This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Did you know. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
... that Ita Maximowna, trained as a painter in Paris and Berlin in the 1920s, began with scenic and costume design (example pictured) after World War II and went on to work internationally?
The image is great but I question whether this hook is good enough for the lead slot. Is there anything we can do to make it hooky? Yoninah (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I found it quite hooky that she studied in the 1920th, didn't discover her field until 20 years later, but still made an international career with the greatest conductors and directors of the time - whose names people probably won't recognize. Some might find it hookier that in the meantime, she made ads for her husbands corn starch products, but I am not behind that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting changing the hook facts, just writing them in a hookier way. Like:
ALT1: ... that Ita Maximowna, trained as a painter in Paris and Berlin in the 1920s, became an international scenic and costume designer (sketch pictured) after World War II, working in about 400 operas, plays, and films?
ALT2: ... that Ita Maximowna, one of the first German scenic and costume designers (sketch pictured) to work internationally, initially trained as a painter and did book illustrations and package designs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoninah (talk • contribs) 15:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this up Yoninah. Unfortunately I am full on hands for tomorrow as it is getting late. I can most likely look into this on Tuesday at least. VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 15:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I am not fond of ALT2, ending low after a bright start. I also guess that many in the field did something like that to make money - not really specific to her. ALT1: I am not sure if a number makes it more hooky (quantity vs quality), but wouldn't fight over that if it makes you happy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I am happy with ALT1, and I think the number 400 gives a strong impression that she was popular and in demand, which one takes to be a reflection on the quality of her work - and all encaspulated in a number. Storye book (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Would someone then please reference that number? I found it on the German Wikipedia, but couldn't detect the source. Not that I don't believe it ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
If it helps, I found the reference by seaching like this in Google - "Ita Maximowna" "400" - to make it show both keywords. SL93 (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't know. I saw the same, but it looks to me rather like copied from the German Wikipedia than a serious original source. It's probably somewhere where her works are held and catalogued, but I have no access. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, if the fact can't be sourced, please remove it from the article. I'm moving the present hook out of the image slot, with regrets. Yoninah (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I see no reason to remove it if it's true in the German Wikipedia and other sites. Just 'I' can't find a source, so it seems not Main page worthy. I can't follow why 400 or not make a hook worthy of an image or not, but so be it. I'm just sad that my inability to find a ref for some quantity causes less attention for a great artistic person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a few hours ago. Reviews have continued strong, so there are only 14 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 21. We currently have a total of 189 nominations, of which 127 have been approved, a gap of 62 that has dropped by 13 in the past week. However, note that there are two large multiple nominations—one 10 articles and one 20 articles!—that need reviewing, so there is a lot to be done. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and the ones in the Current nominations section as well.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Need to move to two sets a day at the end of today
We have passed the magic 120 approved nominations mark—we have 127 as I type this—so we should go to two sets a day once the current set is off the main page, starting with the 00:00, 30 October 2020 set. (This gives us time to plan and move the upcoming special occasion hooks so they run on the requested days and no sooner.)
For now, the following special occasion hooks need to be moved (these instructions assume the changeover to twice a day starts on 30 October 2020):
Also Queue 2: The Metropolitan hook says it needs to run on October 31, but I'm not sure that's actually true. Pinging Yoninah on this. If so, it should move to Queue 4 so it runs during the day in North America. (Note that there is a hook from Queue 4 that needs to move to Prep 1, so if this does need to move, a three-way swap is possible.)
Queue 4: the final hook (the shepherd) needs to run on November 2, North American time, so it needs to move to Prep 1. The obvious swap is with the final hook, but we already separated the BloodSisters hook from The Metropolitan (both are by the same editor), so if that moves to Queue 4, BloodSisters should not. DoneCwmhiraeth (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Prep 6 (may be Queue 6 if the set gets promoted from prep to queue today): the Paula Bataona Renyaan hook needs to run on November 4, Indonesian time, so it should move to Prep 4. Suggest swapping with the Bups Saggu hook there. Done
Once all this is set up, we'll be ready to make the switchover after midnight, a little over 20 hours from now. Thanks to any admin who takes on the intra-queue and queue-to-prep moves. I may take care of the prep to prep move next, while it's still possible. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
"that Batman and the Joker parade down the street daily at Warner Bros. Movie World?"
Hi, can someone help me find the nomination of this DYK? There must be an archive with the original nominations, but it's quite mazelike to get there.
--TZubiri (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
@Roller26, Yoninah, and Cwmhiraeth: Hi, I'm unsure about the suitability of describing Tendulkar as a "legend" here – I'm not disputing his influence in the sport, but we should refrain from describing him as such in Wikipedia; see WP:PUFFERY. The alternative would be to refer to him in the hook as just "cricketer", unless there's another option we could use. — RAVENPVFF·talk·11:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I saw your note about moving it to Prep 4 after all was said and done. But I figured that Americans might still see it on their way to nighttime Halloween parties. Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Exact process for withdrawing a nomination
At Template:Did you know nominations/Price's Lost Campaign: The 1864 Invasion of Missouri, it was pointed out to me that neither of the hooks were widely interesting, and frankly, I don't think that I can produce an interesting hook for that subject matter (which also strengthens my suspicion that much of my article writing has been in somewhat useless areas). What are the exact procedures for withdrawing? I want to make sure I do it right, so this nomination doesn't stick around in WP:DYKN purgatory when its obviously not going anywhere. Hog FarmBacon16:22, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: You could leave a post that you're withdrawing the nomination. Then another editor will come along and close the template. But do you want a second opinion on the hook? Sometimes some creative wording can spice up the dullest subject. Yoninah (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: - I just had one last idea. I'll remove the withdrawal, and see if I can create a decent hook around the sentence "Other themes of the book include debunking the myth that the Confederates refused to engage in total war as well as examining Union Major General William S. Rosecrans motivations behind how he responded to the raid: that he was more concerned with sheltering the Missouri economy than protecting civilians". Hog FarmBacon16:33, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Interestingness is a very subjective criterion and failure to find a supposedly interesting hook should never be a reason for withdrawing a nomination in my view. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes please hold on guys. Hopefully I’ll have a little time to come and help on prep building soon but I’m having endless assignments and may need to settle my GAN first. Great job everyone! We can do this --VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 13:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
It looks like that's been taken care of. What's going to be a problem is that we now have only a single prep filled, and only one queue unfilled. Admins can't promote preps if they haven't been populated. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Valereee (talk·contribs) So, I'm fine proceeding in either of two ways: I'll be editing the article (IV) shortly to include that it is disputed by at least one RS that I can access, after which time the hook could be altered to clarify that point. Or, on the other hand, I'm fine picking literally any other fact in the article for the hook - I picked this only because it was the "most hookiest" for me when I was nominating. If we want to go with the complete change (away from this story altogether), some ideas I have are possibly that "milk, sugar, honey, and egg yolk" were used early on, or possibly a fact about non-prescription IV glucose solutions, or perhaps about another fact. Please let me know what you think is the best idea and I can flesh out a new/updated hook. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
ALT1*... that some sources claim that Pope Innocent VIII was treated with intravenous therapy on his deathbed, while others claim this is an anti-semitic fabrication?
ALT1a*... that the first recorded attempt to provide intravenous therapy, a primitive blood transfusion given to Pope Innocent VIII, has also been disputed and called an anti-semitic fabrication by some?
ALT2*... that in the early use of intravenous therapy, attempts were made to inject milk, sugar, honey, and egg yolk into a person's veins?
ALT3*... that in some countries, non-prescription intravenous therapy is provided with glucose solutions (called "ringer") to improve energy?
I think from my non-caffeinated look that all of those should be cited appropriately, but I know for a fact they all have a cite, it just may not be in exactly the right place - so if they aren't let me know and I can rectify it pretty quickly (once I get my coffee, which I'm going to do shortly). Thanks -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 14:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Approving ALT3. Someone else needs to sub one of these for the current hook in prep 1, I can't since I approved them. Creator prefers ALT2. —valereee (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, the hook is not mentioned anywhere in the article. It's implied from the fact the well was moved to somewhere with no spring, but DYK rule 3 says "The fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article". Joseph2302 (talk)13:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know there had been a discussion about the use of casual "you" in the hook. I'm for my part fine with either of the ALTs, with a preference for ALT2. Yakikaki (talk) 13:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Currently wait on the Super Mario Bros. 35 DYK to appear on the main page. I've read the instructions on who can move it to main page prep stages, and it says nominators are discouraged from doing so (I'm the nominator). But what about other users who have contributed to the article (eg. Hockeycatcat)? Can they do the preparation, or no, because they were involved with the article creation? Le PaniniTalk13:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@Le Panini: thank you for nominating articles for DYK. We currently have more than 80 approved nominations before this one, and we try to promote the oldest ones first. But as we're busy promoting two sets (16 hooks a day), it won't be long before this nomination too makes its appearance on the main page. Be patient. Yoninah (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
@Le Panini: to answer your question, neither page co-creators or nominators can promote a nomination to a prep. Uninvolved editors are needed to evaluate the nomination with critical eyes. Best, Yoninah (talk) 14:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
As per the cited sources, it could be argued that it was the flock itself which felt that it was fleeced, rather than the shepherd having the same feeling since he was not explicitly mentioned in the quote. I suggest rewording the hook to:
ALT1: ... that the shepherd'sflock felt that it was fleeced at Innsbruck?
@Cwmhiraeth: I fail to see the improvement. The word team makes no sense in this context and will be confusing to readers since it is not apparent that any sport is being talked about nor a specific ice hockey team. What is wrong with the wording proposed above? Flibirigit (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Why is the proposed hook less comprehensible? The quote by Marshall Johnston used the comparison of a hockey team and its coach to a shepherd and his flock. How are you getting that perception that he was nicknamed shepherd? Do you have a better wording for a hook that does not use the word team? Flibirigit (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, I also prefer ALT1, and think ALT2 should not be used, since it's confusing to have the same people be both "team" and "flock". I have corrected the apostrophe template in ALT1, so the proper one is used next to bold roman type. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:19, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I have changed the hook in Queue 1 to ALT1, although I can't help thinking that the verb should be "had been" rather than "was". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't really know where we'd put it, but you can use {{#expr:{{User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates}}/3600}} to output the number automagically. Example: we currently have 24 hours between updates. — Wug·a·po·des07:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/2b2t is currently in Prep 3. I would be glad of another view on the status of the image. When I reviewed the article, the image was licensed as CC BY-SA 4.0, which is not compatible with Wikipedia, and when I queried this it was changed to CC-BY-SA 3.0, which is, but see here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I took that web archive as a timestamp. You can see it live on reddit though, here. If you need proof that the license was actually edited from 4 to 3, you can look at the previous internet archive from June here where it says 4.0. I had mentioned to the author that there was a potential of being on the front page, and I'm sure he would edit the comment any which way is necessary if need be, including releasing the image into the public domain entirely. If there are other concerns, I believe they may be addressed by my comments on the GA review on the matter here or on the Commons DR that I linked from there. Thank you for checking closely though! :) Leijurv (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
CC-by-4.0 is fine for files, just not for text: "According to the WMF legal team, CC BY-SA 4.0 is not backwards compatible with CC BY-SA 3.0. Therefore, mixing text licenses under 3.0 and 4.0 would be problematic, however media files uploaded under this license are fine." from: Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright - Dumelow (talk) 07:53, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
This is not how we do things. Everything is recorded on the nomination template so administrators and other editors can refer back to the discussion. So far nothing has been posted on the template about whether the licensing is ok or not, and no one has administered a final tick. The hook should be returned to the nominations area until the template is correctly filled out. Yoninah (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
I can't speak for Berrely but am I not correct when I see that Cwmhiraeth gave a check mark on the hook, then said Congratulations. The image is now appropriately licensed and could be used with the hook., then asked on here for a second opinion, then Dumelow said CC-by-4.0 is fine for files, just not for text? There is a final tick, a question was raised about licensing then resolved? Leijurv (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
@Leijurv: The hook was promoted and the template closed without any reference to the discussion over here. Anyone who refers back to the template discussion will see a question mark with no resolution. If Berrely is in such a rush to promote the image, he should ask other editors to sign off on the template before he closes it. Yoninah (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay I don't understand why this can't just happen. Are you saying that I should go on that page and write an explanation that Cwmhiraeth was unsure about a license and Dumelow clarified, with a link to here? And that's it? What am I missing here, let's go do it? Leijurv (talk) 04:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a couple of days ago. There are now 20 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through the end of October. We currently have a total of 187 nominations, of which 77 have been approved, a gap of 110 that has increased by 48 in the past ten days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and the ones in the Current nominations section as well.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
The ambiguity was intentional on my part, and I would prefer to keep it. DYK has always been intended to intrigue the reader, often with hooks that are a little confusing until you click on the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that adding "Boston's" as in ALT1 does not take away from the "ambiguity" (it might even add), so it seems at worst a harmless addition if wanted. Adding "lines" clearly decreases ambiguity, if that is the goal, although I feel a properly ambiguous version would not include "station" either. CMD (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Or perhaps "that Blue and Red are proposed to meet at Charles/MGH in Boston?". That was the wording I had in mind, though I actually don't think this angle is a good idea (I've never been a fan of ambiguous hooks outside of AFD). Are there any other potential angles here? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew15:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
... that epidemiologist J. Michael Lane, who played a leading role in the global eradication of smallpox, trekked across the country from Atlanta to Seattle at the age of 79?
Should "the country" be identified more explicitly? (I've changed the linked article to say "the United States" rather than "the country".)
—2d37 (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
While it could be argued that both Atlanta and Seattle are well-known enough globally for the hook to be understood as referring to the US, having less ambiguous (or having more accurate hooks) is always good in my opinion. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew08:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Support change: "the country" is US-centric, especially as it appears before the names of the places. Hooks should be clear to readers from all countries. And there are many Atlantas, not all in US, so hook is not 100% clear without adding the name of the country. Joseph2302 (talk)08:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
What can we do to encourage more editors to start building preps? I'm worried we're going to burn out our current prep builders. —valereee (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
We're not burning out; we're just few and far between. But after promoting about 20 more hooks, we're going to reach 60 approved noms and be able to go back to one set a day. Yoninah (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I once tried building prep sets. It was a thankless job with endless criticism that far outweighed any satisfaction gained from suggesting what should be on the main page. Flibirigit (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
yep, it's high-visibility, and that tends to attract criticism. I found building preps/find moving queues kind of exciting that way, but definitely not for everyone. —valereee (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
... that Joyryde finished three songs for his album Brave while recovering from lower back surgery?
MicroPowerpoint, I'm sorry if I'm just missing it, I'm rushing because this is due on the front page in the morning, but where does it say this in the article? It needs to be stated with a citation so readers can find it. —valereee (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Valereee It can be found in the "recording" subsection of the "Production and composition" section. It is supported by references 14 and 15. Micro (Talk)
Thank you very much for promoting my hook about the woman who designed the gown in Michelle Obama’s official portrait. It would be prime for illustration except that the portrait is a non-free image. By chance, instead the hook is currently in Prep 4 side by side with a picture of a dog. This is obviously inadvertent, but to err on the side of sensitivity (especially on Main Page), I would suggest we move it. Thank you again. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang" hook (submitted by me, approved by User:EchetusXe, promoted by User:Yoninah) was entirely appropriate and, indeed, an excellent hook. There was nothing misleading about it, and it is no way a "hit piece". To the contrary, it accurately reported on a satirical account about the song and accurately identified the source as satire in both the hook and the article. The intent of the hook was to intrigue the reader, prompt them to read the article, and perhaps elicit a chuckle.
When User:GamerPro64's plea to remove the hook was not immediately accepted, they unilaterally (and in my view wrongfully) blanked the entire "In popular culture" section. See diff here. This caused the hook to be pulled from the Main Page after running for a couple of hours.
All of this resulted in a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. GamerPro64 took the position that we may never cite a satire site, but the the hook/article do not rely on the satire site for the "truth" of the assertions (which are plainly identified as satire rather than fact). Instead, the hook and article reference the satire site for the satire itself. The discussion of the satire (published in a well-known satire publication, The Hard Times), and set forth in the "In popular culture and politics" section of the article, was appropriate.
There is no prohibition on discussions of, or citations to, satirical treatments of a topic. To the contrary, satire is an important and protected form of expression, and satirical treatments of a topic (especially in prominent satire publications like The Onion, The Hard Times, Charlie Hebdo, or Mad magazine) are good indicia of the breadth of interest in, and relevance of, the topic being satired.
I do understand that the song's writer, Ted Nugent, is a controversial figure and that the song's sexual lyrics may not be everyone's musical preference, but those are not valid reasons to pull the hook.
In sum, I object to GamerPro64's unilateral action in blanking the relevant section which has now been restored to the article and expanded. I ask that, if permissible, the hook be restored to a queue so that it may receive its fair time on the Main Page. Cbl62 (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the main concern is whether a satire piece from a website is worth mentioning on the page, let alone in a hook, if the coverage from independent reliable sources are limited to a tweet and a Facebook post.—Bagumba (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The song has been controversial for years, as evidenced by the discussion in the "In popular culture and politics" section. The satire reflects that controversy. We ought not be pulling a perfectly good hook (frankly, I think a fantastic one, and one that was vetted through the DYK process) from the Main Page because people don't like it. The Hard Times is an established satire publication as evidenced by the content and citations at its Wikipedia article. Satire is an important form of communication, and satire directed at a song (or politician) is legitimately covered by our encyclopedia. As long as there's nothing misleading, inaccurate, non-neutral, or unduly negative about the hook (none of which are the case here), there is no prohibition, either site-wide or in the DYK rules, on content referencing satire. This hook should absolutely not have been pulled from the Main Page. Cbl62 (talk) 12:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I believe this is WP:UNDUE and agree with its removal from the article. The nomination should be re-opened with a different hook proposed. P-K3 (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The section should be removed. And even then I'm wondering if the article works on its own, judging by how much the article relies on mostly Allmusic sources. GamerPro6420:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The notion of removing the "In popular culture and politics section", which is supported by multiple reliable sources (including Reason magazine, Salon, Billboard, Spin, and The Hard Times) dealing with the song's controversial history, is patently absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Proposal
The intent behind my proposed hook was to draw attention to the article and engender a bit of levity. Instead, it has engendered a shitstorm and stress. While I remain perturbed at GamerPro64 for his unilateral gutting of the article while it was on the Main Page, I have considerable respect for Bagumba and no reason to doubt the sincerity of P-K3's opinion. Accordingly, I wish to move on and withdraw the hook.
If permissible, I would like to have the nom page reopened so that I can propose alternative hooks such as:
... that Stangl Pottery, under its earlier name of Fulper, produced a precursor to the modern water cooler named the Germ-Proof Filter?
@Yoninah: stated that the hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Stangl Pottery is hard to follow because it has three different names. I don't see how that alone makes it hard to follow. The reason why it has three names is because the company had a different name when the product was released. I thought that such a hook would be expected for that reason. SL93 (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I also said it has three clauses. It reads choppily. Why is it necessary to give its former name? Alternately, you could pipe the link as [[Stangl Pottery|Fulper Pottery]] But I see other, more interesting hook facts in the article that pertain to its actual business as a pottery maker. Yoninah (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not changing the hook. I personally think it's interesting that a pottery company did something so unrelated to pottery and that it was written about. SL93 (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Prep 2
Regarding the Hokersar hook in Prep 2, I think it might be a little WP:POV to use the phrase in India's Kashmir Valley here – the region is certainly controlled by India, but still disputed. For better neutrality, I believe it would be preferable that the hook simply read "in the Kashmir Valley" or, if we want to go into some detail, "in the Indian-administered Kashmir Valley". Pinging: MeegsC, Mehrajmir13, Yoninah. — RAVENPVFF·talk·01:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm seeing in the article To further disguise the actual purpose, they called it the "Diffusion Inhibitor"., but I don't see an earlier mention of disguising the purpose (except in the lead without a source), and it doesn't mention from whom. I feel like maybe there's an earlier sentence that was supposed to be included but wasn't? —valereee (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
The C of E, we now have defined points of change: down to once a day when the number of approved nominations falls below 60, and up to two when the number of the approved hits 120 or above. So I'm afraid your suggestion is unlikely to occur unless we toss out our decision earlier this year to make the changes automatically by the numbers, which I hope does not happen. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I feel like it's been a good solution, but I'd like to get input from prep builders, who are probably the most affected, about whether they think this is 1. working well and 2. could use a tweak in the numbers, which we specified at the RfC we were open to. —valereee (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I think it's working great. When we get down to around 60 approved hooks it always feels like I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel to come up with a balanced prep set. And when it gets back to 120 it does feel like there's an overabundance of hooks to choose from, so it's time to go back to two sets a day. Yoninah (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Changing back tonight after midnight UTC (admin will be needed)
Yoninah, thanks for the ping. There's no reason I can see to delay the change back, so it should happen after midnight UTC, a bit over three hours from now. After that time (but not before!), an admin will need to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from "43200" to "86400".
As far as I can tell, there is only one special occasion hook that will need to be moved, and it will also require an admin: the lead hook in Queue 4 (worship dogs), which should run on November 14, will need to be moved up to Queue 1 so it does run on the 14th. It will probably be easiest simply to swap the lead hooks in Queue 1 (due to social-media photographs) and Queue 4.
There is a special occasion hook yet to be promoted that will need to be placed in Queue 3 so it runs on November 16 (admin needed here, too): Template:Did you know nominations/Floodland (album). So one of the hooks from Queue 3 will need to be moved to an open prep set to make room for the special occasion hook.
Pinging Cwmhiraeth in case she's around and wants to get a head start on the moves now, and might also be willing to be backup in case no one is available to change the time between updates right after midnight. Many thanks to whoever is able to take care of any of these. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Thank you. But swapping the dog hook into Queue 1 will put it right next to a hook speaking of elephants. Perhaps the second hook in Queue 1 could be switched with the 1953 book hook. Pinging Cwmhiraeth. Yoninah (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
I was planning for two sets per day, so would have had plenty of time for my annual tribute to BB and St. Cecilia's Day, 22 November. I wrote Children's Crusade (Britten), nominated today, but the prep is already in use, while it would need a review first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Very happy I could help! As to your question, my instinct is maybe save for another day, in the interest of varying subject matter on any given day, but it only overlaps a little, so if you feel motivated to do it in time, go for it! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
I just came across a new editor's nomination and now I am wondering if our rules are specific enough. Expansion on this article began on November 2 and ended on November 16, so the editor nominated it on November 16. The rule at WP:DYK says: A nominated article must be new (when nominated). For DYK purposes, a "new" article is no more than seven days old. Since the nominator nominated it on November 16, that would appear to qualify, right? But we have always counted expansion from the beginning of the expansion, not the end. Yoninah (talk) 00:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The rule on expansion says it must be "expanded fivefold or more within the past seven days". So I guess technically, if there a 5x expansion from November 9 to November 16, it qualifies as "new". But if you must go all the way back to November 2, then it doesn't meet the strict language of the rule. MB01:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
This DYK nomination of mine was reviewed, and has sat idle for a few weeks since its initial review. I checked to see what the status of the review is, but the original reviewer unfortunately has retired from Wikipedia. Can I manually mark this as needing a second review? epicgenius (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:
Check the prep areas; if there are between 6 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
Once completed edit queue #4 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page
Wow, glad that didn't happen when I was the only one around, I'm not sure I would have thought of that or just sat staring stupidly at an apparently-filled queue. :) —valereee (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Valereee Do you have User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors on your watch list? This one tells you very explicitly what the error is. This one said very clearly, "Queue 4 is not tagged with DYKbotdo". This is not the only error message it posts. Whatever it is, this error message will be very specific about what needs to be done. The above "DYK is almost overdue", well meaning though it is, is a bunch of yadda yadda yadda that makes admins jump through a lot of hoops to figure out the exact issue. — Maile (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
And maybe you didn't. If the error is resolved before you see your watchlist, you will see "No errors; clear", or - depending on how soon you see your watch list, you'll see nothing if the issue is resolved and the update posted. Meanwhile, the above message stays on this talk page making it look like an unspecified error still exists. — Maile (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The Moriguchi Route hook uses the term "entrance ramp" (I'd call it an "on ramp" but that may be a regional language difference, so this is fine) and then links that term to the article slip lane. A slip lane is part of an at-grade intersection (usually controlled by traffic signals) and thus something completely different to an entrance ramp. Both entrance ramp and on ramp redirect to Interchange (road). Under terminology, the article explains on ramps etc, but it also repeats the slip lane mistake.
Checking back 24 hours later, I see that nobody saw fit to respond and the item has been posted in its incorrect state onto the main page. i've thus unlinked the term myself. Schwede6618:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Schwede66, FWIW, for stuff that's almost on the MP, a post at ERRORS will be seen more quickly by more admins capable of making such a change. Issues reported here are more likely to be for stuff that's at least a couple days out and often aren't assumed to be urgent. Also it's helpful to ping at least the nom, maybe give a link to the nom template so people can conveniently check to see whether this has already been discussed there. —valereee (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a few days ago. There are now 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, the most in a long time, covering everything through November 12. We currently have a total of 170 nominations, of which 61 have been approved, a gap of 109 that is virtually unchanged since twelve days ago. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi there! I am just a bit puzzled that I remembered I requested for a special occasion on 15 December. I wonder if that is possible. Thank you very much for all the reviews :D Courtesy ping Yoninah :3 VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see that, and it hadn't been moved to the special occasions holding area. I'll do that now. BTW next time put the requested date in bold so it will stand out. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Just some considerations, now that remaining sets for the month of November are limited. November is a month to remember the dead, and Wikipedia's Asia month.
In memory
Possible dates are limited, better not on US Thanksgiving (26 November) and in Advent (beginning 28 November this year).
It's ironic, that the Vaxolhm church is still featured on Advent Sunday, but the related picture won't be featured. It's an interior shot of the church, on Advent Sunday. --evrik(talk)17:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Evrik: You told me I could run the hook anytime. I thought Sunday was a good day for a baptismal font. But as I've said a few times, the image has nothing to do with the hook. Yoninah (talk) 18:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
No one's looked at it and I don't think it's too late to get it in there even though the queue seems to be all set for that day. Could someone please take a look? Daniel Case (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Excellent idea. I’ll let the Speaker know; he will at least tweet about the homepage appearance, if not mention it in parliament on Wednesday. Schwede6616:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a few hours ago. There are now 27 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through November 19. We currently have a total of 197 nominations, of which 94 have been approved, a gap of 103 that has dropped by 6 in the past week. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Will need an admin to either work on rewording it or to pull it back for more work (in which case a new hooks will need to be found for the queue). Pinging Cwmhiraeth, who's likely to see this in another few hours, well before it would be promoted to the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Floquenbeam's explanation makes this hook understandable but I don't intend to touch it as it is beyond my competence. Looking at the article, I doubt we will find anything better, because more interesting hooks are likely to run into BLP issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the hook can be re-worded, but as it stands it is not good, both in the fact that it obfuscates the actual sport bbeing played and requires some knowledge of somewhat obscure terminology. Black Kite (talk)13:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I decided to move Die Alkestiade to The Alcestiad, which means a change to queue 5 if we want to avoid a redirect. It should be piped to the German, because the mentioned premiere was in German (and it looks as if the English was never performed which made me hesitant to move, but the authors conceived it in English). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Mandakini River was nominated for DYK yesterday as a 5x expansion. However, it appears that the expansion was accomplished on November 2, meaning that the nomination was made outside the seven-day requirement. The nominator is new to Wikipedia and this is their first DYK nomination, so requesting opinions here if a one-time IAR exemption can be granted here for the date requirement. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew01:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah ... if you look at this user's page, they are a student in a Wikipedia Education Class. - looks like Australila - this is their first effort, and they're trying to learn here. I think we could give some leeway and allow this one. — Maile (talk) 01:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Given these users are definitely new (being part of an educational assignment), and this is their first articles/nominations ever, I agree leeway should be given. At a first glance they seem quite decent articles for DYK. CMD (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I can notify the creator of the Meat and Livestock article. Is there a sufficient consensus that it is ok to proceed in this manner? Does anyone object? Cbl62 (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Maile66: these are one-time contributors for a course. They might be doing a favor for Wikipedia, but we're doing a favor for them for DYK. I suggest someone contacts the course administrator to let them know DYK's newness requirement so this doesn't keep happening every semester. Yoninah (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: Un huh. So, this is above my pay scale. I was looking at Wikimedia Education, which is where that kind of contact should be made. It's probably not just one class or even one country that doesn't know DYK's deadlines. But if somebody here knows how to contact these people and make sure they know about our deadline rules, please do. — Maile (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Another thing that keeps happening is the students create a nom page, almost always untranscluded, often hookless, for "articles" that only exist as user drafts. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM22:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed that a disproportionate proportion of our student editor nominations end up failing, so perhaps something could be done about that to increase the success rates while at the same time improving the ways these editors can be guided through the process. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew02:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The biggest issue I have with WikiEd overall is that the student editors are not encouraged to - and in some ways, actively discouraged from - talking to other editors/the Wikipedia community. My editing skills and understanding of How Things Are Done got so much better just with a little interaction, but the WikiEd focus on skills is in separate interfaces or each others' sandboxes. They are then instructed to peer review each others' work, which seems like a pointless exercise. And there doesn't seem to be any regard at all for Wikipedia process. So of course they're not going to come back to DYK or respond to queries, and of course they're not going to know how to interact with the DYK reviewer or go about fixing things properly. It's not something DYK can fix, it's an inherent issue to WikiEd and we're clean-up. Kingsif (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The issue as I understand it is that instructors encourage students to submit to DYK, probably in order to get students excited about contributing to Wikipedia. Hey, you can get your content linked on the main page and see how many hits it gets! But most of these students aren't actually any more interested in DYK than they are in any other project a prof assigns them. They're just trying to check all the boxes, and usually a DYK nom is extra credit. Many times most are nom'd near the end of the term. The student, having checked all the boxes, stops logging in. A reviewer picks up the nom, and getting no response (duh! That class is over! Party!) fixes it themselves, then requests a second review.
Yoninah, the problem in this particular case is that the instructor hasn't done what they're supposed to do: set up a project dashboard and require all their students to link to it. I can't figure out who this student's instructor is. Maybe when we get DYK noms from editors with under 100 edits the nom is immediately flagged and nominator pinged asking if they're doing this as part of a course, and if so, the username of their instructor. We put the nom on hold until they answer. Could a bot do all that for us? —valereee (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
My opinion is really that something should be done about these student nominations since they tend to have a relatively high failure rate compared to nominations by other kinds of editors (even non-regulars). Any ideas on how to do this? I'm not sure if the "the instructor must be a co-nom" idea would work since in many cases the instructors themselves aren't that familiar with Wikipedia either. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew13:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I think that's probably not a problem -- an instructor who has used WP as part of their syllabus once is likely to do it again as long as it wasn't such a disaster that it's worth revising their syllabus and coming up with a new assignment. :) Each new instructor will likely need to be educated once on the basics. Then they can help educate their students in perpetuity. —valereee (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
An instructor guarantor would be pointless, there is a current class in which the instructor does not log on to Wikipedia, nor respond to emails. He was letting the students edit and start new COVID-19 articles at, well, new student editor level quality. With zero response I intervened with the students. Instructors are inexperienced and non-responsive, too. And we can't expect Ian to be a guarantor for everyone. Kingsif (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
One possible option is to make some changes to the WikiEd instructions so that if student editors decide to participate in DYK, they have an idea on what to do, what the rules are, and be encouraged to engage with the regulars for guidance and raise the chances of success. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew23:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, it's good to get these new creations; they're typically productive starts. And it's good to get more eyes on them, since they're almost always by inexperienced users. But I'm not sure I want us to automatically IAR in these cases. That removes all motivation by the student or their instructor to bother continuing to engage after making the nomination. —valereee (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
To clarify, my opinion is that the 5 day deadline can be IARed in these cases, not the rest of the DYK process. CMD (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm totally willing to IAR the deadline for submission. It's just that I think we shouldn't even start working on them until we confirm that someone is committed to following up. —valereee (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
{[re|Valereee}} - three of these (Micromégas, Baby bonds and Delftia lacustris are classes we support. I will follow up with the instructors and them to ask the students to indicate if they're around to see the nom through. The other two are not classes we work with, so I don't know anything about them. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
In my case I'm more inclined to IAR if the date requirement is the only serious issue and other article/nomination issues do not exist or are easily surmountable. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew23:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Repinging valereee, since Ian's above didn't take. In my opinion, a late submission for a new contributor (whether taking a class or not) can only be so late before I'm not willing to IAR; it gets problematic if it's more than seven days past the initial seven-day requirement. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
There were 36 untranscluded nominations as of earlier today, and all but a handful are from Wiki Edu-related courses. Since some of these courses don't technically end until as late as December 12, I've held off closing most of them, though when a 5x expansion is clearly infeasible or the course has ended I've gone ahead and closed them. I realize that Wiki Edu staff was cut to the bone over the summer, but something has clearly gone wrong if so many students are not transcluding nominations or understanding the DYK criteria or process. Ian (Wiki Ed), can you update us on where things stand, and when we can safely close untranscluded nominations? My current plan is to close them the day after the course officially ends (Wikipedia part of the course typically ends before the official end date of the class.) Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I really hope something can be done about the student nominations (in particular the lack of responses as well as the nomination of ineligible articles) because the current failure rate and the non-responsiveness of both nominators and their instructions are very worrying. Ian's efforts to contact the people involved is greatly appreciated, but unfortunately it appears that in most cases, responses have not been forthcoming. Perhaps reforms need to be done to the Wiki Ed program to ensure that things can improve? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew12:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Short answer is: yes. We specifically have a system to alert me when this happens. For some reason there seem to have been more than usual this term. But after losing half our staff, this term has been a stretch, and unfortunately I dropped the ball on this. I'm sorry about that. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I have pulled this item from the current DYK set, as it is not suitable for the main page in its current state. Most of the last two sections is completely unreferenced. Looking at the history, it seems like the content was substantially changed in this edit, which was after the hook had been approved, and also after it had been uploaded to the queue. So it's an unusual case, and maybe not a failure of our processes as the issues crept in after all the checks. Something to ponder though, how we can prevent issues such as this. One option here might be to revert to the state as it was before the above changes, but I note that there has also been an edit war over the content in the early hours of this morning UTC, so it arguably the article stable at the moment either. Courtesy pings to noms and reviewers: @JackFromReedsburg:@Yoninah:@Mehrajmir13:@Cwmhiraeth:. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for catching that, Amakuru, and for deftly reworking the set so it still has an image. When an image is promoted to the main page it is template-protected, but that obviously can't be done with articles in hooks, as we are encouraging readers to help improve the articles. Yoninah (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@Yoninah: interestingly, the image in question is found locally on Wikipedia and is marked not eligible for Commons, on the grounds that it has a public-domain licence for the US, but not for the UK. It is marked as likely created during his lifetime though, which means 1857 at the latest, so there seems little prospect that it is under UK copyright and I deemed it OK. To handle protection, I manually protected the local copy File:Donat Henchy O'Brien.jpg for 1 day, so it can't be vandlized. Ordinarily, for ad-hoc protections like this, which haven't had a day of protection through the DYK queues, we'd use the Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection page. This makes sure there is no period of unprotection in between uploading the image and the template protection kicking in. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Interesting case. Unfortunate on the timing, for sure. The edit seems to have added content but removed multiple sources? Hm. Edit summary indicates copy/paste concerns, so no, I wouldn't want to revert. The DYK reviewer says they didn't find any, but the editor who made the change is a fairly experienced long-time editor who seems to specialize in automotive, maybe they were recognizing something the knew to be copyvio? —valereee (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
How did we end up swapping an image of the article subject for an image of the capitol building? I looked for discussion but don't seem to be able to find it, maybe just not enough coffee yet? —valereee (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
It looks like it was originally promoted to a non-image slot. The original image, while labeled in the hook as one of the hideaways, was Board of Education room in the U.S. Capitol in an undated picture and is very clearly just a government image from the Board of Education. It was somewhat deceptive to use that one as an example of a hideaway office, which it clearly was not. Yoninah moved it to the image slot, and appears to have chosen the image. Quite frankly, I think an image of the US Capitol is too general.— Maile (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I was involved in the article expansion and also suggested to Cwmhiraeth that she move it out of the image slot because the "Board of Education room" did not suit the hook. I still think it's a great hook so I moved it back in to the image slot with a clearer image. But if consensus feels that it doesn't belong there, let's move it to a quirky slot and substitute a different image. valereee, could you move it back to prep and I'll fiddle with it? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
(ec) The room is nicknamed "Board of Education", but it was according to the article historically always used as a hideaway and is now the hideaway of Pelosi? The source for the photo is at this .gov link and says the room was taken over by Speakers of the House in 1901. We don't know the date of that photo, but the room was always used that way. —valereee (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I see. You know ... I wish the nominator a lot of traffic on the hook. But generally speaking, this hideaway stuff came out as a sort of teaser one recent day in the media. In reality, the private office - hideaway or not - is exactly how corporate America has operated since I've been alive on this earth. The best private offices - and corporate paid off-site canoodle apts/residences - go to the upper tier of management. All of corporate America. Lesser management gets lesser offices, real lower management gets a cubicle. Everybody else is in an open work space or some sort of cubicle arrangement. Nothing new under the sun. — Maile (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Maile: but secret offices in the U.S. Capitol building? So private that senators can conduct liaisons in them? I guess I've been out of the U.S. too long not to find this surprising. Yoninah (talk) 13:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
It's the same thing corporate America does. And it only says "secret" because the news media says so. Senators can conduct the same liaisons in the back section of their automobiles. Also, there's a lot more to that story, but I don't know if it's in the Wikipedia article - probably so. Most senators use those offices to get some work done away from staff distractions and media stuff. While the media was dropping the story, I don't recall if they actually mentioned a proven incident of mis-conduct in those offices. — Maile (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
As the promoted hook was not approved, I have replaced it in Prep 2 with the ALT1 hook, which was. (The reviewer was unwilling to approve the original hook.) I agree that the image should not be used. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. And, actually, the promoter only used the approved ALT1 hook. The swap happened later, and I don't see a discussion here about that. But it's all fine now, thanks. — Maile (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Date of article appearance
I see that as of December 1, the talk page notices have the correct date for the main page appearance. But at WP:DYKA, the subheads are still a day ahead. Yoninah (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Queue change request
Hi. Not sure if this is too short notice, but I hoped that the DYK for my article The Indelicates could be moved to a queue with a 12:00 UTC slot instead of 0:00 (which it currently has with Queue 3). This is just because, as the band is British and didn't see get significant attention outside of Europe, the most people interested in the article would probably be from that approximate time zone, and may not see it in the earlier hours (relative to them). No worries if not; just thought it worth asking. SteveT • C18:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello helpful friends. I’d be grateful for a second opinion on the referencing at Shikma Bressler, particularly the “Black Flag” protests section which might be a hot topic if the entry appears on Main Page. To satisfy the “within policy” requirement for DYK, I asked that these potentially controversial claims about this living person each be accompanied by the verifying citation, but my discussions with the nominator haven’t resolved it yet. Before I press them again, I would be grateful if someone could look and see if you feel what’s already in the entry seems sufficient—there are sources, it’s just not clear what verifies what, but maybe that’s ok? Thank you for the guidance. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Reviewing our policies, I believe WP:CITEFOOT confirms the refs need to go next to each statement, not at the end of the section but I would still be glad for an outside opinion here as the nominator reports having been told differently. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
The number of approved nominations climbed to 130 yesterday before falling back after nine promotions. At the moment we're at 122 approved nominations out of 215. It's clearly time to go to two sets a day, since 120 is the switchover point.
We typically make changes at midnight, so since we're already over six hours into December 2, I'm going to propose we wait until after the next set (currently in Queue 6) hits the main page a little under eighteen hours from now, at the start of December 3 (UTC).
There is only one special occasion hook currently in the queues and preps, and it will need to be moved:
Queue 7: the W. F. Taylor hook needs to run in the second set on December 4 so it appears on the main page during the day in Canada; that means the hook needs to move to Queue 2. A likely hook from Queue 2 to swap it with is the one for Rudolf Gerlach-Rusnak.
In the meantime, it would be a good idea to get another queue or two promoted to give us more of a running start (three are empty), and more new prep sets created, ditto. We do better if we have at least ten sets filled when we switch over to twice a day. Pinging the usual admins: @Casliber:@Amakuru:@Vanamonde93:@Maile66:@Guerillero:@Valereee:@Wugapodes:@Lee Vilenski:@Cwmhiraeth:. Many thanks to you all!
If I may ask one more thing without being reprimanded, I'd like the above-mentioned Gerlach-Rusnak sometime later (than next queue to be posted). With him, we have opera singers in three consecutive sets, and having 2 one day seems a bit too much of a good thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
he is on the Main page now, - now idea what our readers think of a bass, a baritone and a tenor in a row of 3 consecutive sets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, the hook didn't point out that Wiedemann is a baritone, so they probably (mostly) don't know ;) You produce a lot of hooks, Gerda, having three in 18 hours on opera singers is something that will happen every now and again. As long as it's not multiple in 6 hours it should be fine. Kingsif (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Gerda, I try to put a music hook in every set. I wouldn't assume that main-page readers are examining the content of the sets as closely as we do. BTW you've been nominating a lot of German musicians lately. Could you aim for more international coverage? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Talk to LouisAlain, - I take an estimated 10% of what he produces - those I believe should become known - and as he translates from German, they are likely German. This one, however, came from Ukraine. I also can't help that Germany and Italy are the two countries with most opera houses, so many people - singers, conductors, directors, costume designers - work there. - A music-related hook per set is of course fine, but could be a song or a violinist for a change, instead of three opera singers in a row ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I hear. But you should know that I am one of the many music plebeians who have no idea of (or interest in) what they're singing. Yoninah (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't even talking about singers, but that quite generally, my choice of topic for estimated 75% of DYK noms is what LouisAlain prepares, mostly musicologists at present, and that his topics may be influenced by much music being "made in Germany". - I'll think about Beethoven further, but found that - which is good - most of his notable compositions are covered rather well, so don't invite to DYK. I looked at this, for example: too long for a 5* expansion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
The ALT1 hook was promoted, however I have changed it in Queue 6 to ALT0 because the part about academic research is not borne out by the article. ALT0 is less hooky but more accurate, but I am not keen on the use of the word "posters" because it is ambiguous. Any suggestions for an improved hook? Pinging @JPxG: as the article creator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
It also seems to me that there is nothing wrong with the rest of the ALT1 hook. Delete academic research and add another name, like Alex Jones or Laura Loomer, from the article. Yoninah (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
My thinking for ALT1 was that it'd sound more compelling if one of the things listed wasn't explicitly politically oriented. A little less hooky without that -- on ALT0, to be very technical, I'd prefer "Internet posters" over "social-media posters" for accuracy (Alex Jones, for example, has been banned from nearly every social media website and mostly posts elsewhere). Thanks for the ping!! jp×g20:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Theodore Roosevelt desk for Jan 20, 2021 Inauguration Day?
Theodore Roosevelt desk is about to be approved. The nominator is awaiting an answer on their QPQ review. This is a really well-done article, and a piece of Americana. Inauguration Day on January 20, 2021 is 6 weeks away. I'm asking that this be held until that day. I've so noted it on the nomination template. The subject is a perfect fit, but maybe there could be a better hook if it's used that day. Or not. — Maile (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
that the Shuttle-Centaur booster (test article pictured) was once intended to send a space probe to Jupiter?
It might be just me, but I find the wording of this hook slightly odd... the implication of "was once intended" is that it ended up serving some other purpose. But if I've understood the situation correctly, the Shuttle-Centaur booster was never used. So it was not "once" intended to reach Jupiter - that was always the intention, only that it never ended up launching. Might be worth a tweak of the wording. Cheers. Pinging Hawkeye7,Mz7,Yoninah who were involved with this nomination. — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The Galileo and Ulysses spacecraft were launched and eventually made their way to Jupiter, but the Shuttle-Centaur upper stage was not used. One of the two Centaur-G Prime stages built for the shuttle is believed to have been modified for the launch of NASA's Cassini probe to Saturn atop a Titan IVB rocket in 1997. The Space and Rocket Center had labeled the Centaur-G now being moved as a mockup, though there is some data that points to it being the other stage originally built for the program. Glenn Research Center's records identify it being a high-fidelity ground test article. Hawkeye7(discuss)23:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a few days ago. There are now 33 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through the end of November. We currently have a total of 181 nominations, of which 78 have been approved, a gap of 103 that is unchanged from last time. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Just enquiring about the article above, as it appears to have a {{Globalize}} orange tag at the top of it, which was added by the nominator themselves on 10 November, before the hook was approved and promoted. Are articles with orange tags permitted at DYK? Seems a little strange, because they're not allowed at ITN or OTD as far as I know... Pinging nom and reviewer, 7&6=thirteen, Yoninah — Amakuru (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Unless there's a related NPOV issue, I view Globalize as essentially an "expand me" tag, which since most DYKs are stubs is something that feels very in keeping with the spirit of the DYK process. CMD (talk)
... that Wikimedian of the Year Sandister Tei (pictured) co-founded the Wikimedia Ghana Users' Group?
There are two issues with this hook. Firstly, "Wikimedia" is repeated twice, and secondly, to be frank, the hook sounds very navely and doesn't sound interesting to non-Wikimedians. Could something with a broader appeal be proposed, or at least something that isn't so Wikipedia-centric? Pinging nominator Ritchie333, reviewer Kingsif and promoter Yoninah. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew11:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there is almost nothing to work with in the article. I don't see a problem with the repetition. I think we need to keep her in the image slot to publicize non-Western topics. Yoninah (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
As I said right at the top of the nomination, "I'm no good at hooks. Hopefully somebody else can suggest a better one." I hoped, given the subject material, that at least 5-6 other Wikipedians would come forward and suggest something more interesting, but it appears nobody has. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)13:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Like This is a good one. With the image, this is a really nice lead hook. And to echo what Kingsif says about Al Jazeera, for many years after 9/11, Al Jazeera was my go-to source in the mornings, because it was a much more all-inclusive source for global news. And as far as I could tell, it seemed unbiased. — Maile (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
It depends on if said article would meet the DYK criteria (which basically means that the article was created/expanded to five times its previous size/promoted to Good Article status within the last seven days, is at least 1,500 characters long, has all of its paragraphs have at least one reference, and that the sentence(s) mentioning the hook fact(s) have a reference.) What are the articles you have in mind? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew23:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
That one would need expansion, 1,500 characters of prose required, and has only c. 1,100. Also, that an Israeli plays in Israeli leagues isn't the greatest surprise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Since we now have nominations pouring in for a Beethoven section, I think they should be divided over the 24-hour period of December 17, which would cover Prep 6 (December 17 00:00 UTC, which is still December 6 in the United States) and Prep 7 (December 17 12:00 UTC). Does that sound right?
It looks like we have the following nominations, most of which need reviews:
Prep 6 is when Europeans sleep for most of the time, just for consideration. The party began on 16 December (2019) for a reason, celebrated for the longest time as his birthday. If the sonata + pic go to prep 6, can Schreiber please go to prep 5? Carnegie Hall has the big concert December 16, for example. ClassicFM, telekom, Concertgebouw ... - WQXR even ends celebratios on December 16, - if we put it all on 17 we might look too late to the world. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
What are you saying, Gerda? That you want the Beethoven hooks spread over Preps 5 and 6? And nothing in Prep 7? While our Beethoven article doesn't even mention December 16? Yoninah (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I explained in more detail in the Beethoven thread further up, before I even saw this. What I'd do is the following:
prep 5 Schreiber - preliminary, and for some is already 17, and many (just not Google and Wikipedia) celebrate 16
prep 6 Cello sonata + pic
prep 7 monuments + pic and one of the two left
prep 8 the other
then everybody gets a bit of Beethoven whenever they celebrate, no 2 by one author are in one set
Gerda there is no consensus for running Beethoven images two days in a row. And you must add something mentioning December 16 to the Beethoven article if this is going to fly. Yoninah (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
... that The Green Pastures(advertisement pictured) was critiqued in the white Southern press of 1957 for having "bowed to the inverted prejudice which insists that Negroes shall never be portrayed as Negroes"?
Cbl62, I'm finding "the white Southern press of 1957" awkward. Would this tweak work for you? I wanted to ask because it sort of changes the meaning:
... that the 1957 The Green Pastures(advertisement pictured) was critiqued in the white Southern press for having "bowed to the inverted prejudice which insists that Negroes shall never be portrayed as Negroes"?
... that Katie Levick gave up the chance to play cricket for England in order to pursue a full-time job?
Joseph2302, forgive my ignorance, but the article seems to say she did play for them 2011/2012? Would it more accurate to say she stopped or quit or gave up playing cricket for England? —valereee (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
She played for the England Academy squad (which is the level below the proper England team, like a B twam). Probably the wording could be clearer, if someone could suggest alternative wording? (1am here, so too late for me to fix now) Joseph2302 (talk)00:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Joseph2302, if it's clear to you, it's fine. I just have so little familiarity with cricket that I don't know any of these distinctions. The hook doesn't have to be clear to ignoramuses. Ignorami? :) —valereee (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Post request
Hi. I cannot seem to be able to post directly as an IP, and do not choose to register, but it was suggested to me that I ask here. Would someone be interested in posting this one? As follows, or however you would like to alter the nomination:
It's nice that you've decided to post here instead of registering, but you do realize that you are putting a burden on other volunteers to do your work for you? Once you register, your IP address (which gives your geographic location for anyone to search you out) is hidden and you can nominate anything you want. Yoninah (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that seems unfortunately to be the same approach we use for article wizard with new articles. Also, sometimes, as with your article here, one editor expands an article or writes it, and another editor helpfully nominates it, and the friendly collaborative activities of more than one editor improve the project.--2604:2000:E010:1100:FC0D:8215:7C02:6733 (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
IP, I'm willing to post for you if you'll commit to checking the review at least every few days to see if your attention is needed (because we can't ping you), and if you'll do the qpq and add it to your post above. —valereee (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
It has been DYK process to have an RFC for special occasion themes, where multiple hooks or days are involved. Inasmuch as Gerda Arendt would like to honor Beethoven's birthday, we need to have consensus. Otherwise, it looks like one person decided. We currently have about 80-some non-Beethoven approved nominations waiting their turn, and it would be in accordance with DYK practice to set some priorities here. — Maile (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Support or Oppose here. If there is no consensus, one way or the other, perhaps we should limit this.
Run one Beethoven-related hook every set, according to Gerda's time frame
I guess it means every set (whether we are doing two sets a day, or one set) for the duration of what Gerda believes would be an appropriate period of time. — Maile (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
That's a good question about how to quantify this. Maybe each individual editor could offer a suggestion. What I'm reading above from Gerda Arendt looks to be as many hooks as she can create on her own. And she is quite a prolific contributor here. I guess what I'm getting at, is that , other that what is decided above, we should not just keep adding Beethoven hooks because Gerda has created more. As well-intentioned as this her efforts are, we should not be giving a priority to Beethoven hooks, except as decided on this RFC. — Maile (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Based on Gerda's comment below, it looks like Preps 5 and 6 will cover daytime hours for both Europeans and Americans on December 16 into December 17. Yoninah (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I think this is a good suggestion, if that's the full commemoration effort. That spreads it out over whichever day is his birthday. — Maile (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
But Gerda has claimed in her post above that if we celebrate on the 17th we'll have "missed the party" that the rest of the world is celebrating. Yoninah (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I feel quite misunderstood. I tried to say if you "only" commemorate on 17 you may have missed. I can't help that some will celebrate the likely birthday 16, and some the safe baptism day 17. Do what you like. I don't expect to have any celebration of that magnitude in my lifetime, on top of that most planned concerts can't take place as planned, but our Main page functions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Gerda So if we're talking about a 2 set, 24-hour appearance, are we talking about Prep 5 to Prep 6 (16 Dec 12:00 UTC to 17 Dec 00:00 UTC)? Yoninah (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I tried to stay out of this, but if you ask me, I'd prefer prep 5 and prep 7 because the Europeans sleep during most of prep 6, but Mr. Beethoven will not complain ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
It would probably be a good idea, for discussion's sake, to repeat the list of proposed articles here so that it can be discussed which hooks are actually relevant to Beethoven and which ones are better off running as regular hooks. If the link to Beethoven is too tenuous then having them run as special occasion hooks this time doesn't really make much sense. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew22:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
1 ... that the Third Cello Sonata by Ludwig van Beethoven(pictured), first performed in 1809, has been described as the first sonata for piano and cello to treat the instruments as equal partners?
3 ... that Christian Schreiber, a church administrator, philosopher and poet, wrote a German version of the Latin mass for the publication, along with the original, of Beethoven's Mass in C major?
Among the above hooks, #1 and #5 are actually pretty good, but #2 and #3 seem a bit too complicated. #4 will need some copyediting, and I really don't think that Orfeo and Lohengrin need to be mentioned: it could just simply focus on Missa solemnis. Perhaps something like "... that when operatic tenor Johannes Chum performed in Harnoncourt's recording of Beethoven's Missa solemnis, a reviewer described his singing as "seraphic"?". Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew12:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I think rather drop Beethoven from Chum than L'Orfeo and Lohengrin, two roles that show anybody who halfway knows a broad repertory from historically informed performance to thickest Wagner. This is about Chum, - Beethoven was only added to have a little something for the birthday. The latest hooks are much stronger, regarding Beethoven. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
No, I'd prefer it as is for the Beethoven thingy, but not at the cost of dropping what is the most important about him, opera, and which operas, - while the concert stuff is only also for him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Maile, it looks like consensus is in favor of one set. Seeing as we only have 5 hooks, that's pretty doable. Prep 5, December 16 12:00 UTC, appears to be the best choice for Europeans seeing it during the day (as Gerda requested) and also for America to see it by day. Readers in Australia and Japan will see it on December 17. Is that acceptable to everyone? I'll also note that we have another special occasion request for December 16 that will go in the same set. Yoninah (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Some Advent topics should come no later than 23 December, but I will mention them only in detail if that seems unlikely.
Beethoven
The birthday child is Beethoven, 250 years, probably on December 16. I'll write a new article on a related person (planned for today but another recent death of a woman, so postponed), please hold a slot. Can we have more slots that day? - for an unusual event, perhaps even by the same author ;) - If not, perhaps better before than after in this case, - the world celebrates all year as long as the pandemic permits.
Five hooks are approved now, four by me, one by Aza24, and can be spread out from the second set for 16 December (likely birthday, and 17 in some areas of the world) to first set 18 December (still 17 in other areas). 17 December is the referenced day of baptism. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Would echo here that 17 December (baptismal day) is probably the safer bet. We don't want to speculate that his actual birthday was the day before, since while that's certainly the most likely scenario, a baptism 2–3 days late wouldn't have been too out of the ordinary for the time, at least from what I've read. Aza24 (talk) 08:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Aza24, unfortunately, the discussion is at least on one thread below now, if not two threads. I don't know if anybody will still look up here. We decide such things per RfC now, it seems. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Christmas
The other birthday child is Jesus, and a similar question. We still have time.
@Gerda Arendt: I don't mean to criticize, but I really think you've gone a bit intense here. I was going to point out you might have misspelled a link because of the red. Then I read that you hadn't written the article yet, but are still planning a day for it to appear on the MP! I understand wanting anniversary appearances, but that really seems to go against the purpose of DYK in my mind, which is to encourage quality editing by providing a way of showcasing already new and improved articles - not creating articles specifically for the DYK, and not one/a few editors pulling strings to create a MP section based on their favorite topics for a day. On that note, we should also consider how tangential a random philosopher really is to Beethoven's birthday... and there are so many other notable birthdays in December that he is far from "the birthday child" and deserving of three hooks. I really don't want to seem rude, but I think you've lost the spirit of DYK with some of these suggestions and had to comment. Kingsif (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. I don't know how you are prompted to write NEW articles. I know how I work, so this year Beethoven, - I had one in February because it's all year (and next, many events postponed). I remember the all-day-celebration of Frank Sinatra with 16 hooks and two images, and believe that eight would be just right for Beethoven, - please by others as well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
You ask why I write new articles in a tone that suggests there is no point to writing new articles unless it's to get a DYK credit. Do you really think that? I write new articles when I come across a notable subject that doesn't have one, simple. When I'm writing it, if I find a fact that I think would make an interesting hook, I propose a DYK. If I don't see such a hooky fact, I don't nominate it. I got a Christmas hook a few years ago because I expanded a bio towards the end of the year and in the process learned that the subject took inspiration from a nativity play, which just fit, all very happy coincidence. You can be forward-thinking by asking at WT:DYK for editors to look out for Christmas-related hooks. Kingsif (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
All fine only I don't think you heard my tone. I was just curious. Not once have I written for DYK credit, only to make something known. Most of the articles I nominate are not even by me, I often do it for subjects others find interesting. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
In defense of Gerda, I think it's good she's thinking ahead. Two years ago, it seemed like a deserted holiday landscape around here. Gatoclass did a lot of the heavy lifting, and otherwise created the wonderful Pancho Claus (which I still love). However, it also bears noting that a lot of Wikipedia's audience around the world are not necessarily Christian. And of those who celebrate the birthday of Christ, not all do it in December, which in and of itself is a made-up date. — Maile (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
To be fair, only a relative minority of Christians celebrate Christmas on what would be January 7 in the Gregorian calendar, and due to cultural diffusion and other factors, Christmas has become a secular holiday in many countries and is frequently celebrated even by non-Christians. As for the "thinking ahead" part, it probably would have been better if this was proposed much earlier, at least a month in advance, in order for all of the respective articles to be worked on, while at the same time the DYK community could also chime in with feedback and suggestions. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew14:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Gerda, I'm going to be honest here: I think you may need to request less special occasion requests from now on, as your requests tend to be numerous and tend to take up precious space here on WT:DYK. You tend to make a lot of requests to the point that they, frankly, may give the appearance of begging when seen by other editors, and I wouldn't be surprised if other editors here are starting to feel tired from seeing them all the time. You do great work Gerda on your subject matter, but perhaps you need to understand that not everyone here may be as enthusiastic with the material as you are, and others here may be pre-occupied with other matters.
Meanwhile, with regards to the Sinatra set or even more recent equivalents like the Apollo 11 50th anniversary set, these were discussed weeks or even months in advance, with multiple editors contributing and giving feedback. Suggesting a full Beethoven set, even if it is for his 250th anniversary, is probably something that should have been discussed and worked on much earlier, not two weeks before the intended date. There should have been an initial discussion first as to whether there's interest or consensus for such a set in the first place, instead of saying "I just created or am planning to create these articles, can they all please go up on such and such date?" with little-to-no-prior feedback. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew14:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Interesting how much response I receive for what basically was one line: I'll be late for an article for 16 December, can we please hold a slot, or should I not even write it in a hurry (tomorrow perhaps if nobody dies) because we will not have a slot anyway. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The 24-hour Frank Sinatra hooks were coordinated for the 100th anniversary of his birth. I see nothing wrong with 3 hooks on Beethoven's day; if the philosopher is not seen as fitting into the set, all the better for readers of that 8-hook set. Which day are you referring to for Beethoven, Gerda? Yoninah (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The current Date Request guidelines ask for single article date nominations (let alone talk page requests) to be made one week before the event, so this request is well within that limit. I do agree discussions should be earlier, but I suspect close discussions are encouraged by the current 6 weeks maximum limit in the guidance. Regarding the specialty of Beethoven's birthday, I don't think that is a huge issue if there's nothing else competing for the date. We should put Beethoven on the 17th though, as that's the date most prominent on the Ludwig van Beethoven page. CMD (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
If Beethoven is not the greatest composer who ever lived, I'd like to know who is (I was just listening to his Pastoral Symphony last night - an extraordinarily evocative piece of music), and yes, his 250th birthday is very significant - if Sinatra could have two entire sets given over to him we could certainly do the same for Beethoven, and then some.
Maile, thank you for the comments regarding the Pancho Claus article - and thanks for suggesting it in the first place! I would love to be able to contribute a Christmas hook or two again this year, unfortunately I'm very busy in real life at the moment, and still have one outstanding GAN that is a priority - but if you or anybody else has an idea for a Christmas nomination that they don't have time to create themselves, please mention it here as somebody else may be interested in taking it up. Gatoclass (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Gerda I'd like to note that the Frank Sinatra set was all about him and his activities, and Sinatra's name was mentioned in most of the hooks. I fail to see how we can build a whole set without any articles about Beethoven per se, just people playing his music. I don't think readers will get the connection. Yoninah (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Time to go back to one set a day (admin needed!)
We're currently down to 55 approved hooks, which means it's time to go back to one set a day. Given that there are nine special occasion hooks running over the next three days (starting tomorrow, only two-and-a-half hours from now), we'll need to act fast. The key change that needs to be made immediately is: We've missed the first chance, but there's still a chance to start this on December 16, Beethoven's probable birthdate. I've adjusted the moves to reflect us starting with one-a-day then:
move the following 6 hooks from Queue 5 to Queue 4 so that they all, including the five about Beethoven, run all day on December 16—this means that 7 of the 8 hooks in Queue 4 will need to be swapped out (or Queues 4 and 5 swapped, and then the "member states" hook mentioned above swapped into Queue 4); please retain the hook order from Queue 5 in Queue 4 per Yoninah below:
(Note that the only two hooks in Queue 5 that don't move are London Theatre Studio and Crushed Rock quarry, so a queue for queue swap will probably be more efficient.)
So far as I can determine, those are the nine that need to be moved. The most urgent one is Piccadilly line; the others can wait until after midnight if needed. Pinging Cwmhiraeth, Wugapodes, Amakuru, Casliber, Gatoclass, and any other admin who happens to see this, to at least get the move done before midnight. After midnight tomorrow (give it a handful of minutes for the bot to finish the move to the main page, say 00:05 on December 16), the User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates can be set to 86400 so the just-promoted set from Queue 4 will stay on the main page for a full day. Thank you very much!
(Note: if since the move isn't wasn't made before midnight, we'll have to postpone the switchover until midnight tomorrow. In that case, the The move instructions will of necessity have to be have been modified due to the delay. Hopefully, that won't be necessary.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I worked very hard on having a balanced set for the Beethoven special occasion, adding in a few innocuous hooks (London Theatre Studio and Crushed Rock quarry) that wouldn't draw attention away from the rest of the hooks. I also put them in a specific order. Could the whole of Queue 5 be moved to Queue 3 intact? Yoninah (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh, so Member states of the International Labour Organization needs to be in Queue 3. I suggest putting that in the place of London Theatre Studio in the Beethoven set. Yoninah (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
That's fine. I figured something like that would be easiest (swapping sets with minor adjustments.) However, as we don't have much more than an hour left before the Piccadilly line hook needs to be moved, pinging Vanamonde, Maile, Guerillero, valereee, and Lee Vilenski in the hopes that one of them (or someone from the previously pinged bunch) can take care of it right away. Thanks to whoever does so. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Would it not be a bad idea to simply wait until after the Beethoven special occasion hooks have run? A wait of a couple of days shouldn't hurt much and would probably lead to less confusion about where which special occasion hook should go where, unless there's no longer enough approved hooks to make sets ahead of time by then. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew00:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: since the Piccadilly line hook didn't make it into the set, and it is a hassle to reorganize sets, maybe Narutolovehinata5's idea would be best? Start with 24-hour hooks at 00:00 UTC with Queue 6. We do have 4 full prep sets in addition to the filled queues. Yoninah (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Yoninah, if Beethoven is important enough to fill the better part of a set, it's important enough to run those hooks for a whole day rather than 12 hours, and we should be getting back to one a day anyway. At this point, we can't change until tomorrow (UTC), since it wouldn't be fair to the Piccadilly line hook to have it miss its date, but having the Beethoven hooks up for a whole 24 hours rather than 12 means that the entire globe gets to see it for at least part of the proper day. I have faith that an admin—Cwmhiraeth will probably be around in five or six hours—can do the necessary swaps and reorganization. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset and Yoninah: I'm sorry I missed this fun. (Not!!) Not being dis-respectful, but the above looks like the DYK version of Twister, and an unintentional directional for one or more errors on the main page. Too many hooks moving around, and their DYKmakes, resulting in multiple templates opened, swapping back and forth. We have some pretty good admins here, but ... you know ... we are only human. — Maile (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Maile, it still needs to be done, but I'm hoping Cwmhiraeth will take it on. It's not that difficult for the major bit: swap Queue 4 and Queue 5 in their entirety, then swap the "member states" and "London Theatre Studio" hooks between Prep 2 and the new (Beethovenized) Queue 4. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Yoninah shows the resulting Queue 4 below. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
(ec) *OK. So we're going to run Piccadilly line in Queue 3 starting at 12:00 UTC on December 15, and then switch to a 24-hour set with Queue 4 at 00:00 on December 16? And Queue 4 will be the Beethoven set? Then the line-up would be:
... that Christian Schreiber, a church administrator, philosopher and poet, wrote a German version of the Latin Mass for the publication, alongside the original, of Beethoven's Mass in C major?
... that Ruth Williams Cupp, the first woman admitted to the Charleston County Bar Association in 1954, was still barred by law from serving on juries like all women in South Carolina until 1967?
... that Beethoven's Third Cello Sonata, first performed in 1809, has been described as the first sonata for piano and cello to treat the instruments as equal partners?
I'm aware that it's Gerda's preferred wording and the hook was approved by a reviewer, but I'm still not a fan of how Chum's hook is written and still believe that it could be simplified (right now it seems a bit complicated and unfocused). Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew01:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Given that it is a Beethoven-focused set after all, then shouldn't the hook focus on the Beethoven connection more? The Lohengrin mentions are really unnecessary and only make the hook more complicated. I'm not really sure why you don't want the hook to be Beethoven-centric when the hook was specifically requested to appear on a Beethoven-centric set. Had the set been about Wagner instead, or indeed if the hook ran on a regular day, perhaps the other mentions would have been understandable. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew12:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Do you realize that we say the very same thing? Take him out, if you want to reduce him to just one concert, seriously. The appreciation of Beethoven will not increase by learning about Chum. The Missa solemnis is linked to already. All I'd miss if he was not there is the link to Harnoncourt. (Explaining the third or so time: Chum was suggested before we even had the better articles, focused on a work by Beethoven and the monuments. If Chum was predominantly a concert singer, focus on one of them would be fine, but now he is an opera singer with an enormous repertoire, and mentioning only one concert would be misleading, something like mentioning only a victory in tennis for a footballer who also plays tennis.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Just a reminder that DYK is collaborative and it's not up to one user to dictate what is or isn't a valuable hook, especially if the reasoning is that not including an article doesn't matter because it won't add to reader knowledge of a different subject anyway. That's not anywhere near the point. Kingsif (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I have made the changes mentioned above to the best of my ability. Please check to see if I have got it right. The main problem revolved around the "Piccadilly Line" hook which was due to appear today, with the 15 Dec hooks already on the mainpage. So I swapped it into the mainpage set and moved the "headlight fish" to appear tomorrow. This means the Piccadilly Line will have a 17-hour appearance on the main page and the headlight fish a 31-hour appearance, and the credits will need adjusting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, I omitted the credit on purpose because credit had already been given for the article's main page appearance on 14 December. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Can we change the piped link [[American football|football]] to just [[American football]]? Football is an ambiguous term. To Europeans, football=soccer, and so reading this hook, I couldn't work out why it was interesting (as it wasn't clear to me that it's two different sports). Generally at DYK we don't use the word football, as it means different things to different people depending on where in the world you're reading. Pinging @Bagumba, Trillfendi, Yoninah, and Amakuru: as the DYK nominator, accepter and promoters. Joseph2302 (talk)13:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Maybe the way I've been doing things isn't the same as everyone else then- I always put association football as it seems less ambiguous. But if the DYK consensus is to use football linked to association or American football, then that's fine. Joseph2302 (talk)16:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Plain "football" also makes it "hooky", as WP:DYK asks. If someone saw the hook—which first mentions "soccer"—and then saw "football" without realizing it was that "other football", they might be more intrigued to click on the bolded link. DYK aside, FA Thierry Henry and GA Lionel Messi (and many others) refer to plain "football" in the lead sentence while linking to "association football". @Maile66: Please consider changing back to plain "football".—Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. I recently conducted a review of Template:Did you know nominations/Mit Ernst, o Menschenkinder. The article includes public domain text, and there's also a close paraphrase (i.e. a translation of the original text that's not in quotation marks) within the article's prose. How do we usually handle these on DYK? Regarding the usage of PD text, do we require the articles to contain an attribution template per WP:FREECOPYING? Edge3 (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Given the public domain text in question are lyrics, and the article is about the hymn itself, I don't think a separate attribution template is needed as they are presumably attributed to the author and/or publications mentioned in the article. They should not however be included in the character count. My interpretation of WP:NOCREATIVE would be that if the paraphrase is very close, that it should probably have quotation marks, and that it would be editorial judgement as to what exactly "close" is. CMD (talk)
@Maile66: Right, I'm not raising concerns about a copyright violation, since PD text is not protected by copyright. I was just asking two questions: 1) Do we require PD text to be attributed using a template mentioned in WP:FREECOPYING? 2) When foreign-language text is translated and paraphrased, how "close" does the translation have to be to raise a WP:PARAPHRASE concern? Edge3 (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a few days ago. There are now 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 10. We currently have a total of 193 nominations, of which 85 have been approved, a gap of 108 that has increased by 5 over the past ten days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Beethoven 250
Happy supposed birthday, Mr. Beethoven! Many thanks to all involved for making today's Main page quite a party, and all day long!
Now, what do we do about tomorrow, when our OTD will remember that he was baptised, and the Google doodle will probably proclaim he was born (as 5 years ago)? Suggestions, in the order of effort needed:
nothing
let the set run an hour or more into tomorrow
repeat one hook tomorrow, - you can imagine that I'd favour the cello sonata pictured, because it's not quirky at all
write a new article and get/push it through reviewing and scheduling process
expand an article to GA quality and get/push it ... with Fidelio and Triple Concerto possible candidates
I think it was a successful effort to put together today's set, and that with timezones it'll be there for some regions on the 17th anyway, so it's fine to let OTD take over the 17th. CMD (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Considering that this set was thrown together within a week, I'd say we did pretty well. My suggestion is to do nothing. Our Ludwig van Beethoven article mentions 16 December as his supposed birthday, so we're covered. However, it's an interesting idea to run the cello sonata hook again on 17 December, though without an image. Yoninah (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The latter article was previously featured at DYK (in the multi-article nomination Template:Did you know nominations/1st Canadian Comedy Awards). Moving this article will result in many incorrect links, both for the article and the talk page (and indirect links to them as well), which will need to be rectified. Moreover, I'll also be nominating the new article for DYK, which may or may not create problems (I haven't reviewed all links yet). I thought I'd mention it in case anyone has concerns or comments, which I certainly welcome. Mindmatrix22:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused here. I took a look at the linked nomination page and Made in Canada doesn't appear to have been mentioned in any of the hooks, please correct me if I'm wrong. However, if Made in Canada was indeed a bolded link in a previous hook, then unfortunately it cannot be nominated again, as per the DYK rules an article can only be a bolded link on a hook once (it can still be linked in other hooks, just not as the featured article). Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew23:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
That was the plan, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking something, and to ensure that folks at DYK knew about this as I would be updating links to long-closed DYK nominations and the stats pages. Mindmatrix20:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Not saying you need to do this, but it's not all that often that we get two semi-related hooks that are non-special dates, but could run in the same set.
That is to say, Maureen O'Hara is so connected to Wayne, that her hook might generate some views for the non-image John Wayne hook. — Maile (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
As discussed in a section above, there has been a recent spate of student editors nominating articles for DYK as part of their Wiki Education Foundation course. In many of these cases, such nominations have not followed the DYK rules and guidelines, most commonly either through the nomination of ineligible articles (usually because they do not meet time or expansion requirements), or their non-transclusion at WP:DYKN. Given that these nominations are started by editors who are new to Wikipedia and thus may be unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines, the non-compliance is understandable and even expected to some extent. Nevertheless, due to various factors, the present situation has meant that an apparently disproportionate percentage of student nominations end up failing, compared to nominations by other kinds of editors. Another issue is that, even for the articles that are otherwise eligible and are in the process of being reviewed, in many instances, the nominators have been unable to respond to comments. This can be in spite of talk page messages, pings, or e-mails to the relevant student instructors; indeed, many instructors have themselves been unreachable when contacted by reviewers.
In October and November 2020, student editors nominated several articles for DYK, many of which were either not transcluded or were ineligible (a partial list is available at the aforementioned section). In other cases, the articles did meet some or all of the DYK criteria but still had issues that needed addressing, but the nominations stalled due to the nominator's unresponsiveness. Although the period has seen an above-average number of such nominations, this is not a new phenomenon, and the relatively high rejection rate among student nominations has been present for some time now.
This RfC is intended to discuss and propose possible solutions to this issue, which could range from requiring student nominators to have a co-nominator (or "guarantor") who could address nomination concerns in the original nominator's absence, to perhaps reforms in the relationship and guidance process between the Wikipedia community, Wiki Ed, instructors, and students. The latter could involve giving clearer instructions for both instructors and students to make sure that the relevant articles meet guidelines and that the students are able to follow the respective processes. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew13:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Naruto. I think at minimum we need to flag noms by editors with under a certain level of experience (maybe EC?), put the nom on hold, and ping the nom. If they don't respond within 7 days, or someone doesn't take the nom up as a co-nom, just autofail. Based on the above discussion I'm not sure requiring the instructor to co-nom would be helpful. —valereee (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The co-nom need not be the instructor (my mention was merely a reference to your earlier proposal about guarantors), it could be any regular editor who's familiar with the subject, or even any of DYK's regulars. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew13:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, it might actually not be a terrible idea to require (or maybe strongly recommend) that all less-experienced editors have a co-nom to help them through the process. It might not be easy for newer editors to know how to go about asking for that...do you think DYK regulars would voluntarily step up when they saw a nom needed a co-nom? —valereee (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree there are multiple process issues on this. The solution has to come through our Wiki Ed people, as they are the ones with the hands-on knowledge of how it all comes together. One thing I've noticed, is that we seem to be getting nominations at the end of a course, where the student creates the nomination and then goes out the door. Perhaps one solution would be for the student to submit a nomination early on, and then monitor it until it's closed as either passed or rejected. — Maile (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I think the fact it's one of the last things they do and that it's the nom, not the DYK appearance, that fulfills the course requirement. —valereee (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what we can effectively require, but we can certainly recommend some changes. I'm unaware of how these courses work, but it feels that either instructors are not familiar with the DYK process, or that the process is not being well communicated to students. Is the material and/or instructions that lead students to DYK accessible somewhere? I agree that it would be a good idea for instructors to be involved in their student's DYKs, which would surely help keep an eye on students for evaluations. On the instructors' end, it would be useful if they would promote students working on their articles in draft space, and then have a DYK nomination (if there will be one) be part of the process of bringing drafts to the article space. This would reduce delayed nominations, and increase the chance they're seen earlier while the student may still be engaged with the course. On the DYK end, valereee's suggestion of a flag is an interesting idea that might help out in other cases too. CMD (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
While DYK noms seem to get some credit on courses, it's still a minority of all student editors actually doing this, so it's clearly not a requirement. The enthusiasm of students taking on the extra credit portion should be applauded, but most are also evidently not enthusiastic enough to see it through to completion. On the WikiEd end, I still think involving instructors would be pointless because many are also inexperienced and unresponsive on Wikipedia, and we can't have the advisors like Ian having to take on every nom. My honest suggestion, taking all this into account, is to remove the DYK part from WikiEd courses altogether, or to have it not be part of the course but instructors can suggest it as a next step for any students who have expressed an interest in continuing to edit Wikipedia after the class ends. Very few students make DYK noms, which are mostly bad and followed by the student quickly leaving so they learn (and contribute) absolutely nothing, and the overwhelming majority of the noms are eventually thrown out after a reviewer has tried their best to push it through, so it's just a laborious and pointless exercise. It's one more symptom of the big issue of WikiEd actively discouraging interaction with the Wikipedia community at large, but at least it's a simpler fix. Kingsif (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, if the nominations are flat out wrong i.e. they haven't been at all expanded (as in many of the cases in discussion above), then they should be straight failed. If they have some issues (such as not expanded quite enough) and nominator isn't around, then they should also be failed. That they were done by students is not the problem for the DYK process. Of course, nominations can always be "taken over" by experience editors if inexperienced editors are not around, so if WikiEd want to take over nominations of students, that is their prerogative. But I don't think DYK should be running to notify WikiEd every time a student nominates a DYK. Joseph2302 (talk)15:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
This discussion is less about what to do with abandoned nominations, and more to do with what can be done to ensure that less ineligible nominations are done, and how it can be ensured that nominators will stick around during the review process and can be able to respond more consistently. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew00:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Helaine (Wiki Ed), I'll stress that I'm sure most regulars here believe encouraging students to nom DYKs is a positive in multiple ways. We want these noms, and we see them as potentially helpful for the educational process. We would like to interact with these students in a positive way. We just would like to see noms not abandoned, as it causes extra and often wasted volunteer time. —valereee (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
One other problem is that reviewers don't always pick up nominations in a timely manner, so the class is sometimes over by the time a review is done, and the student long gone. Even if the article meets the newness and length criteria, there are frequently other issues that need to be addressed, and no one left to do so. So reviewer time is wasted, and we're short on reviewers to begin with. This time, what I found shocking is the sheer number of nominations that were not properly transcluded on the Nominations page. There's something badly out of whack when they number in the dozens. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks again for everyone for bringing this situation to our attention, and thank you for supporting our students. In the new year, I'm going to email all of our spring 2021 participating instructors who have selected DYK as part of their Wikipedia assignment to clarify how they can follow up with their students, so they only nominate high-quality articles and students respond to feedback. If the instructor doesn't want to do that, then we're going to recommend that we remove it from their Wikipedia assignment instructions. We know that submitting to DYK can be an exciting thing for students to do, so we don't want to eliminate it completely, but we don't have the staff capacity right now to follow up with all of these nominations ourselves. Thanks again for all your support of student editor nominations! Please feel free to ping me again if there are future problems, and I can follow up individually with those instructors.Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Side comment
I've started to add notes on nominations that the nominator is a WikiEd student. I wonder if it would be helpful if a little WikiEd icon could be created with that wording, and added to Template:DYKSymbols2. The purpose would be, that whoever notices that this is a WikiEd editor, could put this on the nomination, to alert anyone who might be waiting for a response on a review. Somebody could probably figure this out better than I do. But it would be helpful to have a little eye-catching something for nominations that stall out because the nominator never returned. — Maile (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Seems like a smart idea. I think it would be more user friendly if it still worked without specifying the term and institution, so I've made those changes. — Wug·a·po·des02:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
That sounds good. Do you think it would also be a good idea if there was an associated tracking category with it? That way it would be easier to follow all of these student nominations and keep an eye on things. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew05:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't really have any experience editing templates so someone will need to do the honors and make the necessary category (or perhaps categories: one for active nominations, and one for closed ones regardless if it passed or failed). Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew11:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
This template will definitely be a big help! I try to stay relatively active with student content since I enjoy working with them, so something like this would be great for that. On a side note, is there a way to have these separated into accepted, active, or declined nominations? I'm asking mostly because this could get a bit unwieldy after a while. In any case, I'm adding this category to my watchlist and will try to keep an eye on it! (Pinging @Sage (Wiki Ed): to the convo as well.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)11:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a documentation problem
“
The whole misbegotten idea of using templates for the nom discussions was one of the stupidest design blunders ever on Wikipedia (and that's saying a lot). Anything you can do to clean up the bizzarro things related to that is welcome. But there may be hidden reasons and side effects lost in the mists of time, so be very careful in testing, and we all must be high alert for unforeseen ill-effects for a few weeks after such a change is installed.
I don't have any big thoughts on the problem of student editors disappearing, but the problem of not transcluding and not meeting requirements can be addressed with an overhaul of DYK's documentation, which is currently (as is sadly often the case on WP) overly long/detailed/complex, which means people aren't reading it properly and are messing up. Here's how we fix that.
First, make the technical part easy. Fortunately, we've already built a way to do that: the DYK helper script. It's not perfect but it turns the process into just filling out a form, which newcomers can do. Unfortunately, our instructions don't guide people to it. Currently, someone arriving at WP:DYKNOM is going to be drawn to the "YOUR ARTICLE TITLE" field and "create nomination" button, which will draw them into filling out a template with a bunch of scary wikicode and other steps likely to lead to errors. Even if they notice the "Does this look too complicated?" sidebox, that takes them to User:SD0001/DYK-helper, which is decent for what it is but still begins by talking about what to do if you've enabled the script-installer gadget (and what's the chance of a student editor having done that?). This could be so much simpler. Provide a link that takes them to their common.js page directly, preloads the installation line, and adds a friendly editnotice at the top saying "just click publish".
Once we've done that, we can clean out almost all the instruction clutter, and replace it with just "Add the helper script by clicking here, then go to the page you want to nominate and choose DYK from the dropdown menu as the picture shows." Everything there right now can be shoved into a subpage accessible via a non-prominent "manual instructions" link. That will make the instructions short enough that people will actually read them, and that will give us room to briefly note the basic rules about time/length restrictions. DYK has the same problem as many other areas of having a bunch of competing beginner instructions—in this case, the summary at the top of WP:DYKRULES, the WP:Did you know/Learning DYK guide (if you need an "unofficial guide" to a nomination process, your process is too complicated), User:Rjanag/Quick_DYK_2, and possibly others I didn't notice. If we want anyone to actually follow through, there needs to be only one big link to "read these three lines about our requirements" (with a link to the full ruleset for anyone who wants the details), or just transclude the summarized rules themselves since they're so short.
People will generally read simple instructions. They won't dig through a massive rulebook and an arcane technical manual (even one that says "please read"), which is what we have now. If we want them to stop messing up so much, we need to do a much better job teaching. {{u|Sdkb}}talk01:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
No reply? I've presented a pretty clear roadmap here, but someone else is going to have to implement it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk22:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
someone else is going to have to implement it That is the usual bottleneck. It's been like 5 years since I first wrote WugBot's DYK functions, and a year since my proposal that prompted the comment from EEng I quoted above--I still don't understand large portions of the DYK code base. Personally, I have concerns about telling people to "just click publish" with regards to changing their javascript--it conditions them into a very dangerous behavior. Beyond that I don't have an objection to writing simplified documentation (though see relevant XKCD), but absent a complete rework of the process, I'm skeptical that the process will become much more user friendly than it currently is. — Wug·a·po·des01:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
So are we talking just adding something to DYK helper and trying to encourage people to use it rather than our current instructions? —valereee (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Valereee, we're talking mostly about changing WP:DYKNOM to push people toward using DYK helper, rather than changing anything about the helper script itself.
Wugapodes, re conditioning, it's certainly true that you don't want to install a user script from someone you don't trust, and the commons.js editnotice says as much. We could use wording like "Click publish to install the DYK helper script" if that'd be better, but I'm not sure we could realistically expect new users to parse that importScript('User:SD0001/DYK-helper.js'); // Backlink: [[User:SD0001/DYK-helper]] means SD0001 wrote the script and then confirm that SD0001 is a trusted editor. WP:DYKNOM is unprotected, but with 1700 watchers I imagine it'd be hard for anyone to slip in anything malicious.
I just played around a bit trying to figure out how to do the preload, and that's proving a challenge. commons.js pages don't support links that start a new section, and without that, we can't use preloading (because preloads don't work if there's already any text present). {{u|Sdkb}}talk08:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll be honest, as someone who has been around for Wikipedia for a long while - I wasn't aware that any easier form of DYK nomination existed. Having it more visible in some form or fashion would definitely be a bonus to editors new to DYK in general. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡)11:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
As a further thought, why don't we do something more akin to GA and FA nominations, where the nomination is automatically transcluded by a bot? It should not be too hard to take a derivative of FACBot that does that, particularly as it's open source (thanks Hawkeye7). It's one less thing to worry about. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)11:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Moving them is no problem; finding them is. The Bot would have to find the DYK nomination templates, then work through the list eliminating those already completed and those already transcluded. GA and FA nominations are contained in a category. The Bots look at the nominations in the category and transclude them. But there is no category for the DYK nomination templates. The best way to find the DYK templates would be to query the API:RecentChanges looking for templates. Hawkeye7(discuss)19:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Sure. If they are on the nomination page. (Which would happen automatically if they used User:SD0001/DYK-helper.js) But the problem under consideration is the case where someone creates a nomination and then fails to transclude it on the nomination page. In this case, a Bot could look for recently-created nominations and transclude them. Hawkeye7(discuss)01:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
We now have 76 approved nominations, of which 45 are U.S.-based. Could we get more non-U.S. topics approved please? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Wow, great hook and image! I'm reserving the lead slot in the December 29 set and if someone else doesn't review it today, I will. Yoninah (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
I've been following DYK religiously/daily for quite a while and looked up the guidelines a couple months ago. I see some important points in the WikiEd discussion about *instructions* but not much on actual guidelines. For example, shouldn't the page be a "good" page before nomination? Or if not at that level of acceptance, then at least "complete" in its info.
I went to the DYK for Twynham Hut today and found a photo of the outmoded Nissen Hut (replaced by Twynham) but no image of the Twynham Hut! This seems to be a shortcoming of the page itself, and I don't see the value of highlighting such a page with DYK simply on the basis of quantity of verbiage added unless there is a clear result, which presumably (but not in this case) would naturally arise from an existing good page that was expanded to become DYK. Martindo (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Martindo, Twynham hut is one of my articles, created to fill a gap in our coverage. If you can find a free image of a Twynham Hut then please add it, I could not (A google search will show you some copyrighted images of the hut but I think it would be stretching fair use to add an unfree image of a reasonably recent piece of military equipment). The article image is there as an example of the hut it was intended to replace and is labelled as "Nissen huts". There is no requirement for any article on Wikipedia to have an image; though some, as this one, would benefit from one. Please note that DYK is not intended to showcase "the best" of Wikipedia (that's what Today's Featured Article is for) but for newly created or expanded articles that meet a certain basic level of quality - Dumelow (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Martindo, one of the reasons for DYK is to bring new content to the attention of a large number of other editors so that newer content can be improved. You can take a look at what happens to an article as it moves through the process -- often you'll see dozens of other editors working on it for various reasons as it moves from nomination>review>promotion>queue>main page appearance. —valereee (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
As an example, because Twynham hut was on the main page someone wrote to the owner of one of the images posted online elsewhere and secured its released under a creative commons license so that the article now has an image. Great stuff - Dumelow (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Image question re BLP
In my DYK submission here (Template:Did you know nominations/The Myth of the Zodiac Killer) I included what I think to be a correctly licensed police sketch. My understanding of WP:BLPCRIME would be such that this should be fine for the main page as it doesn't identify a person by name and, as a pencil sketch, does not extend the same level of recognizability that a photograph would. But I'm hoping someone else (pinging Maile66, Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth) with a better sense of these things could either validate my thinking, or disabuse me of it? Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Upcoming anniversaries for Illinois Freedom of Information Act
Hello. I have a nomination open for Template:Did you know nominations/Freedom of Information Act (Illinois). I just realized that there are two upcoming anniversaries that might work quite nicely for DYK. December 27 is the anniversary of when the original legislation was signed. January 1 is the anniversary of when a legislative overhaul became effective in 2010.
I realize that December 27 is coming up quickly, so January 1 might be more realistic. But if neither date works, then I'm totally fine with having this hook scheduled in the usual manner. It didn't even occur to me until today that there were anniversaries coming up, so it's really not that important to me. Edge3 (talk) 05:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Done Moved to special occasions. Yoninah (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
