Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Admin instructions

This is the talk page for Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions. Comments should be made at Wikipedia talk:Did you know, the main talk page for this group, or at Help talk:Template for technical questions. Because of this page's obscure location, comments made here are unlikely to get a quick response.

This page was last edited by Evrik (talk | contribs) 16 months ago. (Update timer)

Additional checks

No. 4 in the list of additional checks is telling us to "ensure each article complies with Verifiability, Living Person Biographies and Copyright." The copyright and BLP checks, no problem. But to check an article for verifiability might mean checking dozens or for GAs even hundreds of sources for at least as many assertions in each of 8 articles and then do it again 24 hours later; that can't be what we're intending to ask for. Do we mean to ask the person promoting prep > queue to verify the hook for each article? Or perhaps we mean verify any assertions/sources that have been added to the article since the hook was promoted to prep, or even since the article was nominated? --valereee (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee - First of all, this page is only a checklist to refer to, not an official policy statement. It only has 11 watchers. It was begun 5 years ago, and added to by various admins who think something needs to be added. Take it for what it is. If you want more guidance about how nitpicking you have to be, I would suggest asking it over at WT:DYK. I look at an admin's responsibility this way: Whatever the nominators, reviewers and prep promoters have to check, so do the admins. And if you miss anything, it either gets corrected, or yanked ... or your friendly "All-Volunteer Error Squad" will make sure it's at WT:DYK. You'll be fine. — Maile (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66, oh interesting, I hadn't noticed I could see numbers of watchers even if under 30 now. Got it, that was what I was expecting -- to basically do quick DYK recheck for each hook/article, which is what I'd been doing for promoting to prep. Thanks! valereee (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove 'check article for verifiability' from additional check 4

This is an absurd standard. It could literally be a full-time job to check 8 articles a day for verifiability. I propose removing this altogether. --valereee (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vanamonde93/Main page editor

In preparation for an RfC being drafted at the link above, I'm planning to update these instructions. I'd like to reorganize into required vs. helpful additional checks for hook and article. The easiest way would be for me to copy it into my sandbox and start moving stuff around, then copy it back, but if anyone wants me to do it edit-by-edit to give people a chance to respond/revert to individual changes, or because they want to help work on it, I'll do that instead. --valereee (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

image instructions

Amakuru so currently we have:

Add the unprotected image to Main Page/Commons media protection.

Alternative method

Krinklebot is down, and the promoting en.wiki admin isn't a Commons admin.
You may alternately upload it to En and tag it with {{c-uploaded}}. The image will then automatically be included on cascading protection of the Main Page.

I'd missed the first altogether and was busily trying to download, reupload, transfer licensing and credits, etc., onto enwiki. And all I needed to do was add the unprotected image to commons media protection. So why do we even have this alt method listed here? Is there any reason anyone would need to do that? Is it just if Krinklebot is down? --valereee (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: yes, I assume that's the reason. I have never known Krinklebot to be down though, so I haven't ever had to do the second method! It does sometimes take quite a while for Krinklebot to spot the addition though, I've known it to be 20 mins or more. So maybe if the issue is an urgent one, the second method could still be useful. — Amakuru (talk) 13:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

credits section

Hey, Maile66, do you recall if this came from somewhere? Point 8 says (see "Credits" section above). I've added a bit of help, but I thought maybe there was more somewhere else. —valereee (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See BlueMoonset's section today of Admin needed to promote Queue 7 to main page; bot is down. Those instructions are embedded in every Queue template. Whoever created the template itself put those there, I reckon. Predates me. — Maile (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the reason I was asking -- I thought maybe there was some less fiddly set of instructions somewhere that these instructions had once been a part of. —valereee (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]