to be any "mode". All those in favor of starting the whole discussion over to change to make that the rule, raise your hand!) EEng 16:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know how a script/bot could automate the process. It would rely on a helpful coder. Desertarun (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, once we figure out the trigger points, we can do that. We're still a ways away from that, and a modus vivendi would be useful until they are set. The reason I suggested midnight changeovers was for the convenience of reviewers: it's easier if you're dealing at the date level rather than the minute. But we're already throwing a load of new things to check at them, what's one more? (Well, hopefully not the straw that breaks the camel's back.) If we have bots checking and adding to nomination templates what the QPQ requirement is, that would be great, but I thought to make the interregnum easier. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Not that we should let the grass grow under our feet, but I think it will be 6 months to a year before we need to put the new apparatus into motion. EEng 13:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Having a bot/script automating the process would be beneficial/preferable. I know from experience that coders are hard to find and being specialists can down tools or do things in their own time or way. At the minimum it would require the coder being given by us a simple list of instructions 1,2,3,4, etc. because they aren't likely to know much about DYK processes. I think one way or another we need to be ready for 2 QPQ with and without the bot. Desertarun (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
What you don't know is we've got Wugapodes in our corner. He did a lot of the current nomination machinery, and he's just dying to do more. He just can't wait! EEng 13:16, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Regardless of all the other machinery, a minor note I have is that, you said People shouldn't be gaming the requirement by timing their nominations to avoid the extra., and I actually think this is a feature, not a bug. If we think of it as a supply (reviews) and demand (nominations) problem, the extra QPQ is a supply side intervention. But we can also work on the demand side by incentivizing nominators to wait until the backlog is lower. It's probably too small an effect to be worthwhile, and we get some of this by having an extra QPQ requirement at all, but it's worth reframing the idea of "gaming" as less of a bug.
Anyway, to the reason I'm pinged here, setting/unsetting the mode is something wugbot could do. It already counts outstanding nominations, it would just need to write it somewhere. Then the DYKNom templates can be updated to read that page and switch between 1 or 2 QPQs. Getting the list of people with 20+ noms is a slightly bigger task, but can probably be saved as a text file on the server and updated every so often (the GANReportBot does something similar). — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: That would be very helpful and be my preferred mechanism for switching between 1 and 2 QPQ. I'm comfortable leaving the downstream details for yourself based on what works best for the code. Desertarun (talk) 07:49, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we need the 2 QPQ to occur at a particular time of day. The only reason we do that for switching between 8 and 16 hooks per day is because the bot requires it. It is conceivable that there would be a lag of almost 24 hours between wanting to turn off 2 QPQ and it actually happening, in that time we could overshoot. I'm undecided about Option A or B. Desertarun (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Unless there's something about A and B I'm missing, it has to be A. The proposal says the determination is made at nomination time, period, once and for all. There's no fiddling around later. EEng 20:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Glad to have a confirmation of "A".Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to vote for Option A. It might be hard to get involvement in this section unless its made more clear. There are two proposals here, one for a start time and one for how QPQ is handled after a 2 QPQ period has ended. Desertarun (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand the wording of either, or which is different. But the rule should be "If, at the time of nomination, we're in a backlog, do 2 QPQs. Otherwise 1". Which I think is Option A. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Continuing with technical details

Please don't do anything until we've really hammered out the details. There's no hurry since it will be quite some time before the backlog grows back. Some thoughts:

  • (1) Maybe add a |reviewer parameter to the nom template, which if non-empty signals that the nom is no longer "virgin". Keep three separate counts: noms with no reviewer; noms with a reviewer but not at the approved stage; noms approved. "Unreviewed backlog mode" would actually be triggered by with-no-reviewer count.
  • (2) I think you're saying that you'd alter the nom template itself to say either "subject to extra QPQ" or "not subject to extra QPQ". But that's not very clean. I assume some kind of subst'ing magic is possible under which, at the time the nom template is initially saved, can go fetch the current value of, ya know, WP:DYK/Areweinunreviewedbacklogmode or something and subst that permanently into that particular instance of the template.

Also, what happened to the project of moving everything out of Template: ? EEng 15:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  • The current counts we keep are for total number of nominations and the number of approved nominations. To find the number of nominations under review but not approved you have to take the total number of nominations and subtract the number of approved. As an example right now we have 188 total nominations and 106 approved. Doing the maths...this means we have 82 unapproved nominations. People go to the new nominations page looking for 188 articles, but then find 82, so it is quite confusing. I'd suggest instead we keep the running totals for the respective pages - so the new nominations page should list 82 and the approved page should list 106. Then our users can see that we're counting the new nominations number down to 40 or so before switching back to 1 QPQ. Desertarun (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    You miss my point. Among the 82 there are two subclasses: those for which no one's taken ownership (a reviewer), and those for which someone has. Noms in the latter group sometimes stall, but those have to be handled case by case. But when we think of a backlog, it's the first group. These are the ones from which, when someone is told they have to do an extra QPQ, the victim will have to choose. And when that group gets low, that's when we switch back out of extra mode. Thus we need three counts: no reviewer, has-reviewer-but-not-yet-approved, approved. EEng 16:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    I'm ok with that prospect, it would allow us to reach absolute zero for the "no reviewer" count. If we're not going down to zero then I think splitting the count would be less beneficial. Desertarun (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think we want to go down to zero for the same reason you don't want to run your car until the needle's hard on Empty -- wait, instead, until the little orange gas pump comes on, which is somewhat sooner. EEng 20:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @EEng: I think (1) would be simple enough. If only for record keeping, it doesn't even need to be printing, but I'd imagine it might be better to extend the existing creator/nominator note to include reviewer so that editors have a visual indication that it did something, so something like: Created by Foo. Nominated by Bar. Reviewed by Baz. I think we agree on (2). The way the current templates work is through a lot of substitution magic already, so I already planned to use that here. To be clear, you're suggesting we just subst the number in? So something like "There were {{subst:CountUnreviewedDYKNoms}} at the time of nomination."? To your last question, I believe that project stalled, I haven't heard anything from the others interested in working on it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    To maximize flexibility, there'd be a special page somewhere that gives what mode we're in ("No review backlog" vs "Backlog of noms with no reviewer designated") and, in the former case, also gives a # (Z) which is # of prior nominations which, when an editor is over that #, triggers the extra-QPQ requirement; in fact, while we're at it, the page could also give Y, the # (currently 5, IIRC) of "freebies". This way everything parameterized and flexible.
    Then the nom template, as it's saved, magically fetches that page, and goes and gets the nominator's count of prior nominations, and says "This nominator has made P prior nominations, and therefore..."
    • "Comes under the first-Y free rule"
    • "Has between Y and Z prior nominations, therefore does one QPQ"
    • "Has over Z nominations, but since we're in no-backlog mode does one QPQ"
    • "Has over Z nominations, and since we're in backlog mode must do two QPQs"
    That's not what you'd really say, but you get the idea. Note I'm still ignoring the question of how multi-article nominations are affected by the new regime.
    The special page itself would be changed now and then (in backlog mode, out of backlog mode) maybe at first by humans, then later by a bot that watches the counts mentioned earlier in this thread and compares them to high- and low-water marks. How does that sound?
    As I write this I'm having a vision of what happens if the bot that updates the in/out-of-backlog mode dies, and we're stuck for a while in backlog mode when we shouldn't. Crowds of angry senior editors who have been ordered to do an extra QPQ, when the pool of no-reviewer-assigned nominations has been exhausted. It'd be like people ordered to do community service to get their ankle bracelets off, but the the community center never opens! Chaos! EEng 20:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    I'll need to look into this more. What you describe would be trivial in most languages, but it might not be possible with on-wiki languages (i.e. template syntax and the module-based implementation of Lua). For various reasons, accessing arbitrary pages when processing templates is highly restricted, so storing template data outside the template is not easy. There might be some workarounds if we stored the table of editors and reviews in a module that the DYK one imports, but I'm not very familiar with that kind of thing and I worry it might be harder to maintain. I'll look into the documentation and get back to you. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    Is there even a reliable way to determine a user's number of DYK credits? I see https://betacommand-dev.toolforge.org/cgi-bin/dyk.py does this but it's source code is hidden. From the look of it, all it seems to be doing is to check DYKHousekeepingBot's edits to the user's talk page. An imperfect but reasonable way, I guess. We could have a bot maintain the counts using that algorithm on a json wiki page and then the templates, scripts and bots could read from that. – SD0001 (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    As I think I said another time, we're not computing people's prison release dates so a little imprecision is OK. Just as a reminder, though: the adopted proposal junks the old "credits" system in favor simply counting nominations. EEng 16:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    Ok I haven't been reading much of the above. This query shows the number of nominations per user (this doesn't support any concept of co-nominations – only the creator of the DYK nompage is treated as the nominator). On the other hand if we wanted number of credits, we could have used this query (discounting the ones made before 2010, or whenever DYKUpdateBot was down). – SD0001 (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    No no, no need for credits. What you say the first link does is what we want: exactly one editor gets "charged" per nom page created. EEng 21:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    So to summarize, the action items are basically:
– SD0001 (talk) 09:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
There's no hurry on this, so no need for anyone to rush out and code stuff until we've got everything nailed down, but that's pretty close.
  • (2A) re (2): I'd have the page (or maybe another, parallel page) also contain the "5" and "20" cutoffs, so they can be changed.
  • (1A) re (1): We have to be careful that everything works right if an editor nominates their 4th, 5th, and 6th article, by separate nominations, in quick succession. From where will the bot draw its data to build the counts? How will it know about a nomination made 15 minutes ago?
  • (3A) re (3): Again, there's an open question re multi-article nominations: does a 3-article nomination require an extra QPQ per article (so that 6 would be required), or just an extra per nomination (so that 4 would be required)?
EEng 16:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
re 1A: Then we'll need a real-time bot that updates the counts immediately whenever new nom pages are created (rather than simply every 2 hours). – SD0001 (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Something like that's unavoidable, though it doesn't have to be ironclad. But first, I'd like to hear someone's idea of where the bot draws its data from. EEng 11:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
For the initial dataset creation, the SQL query. Then the Wikimedia EventStreams API can be used to bump up the numbers in real-time when new noms are created. To account for deleted noms and other funny situations, we can just refresh the data with the SQL query (the "authoritative" data source) periodically. – SD0001 (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

The fly in the ointment: multi-article nominations

That sounds eminently practical. I think, though, we better face the multi-article nomination issue. Even assuming we could somehow detect the number of articles nominated in a given nomination (or, let's say, it's declared in a parameter by the nominator), I'm trying to think how to incorporate that into the structure contemplated above. Of course, one approach would be to ignore them for the purpose of placing the nominator in the <5, 5-20, and >20 categories; in other words, if you're a newbie who's smart enough to make a 2-article nomination, you still have to do 2 QPQs but but the nomination only counts for 1 toward your limit of 5 freebies. That's almost consistent with the way the adopted proposal is worded, except I was stupid enough to add a special explanation about how multi-article noms are handled. I'm usually smarter than that, sorry. EEng 22:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

This needs to be ignored. Lets do some maths...0.01 of nominations are multi...0.01 of nominations are made by new nominators (because they're hard to do)...0.01 of nominations would be within 15 minutes of each other...so 0.01 x 0.01 x 0.01 = 0.000001 chance of this happening. I calculate this to be 1 in a million. Of course anyone can quibble with these numbers, but however you look at it, the probability of this happening is vanishingly small. Desertarun (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
0.01 of nominations would be within 15 minutes of each other time b/w nominations is irrelevant, the limitation discussed above holds regardless of that. – SD0001 (talk) 12:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
That would be my recommendation. Counting the number of articles previously nominated is an order of magnitude more difficult than counting the number of nomination pages created, and the benefits almost negligible. Also more complex bots are more vulnerable to failures which can create worse problems. I think its ok for the policy to not be 100% in line with the technical implementation. Maybe someone can create a bot someday that enforces the policy more correctly, but for now I wouldn't see that as a blocker for implementing the proposal. – SD0001 (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
That part of the policy was created last minute. It isn't worthwhile to burden the bot writer with that level of complication to avoid giving away a few QPQ per year. Desertarun (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
created last minute – Well, not really. It's always worked that way, just until now we've relied on manual oversight and now we're automating it, and thus the question arises as to whether getting the automation to handle ever combination of cases scrupulously (nominator with 3 noms to day makes a 4-article nom, so 2 are free, 2 require QPQ, etc etc) is worth the bother. To be clear, we'd be talking about ignoring the "2nd and subsequent" in multi-article noms only for the purpose of determining where the nominator is in the <5, 5-20, >20 classification. In general, you'd still have to do 3 QPQs for a 3-article nomination.
Having said that, however, since we're modifying the nomination template anyway it would make sense to add a parameter (filled in by the nominator) saying how many articles are involved in that nomination. That's probably really useful to have no matter what, whether or not we bother using it for the issue we're discussing now, but once you have it it does make handling multi-article noms "correctly" relatively easy. EEng 13:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'll try to summarise what is going on here using an example. To make things technically possible for the bot writer we're going to do this;
  • If you have 3 prior nominations and you make a 4 article multi nomination - we're going to let you have all 4 nominations free of QPQ.
  • If you have 18 prior nominations and you make a 4 article multi nomination in a 2 QPQ backlog period -we're going to let you have all 4 at 1 QPQ, so you'll need to do 4 QPQ. Desertarun (talk) 08:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    No. What we're talking about is this:
  • You have nominated 6 articles to DYK but the number of nomination pages is only 4 (because some of them were multi-article) – then we let you continue without QPQ (even though per policy we should have required a QPQ).
  • You have nominated 22 articles to DYK but the number of nomination pages is only 18 (because some of them were multi-article) – then again we won't require 2 QPQs of you even if we're in backlog mode.
– SD0001 (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes ok, I get that. Is it worth doing anything about created and abandoned nomination pages? Desertarun (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
If a nom page is later deleted or redirected to another nom page, it can be ignored. But otherwise, "abandoned" is vague technically, so I don't think we can do anything about that. – SD0001 (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I think the right approach is just to count the number of times a given editor has created a nomination page -- ignore how many articles were nominated on each page, ignore whether it was a goofup, ignore whether the nom was abandoned (whatever that means). Simple. Because I know someone won't read the earlier parts of this discussion, and will misunderstand and get upset: this is only for the purposes of deciding where the editor, as he creates a new nom page, falls in the <5, 5-20, >20 categorization, and therefore which QPQ policy applies to that nomination. If that process determines you're subject to QPQ, your 3-article nomination will still require 3 reviews (or 4, or 6, depending on whether you're >20, backlog mode, and the outcome of the A/B discussion elsewhere).
No matter what, it will be a good idea to have a new |article-count= parameter in the nom template telling how many articles are being nominated in that nom. EEng 14:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but implementation difficulties doesn't mean that the existing rules can be ignored. We've been very clear ever since an RfC years ago that QPQ is an article for article requirement. That was not changed in the most recent RfC. Effectively, you're saying that if nomination 4 has three articles, the nominator would get a pass on the first two articles and have to provide a QPQ for the third, but then their next nomination, being their fifth, would be free. This makes zero sense. So contrary to what both SD0001 and EEng have said, four previous nomination pages containing six nominated articles means you owe a QPQ. That was true before the new extra requirement was added, and the recent RfC explicitly kept that in place. If the automated process can't handle this, manual intervention will be needed; it won't be the first time. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
There's no contrary to what both SD0001 and EEng have said because we're not saying how it currently works but how it perhaps might work in the future. And implementation difficulties certainly might mean that existing rules could or should be modified; there's nothing sacred about every tiny detail of the current rules. So what if someone gets a free QPQ in an extremely unlikely edge case that would be a lot of trouble to detect? Anyway, I'll make you a deal: if anyone's fourth nomination has three articles, I'll do the two extra QPQs.
More seriously, there's actually an elegant way to handle this: We could simply say that the whole first-5-free, 20+-maybe-extra regime applies only to the first article in a multi-article nomination; 2nd and subsequent articles (in any given nomination) always incur a QPQ, period, no matter by whom nominated or when. Then no one's getting anything they shouldn't. This would mean that an editor whose very first nomination has three articles, then he'd have to do two reviews right off the bat, but into every life a little rain must fall. EEng 16:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd be on board with that—editors who are making double nominations usually have experience one way or another (I just got my fifth DYK credit, but I'd wager that I knew how to do a review before then). Exempting double nominations in this way preserves the editors who are just nominating one article and bouncing, and incorporates most of the editors who are probably competent enough to start learning the ropes of a DYK review anyway. Of course, that would have to be a separate policy proposal, but it's worth discussing. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree it's an absolutely brilliant idea, resolving any number of issues and simplifying the implementation in a single, bold stroke! Whoever came up with it must be some kind of genius! EEng 01:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Parallel page

EEng above was discussing the use of a parallel page which was to be user accessible. Are there any further thoughts on this? Desertarun (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Um, like what? EEng 21:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Concluding remarks

All right, it looks like this discussion is winding down, so here are some of the key takeaways from this discussion, as well as where we go from here:

  • At this time, there is no concrete metric for when we enter the "unreviewed backlog mode" that requires senior editors to provide an extra QPQ—this will be decided at the relevant moment.
  • There's a strong consensus that senior editors will not have to do twice as many QPQs as nominations—rather, they should carry out one more QPQs than nominated articles per nomination, no matter how many articles have been nominated. For example, a five-article nomination from a senior editor will require six QPQs, rather than ten.
  • There's a rough consensus that any nomination made during the "unreviewed backlog mode" will require an extra QPQ, regardless of when the nomination is approved.
  • The technical details, however, are far from agreed upon:
    • It's possible that the determination of "unreviewed backlog mode" will be based on the number of "virgin" (please, god, we need a better name) nominations, without counting the nominations that have already received an initial review. While EEng suggested that this would mean adding a |reviewer template to the DYK nomination page, this would have to be worked out given that nomination templates are substed.
    • Multi-article nominations pose a problem for implementation, which will have to be worked out.

As it looks like this discussion is concluding, we'll have separate, smaller discussions on specific ideas that have been floated here. If there isn't any objection, I'm going to archive this discussion within a few days. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Good summary. While we shouldn't let the grass grow under our feet, there's no hurry on this. EEng 05:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Late additions (from a discussion today, and just random thinking):
    • Add a parameter for special-occassion dates.
    • Break out "source specification" (now awkwardly bolted on the the hook parameter) to its own parameter(s)?
EEng 14:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

CSD tag on an article currently up

My article, Erynn Chambers, which literally just got put on the MP, also just got tagged for speedy deletion under CSD-G11. This seems like something that should be addressed, what do I do? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

the tag was removed theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I'll replace the hook that's on the MP. Schwede66 00:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
That's made a hole in Prep5. Could a prep builder please fill it? Schwede66 01:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@Schwede66: I'm on it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@Schwede66: is that it? The article only runs for forty five minutes, even if it passes this stupid AFD? that seems really unfair to me, it's upsetting. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: As long as it's at AfD, we can't feature it on the MP. If it survives the AfD, we can have a discussion about what to do next. Schwede66 01:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
fair enough. I figured it couldn't run while the AFD is active but that being its one shot would be really annoying.theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:38, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know what the DYK practice is in this case. I for one would certainly support giving this a second shot if it does survive; 45 minutes is indeed rather short MP exposure. Schwede66 01:53, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure there's a rule that specifically says you shouldn't start an AFD on something that's on main page, and that the AFD should be started after it leaves the main page. Can't find it at the moment, as on phone. Joseph2302 (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The rule is: "Don't be a jerk." EEng 06:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
AFDs for articles on the Main Page should be immediately closed per WP:SK. To nominate an article on the Main Page for deletion, the correct procedure is to use WP:ERRORS to get it off the Main Page first. —Kusma (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@Kusma: At this point, we've lost seven hours of uptime, and the hook is already off the main page. It is what it is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I don't know what to do about your article now. Just for the future, I'd suggest to remove any speedy tags and to direct the tagger to ERRORS. —Kusma (talk) 07:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
duly noted :) thanks theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: There is such a rule that forbids AFDs on articles on the main page. WP:SKCRIT section 6. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Apologies to theleekycauldron; had I known about WP:SKCRIT section 6, I wouldn't have pulled the hook off the MP. Schwede66 22:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
@Schwede66: no worries, stuff happens :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, I have just reopened the nomination; it will be eligible for promotion after the Articles for deletion discussion closes should it survive, which at the present time looks likely. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: thank you so much! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Referencing non-notable names in hooks

For the Anne Wyllie hook, do we need to use names of non-notable people? I asked at WP:Errors, and Sdkb pointed out that readers will not know who "Anoop Singh" is. Joofjoof (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Refactored to add wikilink {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Why at errors? it's not on the main page yet. ping some admins—however, i'm not sure how you make the hook work without the name. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Just say "that because a healthcare executive asked...." I agree the NN name should not be there. MB 23:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Agree. Readers will generally not recognize his name, and there's no fallback link. A general description is more accessible.—Bagumba (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Existing practice is to not use redlinks or unlinked names. It's come up here a few times, but I suppose no-one has added it to the relevant supplementary rule. CMD (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
The prohibition of redlinks part is definitely part of the rules: WP:DYKSG#C1. Unlinked names is not. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's the supplementary rule that the unlinked names convention would fit into well. CMD (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
It's at ERRORS because it's on a fully-protected queue, preventing a bold edit.—Bagumba (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
(ec) ERRORS is also for items that are about to hit the main page, hence the "Next DYK" and "Next-but-one DYK" sections. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks; good catch. I've amended the hook as suggested by MB. If there's further discussion and we arrive at something even better, we can amend it further. Schwede66 02:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Queue 2 - Wikipedia link in Neurocracy hook

I don't readily find anything in the rules about this, but Queue 2 Neurocracy has a non-bolded link to Wikipedia. Probably don't need that link, do we? Pingng nominator and promoter @Sdkb and Theleekycauldron: — Maile (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

That hook is a bit unusual due to the meta aspect haha. Including the wikilink to Wikipedia was intentional, as it's a contextual link, but if others don't want it, it's not essential. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm neutral on this, honestly—linking Wikipedia will siphon some views, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, the user reads the hook on the main page, and clicks on the Wikipedia link. Which does nothing more than reload the main page that they're already on. I think I'll remove the link, because about all it will do is confuse the reader at best, or result in having someone open a thread to report a main page malfunction. — Maile (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
Clicking the link doesn't direct them to Wikipedia? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
trout Self-trout Reverted myself.— Maile (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I would say it does violate linking guidelines - don't link to common terms most readers would be somewhat familiar with, although the MOS applies within articles and not necessarily to DYK hooks. MB 22:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

a thing

so, i'm very hesitant to bring this up, for reasons that'll become clear in a second. i've been going through the archives to assemble an index of RfCs from WT:DYK, and i found this rfc following Yoninah's passing. this is kind of awkward for me to ask, and i promise i'm not angling for a decoration, but did that stall out? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I had put together a prototype design for the award, but got busy in real life and it fell off my plate. (Still rather busy these days, so happy for someone else to take the reins.) DanCherek (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
i saw that too—honestly, i'm fine with that project remaining unfinished. I shouldn't have brought it up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The Epic Split

I'm just wondering why part of the original hook was changed to "an actor" after it was moved to prep/mainspace. Such a pity to me, name-dropping Jean-Claude Van Damme somewhere would have been so much more effective... Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

My view was that dropping the name would siphon more attention away from the commercial than it would have attracted, but it's up to interpretation, of course. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Insular crozier in Q3

I've just promoted a set to Q3 and am now doing the checks. The lead hook (Insular crozier) uses the term "example(s)" twice and it seems that happened during promotion as the problem isn't present on the nom page. Twice is once too many; I suggest that the second use of "examples" be replaced with "specimens" or "ones". There might be other ways to fix that. Attention collaborators (Ceoil—Sammi Brie—TSventon—Theleekycauldron) Schwede66 19:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging (Ceoil—Sammi Brie—Schwede66—Theleekycauldron) I suggest "that of the many Insular croziers (example pictured) made between c. 800 and 1200, fewer than 20 survive fully intact". TSventon (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The addition would be my fault, yeah—no objections to removing the second one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
That's perfect, TSventon. Thanks! I've changed it accordingly. Schwede66 19:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Here per a ping by Theleekycauldron. At Template:Did you know nominations/Lismore Crozier, I raised some questions about the provenance of File:Lismore Crozier, c. 1100.jpg. That file is originally from this Flickr post. One such question is specific to the picture's use on Lismore Crozier—it's not clear from the Flickr post which crosier it actually is. But since it's not clear from Flickr what the pic actually is of, it's accordingly not clear whether this photograph represents an object in the public domain. One would certainly think that the rationale in commons:Template:PD-Art would apply, but given the lack of detail on the Flickr page I'm not sure. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

It certainly is the Lismore Crozier, and how would an exact replica not be in the public domain, as an object? No new copyrightable artistic work. Note it is in an album called "Ireland 2014" on Flickr. Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Right. Sorry, promoted a prep set this morning, did most of the checks, then went out for a few hours, and have now completed things. Theleekycauldron, I'm not sure that I understand what's going on with this lead hook. You promoted it to prep on 3 Oct at a time when the nomination was nowhere near ready. In fact, it's still not signed off as of right now. I for one don't see that there is an issue with the image, but we are missing a QPQ (the nominator has 33 credits and thus isn't exempt). What am I missing? Maybe we swap lead hooks from Prep7 to Q2, from Q2 to Q3, and thus replace this lead hook until such time as the nomination gets signed off. Schwede66 01:51, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@Schwede66: There are two separate nominations here. The first is Template:Did you know nominations/Insular crozier, which is approved and closed, and the second is Template:Did you know nominations/Lismore Crozier, which is still open. Both are using the same image, but they have different hooks. At Lismore Crozier, the reviewer raised a copyright question, and since it's the same image as the completed hook in Insular crozier, I asked the reviewer to share their concerns here. The Insular crozier article is ready to go. But I didn't promote the Lismore Crozier article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Aha, I thought I must have been confused and indeed I was. Sorry for the mix up. So all is good; I'm happy with the photo. Schwede66 01:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Have updated the Lismore DYK with a new PD image. Ceoil (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The DYK trash Redundant award

Something we've been doing as routine for years. When we have a lead image with its description right below the image, isn't it redundant to have (pictured) following the identically worded bold link in the hook? — Maile (talk) 11:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we could trial not using it? Desertarun (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Probably to be consistent with rest of main page, where the first thing in the list isn't always the one associated with the picture e.g. often the ITN picture is for the second or third hook. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I can envision that, repeating the same process without question because "everybody else does it" or "that's the way it's always been". This whole section has arisen because of a side comment at WP:ERRORS, where Gerda Arendt has brought up a related question in regards to her lead hook that is the next set on the main page.(diff) I removed the redundancy, and we'll see if anyone complains. I personally favor the idea that with the limited space alloted to DYK on the main page, we could use some common sense in building hooks and not repeat the obvious between the bolded hook and image caption. — Maile (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Consider my action the trial run suggested above. Also, just so there are no last-minute admins missing this thread and wondering if an error occurred, paging the usual @Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, Valereee, Schwede66, Vanamonde93, and BlueMoonset: — Maile (talk) 14:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I prefer the status quo (always with (pictured), regardless of position in list) for consistency as Joseph2302 mentioned above. It's also easier to scan the list for the word (pictured) to find out which item is being illustrated; omitting (pictured) makes that technique less certain. Bazza (talk) 15:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
(EC) Thanks for the heads up. It seems reasonable to trial this. The lead hook in Q1 was missing a comma, though, and I’ve added that. Schwede66 16:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Maile on this and have removed the unnecessary (pictured) from Queue 5. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree, I've done the same for a few of the prep sets. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
@Schwede66, Cwmhiraeth, and Theleekycauldron: I went ahead and removed (pictured) from the Jimmy Carter lead hook, as it seems almost a given the connection between that hook and the image of him. — Maile (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Further observation. There are exceptions when it should say (pictured), and that is when the image is not the bolded article in the lead hook. Example is the set we ran on September 25, two days ago. Wikipedia:Recent additions#25 September 2021. If we change the routine, we should be specific that we only drop (pictured) if the image is the same as the bolded hook. — Maile (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I've always felt this was redundant too, but never questioned it as it is clearly required by WP:DYKIMG. This needs to be updated if we make this change permanent. MB 14:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - like Joseph and Bazza, my opinion is that all picture hooks should have a (pictured) in them. There doesn't seem a strong reason for making this change, it is useful to be able to see at a glance which hook is pictured, and it is consistent with other areas of the main page.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  • History lesson! Did you know that image captions on the Main Page were implemented in 2015? Before then, the (pictured) was the only thing providing context for the image. This was a problem especially for ITN, where it was hard to tell which hook the image was about. For DYK, yeah, it does seem a bit redundant, as the image always accompanies the top-most item. Would the general reader who doesn't regularly check DYK be confused by its absence, though? --Paul_012 (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
    It relies on the knowledge that the picture hook is always the top one, which I don't think is necessarily obvious.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:35, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for the history lesson; couldn't remember when the captions appeared. Maybe we try it for a few weeks and see what feedback we get (e.g. via errors, or other editors who look after different aspects of the main page). Then take stock and discuss. Schwede66 07:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Current set (McDivitt) uses "pictured", in case that is not intended for trial. 71.175.88.163 (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • My view if the bolded article doesn't match the picture e.g. in Q5 where the bolded article is a person, and the picture is an animal, then the (pictured) should definitely be used. And if people are complaining at ERRORS about (pictured) not being used all the time, that would lean me towards just using it (even when it's obvious). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, exactly how many people at ERRORS have complained? So far, it seems to be just one individual, and two of our DYK admins, one expressing their view, and the other taking care of the issue at hand, quoting our guidelines at ERRORS. As I noted above, sometimes it's prudent to use the (pictured) , depending on how the hook is worded. But the majority of the time, it's just a redundancy taking up precious space. Maybe we could trust that our admins know when that is necessary and take care of it while it's still in queue. — Maile (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:ERRORS There was a reference made to a trial at WP:ERRORS, leading me to find this. I had already made another fix per a differenty report at ERRORS yesterday, as WP:DYKIMG still reads: The first hook should be modified to include (pictured) in the appropriate place to make the connection to the image. I don't have an opinion either way on the topic, but it seems that:
    1. This doesn't seem to be widely discussed yet or a case of WP:SNOW
    2. The concern of consistency with the reset of MP was brought up, suggesting more than a local consensus is preferable
    3. Documentation should reflect any new consensus, if any.
While the above remains outstanding, I'm likely to procedurally continue to add (pictured) if the issue should arise at WP:ERRORS.—Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • ALWAYS have "pictured". The increased usefulness as explained by Bazza far, far, far outweighs the paltry loss of space. --Khajidha (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment on consistency, which is often brought up at the moment. Of the five regular parts of the main page, as of today (7 October 2021), only two use (pictured). TFA regularly omits it it seems ("Cullen House is the former seat of the Earls of Seafield"), and TFP has "Niels Bohr (7 October 1885 – 18 November 1962) was a Danish physicist ..." The two sections that do use it are the sections where the image and the first article listed may not be related, so there is probably a reason to use the (pictured). TFA and TFP only ever have the one article, so there is no need to identify which entry the picture relates to, and they regularly omit it instances where there is no ambiguity over the subject of the article and what's being depicted. For DYK the lead image (or other file) always relates to the first entry listed, which sets it apart from OTD and ITN. Consistency with the main page is a point to be considered, but if you discount DYK it is often a 50/50 split with not using (pictured) and in instances when DYK doesn't, as so far with today, not using (pictured) becomes the majority usage. Spokoyni (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
    TFA and TFP only have one entry in them, so a comparison there is irrelevant. ITN, OTD and DYK are the sections that ought to be consistent with each other, since they all have multiple entries.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
    That's a reasonable point, that ITN, OTD and DYK ought to be consistent because they are lists, and I made that point. But I also made the point that other projects drop the feature where it is not ambiguous, that overall the main page is not consistent in its usage, and that the other list parts have the feature that the image is not always aligned with the top entry, which does not apply to DYK. I made those comments in good faith, so please don't dismiss them as irrelevant without addressing them. Spokoyni (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think it's about time to end this experiment. It's clear from the feedback at ERRORS that it's causing issues for people, and nobody has so far identified even one tangible benefit to us implementing this, other than gaining a tiny amount of space in the template, which doesn't seem worth it to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not convinced that the feedback from errors is not more than 'I've always seen it like this, now that it isn't like this, is it an oversight?' Spokoyni (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Always – Agree with Amakuru, Khajidha that (pictured) or (depicted) is always necessary to avoid reader confusion. Today's DYK is an example, as the James Milner caption in small type isn't adjacent to his blurb but rather to the fourth item about Elizabeth Olsen. – Sca (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Trial progress

Since it might be useful to track the progress of the trial so far. Since Gerda raised the issue on 26 September, eleven days later the archives show that so far on the main page we've had four hooks with (pictured) somewhere in it:

  • ... that the artist Robert Smithson suggested that the boulder in the center of his piece Broken Circle/Spiral Hill (pictured) was a "warning from the Ice Age"?
  • ... that Nigel Bonner, an Antarctic marine mammal specialist and Polar Medal recipient, researched the Antarctic fur seal (pictured) and published "the first modern scientific study of the species" in 1968?
  • ... that Sobekneferu (bust pictured) of Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty is the earliest undisputed female king to reign over ancient Egypt?
  • ... that one of the plaques of the Fundadores de São Paulo monument (pictured) was stolen in 2004, and cannot be replaced due to incomplete records?

And six hooks without:

  • ... that Monika Salzer, a systematic psychotherapist and Protestant pastor, was a columnist for the Kronen Zeitung and appeared on television in Dancing Stars?
  • ... that astronaut James McDivitt saw a UFO during his first spaceflight?
  • ... that Jimmy Carter reported that he had seen a UFO?
  • ... that Wilfried Gruhn founded a centre for early childhood music learning in Freiburg, based on the Gordon music learning theory?
  • ... that following the controversial success of Amarin Plaza, Rangsan Torsuwan went on to design the Grand Hyatt Erawan hotel in the same vein, but with Thai-style columns replacing Ionic ones?
  • ... that the mayor's office building in Palembang, Indonesia, was built to function as both a town hall and a water tower?
  • ... that James Milner once held the title of the Premier League's youngest goal scorer?

In that time on ERRORS:

So far one person has queried the presence of (pictured) and three people have queried its absence. None have indicated positive or negative thoughts, merely noting its absence or presence. Twice people have been notified it is because a trial was running, with the Nigel Bonner hook and James Milner hook. In neither instance (yet) has this resulted in feedback, either here or on errors. The James Milner report is the first time this discussion has been linked from ERRORS and feedback invited. Spokoyni (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Tangent on hook caption

In the example above, the hook on Benjamin William Page in Wikipedia:Recent additions#25 September 2021 was a painting, captioned with "HMS Caroline, painted by Thomas Buttersworth". Captions in biography infoboxes with lead images should not normally give credit to the photographer/painter per MOS:CREDITS because the artist is not a "key fact" about the person that belongs in the infobox (I realize this is in fact commonly ignored). DYK images are not infoboxes, but I think the same applies. In this case, we had a link on the mainpage that had nothing to do with the hook. The artist didn't even appear in the article. MB 14:37, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why infobox guidelines (especially one that's commonly ignored) should apply to DYKs. Unlike infoboxes, DYKs do not necessarily summarize "key facts" about the subject; on the contrary, hooks should highlight the most interesting fact rather than just presenting a "key fact". According to the general MoS for painting captions, part of the "minimum information to be included" is the artist's name. Thank you for pointing out that the artist's name was missing from the caption in the article. I've now fixed that. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Because we shouldn't be drawing attention to something that is largely irrelevant to the hook. This is the same reason we generally minimize linking in the hook itself. MB 21:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Putting the "yeas" and "nays" in perspective

Is the (pictured) there because that's always been the process, because we need to be consistent with the other areas of the Main Page? Or maybe because we just plain don't want to change it? Given that a recent average of 5 million people view the main page daily, the number of comments at WP:ERRORS on this issue are - what? less than 5 or so total? That indicates that the general viewership isn't cognizant that the (pictured) should, or should not, be there. So, it really comes down to a consensus of DYK regulars. The general public isn't spending much time wondering about it. And if the general public was confused by the missing (pictured) , we'd have more complaints. — Maile (talk) 10:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It's there because the benefit of having it is more important than the loss of a few characters of space. --Khajidha (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
And then there's the other thought. Featured Articles have never used the (pictured), nor do they put an explanatory label beneath the image . — Maile (talk) 16:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Sounds more like a problem with FA to me. --Khajidha (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
And TFA do use pictured, especially if it's not 100% clear what the subject of the image is. Plus they only have one topic in their section of the main page, not eight. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
How many of the general viewership even know there's a venue to comment on the change? How often do non-editors ever post on ERRORS? Primergrey (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree; the people who post on WP:ERRORS are a fraction of the people who are annoyed by it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:30, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
We could have a better idea if we had an RFC. SL93 (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
We could do that, but even better would be to stop wasting time like this on a change that appears to offer no benefit, put (pictured) back where it's always been, and get on with our lives. Sorry if I'm being a bit blunt about all this, but the continuing trickle of complaints at ERRORS, even if it's just every few days, is a bit of an annoyance and it's enough to convince me that I was right to oppose this change in the first place. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  • This "change" is entirely detrimental and looks like it's been a total timesink. Put (pictured) back, it's not "redundant" and it matches the rest of the main page. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
    Afaik, for featured articles, there's no (pictured) if it's self evident, such as a portrait of the person the article is about. To omit it would bring DYK in line with that practise. It's not without irony that for Monika Salzer (where it all began), I didn't want to omit it, only place it better, because she was pictured in a role, which should be marked, both DYK and FA. It wasn't. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
    DYK has eight hooks often with more than eight targets. There's absolutely no harm at all in just making it explicit. And the sheer and gargantuan waste of energy here and elsewhere to exclude it is probably enough to add (pictured) for the next millennium. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
    yeah, i'm flipping my vote. this has absolutely been more trouble than its worth, and stemming the complaints and annoyance at WP:ERRORS is more than worth a couple characters' worth of space. someone else wants to omit (pictured) from the sets i build, you can be bold, but i'm not anymore theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
    Again, either (pictured) or (depicted) is necessary in each and every case to avoid reader confusion. – Sca (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Time to end the trial run

I'm the one who opened up this trial, and I am now suggesting we move on. I don't think there has been a consensus either direction. Some are OK with it, and others are not comfortable when we omit it. It amounts to a handful of comments either direction. Let's close this little trial down and go back to automatically having the (pictured) there. — Maile (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, most people thought it was unhelpful. So let's restore the status quo as soon as possible. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible issue with hook, and question about DYK credit

Template:Did you know nominations/St. John's Terminal, which is currently in Prep 4, was nominated by @SnowFire two weeks ago and approved by @Daniel Case. The current hook is "... that St. John's Terminal was planned to have 17 floors, was built with 3, and is now being expanded to 12?". After expanding the article today, I found there is a potential problem with the hook. According to sources I found that were published during the building's construction, the blueprints that were actually submitted were for a 12-floor building, but the 17-floor count is from a later source. I haven't finished looking into the issue yet, but the hook may need to be revised.

As an aside, would this make me eligible for a DYK expansion credit, or would it only count if I had expanded it within a week from it was created? If I expand it to 5 times its previous size, would that make me eligible even though the DYK has not run yet? – Epicgenius (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to Epicgenius's sources and can't easily judge whether the NYT source I used was wrong, or if Epicgenius's sources are incomplete, or if NYT was right-but-misleading (e.g. maybe the reporter heard a story about a plan to go to 17 but that happened later, or was just an idea floated, etc.). If you want to play it safe, there's another ALT1 hook already approved to be switched in. SnowFire (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
ALT1 does work fine and doesn't conflict with anything I've seen. Thinking about it now, I believe that had I added the info earlier, there could be a bunch of other hooks for consideration. For example, the fact that a tennis club leased space at the terminal after its broker spotted the roof from a helicopter.
I realized I forgot to ping @theleekycauldron, the promoter of this nomination. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Epicgenius and SnowFire: I'll switch in ALT1 if ALT0 has an issue, that's no problem. For the aside, I don't know if there's anything technically in the rules against another nomination, but I would be against it—seems to violate the spirit of the rule. You could expand it however much, propose a new ALT, and if SnowFire approves and the ALT is ran, claim a new credit—that I'd be fine with. Seems a bit late, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron and SnowFire: I actually checked the page now. It is now 14,353 prose characters and DYKcheck indicates that it's a fivefold expansion from the previously existing article. This is ordinarily where I would have nominated the page for DYK, but (1) the nomination already exists, so a second nomination would be disallowed; and (2) the hook hasn't run yet, so a new nomination isn't even necessary. Here are two additional hooks I'd propose:
  • ALT2: ... that a tennis club signed a lease at St. John's Terminal after its broker spotted the terminal's roof from a helicopter? Source
  • ALT3: ... that the floor slabs at St. John's Terminal, measuring 205,000 square feet (19,000 m2) each, were once the largest floors in New York City? Source
I apologize that I'm butting in on this nomination so late. I had planned to add info to the article but forgot about it. I only noticed the discrepancy in the approved hook when I did add the info today. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

(de-indent) "signing a lease" sounds a little boring. Also, I'm a little skeptical of ALT3, it's referenced but I'm not sure the NYT journalist really knew for sure, especially since it says "New York City" not "Manhattan" (really? Not something at JFK or the like?). The original ALT1 or something like...

  • ALT2B: ... that a club set up tennis courts on the roof of St. John's Terminal after its broker spotted it from a helicopter? Source

Thoughts, @Epicgenius: ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnowFire (talk • contribs)

oops theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
In my view, Epicgenius has made a significant contribution to the article and is therefore eligible for a credit. I have seen this done on a number of occasions when reviewers or others have made improvements to an article after it has been nominated for DYK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Epicgenius does have a credit on the nom now, so as long as the hook runs, we're all good. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Prep 1

... that Sophie Drakeford-Lewis was once the highest ranked British youth tennis player? This isn't the hook as nominated, as it's missing the fact that she's now a netball player, which is why it's unusual. Someone being the highest ranked British youth tennis player isn't in itself unusual (as they could just be a pro tennis player now), but an international netball player doing that is a lot more unusual. Could this be changed to the actually approved hook- we shouldn't be cutting down hooks if it loses context for them? Pinging promoter Theleekycauldron. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that's totally my oversight, sorry about that! I'll swap it out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

Lowercase sigmabot III remains down, so the previous list was not archived a few days ago as it ought to have been. Said list is getting a little long in the tooth, so I’ve created a new list that includes all 33 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 3. We currently have a total of 182 nominations, of which 101 have been approved, a gap of 81. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Bio hooks

@BlueMoonset et al.: we're currently at 33 of 100 bio hooks (averaging out to around 2.64 per set), so I'm going to void the 2 bio hooks/set limit for now. I'm not putting 3 or 4 in every set just yet, i'd like to see that number come up a little more, but not I'm not confining every prep set to 2 hooks either theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

RFCs in general

A thought on presenting and commenting on RFC - or any other ideas likely to take up many comments. Once upon a time, DYK RFCs were on a separate sub page, with a link from this page. It worked well that way, and kept this page from being clogged with endless comments on one subject. That part of the process seems to have gradually gone awry on occasion, making it onerous for any editor wanting to read or comment on something else. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that the process seemed to deviate a little bit at a time, one discussion at a time, and went full-throttle when we all were expressing our thoughts and ideas on commemorating Yoninah. Could we please go back to that? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Do we need an RfC on that? ;) —valereee (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Aahhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!! Maybe we could voluntarily resume the practice without having to get everybody's opinion before we take a step one direction or another. — Maile (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
ah, beat me to it, valereee. But yeah, i'd say that we should probably be holding RfCs on separate subpages, keeping a bulletin at the top of any active RfCs. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
You know ... we could perhaps find a way to (1) create the RFC on its own page, and (2) put a link to it in the navbox we see in the upper right hand of this page. That way, neither any current RFCs, nor the contents of this talk page, would overwhelm each other. — Maile (talk) 21:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Maile, where on earth did the idea come from that RfCs were historically not on this page? My recollection was that they were here except for a few exceptions, and I've just looked through the list of past DYK RfCs in the Archives box and the vast bulk of them are indeed in the archives to this page rather than on subpages. What were you looking at that showed otherwise? Given that this section starts from—as best I can verify—a dubious "once upon a time" premise, we should keep RfCs right here unless they truly become incommodious: here, they're less likely to be overlooked by people when they start and as they move up the page. They're out of the way when they end up at the top until they finally close; I'd imagine most people are like me, tending to look at the lower quadrant of the page to find out what the latest issues are. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Oh, sorry, I forgot who I am dealing with over here - "once upon a time" would be 2012. Please see 2012 Wikipedia talk:Did you know/GibraltarPediA Options - although I wish I had never opened this particular RFC, at the time I opened it, one admin and one non-admin had told me before I laid it out, to make it a subpage. And as you can see, it is. I'm not going to name who told me that - as they are no longer active at DYK, and don't need to be dragged into this discussion. I didn't dream up that idea. I was specifically told that. It was not something I would have thought to do on my own. At that point in time, I had never even conceived of anything being on a subpage. — Maile (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I obviously wasn't around for that time, but it looks like it was technically a proposal, and not an honest-to-god RfC? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, nine years later, beats the hell out of me what it was. I don't think you need to hang your hat on the specific term "RFC" not being there. At that point in time, I'm not sure I even understood the significance of calling it an RFC, or not doing so. Let's not get picky over words here. The background about this - as best as I can remember - is there was a big dust-up over too many Gibraltar hooks. I'm not sure of all the details, but I was trying to help out in whatever way I could, as nobody else seemed to be doing anything but complain on both sides of the issue. If I blew the specific wording of the title, who the blankety blank cares. It was in the spirit of RFC, as I later came to understand an RFC. You can argue about this, wrap it around and noodle and look at it in any direction, and I really don't care. In fact, by the seconds, I'm starting to care less and less about this whole subject matter. — Maile (talk) 01:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay, i hear you—it seems we're shooting off on a tangent again. Let's circle back. Howzabout for the larger, more important RfCs, they go on a subpage and there'll be a bulletin, but for the smaller ones that fit on this page, they can stay here? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
2Okay - sorry there. Well, perhaps leave as status quo. I understand what you are saying, and I know you understand that my concern is about other threads and issues on this page being lost somewhere among the lengthy RFCs. BlueMoonset is sometimes an indicator of general insight here. It would be easier in the long run to just leave things as status quo. It's just too much to even bother with, so let's leave it alone. — Maile (talk) 01:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Bridget Partridge

I have a small qualm over this DYK: Template:Did you know nominations/Bridget Partridge. Large portions of the article are covered by a single reference. The entire "Early life and education" section is verified using only a single/same reference. Two paragraphs of the Sectarian controversy are covered by a single reference. It can be argued that the article meets the minimum of rules to qualify a passing review of DYK, but as has been argued at other DYKs, such bare minimum for some sections of this article, makes me feel uneasy.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 14:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kerrieburn, Sammi Brie, and Theleekycauldron: courtesy ping to nominator, reviewer and promoter. Just for the record, I disagree. This article has 12 individual sources. The source you are concerned about has been used half a dozen times. You can feel uneasy about it, but DYK only requires verifiability, not counting sourcing details by paragraph or how many times a source is used. — Maile (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I did something similar on two GAs that I wrote. I don't see the issue. SL93 (talk) 14:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
yeah, i don't feel uneasy about signing off on it—National biographical dictionaries are reliable enough by themselves to be used this way. In fact, anyone with an entry in a national biographical dictionary passes WP:ANYBIO, so it's reasonable to think that they were meant to be used this way to some extent. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Prep 6 tweak to Salu

Salu (cloth)

@RAJIVVASUDEV, Cwmhiraeth, and Theleekycauldron:

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles and the article Ain-i-Akbari article itself, I have added the word "the", and italics to the Ain-i-Akbari in the Salu hook. No other changes from me. — Maile (talk) 15:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Works for me! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 15:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Prep 7: Template:Did you know nominations/The Election of 1800

Pinging promoter, @Kavyansh.Singh: I'd really rather run the ALT1 in the quirky slot than the ALT0—I kind of only proposed ALT0 if ALT1 didn't work. Is there any way to switch it? Thanks so much, theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron – I just thought that ALT 1 is surely interesting, but might be a bit confusing. Did Alexander Hamilton had any opportunity, whatsoever, to break the tie in 1800 United States presidential election? And by tie, do we mean the contingent election for vice president between Jefferson and Burr? I'll swap the hooks, but will wait for your reply. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh: So, in real life, Hamilton did not break the electoral college tie with the contingent election in the House—he didn't have a vote there. He did, however, lobby to make it happen. In the plot of the song, however, the race is portrayed as being between Jefferson and Burr, and ending in a tie that Hamilton has to break. So while Hamilton doesn't break the tie in the actual 1800 United States presidential election, he does break the tie in the song, which is entitled "The Election of 1800". The article explains the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron – Seems fine to me. Switched to ALT 1 in Prep 7. On another note, it was the first prep set I assembled. Do let me know if I made any error. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh: thank you so much, and congrats on your first prep set! The hooks are all interesting, they come from a wide selection of topics and countries, and it keeps to the limits on biographical and U.S. hooks (2-ish and 4 per set, respectively)—nice work! What I will mention is that you should check that you don't end up putting two hooks of the same country or two biographical hooks right next to each other—try to space them out over the prep set. Other than that, great job! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
I've added a link to 1800 United States presidential election for context. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: could you check the nompage? I think there was some discussion there about it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'll defer to your preference on this one, though I personally don't feel like including a link detracts from the egginess of the hook. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
thank you :) i really do appreciate it theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Prep1: too many fishponds

The fishpond hook in prep1 reads: ... that Charles IV commanded the construction of fishponds "so that the kingdom would abound in fish and mist", resulting in significant expansion of the fishponds of the Třeboň Basin?

That's using the word "fishponds" twice. How about:

ALT3: ... that Charles IV commanded construction work "so that the kingdom would abound in fish and mist", resulting in significant expansion of the fishponds of the Třeboň Basin?

Pinging the nominator, reviewer, and promoter. Schwede66 18:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

ALT3a: ... that Charles IV commanded the significant expansion of the fishponds of the Třeboň Basin "so that the kingdom would abound in fish and mist"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I've adopted ALT3a. Schwede66 21:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
ALT3a isn't quite accurate; the command was issued broadly across the Kingdom of Bohemia, and while the Třeboň Basin was probably the most notable complex to result, it was not aimed solely at it. How about:
ALT3b: ... that Charles IV commanded works "so that the kingdom would abound in fish and mist", resulting in significant expansion of the fishponds of the Třeboň Basin?
Or, if we are allowed to pipe the title:
ALT3c: ... that Charles IV commanded the construction of fishponds "so that the kingdom would abound in fish and mist", resulting in significant expansion within the Třeboň Basin?
BilledMammal (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd rather stick closer to ALT3a still—it does flow a bit better. How about:
ALT3d: ... that Charles IV commanded the significant expansion of the fishponds of the Třeboň Basin and other fishponds across the land "so that the kingdom would abound in fish and mist"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I prefer how that flows, but I feel it is a little inaccurate, both in the focus of his edict upon the Třeboň Basin and in the nature of "expansion"; its suitable when applied to the Třeboň Basin, as the system of fishponds is being expanded rather than specific fishponds, but that doesn't work for "other fishponds" where I would read it as individual fishponds being expanded to cover more area, rather than new fishponds being built. (Sorry, I'm being a little pedantic). How about:
ALT3e: ... that the fishponds of the Třeboň Basin were significantly expanded when Charles IV commanded the construction of fishponds "so that the kingdom would abound in fish and mist"?
Although, it doesn't fix the issue with the duplication of "fishponds". BilledMammal (talk) 01:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: maybe it's not important to get this exactly right? Not telling the whole truth, but only part of it, is a hallmark of many DYKs. ALT3a doesn't say anything false—it omits some information, but the idea that Charles IV specifically commanded the expansion of one fishpond so that the whole kingdom would be abound in fish and mist is a funny image to conjure. It's all right to disagree, of course, but I think there's something to be said for not telling the whole truth. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense, though in that case may I propose the following?:
ALT3f: ... that Charles IV commanded the significant expansion of the fishponds of the Třeboň Basin "so that the kingdom would abound in fish and mist"?
BilledMammal (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@BilledMammal: no objections here, but are you sure you phrased it the way you wanted to phrase it? possibly double-check theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
I think so, but despite looking again I can't see the aspect you are referring to, so I'm going to assume I'm missing something and just say that I'm happy with any of the options discussed above BilledMammal (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

We're above 120

Time to switch back to two-a-day—pinging @Casliber, Cwmhiraeth, Maile66, and Hog Farm to get us in motion on that one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The switch should occur after the midnight UTC promotion of Queue 4 to the main page about 50 minutes from now: User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates should then be changed by an admin from 86400 to 43200 so we start promoting queues to the main page twice a day, at midnight and noon UTC. Also pinging Amakuru, valereee, and ONUnicorn, in case they're around and can help. It would really help to get a few preps promoted to queue, both to free up prep space and to get more queues ready for promotion, since we're increasing the burn rate for a while. Many thanks. (Note: as best as I've been able to determine, there are no special occasion hooks in the current crop of queues and preps, so hooks shouldn't need to be moved.) BlueMoonset (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Definitely no need to worry about special occasion hooks, we haven't had any since early october. I'll be around to promote preps. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 Done, as far as the time change goes.— Maile (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Hook was changed

Can the hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Pauline Brown Humphrey be changed to the correct approved version? The changed hook makes it seems like the beauty shop was for all African American women in the Women's Army Corps, but it only applies to those African American women who were in Fort Des Moines. theleekycauldron SL93 (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense, my bad theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Can you please not change the approved hooks without notice? SL93 (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
This seems similar to the ongoing discussion at WP:ERRORS, so I'll just refer you to my response there for the overarching question. As for this particular edit, I usually trim off time and location qualifiers when they look extraneous (because there are a lot of those), and at first glance, this one did. I made a mistake, and I apologize. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Any protracted discussion about DYK hook promotion that is not directly related to the current Main Page should be resolved here, since Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors is not archived and it would be much harder to refer to the discussion in the future. DanCherek (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@DanCherek: I think we're fine. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, Theleekycauldron while we are on the topic, could you please change the hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Euphorbia caducifolia back to the approved alt0 as well. The hook worked based on the play of the two vernacular names used, however, you opted to switch "leafy milk hedge" to "holy milk hedge" removing the wordplay of the hook entirely. I also agree the discussion at WP:Errors is one that should be happening here.--Kevmin § 05:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Kevmin: Appreciate the request, but no. First off, it's not your nomination, it's Cwmhiraeth's. Second, I notified Cwmhiraeth of the change, and they thanked me for the edit, so I think it's fine. Third, the hook is in queue and I'm not an admin. Fourth, the asymmetry is what makes it interesting—much more than just "leafless" and "leafy". "holy" is interesting, my hope is that people will click on that one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: You think the asymmetry make it interesting, I think it makes it a dull, "oh look to plant names" hook and less interesting. More broadly, please be more circumspect with wording changed when they are not error fixes please, multiple people have noted that the wording they pick is being changed.--Kevmin § 14:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, I do appreciate the feedback. Anything else? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Preparation area 3

Hi Theleekycauldron, thankyou for this notification of a change to the Template:Did you know nominations/Johnny Gold hook. I really appreciate how you notify nominators of changes, and I usually agree with them. However in this instance I think there might be a problem with the change.

The original hook was: ... that Jackie Collins likened nightclub owner Johnny Gold to "an old whore, always there, always ready for your demands and always prepared to give you a good time"?

The hook is now: ... that Jackie Collins likened nightclub owner Johnny Gold to "an old whore"?

Collins meant it as a compliment and I think that is clear from the whole quote, but the shortened hook makes it sound like an insult. I appreciate the need for snappiness in hooks but if the original is deemed too long I would prefer that the alternative I proposed: "... that Johnny Gold ran one of "London's most fashionable nightclubs for the outrageously rich"?" ran instead. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 06:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dumelow: First, thank you for bringing it up this way, i really appreciate it. I've had a bit of a rough day with these kinds of changes and this was a quite diplomatic way to put it.
I want to explain my thought process on this one a little bit, but if you still want to change it, I'm more than happy to put it back the way it was. First, i thought that it is a little more grabby the modified way. My idea was to play a bit of misdirection—for those who click on the link, they'll find that it wasn't actually mean, it was kind of a nice, rough-around-the-edges compliment. However, i appreciate the fact that they are people and we don't want those who don't click to come away with the wrong idea. So maybe we could make it clear in the hook, and give a little cognitive dissonance to the readers that compels them to click?
... that Jackie Collins likened nightclub owner Johnny Gold, not unkindly, to "an old whore"?
Maybe it gets readers thinking "how do you compare someone to an old whore without being unkind?" If you're not convinced, I'll change it back, of course. That's where my head was at, though. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi theleekycauldron, that's perfect. I really appreciate what you do to keep DYK going and to improve hooks, please keep up the good work! - Dumelow (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
of course, thank you! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Expansion question

I think i missed something in calculating 5x expansion—i rewrote a stub that had been laying dormant, Fuchs Mizrachi School. It was at 358 bytes, and I expanded it to 2,131 bytes. I think I missed something, though, because DYKcheck is returning a negative on expansion. Looking through rules of expansion, I think I missed something—what did i miss? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

DYKcheck goes by the longest version of the article though DYK is only based on the version before expansion. You would need to use a different way to calculate the expansion and mention it in the DYK nomination just in case. SL93 (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@SL93: all right, thanks! I'll put it up for nomination, we'll see what the reviewer says. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Taking a quick glance at the current article, the lead certainly has a lot of room for expansion as it's a single line; if you want to bring the character count up then expanding it to adequately summarise everything would be a fair and equitable way to go about it, but a page-version showing the revision of the article before you began work should be enough anyway. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm so confused, because I just read the rules, which are in more than one place. And then we had an RFC on the rules. I think it might take a manual look-see on the recent history. The DYK Check tool is no good for that, because there was repeated reverted vandalism in 2017, and spamming in 2016. Section blanking in 2018. In other words, a lot of hanky-panky junk happened in its edit history. I don't think any of those size changes should even be considered in calculating this as 5X expansion. Maybe we could consider it a 5X expansion from it most recent stable version before the expansion began. — Maile (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
That makes much more sense—this explanation, which is linked in the rules and hasn't been updated since 2017, made it seem like you had to calculate the starting point as the last stable revision from within seven days ago, which seems obviously bunkum given the RfC. I did end up expanding the lead, but this seems like a legitimate fivefold expansion anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

If you run DYK check on the version before your expansion, it was 358 characters then. Even though it may have been slightly larger earlier, it looks like unsourced content was removed and it has been stable for six months, so the April 19 version is a reasonable starting point. The current version is 2517, well above the 1790 needed to reach 5x. I always run DYK check on the before/after versions when doing an expansion do the rest manually (and put this info in the nomination). MB 02:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Current - all Queues filled, two Preps open, 106 approved waiting promotion

BlueMoonset and others. As I type this, all our Queues are filled. We have two empty preps. So ... 16 slots available? We currently have 106 approved hooks waiting promotion. — Maile (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

just filled a prep set, and Kavyansh.Singh is filling the last one, so we'd be at eight slots. We're probably going back to two-a-day within a week, right? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
That's how it looks to me, sort of. Prep 6 has 5 empty slots, and Prep 7 is empty altogether. We're getting close to that 120 approved hooks switchover. — Maile (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to fill parts of Prep 7—try and delay and prepare for the two-a-day switch. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Prep 6 is filled. Prep 7 has just 2 empty slots. We are all-set! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Special occasion holding area

Why can't we have Wugbot move approved special occasion hooks down to the holding area? We could have two parameters in the nomination template for date and rationale. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I only ask because we're missing stuff—not every s.o. hook that's approved for its date is going out on time, in fact, a lot are slipping through because reviewers aren't moving noms down to the holding area theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Since the DYK rules state that:

"The proposed occasion must be deemed sufficiently special by reviewers"

It should be someone other than the nominator or the reviewer moving the nomination into the holding area. Because "reviewers" is plural, it implies that a second opinion/reviewer is required. Flibirigit (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so where do we hold noms that have approval to run, but not special occasion approval? Leaving them dispersed in DYKNA shouldn't be an option. And frankly, I don't see the value in requiring another level of scrutiny for the date—just let the reviewer handle it. I think the best solution is to give reviewers discretion over whether a proposed date is valid, but if not, then we need a different strategy to make sure things go out when they're supposed to. Any suggestions? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Just leaving the special occasion nominations on the DYKNA page, waiting for someone uninvolved to move it to the holding place is honestly not required. Better option would be that either nominator, or the reviewer moves the nomination to the holding place. Any "uninvolved" person , who has any objections to the notability of the proposed occasion is free to bring it to the nomination page, or on this talk page. And in most of the cases, this "uninvolved" person should be the prep builder. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we have a separate kind of check mark for special occasion approval, then? I'll see if I can't design something theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The keep vote symbol seems to work well for this purpose. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Any introduction of a new symbol icon needs the involvement of Shubinator, since using an unknown (to DYKHousekeepingbot) icon will result in the nomination not being counted as approved by the bot, and Wugapodes as well, so WugBot knows what to move...and you'll also need to modify the DYK checklist template to add a special occasion parameter so the correct icon is generated there, too. This seems like an unnecessary extra layer of complexity given the purported benefit. I'm frankly dubious about turning the Special occasions section into a Proposed but not Confirmed Special occasions section where the decisions are entirely made by prep builders who seem to forget about the section's existence a fair amount of the time, as understandable as that might be given that there are sometimes weeks between such occasions. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: you're right, of course, there are difficulties, but also I don't see how any of that is a dealbreaker. From what I know about Wugbot's functionality and capabilities, given the existence of the AGF tick, implementing this wouldn't be so technically difficult, although of course I defer to Shubinator and Wugapodes. Regarding the proposed/confirmed status of the special occasion section for this, there are two workarounds. Either we keep it as confirmed only, and use the new symbol only if both the request and the nomination (and only then will WugBot move it down to the area), or we just say "screw it", because prep builders will forget about the s.o. section the same amount whether it's proposed or confirmed. I'm personally fine with either. re: prep builders forgetting, I'll if I can't write a bot to remind me, or any other prep builder who wants. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Update: No, no I cannot write a reminder bot without a bunch of permissions I don't have. bummer. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
And also, while i (can't speak for other prep builders) do often forget about the existence of the holding area, it's not like it being spread out over WP:DYKNA makes it any easier. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The introduction of a new symbol can be complicated and unnecessary, but as to the proposal, I don't think that its complicated. Currently, we are still unsure about who moves an approved nomination to the special occasion section. For some of my nominations, I waited few days before moving it to the section myself, because no one else did. Perhaps, a special occasion nomination approved by a reviewer should be understood as approved for that special occasion, and should be moved by anyone to the holding section. And prep builders forgetting about checking this section should not be the only reason to reject this. Thoughts? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
No, let's not assume a failure to disallow means that the reviewer meant to approve. Too often, they haven't even thought about it; if they have, they're likely to do the move themselves. Perhaps we should add to the reviewing instructions that they should do so if they approve. In any event, the nominator should feel free to query, either on the nomination or here, if the approved nomination hasn't been moved, and request movement if the reviewer (or someone else) concurs. It's simple enough. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so we have a few ideas floating around. First, we either give reviewers or prep builders discretion over date proposals. If it's reviewers, they either have to move nominations down themselves, or the bot has to be programmed to recognize approval of a date request and move it down to the holding area automatically. If it's prep builders, than either we do nothing or we program the bot to move any approved special occasion hook down to the holding area.
I'd just like to point out that right now, we're getting the worst of both worlds: prep builders have de facto control over whether a special date request is approved, or even noticed, but there's no automated assistance, so nominations slip through. So either we give discretion to reviewers and figure out whether we want them to move it down or not, or we should move them all down and just let the prep builders decide. Doing nothing is arguably the worst option, because it's much easier for prep builders to miss things when it's in the haystack. Yesterday, a nomination nominated on like September 10 (with a valid request for October 5) wasn't approved until October 4, and no one thought to send up a flag or even move the nomination. We miss things sometimes, it's inevitable, but it doesn't have to be this way. My vote is that all approved noms with a date request just get moved down, and if prep builders miss things, well, it happens. Better to hinge on the prep builder than both the reviewer and the prep builder to make the catch. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Any other thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
"all approved noms with a date request just get moved down"—Exactly! I understand the we can't just presume that the reviewer has approved it for that date, but the issue is that we still don't know who approves it for the special occasions. I have no objection with "special occasion date approval instructions" being added in the reviewing instructions. I can't say for the technical part including the bots, but, the current system in really ambiguous. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
To me, the automatic assumption is the worst of all worlds. Count me opposed to default moves. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
To me, Everything which is not forbidden is allowed. If a reviewer does not oppose or pass comment on a special occasion request (and most new reviewers don't), then permission should be granted for the request to me moved to the appropriate holding area. We still have oversight from prep builders and the admins who move the set. I don't think that we should be trying the technical route with a new bot or anything because different people request dates in different ways and it just wouldn't work. To me, it should just be the reviewer or nominator after approval who is responsible for their own hooks and holding areas. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
And that is why you keep running into trouble here at DYK: when people tell you that you shouldn't do something, you just ignore them. If something isn't approved or moved, ask on this talk page: if it's an appropriate nomination for a special occasion, it will get moved by someone who is uninvolved, which you, as nominator, certainly are. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
I follow the rules as they are written on WP:DYKRULES and WP:DYKSG. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, when I suggested this, I never told that moving an approved nomination to the Special occasion holding area means an automatic assumption that they are approved for that date. As BlueMoonset pointed, I suggested to turn the Special occasion holding section to a "Proposed but not Confirmed Special occasions section". Here is how the current system works, which is more or less confusing. Firstly, the nominator nominates the article, which is then reviewed per the DYK criteria. The edit-notice on the page, which tells the criteria, doesn't discuss about special occasion nominations, so most of the reviewers don't pass comment on the notability of the proposed date. After the nomination is approved, it is dispersed in the WP:DYKNA page, and doesn't moved down the Special occasion holding area until anyone uninvolved gives a "second opinion" to the notability of that date, which makes it difficult for prep builders to spot it, and occasionally we miss them. For example, currently, we have Template:Did you know nominations/Norman Dawe, which is approved, requested for October 18, but any prep builder (except @Theleekycauldron, they were the reviewer) has not yet spotted it, and no one has provided the "second opinion" to move it down the special occasion holding area. Ironically, the prep for October 18 is completely filled, and now to make the change, we'll need to swap the hooks. And if someone actually gives a "second opinion", what is the criteria to decide whether a date is notable enough? And if we do so, we must have at-least a few nominations which are actually rejected due to date not being notable. Are there any? As always, I surely appreciate any feedback, and please do correct me if I am wrong here. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: I agree with pretty much everything you're saying here—also, I emptied out the relevant slot for any prep builder who wants to promote Dawe. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 15:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, Kavyansh.Singh, there have been special occasion requests that have been turned down, so the nominations weren't held but were promoted either sooner or later than requested. Sometimes the refusal is because the date requested is the release date of the book or movie or album—too much like advertising. Sometimes it's too controversial: requesting a politically charged date for an event, for example. And sometimes it's not at all special: the birth date of a fictional character, or the birth date of the voice actor who played said character. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Just for transparency, I have now promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Norman Dawe tp Prep 1 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
any other thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, anyone except the nominator can move an approved hook to the SOHA. If a nom is concerned that it's not been moved, they can ask their reviewer (or anyone else, really) to move it. After that anyone except the nom can move it into prep. If the nom is concerned, they can ask a prep builder to move it in, or if the prep's already been built before they notice it's not there, they can ask here in Talk for someone to swap it in. They may not get their wish, but they're free to ask. —valereee (talk) 18:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: then why not just have WugBot do it? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Or why not add it to the reviewers' instructions. By that, we might actually have a check on that date's notability ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh, in theory I have no objection to instructing reviewers to move a hook if they agree with the request, but I believe that means requiring them to remember (unasked) to circle back, as I don't think we want them moving it before Wugbot moves it to the approved hooks page? (Not totally clear on this.) —valereee (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, because if Wugbot does it, it's not agreement by a human that this special occasion request is a good idea. It shouldn't be automatic. It should take someone agreeing with the nominator, "Yeah, that's a reasonable request." —valereee (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: maybe that's a job for the prep builders, then? they're already keeping the dates and hooks in their head. Unless there needs to be two checks on whether the date is valid? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

oops, valereee theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's what in practice it's generally been: something prep builders do, plus a few other regulars. Prep builders are regularly going through the list of approved noms, so they (and a few other regulars) are the most likely to notice a SO request. —valereee (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Just like the parameters about article's length and age, can we add another one about "Special occasion date request"? If the reviewer has approved the nomination with the date request, either they can move it to the special occasion holding area, or anyone else who noticing it can can move (believing that a manual review for the date request has been approved, since it takes some time for Wugbot to move an approved nomination). My view on this is:
  1. Either allow anyone to move a special occasion nomination to the holding area, whether the reviewer has commented on date's notability or not, or
  2. Make it a requirement for the reviewer to comment on the special occasion date's notability, just like other requirements of article's age and length.

Option 1 seems more practical and easy to follow, Option 2 seems more logical and probably on a safer side. I am fine with both. But, we currently are not completely following any of the above case. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh, we already do allow #1 (the nom is the only one who can't move it there), and #2 (while it's a good idea) is not going to fix whether it actually gets moved to SOHA or promoted to prep on that day, which it seems like was the original concern in this thread: that things were falling through the cracks. IMO the nom needs to take the lead on shepherding these SO requests. It's their nom. They know what date they requested. Most noms making SO requests are plenty experienced enough to know how and where to make these requests for help. —valereee (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: my idea was more that as long as prep builders are the ones vetting special date requests anyway, it'd be easier if they were all in one place, even if being in the holding area doesn't necessarily mean approval. The step of of moving the nom to the holding area doesn't have to mean that it's approved for that date; maybe it's moving it into the relevant prep set that does that. Kavyansh, while that is a good idea, it doesn't quite prevent stuff falling through the cracks; DYK reviewers are quite resistant to change sometimes. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, I guess I'm missing something. Yes, it would be easier if they were all in one place, but isn't that one place the SOHA? And anyone can move them there. And having them there doesn't mean prep builders will see them, so noms need to just plan to check. I swear I've read this thread three times...what am I missing? :D —valereee (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: sorry about that! i'll try and make this a bit clearer. The problem is that even though anyone can move a nom to the SOHA, not many people do. That means that a lot of nominations with a special date request just sit in DYKNA, without being noticed or approved, until it's too late. To prevent this, I think that all noms with a special date request should be moved to the SOHA automatically, so that prep builders don't have to comb through the entire list to find out what needs special attention. Often, when I make a prep set, I don't get to the bottom half of nominations. If all special date hooks are in the SOHA automatically the prep builders can decide in the SOHA what needs to be promoted on time, and what doesn't. I don't see the need to wait until someone decides to take a second look at an already approved nom (that's often one of a hundred or more) and then check and assess a special date request, move it down to SOHA, only for the prep set builder to check the validity again when they promote. There's one step that seems like it can be automated, and because it isn't, we miss stuff sometimes. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, thanks! So, like you, I often don't get to the bottom of the page while building a prep and sometimes forget to check the SOHA. Automatically adding them to the bottom of the page won't fix that (and a better partial solution would be put the SOHA at the top of the page, which is where good prep builders should be starting from.) But getting them into the SOHA in the first place isn't something I'd want to see automated. Most SO requests, like most opinion-based decisions on WP, need more human oversight, not less. The point of manually moving the requests is that it requires approval. IMO we already have too many reviewers rubberstamping hooks for being of general interest and images for being clear at size. We don't need an automatic rubberstamping of SO hooks just to prevent them from falling through the cracks because the nom can't be bothered to keep an eye on their front page appearance. —valereee (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
I can understand that—i'd definitely support moving the SOHA to the top, too. Thanks for sharing! Any other thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Moving the SO holding section to the top is a partial solution. It is good as long as we do have all Special Occasion requests in that section. In the case when we don't have all the requests there, the issue remains same. We do need more human insight, which we currently are not getting. Another issue is that not everyone mention the Special occasion date the same way. Some might mention it in the "Comments" field, some might not. Some might used the word "special" or "date", some might just write it as "Would like this to appear on ...", without using those words. It make it more difficult to spot the SO request without scrolling entirely through the page. At-least, can we have a consistent standard of doing so? If that is done, I might easily give "second-opinion" on every SO request and move it to the holding area. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The easiest way to do that would be to add a parameter to the DYK nomination template. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Works for me! Would appreciate if someone could provide a "second opinion" on the special date request on this nomination (by me). Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Another issue is that occasionally the special occasion request isn't made until after the review is already complete. It's happened to me a few times where I only realized that a possible special occasion date was near after a review had already been done, and I'm sure others have had similar experiences. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Takeaways

Seems like this discussion is also winding down, so here are some points to take away from this discussion:

  • Some special occasion nominations are slipping through the cracks because they sit in DYKNA without being moved to the Special Occasion Holding Area
  • There seems to be a rough consensus that the SOHA should be moved to the top of DYKNA, because that's where prep promoters start from when building a set
  • Some think that all approved noms with a special date request should be moved to the SOHA—others think it's useful to have the oversight that comes with requiring a human to move the nom
  • There seems to be consensus against any change in the reviewing process that would require a separate tick or approval for a special date request in order for the review to be considered complete.

I'll archive this discussion tomorrow, probably—thanks to everyone who participated! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Giuseppe Scarabelli

Pinging nominator, reviewer, and promoter—It looks like there are several paragraphs and end-of-paragraph sentences that are uncited. Could someone take care of that before it hits the main page? Before it gets too far in the queues, preferably. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I have added some extra citations. That's the trouble with translating an article from another language Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
All righty, that looks good to me, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Did today's rotation not happen?

Wondering if there is something wrong with the script that today's promotion of Queue 6 not happen? Ktin (talk) 00:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the bot is down. We're going to need an admin to perform the update manually while someone (probably Shubinator) figures out what's wrong. (Ktin—Amakuru—Cwmhiraeth—Maile66—Shubinator—Bagumba—Casliber—Gatoclass—Hog Farm—ONUnicorn) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I left a message on Shubinator's page. Looking at the bot's history, it seems to have been inactive for about 12 hours. Let's see if Shubinator can get it up and running quickly. — Maile (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Maile66: could you do the update in the meantime? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I see Maile's done the update. I'll take care of the user and article credits. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks to you both! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:46, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, and thanks for Mandarax doing the user and article credits. — Maile (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Something looks wrong? Queue 6 is both on the main page and in queue—It looks like Maile copied the template to prep, and broke something in Q6 so that it wouldn't update at 1200 UTC, but it is still there. Could someone cycle the queues and clear queue 6 so that the next update goes out on time? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Nothing's wrong. I deliberately left the Queue 6 there, so Mandarax would know who gets what credits, as he said he was going to take care of that. — Maile (talk) 01:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for the thought, but it's unnecessary. I work from the revision used for the update, and its current state is irrelevant for my purposes. So, for future reference, there's no need do anything special when I'm doing the credits. In any case, all of the credits are done. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks folks! Nicely done. Ktin (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Now - some admin who knows more than I do, needs to move the Queue 6 down to the bottom, so Queue 7 can go to Main page in less than 12 hours, as well as - I assume - adjusts the Local update times table. I don't know how to do any of that. — Maile (talk) 01:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, I figured out how to adjust the Queue number order. Maybe the Local update times table takes care of itself. — Maile (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Looking through the bot's usual actions following an update, I think {{Did you know/Next update/Time}} needs to be changed. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
And it's not going to be me. I've made two attempts, and neither look correct to me. So, some other admin please update this. — Maile (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Pinging admins to urgently update Template:Did you know/Next update/Time to be 2021-10-22T00:00:00Z: unless this is done before the bot is restarted, a premature update will be made. (Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, Cas Liber, valereee, and Vanamonde. Also, it would be a good idea if an admin was around to see whether a noon update is done—Shubinator may not have been able to get the bot started by then, and do a manual update if necessary. Thanks to you all. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I have done the manual update of the Next update/Time template, but I will not be around at noon. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot is back online! Sorry for the missed update, and thanks Maile & BlueMoonset & Cwmhiraeth for the manual update :) Shubinator (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Shubinator! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Maile, your first attempt was correctish – you followed the instructions to add the displayed timestamp. The ish is because that edit was done later than the update, but the bot would've drifted to the standard time. It's understandable that it would be confusing. I think the naming of the file is unfortunate. It would be logical to think that {{Did you know/Next update/Time}} would be the time for the next update, but, in fact, it's the time when the last update happened. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Admins needed to move Preps to Queue while we're at two-a-day rotation

We have switched to two sets a day, with a shortage of admins doing Preps to Queues. It seems lately like two or three admins have been doing it regularly. Anyone else available to promote a Prep or Queue? Thanks in advance. (Bagumba—Casliber—Gatoclass—Hog Farm—ONUnicorn—Valereee—Vanamonde93) — Maile (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Never done it before, but I'm willing to give it a try in the future (can't until I get off work). Is there a set of instructions? Hog Farm Talk 19:03, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm, thank you for being willing to learn how to do this! There are instructions at Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Admin_instructions#Move_to_Queue. I am SO HERE to help answer questions. :D —valereee (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Not a great week for me, but I can try to do a set or two. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 Thanks, but you still need to add the {{DYKbotdo}} template at he top of the set. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Maile66: yeah, I know. As with others below, I've switched to promoting sets before checking them, to avoid edit-conflicts. For the same reason, I have yet to update the counters. I will add the template when I'm done; at the moment its absence is a small safeguard against the set being featured without further examination in case I am hit by an asteroid where I sit. Thanks for checking though. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Ahhhhh .... my first few times at doing the promotions, my most frequent lapse was forgetting to add the Botdo. I guess I'm backwards, because I check everything and then add. To each his own method, as long as it gets done. Thanks.— Maile (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
That's how I started, too; but if others move before checking, I realized I would be risking considerable wasted effort. I'd agree that checking before is how we ought to do it, but I don't care enough to bother others. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm - it's more simple than it looks on a full page of instructions. It amounts to making sure everything is in place, then follow the steps to copy and paste from the Prep to the Queue. After you do it once, you can easily do another at some point. Don't worry. We can correct anything you miss. — Maile (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm It's useful to know that the order of things isn't how most admins do it. To avoid edit conflict, move the prep to queue first and then do all the checks. Schwede66 19:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Hold my beer. I'll keep more of an eye on things as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm looking for a mop too, to be able to help out with two-a-days, but that's probably not for another three months at least. In the meantime, hopefully we revert soon. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee, Maile66, and Schwede66: - Could y'all double check prep/queue 4 to make sure I did this correctly before I put the template for the bot on there and increment the counter? Also, after reviewing them, I would likely have asked for the non-cited items at Giuseppe Scarabelli to be cited if I were reviewing the DYK in the nominations queue. Is that me being too picky, or does it need that? Hog Farm Talk 22:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: No, you're right about Scarabelli—I'm going to make a note about it under a separate header. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: That didn't look right. See edit summaries here and here. It's a bit of a steep learning curve but once you've mastered it, it'll all become clear how it works. You can now advance the counter. Schwede66 22:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

JGHowes - DYK lost another contributor

Our Admin Newsletter informs us of the death of JGHowes, who was not only an Administrator, but also a contributor to DYK since 2008. Please see his User:JGHowes/DYK, which lists 52 successful DYK contributions, the last one was Paul Fiset On June 29, 2021. Also see Deceased Wikipedians/2021. — Maile (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

RIP, and thanks for all you've done for the project, JGHowes.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
May I suggest to place condolences on his user talk, where friends and family are more likely to look than here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
User talk:JGHowes - here's his talk page. — Maile (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_182&oldid=1085472016"