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.
The source says not that it's an intro by Elba but that the intro includes a sampled bit from a 2017 talk show appearance? Any objection to changing this to
That source says "The unmistakable voice of Idris Elba opens her track 'London Boy.' 'We can go driving in, on my scooter. Uh, you know, just riding in London,' the actor says at the start of the bop." I think that's pretty close to the hook without splitting hairs. I don't have any objections to changing the hook if you prefer though. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
valereee, can you please fix the formatting here? The apostrophe-s are supposed to be in regular font, not bold font—the bold is only supposed to include the link itself, not any punctuation or possessive that follows. Thanks.
Actually, if you (or any other admin) could please take a look at Queue 6 before it's promoted in seven hours and see what you could do, that would be great. The last five hooks have two pairs of bios, plus the only non-bio hook is U.S., as is the bio that follows it. Since the set has five bios, you'd probably need to swap out one of the bios with another set (Queue 7 and Queue 1 both have three bios, so they could be involved in the swap. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Schwede66, but I should have been more specific. BlueMoonset had requested that a bio be swapped for a non-bio. My request, which you fulfilled, was for which bio to swap out. A bio should still be swapped out. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM21:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
... that Ng Yu Zhi is accused of running the largest investment fraud in the history of Singapore?
@Kingoflettuce, Juxlos, and Capsulecap: I think this hook fall foul of our BLP rules. Instead of concentrating on the alleged fraud, for which he has yet to be convicted, we could have a factual hook on the level of his bail or the seizure of his goods, as long as the sourcing is good enough. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
But he had to post bail / had his goods seized because...... He was accused of running the largest investment fraud in the history of Singapore?? Kingoflettuce (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I was responding to Cwm's suggestion that "we could have a factual hook on the level of his bail or the seizure of his goods, as long as the sourcing is good enough" -- but don't we have to state what the basis of the bail/goods seizure was? Which means we'd have to circle back to the accusation anyhow. Kingoflettuce (talk) 07:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
ALT1 ... that bail for Ng Yu Zhi has been raised to S$4 million?
That still seems to be a case of "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals" to me... Posting bail may be a factual matter, but it's still not something most of us would want to happen! Given that the article seems to be more than 50% about his fraud allegations and arrest, I wonder if this is one of those rare cases where a neutral and BLP-compliant DYK hook simply isn't possible. — Amakuru (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that Ng Yu Zhi has been described as an "increasingly visible figure in Singapore's philanthropic community"?
Yes, those seem better. Maybe ALT3 would be the best. ALT2 is accurate, but slightly misleading given that the quote dated to before his arrest... and yes, he is now "visible" alright, but it's not so much his philanthropy that's under discussion! — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Lean ALT3, or alternatively the hook can be postponed until a conviction is given. Unless the Singaporean legal system takes, say, 4 years to convict him or something. Juxlos (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Nice work! But... forgive me if I'm wrong, this isn't an area do stuff in, aren't you supposed to leave some empty in case we need a swap or something like that? Pamzeis (talk) 06:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations, theleekycauldron. Well done! While holding open an empty slot or two isn't a bad idea, since every once in a while a special occasion hook urgently needs to be slotted in and the only alternative is to temporarily unpromote a nomination to make room, things can usually wait until the next prep is promoted to queue. Nature abhors a vacuum, and even if you were to leave a slot or two open, someone else is likely to come along and fill it. I wouldn't advise using a non-DYK space to hold hooks, even temporarily. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, and fair enough! I'll leave some empty slots from now on—I didn't formally promote any of the hooks I kept in P8, i just stored copies of the hooks there, and when the prep set opened (before Pamzeis's comment) I pasted them all in and then formally closed the nominations. Really just a reminder to me, more than anything. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
The current preps seem to have a slight bias towards towers/New York/epicgenius (four of seven picture hooks). —Kusma (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, good job! FWIW, it's better to use the image hooks in non-image slots if there are too many too-similar image slots. Buildings are very easy to get pictures of, but that doesn't mean we should use lots of images of buildings. Four out of five in a row is probably five times as many as would be ideal. Some of those need to be swapped into non-image slots and replaced with image hooks that aren't of buildings. Since you've done a lot of prep-building lately, are there any image hooks you placed into non-image slots in queue or prep right now? We're in particular a little short on bios for image slots? —valereee (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: Fablehaven in P5 is going to be your only prep set U.S. option (the buildings are the only U.S. hook in some of these sets, there really wasn't any other choice), but it's just a book cover. If you can reach into the queues, take William McAndrew from Q4 and Julie Hayden from Q1—Wish I could be more of a help, but I don't have admin access and I'm exhausted from pulling an all-nighter. Try to preserve the U.S. balance, it really does get thin in the later sets. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, if we're that low on US hooks, don't worry about it. The reason we generally use so many US hooks is because we have so many, not because we particularly want to use US hooks. In an ideal world no prep would have more than one US hook. —valereee (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I can't pull Julie Hayden, it's my hook, but I would dearly love to see that get an image slot as it's a Black woman, which is unusual. I can pull William McAndrew. —valereee (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
okay, i need to calm down a bit. I'm a little hyperactive trying to fix this. It's okay, we have another five hours before Hayden hits the queue, someone will swap it out. deep breaths, leek theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Done@Theleekycauldron and Valereee: I have moved Julie Hayden to prep 4 and brought in the building hook from there, which I believe was what was requested here. Sorry, I haven't yet swapped the prep 4 image itself as it's late and I'm on my phone, but hopefully you can do that, and that task isn't urgent. Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
TLC, I didn't do William McAndrew, I felt like that was an exceptionally poor image, so I did Megan Phelps-Roper instead. —valereee (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Stalled nominations should be marking "pending", removed and brought back later?
I have read the older nominations and some of them are stalled. It is a time sync for experienced editors to push these over the line, the nominator is often disenchanted at being told what to do and disappears for weeks at end.
A solution to this problem would be to add a new category for the result of a nomination. Instead of accept or reject we should have some of these marked "pending". These pending nominations are closed but can be brought back at any time in the next 6 months.
Some of the older reviews are combative and I think we should allow nominees the opportunity to detach from old reviews and reviewers completely. In some cases I can't see a problem with older reviews and we're just waiting for someone not to care about being right. If we mark these as pending when they come back they get a fresh look from different editors without all the history.
I think if there is any interest in this then it'd probably need a lot of work, a RFC, etc. I'm just seeing if this has any traction. Desertarun (talk) 11:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Six months seems like quite a long time. Perhaps reduce the time a nomination can be "pending" as six months + review and promoting time doesn't really make an article new... Pamzeis (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I would say no. The purpose if DYK is to promote new articles and articles that have been recently expanded/reached GA. Letting things hang around for six months is too long- if the nominator goes away from Wikipedia, then that's tough luck in my view. We also shouldn't be starting new reviews or re-nominating articles- unless they actually meet one of the DYK criteria for inclusion at the time of 2nd nomination. This would just add complexity to DYK (something that people seems to love doing, but we should really try making the process simpler not more confusing), and don't see there is a huge benefit to it. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment. The process we have for stalled nominations is something like this;
1) Nomination is made
2) Review has lots of problems
3) Nominator abandons or turns up one a month
4) Experienced DYKers come along and try to fix things unsuccessfully
5) The nomination is offered up for adoption
6) The nomination scrapes over the line or is rejected
I fail to see that there is any problem which needs to be solved. The nomination is rejected and closed if abandoned, unless there is a consensus to continue. This is a normal process across all of Wikipedia. Flibirigit (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree, and we shouldn't be waiting a month everytime to see if the user comes back to make changes or not, we should be rejecting after e.g. a week of no responses. Most issues with an article should be fixed before nominating for DYK. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I feel there is room for improvement in making new nominators feel welcomed and to understand the DYK process, but the onus is still on the nominator to ensure success of the nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it also depends upon the circumstances of the abandonment. Sometimes, editors just simply disappear, and while unfortunate, there's really not much we can do outside of waiting for them to return. This is perhaps most common with our WikiEd student nominations, but it also sometimes happens with even regular editors. Other times, nominators can be unresponsive despite being active, and in such cases there's probably less room for waiting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
There's really no written procedure on how to reject a hook, and it really depends on the individual reviewer. Most commonly, a hook is rejected if it does not meet certain criteria (such as a length limit of 200 characters, the hook fact not being mentioned or cited in the article, or if the hook is inaccurate). There's also the whole can of worms that is "interestingness to a broad audience", and both reviewers and nominators have different interpretations about what exactly is interesting to a broad audience. As for nominations themselves, generally what happens is that a reviewers believes that an article cannot pass the DYK criteria for the foreseeable future, in which case they add the {{subst:DYKno}} tick to the nomination page along with an explanation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm, I see. So would it be beneficial to write down somewhere something that says "if the nominator doesn't make a meaningful attempt to fix problems in 2 weeks, then the nomination can be marked for closure and will be rejected after a further 7 days of no response"? Desertarun (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
What I usually do is if a nominator hasn't responded to a comment anywhere between a week to a month, I'll give them a ping and/or a talk page message, and if there's still no response after a few days or a week, I mark the nomination for closure. Other reviewers do things similarly, particularly BlueMoonset who does a lot of nominator pinging and messaging. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be better to have a definite time scale written into rules. In some cases the nominator actually wants the DYK to close but won't formally withdraw and keeping these alive is a timesink for you, BMS and others. We should also have a lot of discretion, for users like yourself, to do what is in the best interests of DYK. Desertarun (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Postponing for six months is just kicking the can down the road and is unlikely to be efficient as there would be repetition. The review process, by its nature, is intended to expose awkward issues and so it's natural for these to arise and cause difficulty. What's mainly needed is a process for getting third opinions if the nominator and reviewer don't agree on a good way forward. I usually ask for another reviewer, using the icon. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Could we automatically add the after two weeks of no comments from the reviewer? Sometimes, it is the reviewer that leaves the conversation Desertarun (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Can you automatically determine that it's the reviewer who needs to respond as opposed to the nominator? It seems to me that this proposal wants to add unneeded complexity and detailed steps that make things more regimented though not improved for reviewers and nominators. Definitive time scales run up against real life, and also whether more or less generosity is needed in a particular case. The initial process described at the top lists steps, many of which are not applicable or never used on some nominations. I'm with those in this thread who don't see a problem that needs to be solved. And I'm completely against the idea of pausing nominations that are in trouble, much less six months (though if someone's going to be away for regular vacation, I don't consider that a pause, per se): if a nomination has been hanging around for too long, it should be failed, and that's typically what ultimately happens, assuming it isn't fixed and passed first. We can certainly be more rigorous with deadlines if it's important, but there seems to be an unspoken consensus that we give nominations good faith attempts to cross the finish line. Reviewers are always free to put time limits on needed work and reject if these aren't met. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
If you would like that phrasing used, I can add something to the body. There's a few sources saying about both players making a maximum, and then that they made the final, such as [1], although you are unlikely to find something that specifically says that both the finalists made a maximum in those words. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)21:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I don’t understand, the hook is “that both finalists at the 2008 World Snooker Championship made maximum breaks in the tournament?”. The article states “O'Sullivan made a maximum break against Mark Williams in the final frame of his 13–7 win” sourced to the Guardian article titled “ O'Sullivan hits maximum to complete win”. The article states “ Carter made a maximum break in his 13–9 win over Ebdon” sourced to the RTE article which states “Ali Carter today followed his historic maximum break with a quarter-final victory over Peter Ebdon at the 888.com World Championship in Sheffield. Carter's 147 came just 24 hours after Ronnie O'Sullivan's, the first time two have been scored in the same tournament”. I am not sure what is only inferred? - Dumelow (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Which would be a bit tricky if they were reports on matches that happened before the finalists had been confirmed! I don't see a problem here. Black Kite (talk)19:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
... that while Bubsy 3D is often labeled as one of the worst video games of all time, it had a positive to mixed reception around its initial release? — User:beetricks
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived minutes ago; this new list below includes all 19 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 18. We currently have a total of 156 nominations, of which 86 have been approved, a gap of 70, down another 10 in the past eight 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. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:18, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Guess the movie title: "You talkin' to me? You talkin'... to me? "
The linked article Armley Hippo, and source [2] say that the species Hippopotamus amphibius "flourished over 100,000 years ago", but that doesn't seem quite the same as saying that this specimen itself is over 100,000 years old. Perhaps it was an outlier, an individual who lived more recently, after the "flourishing" period was over, but before extinction. The other article, James Dickinson (taxidermist), makes the more basic claim that Armley Hippo is over 100,000 years old, but it's cited to the same source so seems to have the same issue. It seems to me that we need to give the known range of dates for this particular specimen with more certainty, rather than assuming its age based on a slightly different claim. Pinging @Storye book, BuySomeApples, and Theleekycauldron: as nominator/reviewer/promoter. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, obviously it's nice to highlight its age but would be nice to do it in a way that's definitive, rather than relying on vague comparisons with when the species "flourished". — Amakuru (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The "over 100,000 years old" phrase was used in the hook for simplicity. That particular skeleton is definitely over 100,000 years old, so the hook tells the truth while remaining a simple soundbite. If you want precision to match fairly recent scientific sources, then they say "The bones were scientifically dated using a sample from a molar tooth. The 'Leeds Hippo' was found to date from around 113,000-130,000 years ago" and "After being dated using one of its teeth, the hippo was estimated to be from 130,000 to 117,000 years ago." (See online sources 3 and 5 in the Armley Hippo#Dating the bones section of the article.) But do you really want all that careful scientific hedging of bets in the hook? Storye book (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@Storye book: ah... the confusion comes because I was looking for that 100,000 figure and found it only mentioned in the acnecdotal discussion about when the species flourished. It seems like we know for certain that the horse is "at least 113,000 years old" so wouldn't it be better to say that rather than the lower figure given above? There's no need for scientific hedging of bets in the hook, but we can be as precise as the information given in the article allows us to be. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Thank you. I am happy with "at least 113,000 years old", if that is your preference. It's a hippopotamus skeleton, not a horse, by the way. Storye book (talk) 14:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Prep 6: Timeline of Francis Drake's circumnavigation
@Hu Nhu, Tone, and Theleekycauldron: I feel that this hook reads strangely in present tense, as if it describes a scene in a film, even though this is a historical event. I've already WP:BOLDly rephrased it into past tense ("was", "dined", "received") but would just like to seek some approval. Is there any objection to this change? Thanks. — RAVENPVFF·talk·17:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
My choice, too was the first proposed hook; nevertheless, I simply appreciate being considered for the DYK and the work of those who have promoted the nomination. Since I proposed the current hook, too, it is quite acceptable and I believe the tense changes work well. Thank you all for your kind attention.Hu Nhu (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
U.S. hooks
As far as I can tell, every remaining approved U.S. hook either:
That's every currently approved U.S. hook we have. Someone else can promote my hooks, but more importantly, we should consider promoting some of these without their attached images. They're not all vital. I left rows blank in the prep sets, there should be room for quite a few. It should work out fine for a few prep sets, but we're just running dry on U.S. hooks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
We can't promote every nomination that has a picture with its picture - there are too many pictures and not enough picture hook slots. You can promote more without a picture. (I removed mine from the list as he's British). Desertarun (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
If there's only circa 20 US hooks in the backlog, then surely we don't need to leave half the slots for US hooks (when there are a quite more than 20 approved non-US hooks)? Joseph2302 (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I promoted one of yours to prep 4, now its promoted you can move it elsewhere if you prefer. I couldn't promote the other one because being in Europe I couldn't access the US website to verify the hook. Desertarun (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Actually, should theleekycauldron wish the hook to be moved elsewhere now that it's promoted, or have it modified, or anything else, they should post to this page asking someone uninvoled to do it for them, not do it themselves. This is true for anyone who nominates or reviews a hook: once it's in prep or queue, someone uninvolved should make changes thereafter. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
"Need" is a strong word. If there's only 12 US hooks left, we don't need to be prioritising them other any other hooks, when there are currently 91 approved hooks. Based on those numbers, we should only be having 1 US hook per set (as only about 1 in 8 approved hooks is a US hook). Anything else is just preferential treatment to US hooks, which isn't fair. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, while it is usually the case that there is a glut of U.S.-based hooks, that doesn't seem to be the case now. As it says on the Prep pages, Because a preponderance of hooks on the approved nominations page are biographies or U.S.-related, it is usually appropriate to have several hooks on biographies or U.S. topics in any given set, but never more than half from either category. If the U.S. hooks are hard to come by, then one a set is fine—usually appropriate implies that there are (admittedly rare) times when it isn't appropriate, like now, though I'm trying to recall when we last had this situation; similarly, if the proportion goes back up, then we can again adjust accordingly. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I have a date request for 2021 New York City Marathon to run on November 7 (date of race). I know this is about 10 weeks away, which is longer than acceptable according to the DYK rules: The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date, to allow time for reviews and promotions through the prep and queue sets, but not more than six weeks in advance. But is it okay to still have this date request or not? I imagine the DYK hook would get a lot more views running on the day of the race. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Personally I would have no issues with this, but no doubt the DYK top brass will come up with a definitive answer to your question in due course! — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Right now, we have six preps ready to go to queue. Cwmhiraeth has been the primary promoter from prep to queue for days (even weeks, if not months). When I log on in the mornings, I usually see that Cwmhiraeth has a couple of promoted queues at the top, and I try to add a couple. Anybody else available to do a few? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
This may sound like a stupid question, but once my article has been promoted, can I change the hook that has been chosen by the promoter? GreatLakesShips (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
My article SS Cayuga has been moved to Prep 6 with the hook "... that the steel package freighter Cayuga(pictured) was one of the first steel freighters on the Great Lakes?" as opposed to my preferred hook, "... that the six-year-old steel freighter Cayuga(pictured) was sunk by a wooden freighter twenty years older than her?". What are your thoughts? GreatLakesShips (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
GreatLakesShips, my thought is that I'm confused. You yourself provided both hooks. May I ask why you would provide more than one hook when you have a strong preference for a particular hook? Schwede6621:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Schwede66, it's not at all unusual to provide more than one hook in case the reviewer has issues with the original one; the expectation is that the initial hooks are listed in order of preference, so the reviewer doesn't have to request more if the original proves unacceptable. My question here is that reviewer Gen. Quon only mentions "hook", singular, in their review, which makes me wonder if only the original hook was reviewed, in which case ALT1 has not actually been approved and should not be promoted. Gen. Quon, did you only mean to approve the original hook or both hooks? Pinging promoter Capsulecap, so they're aware of this discussion. In specific answer to GreatLakesShips, you may not make changes in prep to your own hooks once they've been promoted, but as Flibirigit notes, starting a discussion here is the way to proceed if you have any issues at all regarding the hook promoted to prep. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Personally, the way I deal with it is as follows: If I have a strong preference for a particular hook, I provide just one. If the reviewer isn't happy with it, they can say so and then an ALTx can be provided. Schwede6600:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Chiming in here. I should've been clearer when I said that both looked good, but I too preferred the one about the boat being sunk by a wooden freighter. Odd!--Gen. Quon(Talk)16:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
... that Chuck Mosley described the distinctive singing style used throughout his career as "screaming to the beat, like ranting" as a result of not understanding his bandmates' music?
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
... that in Bio's Bahnhof, a German live music talk show presented by Alfred Biolek(pictured) in a former tram depot, Kate Bush made her first television appearance?
Referring to the above discussion, here is a live example of a change I would like to make in the queue. The article clearly states that the show took place in a former railroad depot, the German version supports this, and so does the source (as far as I can tell), so why does the hook call it a tram depot? I would like to replace the word "tram" in the hook by "railway" or "train". I would not choose "railroad" as it an Americanism, and this article is referring to Europe. Any views? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I've had a read of de:Köln-Frechen-Benzelrather Eisenbahn and yes, that was heavy rail. In 1992, they converted the line to be part of the Cologne Stadtbahn. And that is light rail running on standard-gauge. It also explains why they sometimes used heavy rail trains to get the guests into the depot. Given that the show aired from 1978 to 1982, this was prior to the light rail conversion and the hook should thus be changed. Schwede6607:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
hey, at least this time i'm self-reporting the screw-up
I thought I had checked, but apparently I'm blind, because when the Julie Hayden hook was swapped with the American Radiator Building hook, it was in there with the HSBC Tower hook in Q1, so now there are two hooks about NYC buildings live on the main page. It's not a huge deal but still, that's on me. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I changed it in both the article and the hook, as the only thing that makes sense. Nebraska is landlocked and has no real Navy. @Theleekycauldron: since you wrote the article and made the nomination, please feel free to disagree here. We can always change it back. — Maile (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
When I first read this hook I found it rather confusing, and difficult to make sense of. In particular, it's not clear what an "unsuccessful previous portrait" might be and why something being unsuccessful might necessitate a substitute. Unsuccessful is a slightly POV term to use in Wikipedia's voice in any case, given that the lack of success was based on a narrow definition of visitors to the Salon being shocked by the Queen's attire. Thirdly, it is unclear which part of the hook the "during the Salon exhibition" refers to. Was it the original portrait, the new portrait, or just the exhibition thereof? Obviously things become clearer when one reads the article, and the goal of a hook is to get people to do that, but I don't think the way to do that is by making the hook confusing and unclear. I suggest we try to come up with an alternative and clearer wording for this. Pinging @JeBonSer, Daniel Case, and Theleekycauldron: as nom/reviewer/promoter. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
It seems odd to me, especially "repainted", which could easily mean "painted over", and the loss of the artist's name is unfortunate. Perhaps something like this would work:
This is really just a minor aesthetic choice, but I'd like to draw more attention to "replacement", and make sure that's not skimmed over, especially in a lead hook.
theleekycauldron, we'll have to agree to disagree: I think that "exhibition replacement" is clear, and adding the reason for the removal (the queen in a chemise, quelle horreur!) gives more interest. Your new version of the hook is harder to parse as to what happened and why than your first proposal. I'm not clear about painting naming practices, but we don't know that the prior portrait was also titled Marie Antoinette with a Rose, just that one portrait was removed and later replaced with another that did have that title. Another version, one of five by the artist, called Marie Antoinette in a Chemise Dress, is pictured in the article; the original (removed) version is supposedly lost. I haven't seen any source that explicitly says the replacement was the "second version", as likely as that may seem, so absent that I think using "second version" or any equivalent is best avoided. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru, the original, unsatisfactory hook is now on the main page. Any chance of you fixing it, even at this late date? Admittedly, I'm only in favor of using the one I suggested... BlueMoonset (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Current DYK approved nom stats
According to this list i complied, there are 84 approved nominations. Here are the nominations broken down into several factors, organized by average space in a prep set of 8:
(Last updated 29 August 2021 at 10:02 UTC)
By country (these'll add to a little more than 84, but there are some nominations in two countries)
United States: 26 (2.48 in 8)
United Kingdom: 13 (1.24 in 8)
Germany: 9 (0.86 in 8, nearly entirely thanks to Gerda Arendt)
Other: 9 (0.86 in 8)
China: 2 (0.19 in 8)
Japan: 2
New Zealand: 1
Rhodesia: 2
Afghanistan: 1 (0.095 in 8)
Austria: 1
Australia: 1
Burma: 1
Burundi: 1
Egypt: 1
Finland: 1
France: 1
Gambia: 1
Indonesia: 1
Ireland: 1
Lebanon: 1
The Netherlands: 1
Ojibwe: 1
Peru: 1
Rwanda: 1
Serbia: 1
Sweden: 1
Vanatu: 1
Vietnam: 1
Venezuela: 1
World: 1
By image
With image: 50 (4.76 in 8)
Without image: 34 (3.24 in 8)
By biographical status
Biographical: 36 (3.43 in 8)
Non-biographical: 48 (4.75 in 8)
Given that the majority of hooks have an image even though they can only be 1 in 8, I'm going to promoting image hooks without their image when I need to and when it makes sense. Also, a ratio of about 2 or 3 U.S. hooks and 1 UK hook in every prep set seems about right, although I'm flexible on that. In terms of biographical, I'm sticking to a max of 3 or 4, probably around 3 for most. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In prep 5 has been promoted with a different hook from that proposed, changing "what tests to do, and which not to do?" to "which tests to perform?". While they have a similar meaning, the original seems better to me as more dramatic. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
(late to this:) I don't remember that hook, especially not the "Austrian" in it. I am not sure if all Omas gegen Rechts received the award or only the German ones, but certainly not only the Austrian ones. ("The only real nation is humanity", as a friend quoted in the edit notice.) I am no friend of piping names, generally but especially here where it has a sound to it. How is this:
Sorry, that was my mistake, it should be corrected to German. As for your proposal, I'll go with it, but I really think a piping would draw more attention to it. I'm sorry that I couldn't give it an image slot. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
No "German", please (as explained). I believe the foreign name could raise interest, perhaps more than bolding "Grannies". If you have no image slot, perhaps someone else can offer one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
No upfront other link before the bolding if it can be avoided. Don't drive away readers who want to have nothing to do with protests ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I certainly agree re no nationality, don’t over-place “protest” and do keep “Grannies” front and centre. Collective noun in passive mode - yes, singular is more appropriate (for active voice, mandatory, for passive, maybe a choice). At work, will comment further later if needed. SeoR (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Prep 7: Angelo Tsarouchas
... that Angelo Tsarouchas, sometimes called "The King of Greek Ethnic Comedy", nearly abandoned his hopes of being a comedian because his wife at the time thought it was a bad idea?
I'm not sure about the sourcing of the hook fact here. The hook fact is mentioned in the Montreal Rampage source and verified, but it's the only source I could find that mentions the title. Are there other sources out there that confirm the "The King of Greek Ethnic Comedy" nickname? Because if the Montreal Rampage is the only one that called him that, the hook may need to be revised. Pinging @BuySomeApples, Favre1fan93, and Theleekycauldron:Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I saw the verified part with the Montreal Rampage, but it does appear with a quick search they are the only ones using that term. @BuySomeApples: are you okay if that is struck from the hook and just made it "* ... that Angelo Tsarouchas nearly abandoned his hopes of being a comedian because his wife at the time thought it was a bad idea?"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Should post-promotion hook changes be recorded on the nomination page?
I was just notified of the DYK appearance of my nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Dyadic rational, but was surprised to notice that the wording of the hook was different than what I had proposed and what had been promoted. I have no idea who did it and don't really have a clear picture of how to trace through the DYK machinery to find out. In this case the wording change was mostly harmless, merely making the hook more cumbersome and technical. But I tend to think that such changes should at least produce a notification, or an update to the nomination page, or something like that to make it possible to find out who did it and why they thought it was necessary to do that. Preferably, it would be best to find out about such things before the fact, rather than afterwards, in case a change makes the changed hook inaccurate. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Are you referring to this change by Amakuru1. If so, that looks to me like one of the tweaks that sometimes happen when Queue sets are reviewed before they go live on the Main Page. — Maile (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
That looks like the one, yes. As I said, in this case it is harmlessly pedantic but it is easy with technical topics to make mistakes in what seems like harmless rewording. A double-check with someone more knowledgeable would have been a good idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Right, but see, why are tweaks being made so late in the game? Stuff like that should happen upstream, but it doesn't for the following reason. One of DYK's structural problems is that there's a large group of editors (most nominators, most reviewers) who are only 85% effective at catching problems, then a next stage of editors (prep-set assemblers) who are 90% effective, a further group (admins taking preps to Qs) who are 95% effective. But the people really, really good a catching problems (and sometimes, as in your case, making things worse) don't really focus until the Q stage. And by then the nom page is long closed -- and that's because, well, I'm not sure why noms have to be closed when they're now closed. I've sometimes suggested keeping nom discussions open until the hook has appeared on the main page then swapped off, or reopening a nom whenever a change is proposed to its hook -- in either case, so that further discussion will go on on the nom page, where interested parties are watching -- but that's either a lot of noms kept open that aren't available for building preps -- not clear how much of a problem that really is -- or a lot of reopening, because as we all know a LOT of quality control only happens at the last moment.Not suggesting what to do about all this, just listing some of the major points of interest in the house of cards. One small improvement some of us have suggested, which has got some uptake, is encouraging promotors to provide, on the nom page as it's closed, a link to the prep set, so at least participants have a fighting chance of going to the prep set and watchlisting it. (For technical reasons it's not easy to replicate that idea at the stage at which preps move on to Q.) EEng00:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it would be very practical to leave a note about such changes on the nom page. However, it would be easy and very desirable to use ping(s) in the edit summary, as I had done here. If you do this, remember that templates don't work in edit summaries, so you'll have to include a regular link to any user you want to notify. And, of course, any major changes would ideally be noted/discussed on this talk page. MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM01:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Mandarax your method is a great idea, and pretty simple to do. Let's not put it in our regular page-long list of admin "dos and don'ts" - because it would be lost. But if there's a way we could stick one sentence about it at the top of the section heading for the Queues, it would be very helpful. Probably not a good idea to assume we are all going to remember this practical idea. But a sentence right above the Queues would be helpful. — Maile (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Style 1 - "Admins who make changes to individual hooks in any Queue, with the exception of minor punctuation changes, please leave a Ping to the nominator in the Queue's edit summary."
Style 2 -"Admins who make changes to individual hooks in any Queue, with the exception of minor punctuation changes, please link to the user page of the nominator in the edit summary, to notify the nominator"
Style 3 -"Admins who make changes to individual hooks in any Queue, with the exception of minor punctuation changes, please notify the nominator with a link to their user page in the edit summary."
I second this idea. If pings work in edit summaries, yeah, we should be pinging nominators when we make changes to the text of hooks in the prep sets. We could restrict this to math and science hooks, too—they're most likely to have this jargon tripwire. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I like this idea. I think "leave a ping" might be ambiguous and misinterpreted as using the {{ping}} template, though. Maybe something like "Please link to the user page of the nominator in the edit summary, to notify the nominator"? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Mx's pinging idea is a very good one, but two points:
I would cut the punctuation exception in favor of something like "with the exception of minor formatting fixes". There are just too many people who don't get restrictive vs unrestrictive clauses, proper use of hyphens, and other stuff that separate the truly elite from the hoi polloi.
Way more people, beyond the nominator, should know of any change because often the nominator is a relatively minor character in the discussion, especially in complex situations where (right now) further changes (sometimes undesirable) are most likely to be injected downstream of the nom page. It really should be some subset of those who participated in the nom discussion, but unfortunately we don't know what that subset is, so it has to be everyone. The only way to do that is to somehow touch the nom page so everyone gets pinged.
I'll say again that the real problem is that we need to push 99.44% of the quality control upstream onto the nom page, while the nom discussion is still going on, rather than only 90% of the QC happening on the nom page now, the rest happening catch-as-catch-can at the prep and Q stages (not to mention ERRORS). How about this:
Each nom discussion should end with a clear and definite statement of what the hook will be, and its exact wording, instead of the prep builder choosing among several hooks for a given nom. If the prep builder thinks the wording should be adjusted, then he or she says so on the nom page just like any other participant.
A prep set should be a list of links to 6 or 8 or 12 nom pages which remain open, not (like it is now) a template mirroring the Q template with all the nom pages closed. Once a prep set is assembled, quality-control attention begins to focus on that group of hooks, and under this approach any further discussion or adjustment to the hook, stimulated by that focused attention, will take place on the nom page, as a continuation of the original discussion instead of disconnected from it.
When it's time to "promote to Q", that's when the complicated main-page template (which currently is assembled at prep time) is assembled and the nom pages closed. As with the prep builder, if the promoting admin sees any issues with a hook, then the nom page continues to remain open for continued discussion until the problem is resolved.
I approved the hook, but didn't make any changes to it. I think DYK could do with a lot more rules/guidance because it is very unclear what users should do in many respects. Encouraging new users would be good, particularly nominators who become specialists in that but not necessarily content creation. Desertarun (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
This is just revisiting a discussion we had a while back which was much more thorough and which rejected such requirements. I don't have time to find the earlier discussion now but as I recall we came to an agreement for some sort of automated notification system. I didn't pursue it at the time because there was no follow-up, and I've had an enforced absence from Wikipedia for a while, but if there's still a concern about notifications, the previous discussion should be the starting point; we don't want to go over the same sterile ground a second time when there is no need for it. Update: Actually, if pings work in edit summaries, this looks like potentially a better solution than the automated notification system proposed in the earlier discussion, though obviously the details would need to be worked out. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes. As suggested above, just one short and simple sentence for admins to leave a courtesy note in the edit summary. No more than that. The last thing this project needs is more, "Blah ... blah .... blah ... " for admins.— Maile (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, but courtesy note for whom? The nominator? The reviewer? That's the minimum. The problem, which I've said over and over, is that hooks get tinkered with downstream of the nom page, so the tinkerer doesn't have the benefit of the discussion that led to the hook in the first place. EEng15:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes they do - it's a simple matter for anybody to check the nomination page to read the prior discussion - certainly, I would never make a substantial adjustment to a hook without doing so and would assume that others do the same.
And the courtesy ping should go to the nominator, because they are the most interested party and the one most likely to pick up any possible issues with a wording change. Nominators are also those most likely to object to any such change (see this very discussion as an example) - the number of reviewers who care to do so is negligible. Gatoclass (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
substantial adjustment – Yeah, except over and over we end up on this very page discussing a change someone thought wasn't "substantial" which turned out to be so. You're saying you'd check the nom page if your change is substantial, but you really can't know whether a change qualifies as substantial without checking the nom page, because there are often hidden subtleties. Hook discussions should take place on the nom page, period, until it's final, final, FINAL.
others do the same – Hah! Are you kidding?
nominator ... most interested ... reviewers who care to do so is negligible – – I'm sure that -- in most cases -- it's the nominator who -- on the whole -- is most interested -- all other things being equal. But those are flabby, good-chunk-of-the-time, well-I-guess-it's-better-than-nothing assumptions. Often the nominator is a naive new editor, so that it's other participants on the nom page who got the hook into shape. It's just absurd to have a careful discussion with multiple participants be followed by a largely invisible series of tinkerings (at three different points -- prep, Q, and ERRORS) out of sight those who know the most about the subject, by a single person working on the fly who may perhaps have looked at the nom page but certainly hasn't absorbed it. (Often, the hook change is completely silent, being made as it's pasted into prep, so that there isn't even a diff anywhere highlighting that it happened.) We know a lot of good fixes are made in that process, but we also know that a lot screwups are introduced too, by people who think they know what's going on but don't. It's this kind of "well, good enough I guess" thinking that has DYK stuck at 95% quality instead of 99.5%.
Sure, there are (occasional) screwups - no process is perfect. But without the copyediting done post-review, there would be far more. Your perennial proposed fixes to the process, however, are usually vague and completely impractical (or sometimes, as in the case above, bordering on unintelligible).
So please let's try to keep this discussion focused. Maile66 has made a concrete proposal, let's discuss that rather than get into yet another fruitless brainstorming session about how we could completely overturn everything and come up with something entirely new and foolproof, because history teaches that nothing will come of that except more frustration and time-wasting. Gatoclass (talk) 01:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
no process is perfect – Not looking for perfect -- looking for better than what we have.
without the copyediting done post-review, there would be far more – I'm not arguing against the copyediting that is currently done post-review; it's very needed. I am arguing that that post-review work, done by the smaller group of people who are really good at catching problems, would be better done on the nom page, where all participants can see it, to avoid the one-step-forward-two-steps-back incidents we regularly experience. To allow that, I'm proposing that nom pages remain open longer, until everyone who's going to look at the hook has looked at it, and that all changes and discussion go on on that page, until the hook is absolutely final.
Maile66 has made a concrete proposal – So did I. I proposed that (1) nom pages remain open while the hook is in prep, and (2) a prep set should be a list of links to nom pages instead of a template containing the hooks themselves. It's not complicated and not intended to completely overturn everything and come up with something entirely new and foolproof.I should be clear, though, that Maile's idea would definitely help, and I think it should be made best practice immediately.
another fruitless brainstorming session – It will certainly be that with your attitude. Chewing-gum-and-bailing-wire fixes is how DYK got to be the creaking, clanking Rube Goldberg contraption it is. (Also, as long as I'm involved the discussion it cannot, by definition, be fruitless.)[1]
Gatoclass I closed this earlier as an admin Diff 1, and EEng reverted my admin close.Diff 2 Do what you like about that, but I don't think non-admins are supposed to be reverting an admin action. But I'm not stupid enough to get into an edit war by reverting the revert. I don't have time or patience to read his wall of stream of consciousness above. When I edited his re-writing of the Admin Instructions, since he's never been an Admin and wasn't perfect, he reverted me on that. He seems to think he knows better than admins how they are supposed to do their jobs. Quite frankly, EEng is beginning to tire me. This really involves admins, so what EEng opines has little interest to me. As a result, I removed this talk page from my watch list. Let's move on. Admins know their jobs from doing their jobs, not from siting on the sidelines. — Maile (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I closed this earlier as an admin, and EEng reverted my admin close – Sorry, Maile, but you forgot to add the {{I'm An Admin So What I Say Goes}} template to your close, so I didn't know. Seriously, if you actually think that admins have some special authority to declare discussions closed, and that I don't think non-admins are supposed to be reverting an admin action, then you need to go back to admin school. Seriously.
He seems to think he knows better than admins how they are supposed to do their jobs – Based on the quotation in the previous bullet, it seems that might actually be the case. Wait ... Did you really say what I said you said? I better check again. OK, here it is ... I don't think non-admins are supposed to be reverting an admin action. Huh. You did actually say it. I can hardly believe there's an admin who actually thinks that.
When I edited his re-writing of the Admin Instructions ... he reverted me on that – I reverted your changes because, when I explained why I found them not to be improvements, you were unable to give a coherent argument for why they were, and indeed your text said things that obviously weren't true. Those interested may wish to see here and here and here.
This really involves admins – There's nothing special about the administrator role at DYK, beyond acting as final, trusted gatekeepers to keep vandalism off the front page. It should not be that quality control upstream is so poor that admins are fixing hooks at the Q stage. It's like the fall-protection harnesses worn by highrise window-washers: they're the final layer of protection, there for the once-in-lifetime moment when a worker slips off the work platform at 600 feet up; if workers find themselves regularly falling off the platform and escaping death only by grace of the harness, then there's something wrong with their equipment or their work practices, and that needs to be fixed. (Available on request: alternative analogy involving relying on your emergency brake because your service brake doesn't really work.)
I was gonna make some witty comment but damn I just can't believe what I read. Maile, that admin bit has really gone to your head. Being an admin doesn't protect you from being reverted by non-admins and doesn't give you any special authority to close a discussion or decide what a page says (any page, including pages about admin stuff... instructions for admins are not written by admins). We're all on equal footing when it comes to that; your access to tools doesn't make you some kind of super-editor. Levivich19:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Of course post-promotion hook changes should be recorded somewhere (like the nom page), and interested parties (nom, reviewer) notified. That's just part of our ethos of transparency through excellent record-keeping. Also, an admin may make a mistake when "tweaking" a hook late in the process, and the editors who are most familiar with the hook should be notified so they can double-check the work and raise any issues. This is a no-brainer for me. Levivich19:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, no one's against notifying people (or, at least, notifying one person -- the nominator) of changes when the hook in prep or queue. The argument is between those who think an exhortation to ping the nominator (when the change is "signficant") is enough, and the despised lone visionary (I) who urges that we simply keep the nom page open as the one and only venue for refinement of the hook, until it's final, final, FINAL. EEng21:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Post-promotion hook changes are recorded somewhere - in the archive. There is no point in adding them to nom pages - nobody ever looks at these pages after the nomination has run its course, so that would just be pointless bureaucracy.
Since we all agree on the usefulness of edit summary pings however (well, actually I have some misgivings, but am putting them aside out of sheer exhaustion with the topic), then all we really need to do at this point is come up with an agreed wording to add to the instructions for copyeditors. Might I suggest something along the following lines:
Users making substantial changes to a hook after its promotion to prep (ie, other than normal copyedits for syntax and grammar etc.) are strongly encouraged to notify the nominator, and if thought necessary, the reviewer, with a ping in the edit summary. Users may also open a discussion at WT:DYK in lieu of edit summary pings, again with a ping to involved parties.Gatoclass (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
"Normal copyedits" should not be exempt. The usual problem is a change that looks like a normal copyedit to the person doing it but turns out to introduce an issue. —Kusma (talk) 08:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
That's a worthwhile point, and something I'd been giving some thought to after making that last post. Nonetheless I'd be reluctant to insist on pings for every single copyedit no matter how minor. But I do agree that seemingly minor copyedits can sometimes change the meaning in undesirable ways, so some additional wording at least should be added to the above to address that. Gatoclass (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The whole point of this is that no one person can be trusted to judge for themselves what is or is not a normal copyedit for syntax and grammar etc., out of sight of the several people who crafted the hook on the nom page -- and the prep and queue templates are out of sight because no one but DYK addicts have them watchlisted. If I was DYK King Emperor[1] I'd decree that any change should be pinged but having lent out my Mantle of Greatness, and with my Cloak of Authority at the cleaners, I'll suggest instead that other than uttlerly trivial formatting changes – grammar, syntax, and punctuation changes should always be pinged. Note that I left it silent on spelling; while we do have, now and then, the ol' Am–Brit spelling slipup, I can't bring myself to insist that a ping be issued on every spelling typo. Of course, under the do-it-all-on-the-nompage approach advocated below, every change, no matter how minor, will be automatically and effortlessly visible to everyone who's shown an interest in the hook (not just the nominator), so we don't have to argue about what qualifies as minor or trivial. EEng17:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
References
^Note that the DYK King Emperor used was where were is correct – good thing that's not a change he made to a hook in prep!
It's true, pings for every minor copy edit would get annoying. Here's an idea: if the changes were recorded on the nomination page, editors who wanted to be informed could watchlist the page, and be informed without pings. As a bonus, anyone wanting to review the changes later would have them all in one easy to find place. Levivich14:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
It's better than that: users who want to be informed -- the nominator, the reviewer, probably the article author/expander, plus anyone who participated in the nom discussion that crafted the hook -- will already have the nom page watchlisted, as a side effect of having editing it duirng the original nom discussion! Why, it's like magic! They're just the people who ought to be notified, and any edit to the nom page will notify them, all of them at once and without human effort! Amazing! Sorry, Gclass, but your statement that nobody ever looks at these pages after the nomination has run its course is just ridiculous – again, the participants will all have the nom page watchlisted.It's stunningly obvious that the nom page is the right place to note (and discuss, if need be) any hook changes right up to main-page appearance. By the time you look up the nominator to ping him or her (and that's just one person who gets notified) you could have just as easily grabbed a link to the nom page and edited it (and thereby notified everyone). EEng14:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Watchlists are so much easier to overlook than pings. If all of your hooks require multiple copyedits, you deserve the annoyance of many pings. —Kusma (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Except the ping proposal is not to ping almost anyone (just the nominator) so whether a watchlist item is so much easier to overlook than pings is a vacuous argument. Annoyance certainly has nothing to do with it. Watchlisting is perfectly adequate during the regular nom discussion, and there's no reason to switch away from it in favor of this anemic just-ping-one-of-the-many-participants approach at the very moment when time is growing short and the hook is being altered by someone who doesn't know anything about the thinking that went into it in first place.Not sure what you mean by If all of your hooks require multiple copyedits – my hooks certainly haven't required that, but several have been fucked up by some slave to WP:MISSSNODGRASS. EEng16:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Recording every copyedit on the nomination page would be completely impractical as it would substantially increase the amount of time set reviewers would have to spend on sets, the end result being that they would likely stop copyediting altogether as not worth the bother - certainly, I would. Also, as Kusma notes, nomination pages are not closely watched and days could pass before anyone responded, if at all. WT:DYK and WP:ERRORS are the appropriate pages to open discussions about hooks already in prep where required. Otherwise, edit summary pings are a far easier and more reliable method of notifying editors, that is the topic at hand, so please let's try to stay on topic. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
As for hooks "being altered by someone who doesn't know anything about the thinking that went into it in first place", that is a separate issue. As I've said previously, I personally never make a substantial change to a hook without first checking the nomination page to ensure I haven't missed anything, and I assume others do the same, but if that is not the case, then checking the nom page should simply be made a requirement; problem solved. Gatoclass (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Wait that doesn't make sense to me. How much copyediting are you doing to approved hooks, such that recording every copy edit would be so burdensome as to make it impractical and cause you to give up copyediting altogether? I mean, I just don't believe that we're approving hooks that require more than 1 copyedit per hook on average... I believe the amount of copyediting is far less than 1 copyedit per hook on average. Am I wrong? Also, what is your basis for saying nom pages aren't "closely watched"? What does "closely" mean in this context? I've always had every DYK nom page I've contributed to on my watchlist. Are you saying that's not the norm? What's the evidence for that? How are edit summary pings "far easier and more reliable"? What makes them more reliable, or easier, than an edit to a nomination page? And what about the fact that pings don't always go through (but nom pages are watchlisted)? And what about pinging multiple editors? How is pinging multiple editors in an edit summary easier than posting a note at the nom page? If you wanted to ping everyone who contributed to the hook, how would you know who to ping, if you didn't look at the nom page and gather together the list of editors, which seems far more work than just posting on the nom page? None of these assertions you make are making sense to me, I wish you would explain more rather than just asserting what's better/easier. Levivich16:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Jesus, don't fuck with Levivich. He'll shoot questions at you like bullets. And he's got really, really good aim. EEng17:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "1 copyedit per hook" would actually amount to a lot of work if a copy editor was expected to respond to every one by opening a nomination page and making a new entry there. As I've said on umpteen occasions, even for an unproblematic hook set, it takes an average of perhaps 40 minutes to verify it - an hour plus for a set with issues. Set verification involves opening and manhandling literally dozens of pages, including source pages, possibly multiple prep and queue pages, nomination pages, earwig, google translate, and so on. It's an onerous and difficult job and one which requires commitment and concentration. Now I can only speak for myself, but if I'm also going to be expected to open a new discussion on a nomination page for every copyedit I make, then I'm sorry, but that sounds very much like the tipping point for me.
Apart from that however, as I've said, nomination pages are not a useful place to open discussions because people often do not respond in a timely manner; you have to remember that once a hook is in the queue, it's on a countdown to the main page. Pings are a method of getting immediate attention, and it's very easy for an admin to simply add one to the edit summary. If more substantial discussion is required, the appropriate venues are WT:DYK or WP:ERRORS, because then even if the nominators/reviewers are unavailable, others can contribute to the discussion. Gatoclass (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Like I've said several times now, you keep responding to something other than that which is being proposed, and it would really help if you'd just wait until I've laid it out in detail below before declaring that the sky is falling. In the meantime, though ...
"1 copyedit per hook" would actually amount to a lot of work – What Levivich said was I believe the amount of copyediting is far less than 1 copyedit per hook on average. Am I wrong? You didn't answer that.
Set verification involves opening and manhandling literally dozens of pages – If that's true, six more (the nom pages) would be a drop in the bucket. Or were you exaggerating about the dozens of pages? Anyway, it wouldn't be six more, because you'd only have to open the nom page if you find a problem.
nomination pages are not a useful place to open discussions because people often do not respond in a timely manner – They might not respond to a ping either.
once a hook is in the queue, it's on a countdown to the main page – That's the whole point. All that stuff shouldn't be happening at the last minute, during a "countdown". There's no reason it all can't be done earlier, in the context of the nom page, and only then, when all the checks are done and the hook is absolutely final, would the hook be added to a queue.
because then even if the nominators/reviewers are unavailable, others can contribute to the discussion – If there are concerns about the hook, and the nominator and reviewer and others who did the initial review don't respond, then this hook shouldn't be bound for the main page. For the 100th time: everything, including all those checks you do, should happen on the nom page, before the hook is added to a Q template. How does that make things harder for you? It takes away the deadline, and puts responsibility for a fix back on those who have the most invested in getting it fixed.
You seem to take it as a given that everything has to work the way it works because, well, that's the way it works and that's the way our forefathers did it so it has to work that way it has to work that way don't you get it it has to work that way there is no other way. One more time: why don't you just relax until I lay out the whole proposal below? EEng20:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
EEng, while I appreciate the fact that you and others take an interest in DYK procedures, as I'm sure I've said to you before, it becomes a problem when you start to make recommendations in areas in which you've had no experience. I'm not aware that you've ever put together a set, for example, and certainly, you've never done full set verifications, as admins are required to do when promoting to queue. Yet you continue to come up with these high-falutin' schemes about how it could all be done so much better.
Case in point: If there are concerns about the hook, and the nominator and reviewer and others who did the initial review don't respond, then this hook shouldn't be bound for the main page.
In an ideal world, sure, we could spend forever debating the pros and cons of every copyedit somebody wants to make. But we don't live in an ideal world. In the real world, every hook that gets pulled means that a substitute nomination has to be found - which adds exponentially to the time it takes to verify a set, because first of all a nomination has to be found that suits the set's topic balance, then it needs to be verified by the admin just like any other hook - and then chances are that that hook too needs a little work (which would then require opening yet another discussion in your ideal world). Pulling a hook, in short, is invariably a last resort measure because it means a lot more work for the set verifier, and indeed, everybody else. If I had to pull every hook that needs a copyedit for further discussion, it would either mean quadrupling my workload, or else admins like yours truly would be denuding sets and we'd never manage to get a completed set to the main page in a timely manner.
For the 100th time: everything, including all those checks you do, should happen on the nom page, before the hook is added to a Q template. How does that make things harder for you?
Hooks first get approved on the nom page, then they get promoted to prep by somebody (who will frequently do some copyediting at that point). Then they get to prep, and as they are now on a countdown to the main page, they start to get more scrutiny from other users who start to make corrections. Under your proposal, copyeditors would have to cruise the nominations page making their copyedits there, without knowing which hooks were about to be promoted. So basically, every hook on the nominations page would have to be copyedited - by everyone who takes an interest in copyediting - before they got promoted. The impracticality of this is surely obvious. So again, an ideal solution that won't work in the real world. Gatoclass (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Wahl, thahnks, Mister! Ah shore doo 'preciate yuhr skooling lil' ol' me 'bout dat dare Dee Whiy Kay, 'cause doncha know ah jes fehl off duh turnip truck 'n don' know nuttin' 'bout 'ow all dat durn cahm-plit-cayted stuff happ'n. Lawdy, ah shure ahm much 'bliged, Mr. Admin Sir! Tarnation, by gum! Jesus really, GC? Who do you think you're dealing with? I thoroughly understand the dynamics of the various stages a nom/hook passes through, the kinds of people who tend to participate at each stage, and the things that go wrong.
Under your proposal, copyeditors would have to cruise the nominations page making their copyedits there – So now it's more obvious then ever that you haven't read even the bare outline, earlier in this thread, of what I'm suggesting. It's like if I said, "Hmmm, why don't we design an engine that isn't cooled by water", and before I say anything more you start going on and on about how an engine without cooling would soon self-destruct, like I'm some dummy who doesn't know that, instead of realizing (DUH!) that I must mean there'd be a substitute cooling medium e.g. air.
Twelve hours ago I suggested you wait until I'd posted a reasonably detailed proposal, yet here you are still blathering out your fantasies of doom under some random thing you imagine I'm saying. Now for the nth time, will you turn off the motormouth until you know what I have in mind? EEng04:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Lawdy, ah shure ahm much 'bliged, Mr. Admin Sir! Thanks! Nice to get some appreciation for once (and for future reference, any barnstar is good with me). Nice accent BTW!
I thoroughly understand the dynamics of the various stages a nom/hook passes through. You understand the process, yes, in the same way you might understand the rules of, say, baseball. But that's a different kind of understanding to actually standing over the plate and taking a swing at the ball. Unless you've done it, you just won't understand the challenges involved. That's the point I'm trying to make.
here you are still blathering out your fantasies of doom under some random thing you imagine I'm saying. Not at all, I simply responded to your post, isn't that what you do when somebody posts to you?
Anyhow, we still haven't seen your detailed proposal yet - quite frankly, I'm hoping we never do - but you are entitled to occupy your time any way you see fit. Hopefully though you won't be too disheartened by the likely response. Cheers, Gatoclass (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
On Wikipedia I tend to keep my expectations low so I can be pleasantly surprised. We realize you think you're giving as good as you get but (to continue the baseball analogy) you're in the big leagues here. I'll ping you when I'm done. EEng05:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
GC, the topic at hand is how to improve the way that eleventh-hour changes to hooks are handled, not one particular approach to that which you happen to favor, and note that the OP's formulation was Should post-promotion hook changes be recorded on the nomination page?. My proposal only seems impractical because you seem to think it's something other than what it is. I have some distractions this afternoon, but later I'll present it again, step by step and in detail. Stand by please. EEng17:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Holding areas (again)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I loathe to bring this up again but I would like it confirmed. I have nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Pioneers' Day and asked for it to run on the 12th of September. However, the reviewer has not moved it (not their fault as I know its not a usual part of the review process). I was going to move it myself as there are no rules written down saying its not allowed. But I remembered there was a brouhaha about it last time we discussed it. So can I ask if someone can move it please? Also can I ask if we can get this sorted once and for all? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)05:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Only one queue is filled; admins needed to promote preps to queues
Because the current situation seems to be that I'm assembling most of the prep sets for the moment, I have no qualms in shamelessly plugging the list of approved hooks I reviewed, so that they don't sit around forever. They're ordered oldest at the top, so obviously no need to promote them all now or anything, but if someone could consider these the next time they build a prep set, that'd be quite helpful theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The 24 hour hooks usually reset at midnight UTC, so the change to 24 hour hooks should be done after 12:00 UTC (midday UTC, when the next queue goes live). (struck self as this is wrong!) And if there's any date requests, they'll need to be moved too. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think I've done a 12/24-hour switch before, so will leave it to someone who has, unless there's nobody available, in which case I will figure it out! — Amakuru (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: usually organises the changeover. Thanks to everyone who has worked so hard keeping DYK running smoothly over the last few weeks while we have been doing two sets a day. And particular thanks to editors who have done extra reviews so that we no longer have an appreciable backlog. Well done everyone! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I believe User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates needs to be changed from 43200 to 86400 shortly after 8:00 pm Eastern, which should be doable for me. (Ping me if that's incorrect!) I'll set an alarm to remind myself, but in case something comes up, backup would be good.
Someone will also need to check preps and queues for special date requests that need moving. There don't seem to be any in Q5, so we've got a little time to do that. —valereee (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
There's date requests for 11 and 12 September that will need adding to some specific preps after the date change is done (they're not in preps currently). Which may require a couple of other hooks to be moved. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
valereee is correct: the switchover will need to be made after midnight UTC, which is a little over eight hours from now, by making the change she mentions to User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates. I'll take a look to see what special occasion hooks may need to be moved so they are posted to the main page on the day requested, move what I can, and ask for admin help for those moves involving queues. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The final hook in Queue 6, about Mahama Refugee Camp (a Paralympics hook), needs to be swapped into Queue 4 or {[queue|5}}, and we only have 70+ minutes to do the former swap. Note that this will mean the receiving queue will now have two Paralympics hooks instead of one. I'd like to suggest a swap with Queue 4, final hook for final hook (Torreya Guardians), which I think works better. If we can't do it in time, then please note that Queue 5's Paralympics hook is the second-to-last, so the two Paralympics hooks would need to be separate from each other. Pinging Amakuru, Maile, valereee, and Schwede66, in the hopes that one of them can do the swap before midnight UTC.
I have made room for the two special occasion hooks for 11 and 12 September in Prep 4 and Prep 5 respectively. In my judgment, the latter's image was not sufficiently clear or interesting to warrant a lead slot, which is why I left the (admittedly not great) lead image in place. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The sentence in the article that supports this hook doesn't have a citation. I see from the nom that the hook does list a supporting source, but it lists three different pages of that source, and I don't seem to be able to get to those pages to check and add this myself. —valereee (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
User:Valereee: It is <Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, 1977, p. 182>, as it says in ref3 in the Safad El Battikh-article. Ref 4 refers to Rhode's Colombia Uni 1979 phD thesis; examining the same defter as Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, he came to the conclusion that it was from 1548/9, not from 1595/6. And I am afraid it is not online; but I can email you the tables (and the key to interpreting them), if you like (I did that to the reviewer, Chidgk1)
Thanks, @Huldra, I've added that citation to the support sentence. I don't need proof, AGF on that, I just needed the sentence to have a citation and couldn't figure it out on my own. @Chidgk1, the sentence supporting the hook needs a citation. —valereee (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived three days ago; this new list includes all 7 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 29. We currently have a total of 150 nominations, of which 92 have been approved, a gap of 58, down another 12 in the past eleven days, but climbing from a low gap of under 40. 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. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Nomination categorization
I'd like to start adding categories to approved, non-promoted DYK nominations. I want to categorize the nominations by country, whether or not they're a bio, and whether or not it has an image. I'll remove the categories when the nomination closes—It just makes it easier for me to promote hooks, and it would allow us to keep a finger on the pulse on how much of each type of hook we have.
@Theleekycauldron, BlueMoonset, and Wugapodes: I'm not sure who you would ask, it's such a unique idea. But I would start with getting feedback from the two editors who would be most knowledgeable on how this would work - that being BlueMoonset and Wugapodes. It's not a bad idea, but perhaps needs to be worked out on the mechanics of putting it into play. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I would recommend adding them on the nom page inside <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. How do you imagine these would be added? By hand? Programmatically? — Wug·a·po·des03:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree that having it as part of the new nomination template is ideal, though actually implementing it is somewhat harder. The exact categories would need to be added to the instructions or documentation with an explicit list so noms would know what to add. We would also need to change Module:NewDYKnomination and {{DYKsubpage}} to add and remove the template on creation and close (respectively). It might be worth considering how we might adopt the AfD-style of categorization, but those would be the places to start. — Wug·a·po·des04:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
In theory, yeah, we could do it without having the entire list, but it's highly unlikely that they will be used effectively. Noms probably won't go digging through category space to find out what categories are valid or not, and more likely just won't categorize. Without a list it will probably wind up that most nominations are categorized by hand anyway in order to fix mistakes and such. — Wug·a·po·des21:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Why should we expect people to add categories? I don't see the benefit, and it adds more time to users wanting to nominate DYK noms. For about the millionth time, we should be trying to make DYK less complicated instead of more complicated. Nominations with images are obvious, and biographies seem reasonable obvious by just reading the nomination. So I don't see any value to adding categories. Especially when Wikipedia categorisation in general is an inconsistent mess, so we'd never get a categorisation system done consistently by everyone, ergo the information gained by it will just be wrong and misleading. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
i get the gum-and-wireness of it, so I'm currently doing it on my own user page. However, it really would help with prep set building, and it would help us keep an eye on how many hooks we have from various countries, keep it in balance. Same with bios and images. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't get why we need to create categories for this, rather just applying common sense. If there looks like there's lots of biographies or US-hooks, apply the already written guidelines on how many, and if there's not lots of them, then don't. We have way too many image nominations (and have done for the last 5 years), so they can't all be used, and people should just live with it. On the occasions I've done prep building, I haven't found it that difficult to get a balanced set using common sense. Tagging every nomination potentially multiple times is extra effort for everyone, unless it can be done by a bot (which could possibly pick up some information from the WikiProjects on the article talkpage). But making more work for every nominator to an already cumbersome process is not the way to encourage people to participate in DYK. If a bot could do the proposed categorisation, then I'd have a lot fewer complaints about it (as it wouldn't be burdening everyone at DYK). Joseph2302 (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Creating some sort of easy system would be a time save for prep building. I have wondered previously while building sets whether this would be possible, so it's nice to see others thinking about the same thing. Tagging country might be useful, but determining country can get a bit fiddly. A bio/non-bio split is much clearer, and could probably be both handled by a simple checkbox on the DYK-helper script and a bot looking at article categories/wikiprojects. CMD (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm with Joseph2302 on this one. If somebody wants to have categories that help with prep building, that's fine. But don't make that a burden on those who put a nomination together. It's complicated enough as it is. I ran a workshop the other month on how to nominate at DYK to a mix of users (inexperienced to experienced) and what they had in common was a perception that DYK is too complicated. Once I stepped them through it, they could see that it's not too bad. Some of them are now DYK contributors and that's great to see. I would not want to see that initial hurdle (i.e. a user's first DYK nomination) raised a tad higher. Schwede6605:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
The whole process could be run in a semi-automatic way using Listeria bot based on Wikidata. Where manual input would assist in this area in at the Wikidata end. The other thing that I'm unsure about is how the bot would figure out what's currently at DYK as that does not get recorded in Wikidata. You just need somebody who can sort the Listeria bot side of things for you (that's not me, as it's beyond my capabilities). Let me know if you are interested in that. Schwede6621:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I've been intending to propose something like this for a long time, as I think the method of listing noms by date of nomination is redundant and unhelpful. My idea was to have noms listed by topic area instead of date, much like the GAN page (but with different topic areas, tailored to DYK purposes). I figured we could have a bot run down the nom list and change the background colour of older noms to help people identify those.
Such a scheme would have obvious advantages over that proposed by leekycauldron, such as nominators having to choose a category for their nomination when they nominated. Also, the full nomination would be listed under a topic header instead of date, rather than just being links to a nomination page as in a category. One disadvantage might be that some noms might equally go into a number of different topic areas, but still, I think it would be a lot better to list noms by topic area than by date of nomination. Gatoclass (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
FYI, the DYK-helper script can be enhanced to perform fully automatic categorization with ORES topics (See WP:AFCS, User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting etc for topic models), should the community want this. Errors are rare but possible – but anyone can change the automated categorisation in such cases. – SD0001 (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
We certainly wouldn't need topics as specific as that for DYK - probably at most a dozen or so topic areas, such as "sport", "arts" and so on. Gatoclass (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Bringing this up here per the suggestion of Theleekycauldron; I would have preferred if either you or Netherzone pinged me first regarding the new review, as my concerns about ALT0 were never addressed. I'm sorry if I was unable to respond to Netherzone's review earlier, as I wasn't aware of it until Theleekycauldron's ping and I hadn't checked the nomination in a few days. If possible, would it be okay to vacate the promotion and continue the discussion in the nomination page while the remaining issues get sorted out? I'm frankly not fond of ALT0 due to it trying to include multiple unrelated hook facts instead of being more focused on a main hook fact; personally I do not mind multi-fact hooks as long as the facts add additional context, but honestly I don't really see the premiere adding any more hookiness to the primary hook fact about the subject being a former machinery hall. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5:Gerda Arendt did get back to you on that, and I get where they're coming from—but there is room to workshop the hook. I am sorry that you weren't pinged earlier, that's a goof—but if you don't mind, I'd rather settle this here, for a couple of reasons. First, these hook-language and scope squabbles take forever, and I want to expedite this. So I'm going to keep that hook in the prep set, unless we have to close the nomination as unsuccessful. Second, it implies that we're dismissing Netherzone's review as facially invalid, which I don't think is quite fair. Their approval should count for something—we should treat this like any other post-promotion issue. The hook is scattershot, and there is a lot of room to improve it, but I would be okay if it were forced to run on the main page in its current state. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't have any issues with Netherzone's review, in fact I think they did a good job for a new reviewer. The article itself was fine as is, my only real concern was the hook wording. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
It's a fair concern—Gerda, how do you want to resolve this? Do you want to drop the reference to the COVID-19 pandemic and focus on the machinery hall, focus entirely on the COVID-19 aspect, or re-weight the two-part hook so that the COVID-19 part is more obvious? Now that we're here, talking about this again, I'm leaning towards saying that leaving it "as is" isn't an option anymore. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, Theleekycauldron, Gerda Arendt: I’m sorry, I’ve made several mistakes. The DYK process and procedures are confusing to me and seem really complicated. I’ll try to do better next time, and learn more about how DYK procedures work. I did not realize that the issues with the hook were not sorted out, nor did I realize that Narutolovehinata5’s postings were actually a review (I did not see the template formatting with the check marks or red x’s) so I thought it was just a conversation about ALT0. The reason why I thought the issues with the hook were resolved was this sentence I have adjusted the hook. If I had realized a review was in process I wouldn’t have added a second one. I’m very sorry if that felt disrespectful, Narutolovehinata5. The COVID dimension went completely over my head – what I found fascinating is the historical palimpsest: that a machinery hall for a coal mine would be converted into a venue where Beethoven was performed. I guess I was just taking it on face-value and not reading too much into it. (Again, my bad!) Re: sourcing, I did use Google Translate because I've lost much German skills. Next time, I’ll be sure to ping others – I was trying to help out with the DYK backlog, but it seems I’ve made more work for others. I apologize for taking up other editors time! Netherzone (talk) 13:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I think you did well. I believe that Beethoven in a former machinery hall is fascinating, COVID or not, and much more than former machinery hall alone. My 2ct. If someone wants to word more COVID that's ok with me but not needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@Netherzone: I wouldn't be too hard on myself if i were you—you should see how many mistakes I was making just a few weeks ago. Goof-ups are a natural part of learning the ropes somewhere new—in my case, it was required. And that's okay! I wouldn't worry about taking up our time—if you scroll up through this talk page, you'll see post-review issues appear all the time. I'm glad you've learned from all this, seems like you've got a good grasp on what to do next time. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps we can have a compromise hook here which combines the classical music venue and machinery hall angles? I don't think that particular Beethoven performance specifically adds hookiness since it feels out of place from the rest of the hook, but the fact that it is used for classical performances is itself a fine hook fact. So perhaps something like:
ALT2 ... that the Alfred Fischer Hall, built as the machinery hall for a 1912 coal mine, has been used as a venue for classical concerts, exhibitions, and party conventions?
ALT2a ... that the Alfred Fischer Hall, built as the machinery hall for a 1912 coal mine, has been used as a venue for classical concerts, such as a 2021 production of Beethoven's Fidelio?
I also noticed that the article mentions a review of the building calling it the "most beautiful industrial hall in Germany", so perhaps that could also work as a hook.
ALT3 ... that the Alfred Fischer Hall, a former coal mine machinery building now used as an events venue, was called the most beautiful industrial hall in Germany?
Not to drag things out, but I still like ALT0 the best:
ALT0 ... that the Alfred Fischer Hall, built as the machinery hall for a 1912 coal mine by architect Alfred Fischer, was the venue for Beethoven's Fidelio in 2021 (pictured)?
The wording for ALT0 just feels weird. Saying it's the venue for that work doesn't sound right, it was the venue for a particular performance. It also seems to imply that the venue is the only venue anywhere in the world that has performed or will perform the work in 2021. ALT2a basically says the same thing but in a more straightforward and acccurate way (mentioning that a performance of the work was done there, as opposed to the performance of said work). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Do we have to explain to our audience that Beethoven is a composer of classical music, as ALT2a does? Sounds sort of redundant to me. How about mentioning that it was concert performance. If you show the image, that is clear by no stage and scenery. Adding: Fidelio is about liberation of prisoners, and humanity, not just a pale "classical concert" which could mean just string quartets. Repeating from the nomination: Fidelio was the first opera played in Berlin after World War II, which was mentioned on DYK already. - Many times have I been told that we just have to raise curiosity, not tell the whole story. Let people find how come it was the venue, or however you want to word it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I think you missed the point of ALT2a Gerda. The reason I mentioned "classical music" was not to describe Beethoven, it was to describe the hall (meaning it was used as a venue for concert performances, with the 2021 Fidelio production being an example). Personally I thought it was it being used as a classical concert venue, and not it being used for one specific performance, was what was the interesting fact here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
May I propose a variation - ALT0a: ... that the Alfred Fischer Hall, built as the machinery hall for a 1912 coal mine by architect Alfred Fischer, was a venue for Beethoven's Fidelio in 2021 (pictured)? I simply changed the word "the" (as in the venue) to "a", since that was what seemed weird to NLH5. It's less wordy than ALT2/ALT2a. Netherzone (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
It addresses my awkward wording concern I think and I'm open to it as a compromise, but personally I still feel that there should be more focus on the coal mine aspect (I'm still on the fence as to whether or not the Beethoven mention is really necessary for the hook since I have a preference for straight hooks whenever possible, although I'm starting to warm up to it). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
(ec, fine by me) I didn't mean to include it in a hook (and I said we had it already, with singer Irma Beilke), just to explain that the mentioning of Fidelio might ring more bells in our readers - whom we shouldn't underestimate from the start - than just saying classical concerts.
I don't care about shorter, but about avoiding "classical concerts" as if there were no party conventions, and "productions" which you do say for theatre but not for concerts, afaik (but you say I missed a point). I am tempted to strike a few, but feel too involved. Preferring ALT0a. User:Narutolovehinata5, you could just approve that, and we are done here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I feel too involved at this point to approve any hook (after all, I proposed some of them myself), and would rather prefer that another previously uninvolved editor take a look at this. But to answer your question, "production" and "performance" are synonyms when it comes to stage events (for example, saying "a production of Cats" and "a performance of Cats" mean the same thing), and a concert is a form of production (note that ALT2a mentions both wordings), so I'm not really sure what the issue is here (maybe a language barrier?). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, no: "a performance of Cats" refers to one particular day's performance of the show, while "a production of Cats" is more inclusive, taking in the directors and designers and the entire run of performances—in opera, it's even more, since a particular production (design, staging, etc.) can be put on in multiple venues over many years. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
My thoughts: ALT3's "events venue" is both vague and blah; ALT2b has both the "event venue" issue and "for example" against it, so I've struck it; of ALT0a and ALT2a, I prefer the former as less rambling. I'm not sure mentioning the architect is necessary, and I did like the use of "concert performance" since we're talking about an opera that is normally staged and costumed but wasn't here, so here's an ALT4 that combines these (and a slightly different wording for ALT4a, thought I did debate between "housed" and "held" for the latter and would be happy with either):
theleekycauldron, thanks. I should point out that Narutolovehinata5 only liked ALT4a if "held" was used, but you retained "housed". So if you meant to follow his suggestion, you still need to change "housed" to "held". (I can't do anything myself since ALT4a was my revision.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Queue promoter rights
I gotta run, so I'm just jotting down thoughts here
there should be a user right to promote from prep set to queue, below admin (like AfC reviewer or pending changes reviewer)
queue promoter rights can only be granted by admins
would have to demonstrate competence in all areas of DYK (at minimum, 5 DYK credits, 10 nominations reviewed, and 24 hooks promoted)
i get it if only admins should be able to touch the main page but we're running a shortage of queue promoters
you wouldn't be able to approve any set you promoted, obviously
I have not been here in sometime. All of the above seems reasonable. I would only add that the rights be time specified. e.g. as long as they queue promoter is active or renewed annually. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 03:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
This has been proposed before and was rejected by the community. And no I don't believe we are short of queue promoters - the last few times I have tried to promote a set for example, another admin beat me to it. Gatoclass (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Gatoclass, I agree that this isn't going to fly as a proposal: the community won't allow non-admins to be a gateway to the main page. However, we do seem to be running a backlog on the queues page most of the time (for example, right now): when we ping admins, we can get to a point where the backlog no longer shows, but I believe we're showing the backlog message more often than not. Right now, only three queues are filled: Queue 2 was promoted on September 3, Queue 3 on September 6, and Queue 4 on September 7. It's a good thing we're currently at one a day, because if we were still at two a day we'd be fresh out of queues, and at the rate the WikiCup is resulting in new DYK noms this month (at least 33 in the first week thanks to GAN approvals alone) we'll be back to two sets a day before we know it (we're at 109 approved noms only a few days after we dropped to 55). I'm also going to ping other admins, in the hopes of getting us out of the queue backlog state: Amakuru, Maile, Cas Liber, valereee, Cwmhiraeth, ONUnicorn, Schwede66, Wugapodes, and Lee Vilenski. Thank you all very much for whatever you can do to keep as many queues filled as possible. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
In my view, there is not really a backlog because each day at this hour I consider whether to move a prep set to the queue; if there are three or fewer filled queues, I will move one, and if there are four or more filled queues, I do not. When we move to two sets a day, I and other admins increase our rate of set-promoting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- before anything like this were to happen, you'd need to show me that we have full prep sets all the times, but nothing in queues. That would show me that there are sufficient editors willing to work on DYK (in creating preps), and not enough admins promoting the sets. I don't see that is the case. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)07:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
On both of these nomination pages, I suggested that the hooks be preserved for April Fools' Day, because of their misleadingness. However, there isn't so much precedent here, other than WP:EGG.
And I think there's a legitimate argument that for DYK, WP:EGG should be looser, because WP:Principle of least astonishment doesn't really apply here either. I wanted to open this up to the floor—how rigidly should we apply WP:EGG to DYK in general, and to these two nominations in general?
Options:
These hooks are fine, and should definitely go in the last slot
These hooks should be preserved for April Fools' Day
These hooks shouldn't be allowed, and WP:EGG compliance in hooks should be enforced
They are fine IMO. If it looks like an Easter Egg then don't be surprised to find out that it is made from chocolate. (However Alt1 and Alt2 are not good because they are incomprehensible and not hooky Victuallers (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, the issue of links being WP:EGG in hooks had been discussed in two of my previous nominations,(here and here). I think they should be fine to go in the last slot, if the WP:EGG factor is not a big deal. In this particular case, however, I'll agree with Victuallers, that the ALT hooks are incomprehensible. If we preserve all obvious egg link hooks for April Fools' Day, there will be a lot of them.... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Seems like it should be "Why was John Lennon's guitar ...", which also wouldn't make any sense with "Why" being a song.—Bagumba (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The hook is worded the way it is because the hook always starts with "Did you know..." So the full hook is actually "Did you know why John Lennon's guitar playing was credited as being better than Jimi Hendrix' and an influence on the Pixies?, which I think does make sense. Rlendog (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
My two cents: I wouldn't run either hook but for reasons other than EGG. For the first one, I actually think the phrasing is clever. I like that it replaces the typical "...that..." with "...why...". My problem is twofold: first, the article doesn't actually answer the question why this guy John Blaney thinks Lennon's guitar playing was better than Hendrix. Second, Blaney is a Beatles biograher, the publisher of his book is a young, niche publisher, I frankly don't think he's an independent-enough source to include his opinion; he's not an independent music critic, he's a biographer, of course he's gonna say nice things. But now I'm so far afield from the original question asked here, let's move on. For the second hook, I think editors are vastly overestimating how familiar the average reader will be with Thanos, a comic book character. I get that every American/Westerner under a certain age will know who Thanos is and think it's a clever hook, but I don't think most readers fall into that demographic. If you don't know of the comic book character, these hooks aren't hook-y or interesting at all. But I don't think EGG is an issue for either. Given that the first hook mentions Lennon, it's not going to be a huge surprise that "Why" links to the Ono song. And Thanos is the primary topic for "Thanos", so it's not an easter egg to link it. Anyway, you asked for an opinion, you got one: my !vote is Option 4. These hooks shouldn't be allowed, but not because of WP:EGG.Levivich17:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
... that criminologist Herschel Prins found in 1994 that young black men at Broadmoor Hospital were often stereotyped as "big, black and dangerous"?
Thank you. I have changed the year in the hook to 1993, which seems to be the year he made his findings. The government may have delayed publication of the report till the following year. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Piotrus, if the hook had been removed from the main page quickly, it might be considered for another try. However, as it ran for a full five hours out of twelve, it isn't eligible again. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
... that a painting of Maungwudaus(pictured), an Ojibwe performer and herbalist, was the second-most valuable artwork in Canada at the time it was sold?
@SL93 and GeneralPoxter: Lots of valuable artworks exist which have never been auctioned and do not therefore have an established price, so I reckon this hook is inaccurate. I would like to replace it with ALT1a
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Special occasion nomination needs hooks to be moved
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't think "sort of related to Germany" is a good enough reason to move one of those hooks from Queue 4, and you were not the primary author on Clara Leiser (who was an American), so having you credited twice in the set, though perhaps not ideal, is not a sufficient reason either. As for the Sunday event, 50 hours from nomination to front page is so short a time that if anyone does try to "work a little miracle", I hope they take extra care with their review of article and hook (and the promoting admin does the same), since the time for double-checks is limited and going straight to Queue 5 means it skips over the people who typically check prep entries before they move to queues. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Theleekycauldron per your comment in the nomination about the original ALT0 being too long, I did like that hook, so I've cut off the British comedians part and would like to go with the following:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Nomination requesting 26 September
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Done @Theleekycauldron and Valereee: I have moved Julie Hayden to prep 4 and brought in the building hook from there, which I believe was what was requested here. Sorry, I haven't yet swapped the prep 4 image itself as it's late and I'm on my phone, but hopefully you can do that, and that task isn't urgent. Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
icon. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
after two weeks of no comments from the reviewer? Sometimes, it is the reviewer that leaves the conversation Desertarun (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I have changed the hook for you GreatLakesShips. Capsulecap (talk • contribs) 00:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Done - thanks for bringing this to my attention, and I've gone with the version favoured by BlueMoonset - hopefully Theleekycauldron you are not too unhappy with that. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Doing... — Amakuru (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Reviewing... Flibirigit (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
