Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

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

Shortened hook for Nature-positive

[edit]

I've just promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Nature-positive to T:DYK/P1 with a shorter hook and wanted to check this was within the purview of the promoter? If needed the original hook can be reinstated.

@Manxshearwater @John Cummings CSJJ104 (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to the shortened version. RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS, yes, it's very much within the purview of a promoter. It's recommended that you ping the nominator and other people who participated in the discussion, which you have done, so all is good. RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the original hook was
  • ... that over 90 world leaders have commited to the Leaders' Pledge for Nature; to nature-positive policies, reversing biodiversity loss and full nature recovery by 2050?
The new hook is
CSJJ104 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with this, thank you! Manxshearwater (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the pledges and see that, for my country of the UK, the leader who pledged was Boris Johnson. There have been several Prime Ministers since and we now have a completely new government which is, for example, now planning to weaken planning restrictions and build lots of housing in the green belt. The article indicates that the UK is not legally bound by this pledge and that it is not on track to achieve the goals. So, to address the reality of this, I suggest that the hook just say that those leaders signed the pledge, without suggesting that it's a firm commitment. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think revert to the original hook in that case or “… that over 90 world leaders have made a pledge to achieve nature positive?” Manxshearwater (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Manxshearwater  Done BorgQueen (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Manxshearwater (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. BorgQueen (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 5 - John Henry Hirst

[edit]

It was said by Launchballer in an edit summary that they are not sure how the hook for John Henry Hirst meets WP:DYKINT. I promoted the hook, but now I'm having doubts. It isn't just that it might not be interesting, but also that Hirst had a significant career that should outweigh how he died. Pinging nominator Storye book and reviewer Sammi Brie. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. I'd much rather see a hook that talked about how many Grade II listed buildings he designed. RoySmith (talk) 01:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that Launchballer's own doubts had been expressed sooner. I could see a hook about his listed drinking fountain, the house he designed with a lodge for his gardener, etc. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 01:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, if you read the sources carefully, you will see that the untimely death is way more mysterious and interesting than It would appear in a bald DYK statement, but that would count as opinion, synth etc. on WP, and would require subscription access to BNA, so the whodunnit bit is not in the article. So here are some options which you have asked for.
* ... that architect John Henry Hirst designed several listed buildings, including Stoke Road Drinking Fountain, Bristol, and St Peter's Church, Harrogate?
* ... that architect John Henry Hirst designed at least nine Grade II listed buildings, including Cambridge Crescent, Harrogate, which hosts the newsroom of the Stray Ferret? (Sources for both of these hooks are in the articles, next to the relevant facts) Storye book (talk) 08:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I boldly changed the hook to the second one. SL93 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Storye book and SL93: unless I'm missing something, the bit about the Stray Ferret isn't in the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is now. RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the oversight. I just came back to add it during my work break, and I’m happy to see that RoySmith took care of it because I would have had to add it on my phone. SL93 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, AirshipJungleman29, RoySmith and SL93! Storye book (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do game mechanics meet WP:DYKFICTION?

[edit]

Asking this after seeing the Until Then hook at WP:DYKQ, although this isn't about that particular hook but is more of a general question. Do in-game mechanics count as real-world, in-universe, or somewhere in between? Because depending on how such hooks are worded or the actual in-game mechanics involved, the hooks could be ambiguous. For example, "... that the adventure game Until Then has an in-universe version of Facebook where the player can like and comment on other characters' posts?" Depending on one's interpretation, one can say that it meets DYKFICTION because it refers to how the real-world user plays the game, but it might also not if one interprets the hooks as "the player" referring to the in-universe character. I'm asking this because my gut was telling me "No, hooks about game mechanics do involve real-world facts," but I was thinking of a way to mention it at WP:DYKG since the current wording is rather ambiguous. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. In this case, I would say that's in-universe because the mechanics are only interacting with fictional elements. This is probably most often the case, but there are going to be times where game mechanics bleed into the real world. For example, the PainStation physically whips losing players, some folks have gotten married in Final Fantasy XIV, and a couple let their real child starve to death while raising a virtual child together in Prius Online. Rjjiii (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's in-universe to you and thus the hook doesn't meet DYKFICTION, shouldn't the hook be adjusted? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was answering the broader question. For this specific nomination, I'd say that the approved ALT3 looks good, and that it would be difficult to adjust the promoted hook to make it less fictional. If a novel like The Circle or a show like The Feed couldn't do a hook about fictional social media, I don't see how a visual novel is that different? It's about to go to the main page, so courtesy pings to all involved: @RoySmith, AirshipJungleman29, Chipmunkdavis, Chlod, and Narutolovehinata5: Rjjiii (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the hook as an interesting point about game mechanics, which I took as a real world aspect, like an engineering quirk of a car. CMD (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bsoyka and Cunard: I think the hook is cute, but I can't help but be unable to shake off the feeling that something's off about the wording. I do get that it's a quirky hook, but the hook seems more, I guess sure about the possibility than what the article says. The article states that the theory has had mixed reception, along with how it's just a theory and not definite. The hook presents the possibility as definite, while the article suggests it's more of an example and not an assured thing. I'm not against the hook fact itself, I think it's a really interesting and catchy one, but it may be for the best to reword the hook in some way for accuracy purposes. It won't be as quirky anymore but it would probably be more accurate. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article sounds like WP:NEO with a bunch of marginal sources. RoySmith (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't love it as much, but perhaps we could do:
Bsoyka (tcg) 13:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard hasn't been online since the 15th so a new reviewer will need to sign this off. Looking at the source of the statement, I just noticed another issue: the statement "The exact origin of the idea is unclear, but the topic has notably been popularized by users of TikTok and other social media platforms." is not directly supported by the Grazia link. Indeed, the article in fact claims the theory was "proliferated" by a particular TikTok user, although I'm not sure if the user in question did popularize it or not. In any case, that will need to be revised. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adjusted the sourcing in the article to rely on [1], which says, Brought into the spotlight thanks to the therapy side of TikTok. ([2] also says, Coined on TikTok, this concept is becoming increasingly popular on the app.) Bsoyka (tcg) 02:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The exact origin of the idea is unclear" sounds like synthesis and will need actual sourcing to back it up. Otherwise, it should probably be omitted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I read that somewhere in my research, but I can't seem to find where. Removed for now. Bsoyka (tcg) 02:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the hook was in the next prep to be promoted to Queue, I've bumped it to a later prep to buy more time for discussing the hook and article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources:

  1. This source says, "The burnt-toast theory is simple: it’s the idea that something as small as burning your toast could actually end up saving your life or allowing something better to happen. Maybe those five minutes you took toasting a new piece of bread saved you from being in a car accident."
  2. Another source says: "Picture this: You’re making toast in the morning as per your normal routine, only this time, it burns. ... The whole process has added five minutes to your morning routine, so although it’s an objectively small inconvenience, you’re now running a bit late leaving the house, and therefore, arriving at work. You’re annoyed. But you jump in your car and head to work. But on the way, you see a car accident, and when you hear the details of the crash, you realize that had you left your house on time, it could have been you. That burnt toast — it might have saved your life."
  3. A third source says, "Maybe those five minutes you took toasting a new piece of bread saved you from being in a car accident."
  4. A fourth source says, "Called the 'burnt toast theory', it encourages us to embrace the bad things that happen because there’s usually a good reason for it. 'It's basically the theory that if you burn your toast in the morning (or something challenging happens), the time you spend making another toast may have saved you from a car accident, or maybe it makes you late to a meeting,' the viral theory states."

The hook says "... that burnt toast could save you from a car accident?"

I think the sources support the hook's wording of "could". Here are alternative hooks to emphasise the theory part:

  • ... that according to a theory, burnt toast could save you from a car accident?
  • ... that according to a TikTok theory, burnt toast could save you from a car accident?
  • ... that a theory says burnt toast could save you from a car accident?
  • ... that a TikTok theory says burnt toast could save you from a car accident?

Cunard (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A first hook

[edit]

I would like more attention on the first hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Motibai Kapadia to see if it's acceptable for promotion. It seems like something that has a chance of being another incorrect first hook. Discussion can continue at the nomination. SL93 (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, Launchballer, and Hawkeye7: This turns "tweet that she could not believe how powerful her nipples were" into "has powerful nipples" in wikivoice. That's not going to fly. RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I also would never consider choosing a similar hook as well over something else from a successful woman's career, but I know that I'm likely in the minority because Wikipedia isn't censored. SL93 (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of space between "not censored" and "childish pandering of T's and A's". RoySmith (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said "not censored" because similar things have received responses of that the main page isn't censored. SL93 (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmph. Then ALT2? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also have no problem with ALT2. I do mention at the nom that the hook could work with "why" instead of "that", although now I think "that"'s probably better. I do however want to defend ALT0 on the grounds that mentioning nipples, rightly or wrongly, will probably get more views even if it is "childish pandering", and that one definition of 'powerful' is "having a strong effect on people's feelings or thoughts" and that's what they did. I don't think Way subsequently describing them as such negates its verifiability. (There is a hook about Matlock's chest I could propose for his article, although I think what I'm more likely to do is wait until Wargasm finishes its GA and propose a triple hook with his previous band Dead!.).--Launchballer 22:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Getting the most views should not be our only concern. RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed all the ALTs. ALT2 is fine with me. My personal experience with DYK hooks supports Launchballer's belief that ALT0 would get more page views. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DYKGRAT should be relevant here :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, IceWelder, and Thebiguglyalien: this needs an end-of-sentence citation for the hook fact. RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I do think this is a strange rule since Wikipedia's usual citing conventions allow verifying multiple sentences with one ref tag. IceWelder [] 16:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IceWelder Thanks. I think of it more like the rule that says direct quotes have to be cited immediately after the quote, even if an end-of-paragraph citation would cover it under the normal rules. It also makes life easier on the reviewers :-) RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: could you walk me through where everything that backs up the hook fact is in the article? I suspect it's all there, but scattered about and I'm having trouble piecing it all together. See my comment above to IceWelder about end-of-sentence citations. RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fix ping RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three areas, @RoySmith:
  • KTLE made its on-air debut on July 3, 1959, [3]
  • KIFI-TV began broadcasting on January 23, 1961. That same day was also KTLE's last: it left the air "to conserve the assets" of the company, per manager Gloria Dillard, in the wake of losing its NBC affiliation. Features of the last day included a roundtable discussion of KBLI Inc. officers discussing the station's closure and an editorial explaining the closure. The preceding paragraph explains that KIFI now had the NBC affiliation. [4]
  • KTLE was on the air as late as May 1971 but closed when Snake River Valley opted not to purchase the assets. [5] and [6]
Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 16:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overriding another prep builder's pic choice

[edit]

Well...? @Sohom Datta @AirshipJungleman29 BorgQueen (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith BorgQueen, that feels like a mistake caused by hitting the wrong button in PSHAW. Still, I would have preferred that hook remained for another picture slot. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot, I've moved it to prep 2 for now. Definitely a misclick in PSHAW for my end. Sohom (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QPQ timeouts

[edit]

I've been noticing that we have an enforcement problem with QPQs. WP:DYKG says that QPQs should be submitted within a week of nomination, but we assume that nominators aren't aware of this requirement – we ping them five days in, and they give QPQs anywhere from 10–14 days after nomination and it usually slides. I think we should add "Please provide a QPQ within a week of nomination" to the nomination page smalltext when the QPQ line is left blank. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, (putting on my grumpy hat) there's no reason it should take a week. I'm more than willing to give DYK newbies slack, but I see some veterans doing this. That's just making more work for your fellow editors because they have to chase after you. I'd be in favor of a closing on sight any nom from somebody with more than N DYKs to their name (pick any reasonable value of N) if it does't have a QPQ. RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that it contradicts each other. I normally take "should" to mean that it's (strongly) recommended, but not mandatory. Meanwhile, the phrase "please provide a QPQ within a week" sounds like it means that it must (mandatory) be submitted within 7 days of the nomination. Therefore, I think that 10 days should be the normal maximum and 14 is the absolute maximum. at Template talk:Did you know, it says that "a rejection usually only occurs if it was at least a couple of weeks old and had unresolved issues" and I take couple to mean two. I'm thinking the phrase "as you have nominated more than five articles, a QPQ is required. This should be done within 7 days with 10 being the absolute maximum" fits me better. JuniperChill (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
meh. i think a week is more than enough time for something someone should already have on them when they make the nomination. The week is just a courtesy – if it were up to me, we would require nominators to do their QPQs well before the nomination, so that if the check bounces (the nomination gets pulled off the Main Page), then the credit becomes invalid. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I have been reviewing DYK articles well before my sixth nomination. I never thought I would be good at reviewing them, especially my first one. Good thing they don't expire. I actually track my reviews and cross them out if used. I do think a week is already a good enough time though. JuniperChill (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and change WP:QPQ from "Ideally, a QPQ should be submitted within a week of a nomination. After one week, and a reminder to the nominator, a nomination may be closed as "incomplete."" to "A nomination may be closed as "incomplete" if a QPQ is not submitted within a week". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was thinking more like "A QPQ must be submitted (for those required to submit one) at the time of the nomination." If you're too busy to do your QPQ now, then hold up your nom until you've got time. RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I have no objections, but I suspect a lot of nominators might. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we have more nominations than we can handle. If people object to getting their act together on time and stop nominating, that's to our benefit. Seriously. RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea. Those other editors can just not nominate then. SL93 (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Special:Diff/1241179543. RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should honestly go even further. QPQs have a reputation for being sloppy reviews just done to get a credit – when nominations get pulled off the Main Page, we should be revoking people's QPQ credits. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, boy, and I thought I was being bold! RoySmith (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this too, but only for mistakes that those editors should already know about. SL93 (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite often the QPQ runs after the hook you're using it for, which could create a fair bit of complexity as to who owes a QPQ and when. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could either require that QPQs be completely finished before they can be used, or accept QPQs that haven't run on a provisional basis (holding the nomination until the check clears). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS, as a practical matter, I would suggest that at least for a while, people still be given warnings along with a pointer to the rule change. It's one thing to prod the herd in the direction you want them to go, it's another thing entirely to stand in front of the herd while doing it and get trampled to death. RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've acted a bit hastily. One of the reasons that the QPQ timeout limit is seven days is because after that is over, a nominator can't immediately renominate with a QPQ done (because WP:DYKNEW no longer applies). If a new nomination is closed immediately, the nominator can now just open a new nomination with a QPQ; so in effect, the new WP:QPQ protocol is just the most annoying way of pinging the nominator asking for a QPQ. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the bold change as it's too bold and deserves more than 50 minutes of discussion. One of the reasons we have never required QPQs at the time of nomination is that some nominations, particularly some of the lengthier 5x expansions, take all of a week to complete, so there is no time to do a thorough QPQ. I notice that isn't mentioned, and there seems to be little sympathy for these sorts of significant contributions to Wikipedia. If that's DYK's future, it seems to me a shame. At the same time, there are people who seem to nominate many new articles a week and rarely have their QPQs ready. I have less sympathy in that case, since it seems to be a failure to plan one's time (as opposed to not having enough of it). BlueMoonset (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About theleekycauldron's suggestion, which is really a different matter altogether, it's something I've thought about over the years, and something I'd be in favor of, depending on the issue behind the pull. (Is this pulled from main page only, from main page and queue, and even from prep?) If it's something that's supposed to be checked and wasn't properly done so, then I think it makes perfect sense to require a replacement QPQ for the one that was botched, and hold up noms from the reviewer until it's done. Of course, it might ultimately lead to people no longer being welcome at DYK because their QPQ reviews continue to be problematic... BlueMoonset (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would play it like this:
  • Until a nomination is either off the Main Page or closed as rejected, the nomination can only be used as a provisional QPQ. Provisional QPQs are good enough to keep a nomination from failing, but a nomination using a provisional QPQ cannot be promoted. Using provisional QPQs is discouraged; nominators should come prepared with full QPQs ahead of time. (Alternatively, we could choose not to accept provisional QPQs.)
  • Once the nomination's run is finished, it is no longer a provisional QPQ and is usable as a full QPQ unless:
    • The nomination ended in failure (including being irreversibly pulled from the Main Page),
    • The nomination would have been pulled from the Main Page had a serious problem with its hook or article not been fixed.
    • If the reason for failure or pull is outside the scope of the reviewer's job, the QPQ credit is not invalidated. (For the life of me, I can't remember this ever happening, but it is possible, so it's worth mentioning.)
  • If a provisional QPQ becomes invalid, the nominator using the provisional QPQ must provide a fully valid QPQ within a week, else the nomination fails.
I think it'd be worth studying if there's a pattern of reviews of nominations that fail. I'll look into that... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn on provisional QPQs. One the one hand, it's more complication and it adds to the backlog. On the other hand, not allowing it feels draconian. Still, I think I'm leaning against it. It'll suck, but people will get used to it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a lot of complication for it's not clear what value. What's a "Provisional QPQ"? Just keep it simple; you make a nomination, you do a QPQ. I don't buy this idea that people don't have time to do their reviews. That's part of the system, do your share. If you're going to start on a big project and you're not sure you'll be able to get it done in time, get your review out of the way first. Or if some unexpected crisis happens, post a note here asking for an exception; as long as you're not a perennial extra time requester, I'm sure people will be happy to give you another day or two. Or maybe some kind soul will offer a QPQ donation. Leaving things dangling just makes additional work for your fellow editors, and that's a problem. RoySmith (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just, no. An extra layer of near-impenetrable complexity that everyone has to work through, not only nominators but reviewers and prep-builders and admin queuers? I'll pass. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't agree with the recent changes. The problem with this is that people may not have time to do a QPQ at the same time that they are nominating an article. This particularly applies if someone is in the midst of a 5x expansion and wants to submit the nomination before the deadline.
In addition, I don't think this would prevent someone from just doing a QPQ three days after nomination, and then reverting the closure of their nomination. I'd rather we wait a few days rather than immediately closing nominations without QPQs. Epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith and AirshipJungleman29: Yeah, agreed. Simpler draft:

  • A nomination is not usable as a QPQ until it is either off the Main Page or closed as rejected.
  • If the nomination fails (including being pulled off the Main Page) due to an error the reviewer should have caught, the reviewer may not use the nomination as a QPQ. If such an error arises and someone other than the reviewer fixes it, the QPQ credit may be deemed invalid at the discretion of whoever evaluates it when used.
  • A nominator must provide a valid QPQ within a week of nomination, else the nomination can be closed without warning.

Basically: if you screw up, we take your QPQ credit back. If we have to clean up your mess, we take the credit back. Get your QPQ done ahead of time. Sounds pretty simple to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but "ahead of time" can mean as much as two months ahead of time. Why not just say that if a nomination you review gets pulled due to an error you should have caught, you have to provide two QPQs on your next nomination? Still runs into the problem of how you define "should have caught". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even when wearing my grumpy hat, I don't think we want to start making QPQ credit contingent on quality of the review. Newbies won't be doing high-quality reviews. Our response should be to educate them how to do better reviews, not punish them for not doing a good enough job. If somebody is chronically doing junk reviews, eventually it'll become obvious and we can deal with that though more education and encouragement. That's certainly true for people whose names appear on WP:DYKLIST or WP:DYKPC.
I imagine my first QPQs were total trash. I know for sure my first queue promotions were and I only kept at it because leeky provided the right mix of explaining to me what I needed to do better, encouraging me to do more of them, and not making me feel like an idiot. RoySmith (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: I thought of that, I'm just not sure how we'd enforce it... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is starting to feel like instruction creep. I think the simplest solution, for now, would just be to strict with enforcing the "QPQ must be done within a week of the nomination" guideline. In fact, I think we should actually encourage QPQs to be done before making nominations, and I'm actually surprised we aren't already doing that. The issue with enforcement is that such nominations are often overlooked due to us having a high load. It's actually a lot easier now ever since the change that made it visible how many nominations a nominator has; prior to that you would have to check manually to know if an editor required a QPQ or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My initial change was a net reduction of 167 characters. That sounds more like instruction un-creep. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking more about the idea of "provisional QPQs", an idea with good intentions but would add needless complexity. It should be as simple as "you have a QPQ, or you don't." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the disconnect. I previously proposed elswehere that QPQs should be done before the nomination. This isn't rocket science. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some edge cases where it may be permissible to do so, such as during 5x expansions. However, these would be more like the exception rather than the nom. We should really be discouraging nominators from only doing QPQs after their nominations, and I'm actually shocked and disappointed at how common it is even for regulars to delay their QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know who you are referring to, so that made me laugh. Viriditas (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't referring to any specific editor. I've seen multiple editors doing it, so it was meant to be a general statement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. :-) Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'd support requiring reviews be done before a nominated hook appears on the list of noms to be approved. Too many nominations, not enough worker bees. Valereee (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional QPQ is too complex, and it will create more administrative problems. I am not sure QPQ at time of nomination needs to be the rule (saying that as someone who usually does this), but we can definitely remove the requirement for a second notification before the week timeout. CMD (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rule could be relaxed for newer reviewers who may not have gotten the hang of DYK reviews yet, but it shouldn't be encouraged for DYK regulars who are already used to the process. If a nominator knows they have an upcoming nomination, they should also make the time to review another. If circumstances mean they can't do a QPQ ASAP, they could probably just ask for an IAR exemption here at WT:DYK.
Another idea I have is that we can also encourage reviewing nominations even if you don't have plans to make your own. Several of our regulars only review other nominations when they're planning to make their own nominations, but won't do reviews otherwise. If we encourage (not mandate) regulars to do reviews even without upcoming nominations, there are two benefits: one, they can build up a stash of QPQs that can be used later and thus helping to mitigate the current issue, and two, it would greatly help in clearing up the backlog. In my eight years here on DYK I'm actually somewhat surprised this isn't more common or encouraged, speaking as someone who regularly reviews other noms even when I don't have open noms of my own. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's even worse on GAN, where we have editors with hundreds of noms with no reviews. I think it shows a bit of disrespect for the idea of a volunteer community, but there's no enforcement. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, GAN is much tougher and higher pressure than DYK. It can seem a lot more intimidating given that the checks are more stringent, and even regulars may not simply have the time, capability, or will to review. After all, if a bad GA passes, it can be a stain on the reviewer even if they did their review in good faith. It's less understandable with DYK given that our standards are more reasonable and less stringent. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having a firm baseline rule and encouraging specific further actions on top of that is a better system than creating a more stringent rule but crafting various exceptions. We should include the best practice as a guideline, but newer reviewers, difficult 5x expansions, and perhaps other edge cases (finding a good seven day old article by someone else you think would make a good DYK?) seem likely to come up. (Is the backlog a huge issue right now? Template talk:Did you know/Approved has exceeded PEIS.) CMD (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My personal belief, and it's one I've been promoting for many years, is that we continue to focus on tool-based systems to help nominators and reviewers. One sticking point for me is the identification of typos, which I have a problem doing because my eyesight is terrible. I know we have various bots and editors who do this kind of work separately, but it's surprising that we don't have a toolset like this to help reviewers in general. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could we somehow grey-out any nom that doesn't include a QPQ? Valereee (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least twice, I've completed a QPQ and forgot to put it in the box (Kemah Bob, Nighat Arif). I'm all for less time being given after a reminder (say, one day instead of seven), not sure if I could support the reminder being done away with entirely.
If the reason for failure or pull is outside the scope of the reviewer's job, the QPQ credit is not invalidated. (For the life of me, I can't remember this ever happening, but it is possible, so it's worth mentioning.) I can think of a couple of cases: Dus Bahane, which was withdrawn after I eventually reviewed it, and Tobey (song), which was pulled after a new rule was invented on the hoof. If we are going to make QPQs provisional, I would oppose rejecting them for being provisional; aside from the fact that I review oldest first and it's pretty unusual for any of my noms to be approved ahead of their QPQs, I'd worry about the effect this would have during a backlog as I can well see a situation where nominators simply turn in an old QPQ rather than wait for a new one to clear.--Launchballer 06:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of a provisional QPQ seems less than ideal to me, especially if we are now requiring people to do QPQs before nominating articles. This would potentially mean that people can't nominate any articles until the QPQ is already off the main page (or rejected), which could take weeks or even months. By then, the nomination for which the QPQ was conducted would have already timed out.
Thus, I strongly oppose the idea of provisional QPQs, especially if we are now requiring that they be completed prior to nomination. I am neutral on the new QPQ requirement, though. Epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just do one now and bank it. Next time you make a nom, use it for that nom, and bank another. Valereee (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually what I'm thinking of doing. Ideally I'd like to have 2–5 QPQs on hand to use whenever I nominate something. While I somewhat disagree with immediately timing out nominations that don't have QPQs, I also don't have a philosophical objection to that rule.
My objection only applies to provisional QPQs. If you could not use a QPQ until it appears on the main page or is rejected, then you would need to start preparing for a nomination several weeks in advance, just so you could use that QPQ. This also has the side effect of unnecessarily delaying nominations arbitrarily, solely because of what article the nominator chose to review. Epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support having to supply the QPQ at the time of the nomination. If someone forgets, leeway can be given after a reminder ping. If an editor chronically does not post a QPQ at the time of nomination, their nominations can be closed without a reminder ping. Another idea is to tell nominators that they cannot nominate new DYKs while a previous nomination is missing the QPQ: nominators should prioritize QPQs first, not work on other articles while a QPQ is missing. I do not support pulling the QPQ if problems are found in the reviews: if an editor chronically supplies bad reviews, it should be brought up at WT:DYK. Pulling QPQs will cause editors to review the easiest DYKs, leaving older nominations stranded without reviews. Z1720 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Z1720 above. Waiting for a QPQ to be usable until the nom is off the main page means that a person submitting their 6th DYK nom would need to prepare QPQs potentially months in advance. This isn't sustainable. I fully support making QPQs required at the time of nomination (my personal workflow is to do one with my nom tab open and unsubmitted; that way I don't forget). I also think we can empower reviewers to reject noms with an incomplete or faulty QPQ. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Z1720 and Vanamonde93 above, I don't think waiting for a QPQ to be usable is a good idea, instead we should require a valid QPQ to be provided at nomination time (through warnings in the template and nomination wizard), and reviewers being allowed to reject noms with invalid or non-existent QPQs. Sohom (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "provisional QPQs" as a good-intentioned idea, but one that adds too much complexity to the process. Any issues where a QPQ was provided, but the review turned out to be defective, can already be dealt with through existing processes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I weakly support the idea of requiring the QPQ to be submitted at nomination time, though I think that should take place after 10 nominations because people nominate articles for DYK before reviewing another. I just think that a review from someone can take place either within a few hours, days or even more than a month. Those between 6-10 nominations (inclusive) will have to provide a QPQ within 7 days (168 hours) and editors on the fourth/fifth day will be pinged/posted on talk page and if not, the nom will close after its 7th day. I'm also thinking that for a QPQ to be valid, it needs to be a proper review. Not just a checkmark with a few words (saying "it meets all the DYK criteria" is insufficient). I also weakly oppose a provisional QPQ due to the complexity. JuniperChill (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently, a review only needs to be started, and the reviewer needs to be responsive. I do not support that the review needs the checkmark because some nominators do not respond quickly, causing delays. This would also cause editors to review the easiest ones rather than starting a longer review. I agree that "this is approved" is not sufficient, but DYK already insists that reviewers indicate that they have checked all the criteria, so this inclusion is not necessary. I also do not suggest having separate rules for those between 6-10 reviews as too many rules will complicate things. Also, there is a simple solution to this problem: remind nominators that QPQs do not expire and that they should be reviewing noms early.
  • tldr: Keep it simple, change the rules that a QPQ must be provided at the time of the nomination, leeway is given for new reviewers and those who make a mistake, no leeway given for those who chronically do not supply the QPQ at the time of the nomination. Z1720 (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    QPQ rules never actually required green ticks anyway. The only requirement has been to check every criterion: saying simply "it passes the guidelines" doesn't count. Some regulars (admittedly myself included) may condense some of the checks for time reasons, but generally all criteria are still expected to be checked. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an editor who sometimes has difficultly getting all the QPQs done at once and remembering which ones have / do not have QPQs (due to volume of work), I do not see what benefit there is in immediately failing with no warning whatsoever any nomination not providing a QPQ from the start. Seriously, what harm is there in a simple reminder that you're missing a QPQ? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The benefit is that it encourages nominators to do their QPQs without reviewers having to chase after them. Reviewer time is our scarcest resource, and we have more nominations than we can handle. If making things easier on reviewers comes at a cost of making things harder on nominators, I'm fine with that. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How difficult is it to say "@Username, please provide a QPQ by [date] or this will be closed"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, these notifications don't take up much time anyway. Perhaps there might be a way to automate these notifications? Epicgenius (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see a few possibilities. One would be some kind of filter that would warn nominators that they haven't done a QPQ (the filter would of course be disabled for exempted nominators). The notice would tell the nominator that if they submit the nomination without a provided QPQ, their nomination is liable to be closed. That way, they are already aware that they have to do the QPQ as soon as possible, if not before the nomination. If that kind of technical implementation is not feasible, another option could be to have a bot running that would leave editors a similar message, warning them that their nomination is liable to be closed if a QPQ has not been done. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One straightforward solution to that would be to simply do the review before making the nomination. This can be done in conjunction with reviewers being encouraged to review nominations even when they don't have ongoing nominations of their own. With their possible benefits (such as cutting down the backlog and ensuring a QPQ is ready by the time of the nomination), I'm actually shocked that neither practice is encouraged more. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is more difficult than us saying "Please provide a QPQ by the time of nom or this will be closed". As it stands, notifications can be ignored and unfinished DYKs take up space on the nom page for longer than they should. CMD (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two changes here, one that seems excellent and easy to implement and one that needs further fine tuning. I support an immediate implementation of "qpq must be provided within a week, unprompted, no excuses for experienced nominators". Cancelling qpqs where hooks have been pulled is more complex and should be discussed separately. —Kusma (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'd also support requiring nominators to provide a QPQ within a week (or even immediately, provided that this is made very clear in the nomination wizard). I agree that the QPQ cancellations/provisional QPQ should be a separate discussion, too, since I imagine that there could be more pushback to that proposal (as evidenced by the comments above). Epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of "you need to provide QPQs at the time of the nomination", I think we can give leeway for relatively new DYK contributors (for example, those who are only just starting to be required to need a QPQ). Less leeway should be given to those who chronically fail to give QPQs on time. A wait of at most a day, or even three days, could be reasonable, but going over a week without doing a QPQ, reminder or no reminder, is less excusable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support QPQ provided at the time of the nomination. Right now, we give one-week warnings and it has not deterred prolific editors from waiting until the last minute. Giving a week causes some editors to procrastinate, nominate at DYK without the QPQ, and then forget about it until an editor pings them. Implementing a strict at-the-time-of-nomination rule will initially cause a few editors to get upset, but after about a week those editors will change their behaviour and complete the QPQs before the nomination. I am willing to have upset editors for a week to have this implemented. Leeway can be given to editors who are nominating their 6th or 7th DYK, which can be prescribed as-needed. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indulging my penchant for storytelling... I used to participate in a racing event that was scheduled to start at a certain time every week. People were always showing up late and the race organizers would wait for them. People were always complaining about the late-comers, and the late-comers were always countering with, "It's so hard to get here", "There was traffic", "I had to wait for my crew to show up", blah, blah, blah. Finally, we voted that the race would start on time, even if nobody was there yet. The first week the rule was in effect, a couple of competitors didn't make it on time and missed the start. After that, people started showing up on time. RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720, as I see it, if people started immediately closing nominations that did not have the required QPQ, nothing is stopping the nominators from doing a QPQ and then reverting the closure of the nomination, on the grounds that they did do a QPQ. Provided the QPQ is supplied within seven days of the article's creation/expansion/promotion to GA, the article would still be new enough to qualify for a full review. As such, I think this would only create unnecessary conflicts, which we really should try to avoid.
    I would however be all right with closing nominations without QPQs after 7 days. Closures of such nominations cannot be easily contested unless the article was further expanded, or promoted to GA, during that time. Epicgenius (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this passes, what would stop the nominators is that such actions would be against consensus, and thus disruptive. CMD (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In theory, it would indeed be against consensus. However, in practice, the DYK rules do not prohibit articles from being renominated (and given a full review) if they are still eligible for DYK. If the first nomination is closed solely due to a lack of QPQ, and if a QPQ is then provided for the second nomination, some people would be hard-pressed to see such a renomination as disruptive, since the second nomination would not technically break any rules. Epicgenius (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's prohibit repeat nominations as part of this proposal if it passes then. CMD (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might be too extreme. A simpler solution would simply to revert any attempts to reopen as disruptive, with a note to the nominator that they should have done the QPQ at the time of the nomination. If they really disagree with the decision, they could instead bring it up on WT:DYK, where individual cases could be heard. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how one is extreme and one is simple, they are both the same set of actions. CMD (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, prohibiting repeat nominations, at least as currently worded, sounds too extreme. Rather than saying "no repeat nominations", it would just be safer or more accurate to say that such reversions without discussion may be considered disruptive. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference? CMD (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think NLH5 is referring to the fact that a blanket ban on repeat nominations doesn't allow the possibility of reopening the nomination, if a valid QPQ is provided after the nomination is closed. On the other hand, bringing up the issue at WT:DYK leaves open the possibility of opening such a nomination, even if it's against the rules to reopen an archived nomination. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better solution, if it's technically possible, would be making the QPQ line on the nomination form mandatory to fill in. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're talking about SD0001's script, it's possible assuming they agree to make the change. More tricky would be having the script sense if the nominator is exempt, and at any rate DYK can all be done manually so if someone is going to wikilawyer a consensus policy is better than a technical tweak. CMD (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think figuring out if a nominator is exempt shouldn't be hard to implement since User:SDZeroBot already runs a tally of users vs/ number of nominations which is used in our nomination template. (courtesy ping @SD0001) Sohom (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the script already knows which nominators are exempt (this is used to show the count of QPQs required within the interface). I am not sure when I can get to making the neccesary changes, so if someone can prepare sandbox versions of the two scripts, that would help. – SD0001 (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In theory, we could do that as well. However, in practice I prefer Airship's idea of requiring that the QPQ be filled out before the editor is allowed to submit their DYK nomination (provided that it's technically possible). That way, there would be less potential for conflicts regarding incomplete QPQs. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I do expand, create an article or get it through GAN but don't have the time or energy for an immediate QPQ. In these cases, I sometimes nominate immediately and do the QPQ later when the reviewer points out the absence. Is this now undesirable practice? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, just do some QPQs when you aren't expanding or creating and do have that time and energy, and bank them. As long as you keep up with your nominations, you'll always have one waiting to be used. The reviewer won't have to point out the absence, wait for you to fix it and ping them back, come back in, refresh themselves on what they were thinking at the time, and finish the review for you. Valereee (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93, Storye book, and Sammi Brie: It's not clear what it means to be a destination for illegal logging. Also, the article talks about logging, but only hints at it being illegal, there's no clear statement that illegal logging is happening. RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look in a few hours if not resolved by then. SL93 (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for being confused by the article's wording. I looked at the sources, and I suggest just removing the word "illegal". SL93 (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I promoted this, but Airship did. Now I remember that I wanted to promote the hook, but I never got around to it. Damn, I feel stupid. SL93 (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whhops, I must have been looking at the wrong template when I pinged people. Sorry about that. I should have pinged @AirshipJungleman29 @Generalissima and @Vanderwaalforces RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93, Crisco 1492, and UndercoverClassicist: Given that we just had H. Wortman Pumping Station, would it make sense to spread this out a bit? RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would have no objection, but equally I doubt many readers will be sharp-eyed enough to notice a glut of Hendrik Wortman DYKs. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection, but I would be more concerned if there was a long stream of such hooks rather than just two of them. SL93 (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

[edit]

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 28. We have a total of 279 nominations, of which 129 have been approved, a gap of 150 nominations that has decreased by 6 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A better way to spot maintenance tags?

[edit]

There was a (legitimate) complaint on WP:ERRORS today that Dollar Mountain Fire had several {{failed verification}} and similar templates. To be honest, if I had promoted that set, I doubt I would have noticed because they're buried in the text. I wonder if we could do something like add {{failed verification}} (and other disqualifying templates) to a hidden Category:Pages with templates we do not want on DYK. Then maybe some script that turned the hook red when added to a queue or prep page? That would make it trivial to spot these problems. RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tags were only added after the hook had begun its run. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Then in addition to the javascript, we need a time machine :-) RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the fact that the tags were added after the hook appeared on the main page, it seems the editor who made the ERRORS complaint was the same editor who added the maintenance tags. That being said, however, doesn't DYKcheck warn you if there are tags like {{CN}}? Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the Dollar Mountain Fire I have addressed the issues @The ed17: had (of which the , and given the very short time it was on the main page would like to see it placed back into a perp set for a full run if possible. As I removed the citations to the "Doukhobor websites". the hook will need to be slightly modified to "shelter near a Creek".--Kevmin § 17:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the logic here. It got pulled because you used an unreliable source. It's unfortunate that this wasn't caught in any of the DYK review steps, but ultimately it's your responsibility to use good sources. Why does this qualify for a second run? RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Tagger and ERRORS reporter here. (Kevmin, I promise I'm not following you -- I have WP:DYK watchlisted.)
To RoySmith's point: in Kevmin's defense, it was a pretty minor use of an unreliable source. And while I'm waiting for confirmation, I am starting to suspect why I failed to verify so much of the article's information was that a citation URL was inaccurate. See my first paragraph in this edit. Ed [talk] [OMT] 17:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: The source in question, which I feel meets the "Secondary" qualifications in WP:SPS, was used only 3 times (out of then 37 cites in the article), 2 as support for the the other citations in the section and once for the words "rocky outcrop", NO extraordinary new information was taken from the source, and the other sources also affirm the information. I feel you have a rather punitive view of DYKs that aren't immaculate (see your comments above regarding QQP) but its project standard to give nominations pulled within an hour or so of mainpage that have been fixed to rerun.--Kevmin § 19:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[...] but its project standard to give nominations pulled within an hour or so of mainpage that have been fixed to rerun. In your case though, the article stayed on Main Page for more than 3 hours. [7] BorgQueen (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 1/2 hours out out of a 24 hour run, thats less then 1/6th of the run. I feel that falls into "or so" of the total run period. And as I note a quick look at the archives shows that this is not an unusual ask or a rarely granted thing.--Kevmin § 20:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a case-by-case thing. It was on DYK for such a short amount of time that I don't think it would hurt to allow it to run again as long as the issues have been addressed. We tend to be less lenient for hooks that run at least half of their prescribed time, but 3.5 hours seems short enough that I'd support a re-run. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know...

[edit]

I'm the primary builder of Prep 6, so I can't promote it to the queue... just in case anyone is expecting me to do the work. :) BorgQueen (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did the last one. One of my inviolable personal rules is never do two in a row, to make sure others have an opportunity to share the workload contribute. RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't judge you because I know you've been doing a lot. Perhaps @Z1720 could help. BorgQueen (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 has also been doing a lot. Perhaps one of our DYK regulars who object to doing their QPQ on time could do a few. RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect we won't hear from them. I've noticed that when we propose requiring more help from regulars, all our regulars see it and chime in on why they hate the idea. When we simply ask for that extra help, it's apparently invisible. :D Valereee (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could think of DYK as filmmaking. Far more people prefer to be actors than production staff. BorgQueen (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done BorgQueen (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translations

[edit]

I reviewed Jacques Lewis and noticed that it was a translation from the French language article. The review template {{DYK checklist}} asks "Is the article free of material copied from other sources?" and a translation does this so I flagged it as an issue. But I wasn't sure how this usually goes down at DYK and the guidelines don't seem to mention the issue.

Looking at the archives, I find that the issue was raised back in 2008: Translations as "new" content. That highlighted significant aspects like the use of automatic translation and the difficulty of working with foreign language sources. But it didn't seem to arrive at a clear conclusion.

Now, it's our general policy that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and so we can't take a foreign language article on trust. Myself, I happen to have started a foreign topic recently – Café Adria – but I worked that up from scratch using English language sources and so I feel I really understand the details. I now find that there's a Polish language article but I'm not using that yet as I don't know much Polish and it uses lots of Polish language sources.

So, I reckon that we should set quite a high bar for translations at DYK but maybe there's some existing guidance that I've not found yet.

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson "At the time of nomination, an article must have been created, expanded fivefold, moved to mainspace, translated from another wiki, or promoted to good article status within the last seven days." per Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines. SL93 (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The nomination seems to be within existing guidelines. WP:DYKCRIT does allow content translated from other Wikipedias, as WP:DYKNEW includes "translated from another Wikipedia". The article should be "free of copyright violations, including close paraphrasing", but reusing content from other Wikipedias is not a copyright violation as long as the source is acknowledged, as it was in the edit summaries of Jacques Lewis. TSventon (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red flags

[edit]

In recent discussions of errors, it occurred to me that it would be good to flag up issues with a topic or hook in a way that would alert the subsequent reviewers who process it through the prep, queue, posting and error-handling processes. For example, claims of a "first" often turn out to be erroneous and so it's good to highlight these even if they initially seem ok. I think of these as red flags and so have started experimenting with this as a visual warning.

In the review of Jacques Lewis, the hook claimed that he was the "the last living French veteran of D-Day". A claim of being last seems rather like a claim of being first and so I gave that a flag Redflag using the convenient {{redflag}} template. I suggest that others try this too to see if it's helpful.

Andrew🐉(talk) 18:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Davidson an interesting idea. I think {{redflag}} could sound like a definite no, so I would suggest the {{Caution sign}} template. TSventon (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening highest averages method DYKN

[edit]

Hi, could this nomination be reopened? I have several alternate hooks on the topic that I'd like to nominate and I think could pass. Thanks! Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you respond for over a week? SL93 (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely busy, so it completely slipped my mind. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we shouldn't reopen the nomination because we already have tons of nominations, and you have been actively editing for days now. SL93 (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I've been busy with (which I'm very sorry about). I have a GAN and a lot of other electoral system article edits to take care of. Page views on electoral system articles usually spike just ahead of US elections. Too many wikifires to put out on other things, so I completely forgot about this nomination. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Message for rejected noms

[edit]

I have just closed Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Wayanad landslides as ineligible due to a recent bold link appearance on the mainpage. The instructions in this case say to "Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|2024 Wayanad landslides|header=yes|sig=yes}}", which reads "Your submission of 2024 Wayanad landslides at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified". It's not very friendly to somewhat lie and tell someone their submission has issues that need clarification, when in fact the submission has been fully rejected. If we need to send a message in the case of rejection, could it be a slightly less misleading one? CMD (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good catch, clarified the instructions at WP:DYKRI :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it also needs adjusting in Template:DYKSymbols2. CMD (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
done! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Chipmunkdavis: Try it with "|fail=failed" as a parameter. I've road-tested it at @Chin pin choo:'s talk page and it seems to work.--Launchballer 08:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged.
Thanks for reviewing though. Chin pin choo (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PersusjCP, Vigilantcosmicpenguin, and BorgQueen:

Two citation needed tags need to be addressed before this can appear on the Main Page. Z1720 (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]