Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Version 1: trim, reorg, detail that sometimes 2 reviews are wasted isn't critical
Line 113: Line 113:


====Version 1====
====Version 1====
In general, an editor nominating an article to appear in the main page's [[WT:DYK]] section must review someone else's nomination; this is called the QPQ (''quid quo pro''{{snd}}"something for something"). But each editor is initially allowed to make up to five nominations exempt from this requirement, so that there are always slightly more nominations coming in than reviews being performed, and over the years a backlog of several months has accumulated. To get DYK items to the main page more timely, DYK regulars broadly support adding part (c) (seen below) to DYK's rules:
The [[WP:DYK]] project features newly created, expanded and improved articles. DYK regularly receives criticism because of the slow turnaround of nominations. It is common for new nominations to spend several months waiting before reaching the main page. The reason for this is DYK has a built in unchangeable backlog caused by the QPQ system. The QPQ mechanism creates the backlog because it allows new users 5 nominations without also doing a reciprocal QPQ and because some nominations require 2 reviews. To address the backlog, the DYK project has voted on and broadly supports a change to the DYK mechanism as outlined below. At times of backlog experienced nominators with 21 or more credits would need to submit two QPQ. When not in backlog we would revert to the usual 1 QPQ per nomination. The outcome of these changes would be new nominations reaching the main page several weeks faster.

* ''(a) If you have 5 or fewer credits at the time you make a nom, no QPQ is required;''
* ''(a) If you have 5 or fewer credits at the time you make a nom, no QPQ is required;''
* ''(b) If you have 6 to 20 credits at the time you make a nom, one QPQ is required;''
* ''(b) If you have 6 to 20 credits at the time you make a nom, one QPQ is required;''

Revision as of 12:45, 21 July 2021

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

EEng's alternative for addressing/preventing the unreviewed backlog

The alternative is: Change the rules as follows:

  • (a) First five noms, no QPQ required;
  • (b) 6th to Nth nom, one QPQ required;
  • (c) After N noms, two QPQs required (assuming there are "enough" noms needing review at the time the new nom is made; some details needed here about how exactly that works, but it's not rocket science).

N might be in the range 10–20; I actually think 10 is about right because I'm guessing few people even get to 10, especially compared to the large number of no-QPQ-required noms from newbies. But we can get stats on that and adjust N accordingly. Elsewhere people have been wringing their hands about how the system will collapse if the unreviewed queue becomes completely empty (we should have such problems!) but I assure you we can deal with that situation. The above change is what's important -- do we want a permanent mechanism for avoiding an unreviewed backlog, or not?
EEng 13:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose backlog drive proposal. Drives are bandaid solutions; they're fun barnstar printers, but you end up in the same place quickly (see WP:GASTATS right after a bolded month) but Support EEng's solution, even though everyone hates it for some reason ("EEng's [...] even though everyone hates it for some reason" is a fruitful game of madlibs). I might prefer a higher credit count than he does, though -- ten makes for a pretty narrow single-QPQ band. "20 credits, 2 reviews" has a good pattern to it and allows for an adjustment period, as well as solving the "we have multiple bottlenecks, short-term reductions of the DYKN backlog are in practice mostly increments of the DYKNA backlog" problem (by resulting in a more moderate but long-term decrease). Vaticidalprophet 08:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey, watch out who you're calling fruitful! EEng 13:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like EEng's proposal, too. I like that it requires more qpqs from frequent nominators, and I like that it means more reviews are being done by experienced people. I like that it's a permanent improvement. —valereee (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a good one. Re. what number n is, I don't think the important part is how many people have n DYK credits as an absolute, I think it's how many nominations are made by those people as a percentage. Hell, I just barely scrape 20+ and I had multiple nominations open for over a week until a couple hours ago; plenty of people far higher in that range are far more prolific. My wildly unscientific impression is that the 20+ range makes up a much more disproportionate share of the backlog compared to 10-19. (I also find that when I build preps, I promote a lot of the same names.) Vaticidalprophet 14:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support EEng's one. Woohooo (you wanted a rationale for my support? Can't have one. Nur...Ok, don't pout, you can have a perfunctory one: per Valereee ) Belle (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2 reviews at 20 DYKs to fix our pipeline problem. If you wanted to be more extreme, 3 reviews at 50 DYKs might be something to think about --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per my views at #Vote on formal proposal for a DYK backlog drive which I don't want to just regurgitate here. I prefer an honour system (do more reviews if you have time) rather than mandatory increasing of workload. But if people do support this, I will (reluctantly) comply with it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny, I had a similar conversation the other day with the IRS: I told them I preferred the honor system and would pay them if I had time. They said they would take the idea under advisement. EEng 12:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Based on some quick investigation and discussion at User_talk:BlueMoonset#Distribution_of_editors_according_to_#_of_DYKs, it seems like 20 might be a good "trigger point" (at which the 2-review requirement kicks in) to start with; once the backlog has been eaten down, a higher trigger point would be enough to keep it down for the long term. But these numbers can be determined more carefully once the idea has been approved in concept. EEng 12:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, two reviews at 20 DYKs seems good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support EEng's solution (a lifetime first, I think). N could be 25 - as said above, a high % of noms are by those (like me) who have 100+ DYKs, so using a much higher number than 25 would probably have a good effect. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • General support although we might want to clarify when one QPQ is enough (say, when there are fewer than 25 open nominations). Perhaps anyone eligible for listing on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs should do extra QPQ reviews (although I'd prefer a number larger than 27 as the cutoff out of laziness). —Kusma (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, since if this works there will be times there is no (significant) backlog, there will need to be some trigger that suspends the double-review requirement until the backlog grows again. Now, you might imagine people will game that -- delay making a nom for a while to avoid having to do a double review. But we aren't cynical enough to imagine any of our esteemed fellow editors would do such a thing, do we? EEng 13:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're going to use Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs as a measure, we'd need to update it reasonably frequently. It looks to be very out-of-date (it says I have 113 DYKs, when I just passed 200). Might be worth trying to integrate it with the QPQ check tool that gets the up-to-date information from it. Otherwise, we'd be missing people who reach the threshold. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously we'll find some way to have reliable counts. No doubt our tireless script/bot wizards can cook something up -- the same machinery that gives you your little talk-page congratulation can increment a tally. EEng 13:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For some insane reason WBDYK is manually updated, so something that switches it to auto-updating sounds overdue -- it's not like we don't have the machinery for it (this has been around for ages, as you can tell by the fact it's maintained(?) by someone who's been indeffed for the better part of a decade). Would recommend doing something about WP:DYKSTATS, while we're at it, as it hasn't been updated since April. Vaticidalprophet 13:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Or we can just use the ever-so-popular honour system; the only people who don't know their personal DYK score have less than N because they haven't yet been fully initiated into the cult....starts chanting Temple of Doom style:QPQ did you know, QPQ did you know, QPQ did you know... Belle (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought about that, and we might use that at first, but I think in the end something automated is appropriate (even if just to have reliable statistics as a general principle). We've always used a manual/honor system for the "first 5", but that only requires counting on the fingers of one hand. I personally have only a vague idea how many DYK credits I have -- I'm sure it's at least 20, but beyond that I really don't know. EEng 13:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    30 according to the tool. Vaticidalprophet 14:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So EEng can still count them on one hand [pokes out tongue] Belle (talk)
    Just you wait! EEng 15:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Silly me. I didn't even know there was such a tool. Parties wanting to know more about Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators ("forcibly withdrawn after officials clamped down on them") and other such things might want to check out User:EEng#dyk. EEng 15:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    DYK credits were done manually back in the Dark Ages, so the automated list is incomplete (compare [1] and User:Kusma/DYK). —Kusma (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Can anyone think how we'd go too far wrong if we trawled each user's contribution history for page creations of the form Template:Did you know nominations/xxxxxxx? EEng 13:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd miss stuff like this successful nom from 2006 (that was before the introduction of QPQ). —Kusma (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Those ages seem pretty dark indeed. If someone who's <20 by the autostats is >20 by pre-2007 manual stats, I'm happy to count them as <20 until they get over the hump -- they don't have the recent DYK experience-slash-backlog-flooding that's being picked up on here. Vaticidalprophet 14:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone codes this somewhere, please anticipate a possible namespace change for the DYK nom system. —Kusma (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I've struck out my own proposal and offering general support for this and N=20. Desertarun (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wanna give a shout-out here to Desertarun for his work on the backlog proposal. Since the double-QPQ idea is really for preventing a backlog, and would take a long time to eat down the huge existing backlog formed over many years, there may still be a place for a one-time drive after all. EEng 15:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think fixing the structural in built problem with the QPQ system is the most important thing we can do for DYK. Whatever achieves that goal is ok with me. I could set up a more casual backlog drive if this goes through. Desertarun (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some old cattle prods in the closet. EEng 15:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as written. Only because monitoring DYK history of other editors is too big of a headache. See my modified proposal of EEng's proposal below for a simpler but similar solution that I think will be easier to implement. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted elsewhere there's a simple tool that gives the info needed. I predict there will be relatively few people above the key number (relative to all DYKers, including the many who make just one nom, or a few noms, then disappear), and they'll know who they are. We don't need some kind of rigid gatekeeping or enforcement. EEng 04:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, As someone that has been a low key contributor of hooks every few months over the past 10 years this is now penalizing me for contributing, since I fall into the +400 range of hooks am I going to be told I need to review 3 4 or 5 nominations for the single one I contribute?--20:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevmin (talk • contribs)
    No, just two, and only when there's a backlog (which it looks like won't be often, after this one's cleared). EEng 22:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I'd prefer to run a backlog drive, but I think this is a great second-choice. We already have the tools to determine how many DYKs someone has, it just involves counting. Some expressed concerns that longterm editors have several unused DYKs from years ago, negating this effort, but I don't think that's every longterm DYK nominator, and I'm OK with rewarding editors who reviewed a lot in the past. I'm a little worried about conveying the "trigger" of 2 QPQ to those who don't frequent this talk page: the current 60/120 trigger for preps and queues happen every week or two. If the triggers for 2QPQ are similar, it can cause much greater confusion. I hope the triggers will be much wider to avoid this. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We lack hard statistics, but I believe the cycle time for this new scheme will be more like 9 months 1QPQ, 3 months 2QPQ, repeat (after the current backlog is eaten down, which will take quite some time). 02:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    My impression was that the triggers would be the number of articles waiting for approval. The above comment gives me the impression that it will be set times for the triggers to take affect (Like January-Sept: 1QPQ, Oct-Dec: 2QPQ). I prefer article triggers over set times every year. Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course it will be based on the # of noms awaiting review; a fixed schedule would make no sense. I was simply envisioning how rapid (or not rapid) the cycling back and forth might be -- very slow, on the order of months, because it appears the backlog grows very slowly. EEng 15:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, that was my misinterpretation of your comment, EEng. I hope the triggers are wide enough to cause the 9 month/3 month cycle you describe above. Z1720 (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's escalate!
  • Anyone else? EEng 19:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • <sound of crickets> EEng 17:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • *steps on crickets* Support 2 for 20 per Belle. (And also support further escalations such as 3 for 50+, 4 for 100+, and so on. I support further escalation in general.) Waiving it during low-backlog periods also sounds reasonable. Levivich 20:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because I'm an ass. Actually, Support. In seriousness, this seems like it has the potential to get more editors at low output levels, while not letting it get dominated by a few regulars. Personally, I find most of the DYK hooks boring. But with a wider selection of editors (and a faster rate of review by the regulars, who are going to be better able to do that well).
    And if it just crashes and burns and ruins everything, we can blame Eeng for it, let some grumpy admin block him and then march on ANI with torches and pitchforks and demand an unblock and a grovelling apology. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting specific

  • Comment: since we do major changes like this after an RfC, can we have one with a firm proposal that uses actual numbers, such as 20 or 25 DYK credits for the point where the second QPQ can be required, and equally as important, the number of nominated but unapproved DYK noms at which the requirement for the second QPQ turns on, and the lower number when it turns off again. (We don't want a single number for both, and we should probably discuss what makes sense before an RfC begins.) Also, is the determination as to the number of QPQs due based on when the nomination was made, when the initial full review is made, or when the final approval happens? We should decide this as well so it's clearly stated up front. I should note that I absolutely Oppose the idea that we "escalate" beyond two QPQs. If going to two QPQs doesn't solve the backlog, then the basic assumptions behind the proposal are flawed and some other approach should be tried, not doubling down on something that isn't working. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely Oppose the idea that we "escalate" beyond two QPQs – You don't know Levivich well enough to know when he's kidding. I do. He was kidding.
  • I don't think we can tie ourselves to a hard, fixed number of credits as the point where the double-review requirement kicks in -- there are too many imponderables and we may need to adjust according to experience. We can say for certain that it should never be less than 10, and almost certainly wouldn't be higher than 20. You see, 20 might be too high -- not enough double reviews getting done -- so it might need to be as low as 10. But if you don't need to be lower than 20, it might be better that it not be, so that editors have as much experience as possible before becoming subject to the double requirement.
    So in summary, I think we should say we expect it will start at 15, but in time might be adjusted to anywhere between 10 and 20 by discussion on this page.
  • Setting the high and low trigger points (number of unreviewed nominations) in advance is similarly difficult. Among the considerations:
    • Some proportion of "unreviewed" noms are in fact being reviewed, just the review isn't complete, issues have arisen that require the nominator's attention, etc.
    • Even after you exclude those, it's desirable to not go below having a few dozen noms ("virgin" noms -- no review started) so that the pump is always primed.
    • We don't want to cycle between "doubles required" and "doubles not required" too quickly, because that causes confusion. (That's a consideration for the 10-20 question as well.)
I want to gather some statistics before going on, but I've gotta go right now.
EEng 17:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. By specific I think more exact wording for the proposal is requested. As we have 6 support votes for N=20, that would be the base number, so your proposal should start with something like below and then give the background to the RFC, its need etc. I don't think it will add anything to the RFC if we're complicating it with too much detail about changes to N we might want to make in the future.
  • (a) First five noms, no QPQ required;
  • (b) 6th to 19 noms, one QPQ required;
  • (c) 20 or more noms, two QPQs required;
Desertarun (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think if we don't tie ourselves to a hard minimum number of credits—remember, we want reviewers to have gained enough experienced before we add a second review to their dish—we're going to have problems. The idea that someone with five reviews under their belt has enough experience to graduate to a doubled reviewing requirement is highly problematic: I count myself a good reviewer but I was not yet one after five QPQ reviews. You can count on my opposition if the number isn't at least 20 credits (approximately 15 DYK reviews). Desertarun, a couple of points on your breakdown: first, let's make it 21 or more: first 5 credits are free, nominations for the next 15 credits (through 20 total) require one QPQ, with two QPQs thereafter. Second, please note that it's a nominator's number of credits (nomination and creation/expansion both) that governs, not just the number of their nominations: right now, the first five DYK credits are free but your next nomination after that, whether you were the nominator on all five or not, requires a QPQ. (PS: Levivich may have been kidding, but he wasn't the first to suggest going beyond two reviews per nom.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RFC post (under development)

Since a lot of people seem very set on 20/21 as the boundary, let's go with that. So is this right as you see it, BlueMoonset? Feel free to fix (and we'll discuss what goes in the placeholder in (c) separately) ...EEng 06:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've started work on version 1. Desertarun (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Version 1

In general, an editor nominating an article to appear in the main page's WT:DYK section must review someone else's nomination; this is called the QPQ (quid quo pro – "something for something"). But each editor is initially allowed to make up to five nominations exempt from this requirement, so that there are always slightly more nominations coming in than reviews being performed, and over the years a backlog of several months has accumulated. To get DYK items to the main page more timely, DYK regulars broadly support adding part (c) (seen below) to DYK's rules:

  • (a) If you have 5 or fewer credits at the time you make a nom, no QPQ is required;
  • (b) If you have 6 to 20 credits at the time you make a nom, one QPQ is required;
  • (c) If you have 21 or more credits at the time you make a nom, two QPQs are required. (Something something two-QPQ requirement only applies when backlog something something something.)
You get a "credit" any time an article is featured on DYK and you're either the nominator or one of the named creators/expenders/GA-ifiers. (If you're a creator/expender/GA-ifier and self-nominate, that counts as only one credit.)

Thinking about upper/lower trigger points

I've just counted what we have on the nominations page (not approved page).

  • 49 nominations less than a week old that have never been reviewed.
  • 71 nominations over a week old that are never reviewed.
  • 8 nominations under review in 0-7 days old
  • 10 nominations under review 8-14 days old
  • 17 nominations reviewed 15-28 days old
  • 25 nominations reviewed over 28 days old
  • 8 nominations in the process of withdrawing, commented upon but not reviewed or otherwise unclassified.
  • 188 nominations total backlog.
  • 120 or 63% are never reviewed

Based upon these stats I think we should go with 2 QPQ kicking in when there are 80 on the nominations page, and go back to 1 QPQ when we are below 40. Of those 40 we could expect 63% i.e. 25 to be new and unreviewed and 15 to be under review. Desertarun (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Popping in a bit, I've barely been able to edit these past few days...I'm unconvinced having a cyclical system is a good idea. I recognize EEng started talking about it, and it didn't net active opposition, but it strikes me as primarily adding an additional layer of confusion. I already suspect there will be people coming in confused that suddenly they have to do two QPQs, is it really a good thing to spring "oh, and by the way the rules will change on you repeatedly" on them? I think we at least want to trial this at first, to see if ending up with too few open noms is even a risk with this method. The 20-credits range still includes plenty of people who don't follow DYK with the intensity this seems to demand. Vaticidalprophet 22:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "cyclic system" you mean having times when the double-QPQ requirement aaplies, and times when it doesn't, I'm afraid there's no way around that; we can't insist on a nominator doing an extra review when there aren't surplus noms waiting for review. What we can do, probably, is arrange for the transitions from double-requirement to no-double-requirement, then back to double-requirement, etc etc etc, be infrequent and far about (on the order of many months). We do this by making upper and lower trigger points far enough apart, though I don't think that means making them as far apart as one might think. More on this later but first I'd like to see where people are with the (a) (b) (c) I posted above. EEng 06:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I support the a/b/c idea, but not for anyone but the nominator. People get added as creators, sometimes without their knowledge, for simply doing the heavy lifting to get an iffy nom into reasonable shape. —valereee (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For years I thought that for the purposes of "first five free", only nominations count -- your first five nominations are free, any nominations after that require a QPQ. Recently BlueMoonset pointed out that a close reading of the rules suggests that any "credit" counts, where a credit is being either the nominator or a creator/expander/GA-ifier; in other words, any time the bot congratulates you on your talk page, that's a credit that counts against your free five. Maybe that makes sense or maybe it doesn't, but apparently that's the way it already is. EEng 21:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility #5 Review requirement, "If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nomination is exempt from QPQ." only refers to the nominator. It is not anytime the bot congratulates you. QPQ only applies to nominators. — Maile (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, wait a minute. Now I think I see the confusion "whether or not self-nominated" ... maybe that needs to be clarified. — Maile (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you're saying in your second post, but as written: (1) yes QPQ applies only to nominators, but (2) one of your "free five" gets eaten up each time you get any credit (nominator, creator, expander, GA-ifier), not just when you nominate. I'll say again that for 10 years this had escaped my notice, but now that BlueMoonset has pointed it out, it does seem to be correct. Plus I can't recall BMS being wrong about anything ever, so resistance is futile.
    But maybe we should resist after all. We're always fretting about inexperienced people doing reviews. Now, the way I thought (and Maile thought, and it appears valereee thought) things worked, by the time you're required to do a review you'll have had the experience of having made 5 nominations, and thus been on the receiving end of 5 reviews. (Let's call that the Maile Rule.) But under the Blue Moon Rule (shall we call it), you might have done nothing but stood by innocently while someone nominated five articles you created; then, someday, you make your first DYK nomination and BOOM!, you have to do a review.
    Notice that if we switch to the from the Blue Moon rule to the Maile Rule, the backlog gets bigger, but maybe not by all that much -- 75% of noms currently awaiting approval are self-noms, though that's only a rough indicator. EEng 23:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Resist! Resist! Power to the newbies! To tack on a QPQ for being the creator (but not nominator) of a previous DYK, is a bit like handing your credit card over to a sales clerk who, after running it through their scanner, sort of mumbles, "Oh, by the way, the store reserves the right to add other costs to your purchase." — Maile (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I had no idea that was the rule. Belle came in here just a couple days ago wondering how they'd ended up with a credit on their talk. I agree that it probably doesn't add much to the backlog, and no one who hasn't been reviewed five times should be required to do reviews. I guess someone could game it...just keep finding new stooges to nominate your articles...tell me, (username redacted), did EEng offer you anything to make that nom? —valereee (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q6 - Bank of England urine deflector - urgent

The urine deflector hook currently in Q6 was approved for April Fools Day. What is it doing in the main queues? Likewise I have noticed a lot of holding area hooks have been removed at put back in the main sections, what's going on? Please can we replace this at put it back in the AFD holding area? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has just one hour before it goes live and I could remove it, but it is a very catchy hook and will garner many page views if it runs now, rather than drowning in a lot of mediocre jokes on AFD. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite concerned as to why we also had a number of other hooks yanked from their holding areas without any explanations. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A section above indicates that DYK's pipeline of approved hooks has been drained by the move to two sets per day and so now the set builders are struggling to maintain the rate of flow. If this is causing trouble then perhaps we should revert to one set per day to let the reservoir recharge. If other hooks have been affected, please could The C of E provide some details.
In the meantime, I've been making ready in case there's a run on the bank today. As April is some way off, perhaps the hook might be considered for a rerun if it only gets 12 hours today. We usually run two sets on April 1st and so that would be another 12 hours making the standard 24 in total.
Andrew🐉(talk) 12:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Run on the bank? Reservoir recharge? Possibly you're flush with money? Pissing on ice? EEng 14:36, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ooooh, how very American. All we can currently manage in the UK is this. But I'm sure, as a TV opportunity, it has got legs. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The C of E, I don't know why you're wondering that your own self-promotions of your nominations to the special occasion were reverted (I'm assuming that's why you're mentioning that "a number" have been "yanked"); indeed, one of your moves was made less than an hour after I noted to you in a recent discussion that you shouldn't be promoting your own. I have just undone those moves again for the two I reverted previously and a new one as well. Given how many times there have been issues with your special occasion hooks—indeed, you are currently topic banned in some areas in part because of these—you of all people should understand why others should make the decision on whether your special occasion requests should be approved and do the moves themselves. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The C of E, why would you "think we agreed" when I had just specifically told you this was not the case? You keep arguing the letter of the rules, when you've been around long enough to know that DYK practice goes beyond them, and not everything gets written down. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BlueMoonset: I don't want to get into an argument but the fact is that there is no such rule written down and as G4 of WP:DYKSG says, rules written in the rules and SGs describe what the consensus is. Plus we do indeed have admins like @Cwmhiraeth: who disagree with your opinion on this. Personally I think this is a mountain out of a molehill. We're being pinickity by asking nominators to jump through the hoops of "reviewer forgets to move it, nominator has to ask for it to be move, reviewer moves it on their behalf or forgets again, which results in repeated requests at different venues and frustrations". It's so much easier for the nominator to just move it down unless the reviewer says no to the holding area request or if consensus here is against it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The hook was approved for "any time, potentially including April Fools Day". Most hooks that may potentially run on April Fools Day will not. In many cases, this is a good thing, because the hooks will be able to run as the strongest hook in a complex set rather than as one possibility in a very similar set. AFD sets are good, but this one works best outside of one. (In particular, it works best as an image hook, which it probably wouldn't be on AFD.) Vaticidalprophet 12:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the discussion above, I think we need to add in the reviewing guide that reviewers should also comment on if the hook is appropriate for its Special Occasion request, if applicable. Z1720 (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I think that's a good idea, I think we should take a common sense approach to it. We should include the requirement to comment on it in the rules. However, if no such comment is made (which I think is likely because many people are "dyed in the wool" when it comes to reviewing), then we should presume no objection to it being placed in the holding area by anyone. But that consensus may arise from the wider community for a certain hook not to run on a certain day. I think that covers adding it to the rules, but it also affords protection to the request just in case it gets overlooked and avoids the need to jump through hoops for what is usually a minor request. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The C of E: Instead of a "common sense approach" (because it's a very general term) I think it should say that a hook is appropriate for a special occasion if it directly relates to the occasion. For example, for Canada Day this year (I know, I talk about Canada Day a lot) there were some hooks in the special occasions area that were bios on Canadians, but did not directly relate to the holiday. I think those hooks should have been rejected for a special occasion slot, especially since we had too many hooks for Canada Day, and instead run as a regular hook.
I also disagree with the notion that silence is consent for moving a hook to the special occasion area. Instead, if the reviewer doesn't comment on the special occasion feasibility, the nominator or another person should ping them as they did not complete the review. This is similar to a sitution where a reviewer does not comment on the image's feasibility for a hook; that reviewer would be pinged to finish the review. It will be a lot of work in the beginning but eventually, people will remember to add a comment about special occasions. Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 doesn't seem to understand what happened here. In this case, it was the reviewer who suggested running the hook on AFD. As the nominator, I was ok with the idea. The person who did not pay attention or consult was the set-builder. This is an endemic issue with DYK now – that set-builders and promoters often pay no attention to the original contributors and reviewers but act unilaterally, without consensus, leaving it too late to do much about it. The rule change we need is that no change should be made to an approved hook without consultation and consensus. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did pay attention. I saw the discussion that there was some consideration of running it on AFD, and that this would have pros and cons compared to running it in a normal set. I determined the cons outweighed the pros, most significantly that there was little possibility the hook would run with an image on AFD. If it had run on AFD without an image, that would not have been an improvement -- nor would it have caused fewer complaints. Vaticidalprophet 17:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewers can move the hook to a spec occ holding area. It's really only noms who shouldn't, and I think noms ought to feel free to ask reviewers, if they think it's appropriate, to do so. Doesn't guarantee that's where the hook will be slotted, but it lets prep builders know the reviewer supports the request. —valereee (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer reviewers move hooks to the Special Occasion Holding Area too, but most reviewers don't know that they can/should do this, and most reviewers don't look at this talk page to see this discussion, so nominators often move it themselves. I think reviewing for a hook's placement in SOHA should be added to the reviewing guide and mandatory as part of the review, so that when nominators move the hooks they have the approval of at least one non-involved editor to do so. Z1720 (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special date request moves

  • In reference to the dispute above: Please could I ask if the following articles could be moved to the following special holding areas, as they had been here.
  • The problem I see is that the reviewers didn't comment on the date requests at all. For the third, I don't see the connection. —Kusma (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kusma: That's precisely what I mentioned above, most people don't comment on them because its not a regular part of the process, its easy to overlook. The third one's link is because DvJ was captain of the Springboks and the 3rd test could be the deciding test if the series is drawn up until then. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess we should maybe try to make it a regular part of the process? The DYK reviewer, having spent some time reading the article and checking its sources, is better placed than some random person coming later to comment on the strength of a date request. (The "Flag of Sark" request seems very strong to me). The other question is how much we expect prep builders to follow requests (if there are too many requests, they should be free to ignore anything with a weak connection). I'm curious also because my most recent nom could potentially run on the subject's 235th birthday (but it's not a disaster if that doesn't happen) and I'd like to make sure I understand how the request should be processed. —Kusma (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Date requests are, to put it bluntly, an annoyance. They interact poorly with every other part of DYK; they interfere with building balanced prep sets, they're easy to miss, they demand constant last-minute changes when we routinely flip between 12 hour and 24 hour sets, and they're a nightmare to deal with issues with, because people insist you make sure they can still make the date when they have to be kicked back from prep/queue (and in especially bad situations, the Main Page itself). There needs to be a very, very good justification to inflict all of this on admins and prep builders, neither of which are a resource DYK is flooded with. Date requests that lack exceptionally strong ties can and should be rejected. Vaticidalprophet 16:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The third one – about a former South African rugby captain – is to be held for "the deciding test" between his former team and another side? To me, that certainly doesn't seem like something that needs to be a special occasion hook. Particularly since he's no longer playing! MeegsC (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I find highly topical date requests more important than whether the "only X biographies" or "only Y American topics" rules are followed to the letter, but I guess it is generally something noms can politely ask for, not something that they should demand. I'm wondering whether we can make it easier for prep builders to get these right. Perhaps our bot coders could make the switch between 12 and 24 hour sets smoother if it is announced sufficiently in advance? —Kusma (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very few date requests are truly "highly topical" -- most are quite tenuous. Often they're brought up by the reviewer, rather than being built in with the hook, which IMO generally means they're bad ideas; a highly topical date request will be so obvious the nominator will be perfectly aware of it before coming in with the hook. Things the inherent level of disruption in these hooks are acceptable for: major anniversaries or birthdays (ending in 5 or 0 is a good shorthand, in 50 or 00 even better), hooks where the entire purpose is the date (e.g. 9/11), and significant holidays. Anything else is a recipe for disruption. Indeed, DYK needs to be stricter on date requests than TFA, which rejects a nontrivial proportion; TFA is built entirely around a date-based framework, while the dates for several preps out at DYK are vague estimates dependent entirely on the backlog's fluctuation, and TFA is a single blast while DYK is eight mostly-equal partners. Vaticidalprophet 18:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators are not the best judge of what's appropriate for special occasions—this discussion only confirms that—which is why someone other than the nominator should move them, and only that independent editor believes this is indeed a hook appropriate for special treatment or day placement. I see nothing wrong with a nominator posting here on the DYK talk page if there request hasn't been answered and time is starting to run short; that happened in a just-archived discussion, and seems to me a reasonable way to handle when reviewers don't move the nomination or comment on whether it should be moved. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Specific proposal

Maybe something like: Special occasion date requests shall be added to the review process, similarly to the way images and alts are reviewed. The reviewer can support the request, choose not to support, or strike the request altogether. If the reviewer supports the request, anyone may move the hook into the special occasion holding area. Other editors are still free to use their discretion. —valereee (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also suggest adding a field to the nomination template. That way, a simple key word search can find the requests. As it is right now, everybody words it differently, making them more difficult to find.—Bagumba (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic hooks

There are quite a few hooks with an Olympic theme at DYK at the moment. There's the special holding area for approved hooks but other nominations are still awaiting approval. Some nominations have specific date requests, others just say "Olympics" and there are nominations that don't make a request for the hook as part of the Olympics. We might look at the Olympic calendar to align hooks with when a particular sport starts. As Vaticidalprophet mentions in the special date request moves discussion above, these special date requests can be "an annoyance". I admit that I'm contributing to this (four of the hooks are mine) and thus thought I might as well give the Olympic hooks some structure so that it's less of a bother. Looking at the number of approved hooks, it would be safe to assume that we won't drop below 60 during the Olympics so the 12-hour-cycle should remain for the time being. I suggest that a useful principle is to have hooks on the frontpage at the same time as a relevant event happens. For example, Oman at the 2016 Summer Olympics would usefully show while the opening ceremony (23 July 2021; 20:00–23:30 JST) is going on. Hooks tick over at 9:00 h (morning) and 21:00 h (evening) Japan Standard Time.

I've tried to identify everything that's currently in process. Feel free to edit the table below as you see fit. Note there's also Olympic Tower amongst the nominations but it has nothing to do with the sports event. Using the method as suggested here will make some of the hook sets quite Olympics-heavy. But given the attention that the event will get, maybe that's not a bad thing. Schwede66 23:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had another look and yes, there are two further hooks (approved and yet to be approved). I shall list them accordingly. Somebody might want to review the Kenya women's national volleyball team in a bit of a hurry. Schwede66 08:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewed, needs work but I suspect it'll get through, so perhaps worth leaving a prep spot open. CMD (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article Requested Suggested date Prep set Notes (all times in JST) Status
Grace Prendergast 24 July 24 July am Prep 4 to coincide with the heats of the women's coxless pair In prep
Tom Murray 25 July 25 July am Prep 6 morning hook set In prep
Hannah Osborne 23 July 28 July am Prep 5 to coincide with the A-final of the women's double scull Approved
Emma Twigg 23 July 23 July am Prep 2 to coincide with the heats of the women's single sculls In prep
Tehani Egodawela 23 July (as the Olympics start date) 24 July am Prep 4 morning hook set; Women's 10 metre air pistol competition starts at 8:30 In prep
Jo Muir Non-specific 5 August am morning hook set; competition starts with fencing at 13:00 Approved
Michael McIntyre Non-specific 26 July am Prep 1 this is a 1988 competitor and whilst sailing starts on 25 July at 12:00, that hook set was too crowded so he's been bumped back by 24 hours In prep
Lisa Barbelin Non-specific 23 July am Prep 2 morning hook set; competition starts at 13:00 In prep
Oman at the 2016 Summer Olympics 23 July (as the Olympics start date) 23 July pm Prep 3 evening hook set; opening ceremony starts at 20:00 In prep
Hélène Defrance Non-specific 28 July am Prep 5 morning hook set; this is a 2016 competitor who competed in the 470 class and that event will start on 28 July at 12:00 h Approved
Mandy Bujold Non-specific 29 July am Prep 7 As per the discussion below, we'll move that to 29 July for the round of 16 Approved
Esra Yıldız Non-specific 27 July am Prep 3 morning hook set; competition starts at 13:00 Approved
2020 United States men's Olympic basketball team July 23 or 24 before the U.S.'s first game on 25th 25 July pm Prep 7 Why not have it online when their first game starts on 25 July at 21:00 h, at exactly the time that the evening set goes online?
=> It's somewhat conceivable Durant can break the record during the 1st game, and the hook would become dated on the MP. But WP:ERRORS can handle that like with ITN real time changes.		 In prep
Alica Schmidt Non-specific 5 August am morning hook set; the heats are at 19:25 h and 19:37 h Approved
Tuğba Şenoğlu Olympic holding area not requested but that would obviously make sense 29 July pm Turkey's second game is on 29 July 2021 at 21:45 h Approved
Jeremiah T. Mahoney Non-specific 30 July pm I've simply picked a date where no other hook will appear Approved
Kenya women's national volleyball team 25 July 25 July am Prep 6 ALT2 makes specific reference to their first game, which starts at 19:40 h on 25 July (i.e. will likely finish at about the same time as the pm hook set starts) In prep
The link on Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics was wrong: the text and sources said under 51kg (which is flyweight), but it was linking to the under 57kg (featherweight). As for the non-current Olympians, if it's easier, just put them any date. Though all your suggestions seem reasonable to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Defrance's specific sailing event (that she used to compete in) starts on 28 July- if we push it back to then, we don't get too many Olympic hooks on 25 July am (where we currently have 4 scheduled). Or just push it to any date that week, as there's sailing events on. I apologise in advance, as I have 6 of these hooks. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be a limit to two Olympics/athletic hooks per set, and any sets that have more than that should be spread out. Tuğba Şenoğlu can perhaps go on July 27 as that is Turkey's second volleyball game. We also have a lot of New Zealand rowers in the Olympics holding area that should be spread out. I'd also appreciate that the hooks are separated by suggested dates instead of bunched together in the Olympic area, as that will make it easier for preppers to select the best hook for each date. Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the four New Zealand rowers in the Olympics holding area are spread out across three days. However, if two in one slot is considered one too many, how about the following scenario? A lot of commentators expect Hannah Osborne to (probably) win gold in the women's double scull and anything but making the podium would be a massive surprise. That A-final is on 28 July. She's then expected to be in another A-final with the women's eight on 30 July and World Rowing is on record as saying that Australia and New Zealand will sort out gold and silver between them, with the other teams squabbling over bronze (that's all referenced in the article). My suggestion is that we put the hook into the 30 July am slot, await the outcome of the double scull final and if she does indeed medal on the 28th, we modify the hook by making reference to her going after a second medal. How does that sound? Schwede66 02:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2 Olympic hooks in a set seems fine, any more is probably too much (especially if they're all biographies). 25th am currently has 4 hooks suggested, so McIntyre should probably be bumped (least date-specific of the 4), and one of the others could be moved to another date where they're competing e.g. Tuğba Şenoğlu to one of the other volleyball game dates, or Mandy Bujold to the 29th (it seems likely that she'll pass the qualifying round). Ditto we have 3 hooks for 23rd am, we could push Lisa Barbelin to 27 or 28 July, which is when the next rounds are (again, it seems likely that they'll still be in the tournament by then, as she's ranked world #2). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! If you get one or two not quite right then it will give someone a reason to add to the chat:-) Well done Victuallers (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll implement my latest suggestion (Hannah Osborne) and process what Joseph said. Give me a moment. Schwede66 09:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One point if you bump some of those who are likely to win by 12 hours then the consolation is that the article can include the result of success or surprise. Victuallers (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. Had some brain fade and confused Hannah Osborne with Grace Prendergast. It's the latter who was down to compete in two boat classes so I'll have to rejigg the table. That said, I've now seen the start list and the Prendergast / Kiddle pair is not part of the initial women's eight. Not sure whether Rowing NZ have changed their mind. To be safe, I'll swap things around so that it makes sense. Schwede66 01:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, why don't those of us who haven't nominated or reviewed but who watch this page move those hooks into preps where the prep is ready for it? That way, the hooks won't get overlooked. I'll move a prep set or two into the queue later this morning and that way, we'll have room to have the next few days covered. Schwede66 21:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a Kenya volleyball hook to the table above, but the nomination is still under review. If it gets signed off shortly, we have three hooks in the 25 am slot and going by the above discussion, that's one too many. I suggest that we bump Mandy Bujold to 29 July as suggested above (round of 16), but I couldn't find a time for her second-round competition. Who can help? User:Joseph2302, you previously suggested that; got access to the times? Schwede66 19:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Righto, I wasn't reading this section closely enough, Tom Murray was promoted and the picture hook from prep6 moved to prep7. The caption for Tom Murray needs trimming and now I'll probably just leave prep 6 for someone else to finish and add a few more to prep 7. Desertarun (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vaticidalprophet Thanks for picking Hannah Osborne as lead hook – the uncropped version of the photo is a stunner! However, that's the wrong prep; should be prep 5 as per the above table. Schwede66 23:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, I respect the work you've put in here, but I don't think it's written with a strong understanding of the logistics of prep building or of the history of "need to run things in specific time zones" discussions. There's never been consensus for nominators to be able to request a time zone position in a 12-hour set (and indeed fairly recent conversations deciding this is anti-consensus), and the 12/24-hour switchover issue means tracking stuff down to the level of individual preps is a recipe for "and then we have to rebuild all those preps a week later". I was making a note to write a longer post about the logistics here, but I've had fairly little opportunity for editing recently and the matter seems to have kind of gotten away from me. Vaticidalprophet 23:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many other sports events have had DYK nominations deliberately timed to coincide with the times of matches (e.g. the last few year's FA Cup Final noms, 2021 Challenge Cup Final, 2020 London Marathon to name a few). As these are usually the first hooks being promoted, I don't see how it adds difficulty for promoters in balancing prep sets- and I believe it makes it easier, as they don't need to worry about which times is best. And an advantage of the table is to help promoters, so we don't get too many Olympics hooks running together. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My invaluable contribution recognized...

I think there was a mistake with the credits for eastern shovelnose ray. While I'm a world-famous expert on rays and all their fishy attributes, I shouldn't have been in the DYKMake template for it. I can't work out if I was mixed up with somebody or if I was just added in error, so if anybody can see who (if anybody) is missing the credit please redistribute it or send the editor to my talk page where I will hand over the credit and rend my garments in a proper show of contrition (obviously not the garments I'm wearing at the moment; probably some old ones that I was going to throw out; it wasn't really my fault so you can't expect me to rend my new pants; to be fair, I probably couldn't rend them anyway, I'm not She-Hulk) Belle (talk) 22:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SL93? Special:Diff/1033329065 ... Sdrqaz (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Belle: All that I did was copy and paste the DYKmake templates from Template:Did you know nominations/eastern shovelnose ray which included you in a DYKmake template. It was probably never fixed because your username was listed there. SL93 (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to have been added by Victuallers. SL93 (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for blaming you – Sdrqaz (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine. Though I guess I will look at the article history more closely before adding DYKmakes to the prep. I didn't think I had to after promoting so many without any wrong editors being in them. In this case, the nominator did receive the proper DYKmake. SL93 (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's all good; Victuallers was just crediting me for fixing some booboos, which was nice but confusing as it has never happened before, so it made me think something had gone wrong and I didn't want somebody denied their credit. Belle (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You do have the second most edits to the article! I'd be inclined to take credit for a good looking article. ;) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not uncommon for someone to add a credit in when someone has done a lot of work on an article. —valereee (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The old list having been archived a day ago, this new list below includes 32 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 24. We currently have a total of 320 nominations, of which 124 have been approved, a gap of 196. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the four from May.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EEng's wording of the admin instructions

@EEng: thank you for trying to clarify the admin instructions. I also realize that you not being an admin yourself may not get an instruction on how to react to the DYKUpdateBot/Errors. But, believe me, it is programmed specifically to catch errors that prevent a set from being moved from Queue to the Main page. And it will tell you exactly what it is, so an Admin can fix the error in a matter of seconds. It catches format/coding errors, not the kind of stuff that shows up at WP:ERRORS. Kind of a genius little bot at work. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The best instructions are rarely the most detailed ones. When you ask someone to watchlist something, they know without being told that when the page pops up as changed, you want them to look and take appropriate action. Belaboring these obvious points merely increases the length of the instructions and, consequently, the probability that they'll be ignored. Further explanation in the edit summary here [3]. EEng 19:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who doesn't get it. What the bot does, is look at the information in a given Queue. Everything in that queue is instructions for the bot, hook by hook, DYK make by DYK make, every bracket and squiggle, etc. If anything is missing that the bot reads, it does not update. Instead, it throws up an error message and specifically says what it needs to do its job. Sometimes things accidentally get taken off, a little brarcket, or something. The error message tells the admin that the update will not happen until the correction is made.
Here's some recent error messages.
— Maile (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you think we're arguing about. Your post reinforces what I've been saying all along: admins with the Errors file watchlisted will readily see for themselves, from the error messages, that something needs to be done; we don't have to tell them that in the instructions. EEng 22:55, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Instructions for having an argument:
  1. Agree what it is you're arguing about.
  2. Argue.
  3. Kick back and have a beer.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I start with #3 and work backward. EEng 23:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1 nom at AFD

Ghib Ojisan is in queue 1 (due to give live at midnight UTC), but is at AFD. This should be pulled and replaced- if it survives AFD, then it can run later. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Amakuru. —valereee (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic special occasion

Can someone move Template talk:Did you know/Approved#2020 United States men's Olympic basketball team to the special occasion section or promote directly to a prep area (I nominated it). The approver already signed off on the dates. Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 04:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed #Olympic hooks thread above now. I'll leave it to others if this needs to physically be moved into the holding area or not. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current John Rolph DYK.... kind of misleading "click-bait"

Currently the DYK "... that John Rolph (pictured) was arrested for trying to solve Euclid's geometry problems?" appears on the main page. I think this is misleading clickbait. He was arrested under suspecion of having maps of forts that turned out to be Euclid geometry problems. He wasn't arrested for doing math problems. It was a misunderstanding. Totally different. It's a nice hook. But we aren't in the newspaper business trying to hook people. We intended to educate. And many people will read this without reading the article. I think we should be above clickbait. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced "for" with "while". Schwede66 17:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's misleading. It was because of the geometry work that he was arrested. No geometry work, no arrest. "While" is also misleading, as it implies his arrest had nothing to do with his drawings. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there could be a better hook where nobody could say "but that's misleading". Schwede66 18:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We often use amibugity for "hookiness". As long as it's factually correct and not a BLP or other policy issue, I'd leave it.—Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rolph is well and truly dead (i.e. it's not a BLP). If others feel it ought to be changed back, I won't be offended. Schwede66 19:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The word for was ok. The plural problems was more erroneous as he was only trying to solve one problem. Anyway, the article got 17,700 views which is a good result for Z1720 – well done! Andrew🐉(talk) 07:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The word "for" wasn't okay. It was the source of the problem. Perhaps a better wording that keeps the intrigue-factor would have been "...was arrested over papers with Euclid's geometry problems?" or something like that. The specifics are kind of moot now. But the general idea that we should be wary of clickbait remains. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I certainly wouldn't say someone was arrested "over" something. But the hook's been rotated out so it's moot. EEng 15:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hook needs work

The hook " ... that the Kenyan volleyball women's team the Malkia Strikers first Olympic match in over 16 years is today in Tokyo against Japan?" in Prep 6 needs some tweaking. Right now, it doesn't parse well at all. It's missing commas and at least one apostrophe, etc., but could probably be reworded to avoid the current confusion. Courtesy pinging Victuallers, Chipmunkdavis and Schwede66 as nominator, reviewer and promoter. MeegsC (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm off to bed soon; no doubt you'll figure something out. I considered putting the team name within emdashes; maybe that could work. Schwede66 09:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I was just coming here to post the same thing. Also, shouldn't the link be on the Kenyan volleyball team, rather than their nickname? Maybe something like "... that the Kenyan women's volleyball team – nicknamed the Malkia Strikers – are playing their first Olympic match in over 16 years today in Tokyo against Japan? Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thats ok with me but I think the nickname is part of the hook and we possibly don't need to say "women" or "team", so I suggest (belatedly below) - please feel free to comma/finesse - @Joseph2302, Schwede66, and MeegsC: - Victuallers (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or even (to get rid of the possessive all together): MeegsC (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Taking the latest hook, why not write this is present tense and include the word "today", given that the game will be happening while the hook is live? Schwede66 19:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing question

Hi all. I just had a question around an issue I raised at Template:Did you know nominations/Coin Coin Chapter Four: Memphis. This issue is a particular primary source for an album is the selling the album at the linked url: https://cstrecords.com/products/matana-roberts-coin-coin-chapter-four-memphis. Are we ok with that? I think the content being sourced by it is reasonable (per WP:VENDOR), but my main concern would be the potential for being accused of using DYK to advertise by allowing a cited source in an article promoted to the main page to include such a url. What's DYK policy in this instance? Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NZ rowers

Prendergast in July 2021

No offense to NZ rowers, but are they really the only Olympic athletes worth getting a picture slot this week? Considering how many countries and sports are participating, having three picture slots from the same sport and the same country seems excessive to me – and presumably will to others as well. MeegsC (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They're the only Olympic hooks nominated where we have photos, so far as I've seen (I've nominated 6 of the Olympic hooks, and have 0 photos for any of them). We were donated lots of NZ rowers photos, which is why we have good quality photos of them. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had a concern with the image in Prep 6 for the Tom Murray nom and opened a Commons discussion. I've move the image off of the prep for now. Courtesy ping to nominator Schwede66.—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. None of the other Olympic hooks has photos. I've written a number of good bios for NZ rowers and have nominated those where there were photos available. Three of the four photos are superb and if I could have chosen which three get picked, then Grace Prendergast (prep 4) would be there with a photo instead of Emma Twigg (queue 2).
Apart from that, there's a bit more to this all. Some of us have got together and issued a media release – Wikipedia and Olympic rowing. I've just exchanged some direct messages with a news journalist in Tokyo to interview one of the contributors; she's the photographer and I've only just recruited her to be a contributor to Commons.
And I really do not share the concern with the Commons photo. It was taken by the photographer and she added the artwork. Here's a link to her website. I had a long chat with her on the phone before she started contributing to Commons, so I know the context to this. Can I maybe plead to treat newbies who have a lot to contribute with some respect and courtesy? Isn't WP:AGF one of the fundamentals of this community? Schwede66 08:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a creative artist, I hope she can appreciate that we try to protect people's rights to their works. If it's her content, it should just be a matter of dotting i's and crossing t's. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba, I've written a long and detailed explanation in response to the deletion request. I would like you to withdraw that forthwith as it has the potential to be very damaging. Schwede66 08:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They may be "the only hooks where we have photos", but there's no reason why we have to use them all in the picture spot! We were worried that there were "too many hooks about Canada" on Canada Day but don't see a problem with this? Seriously? There are other non-Olympic hooks with pictures that aren't being run because the NZ rowers are being featured instead? Sorry, but that seems pretty unfair to me! MeegsC (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, promoters have a choice whether or not to use the images, and multiple promoters have chosen to use the images. The "jedi" image is by far the most interesting one, so if the above licencing discussion gets sorted out, I would definitely run that one as an image hook. And this isn't the same as Canada Day- we're making sure to spread the Olympic hooks, rather than having them all in one go like the Canada Day suggestion wanted to. If promoters think there have been too many of one type of hook, then just don't use it as the image hook. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1034720067"